Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2007

< Commons:Featured picture candidates | Log


This is an archive for Commons:Featured picture candidates page debates and voting.
The debates are closed and should not be edited.


edit 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

A beach in Cancun, Mexico 

result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Cambre, Galicia, Spain 

result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Episyrphus balteatus - head close-up (aka).jpg, featured

edit

head of a marmelade fly 

result: 19 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Snowwiper near Toronto, Canada 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Dandelion clock of genus Crepis or Sonchus 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Taraxacum officinale (inflorescense).

It's common for sure ;-)) Lycaon 07:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - but is it common? Is it known which of the 250++ species of Taraxacum it actually is?? ;-) - MPF 22:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I'm also not shure if this is really 'Taraxacum officinale' --Jeses 22:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit 
result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Hubble Illuminates Cluster of Diverse Galaxies (Abell S740) 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Cartesian theatre 

result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Swifts creek 14-12-2006 1600 -2.jpg, not featured

edit

Bushfire in Australia

Recently? I've never uploaded above 1600x1200 (except for panoramas)! I've recently decided that some images will be posted at 1280x960! --Fir0002 www 08:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Coreus marginatus 2 Luc Viatour.jpg

edit

Nubian ibex in Negev 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:નળ સરોવર - દરિયાઇ પક્ષી.jpg, not featured

edit
 Comment Full size version certainly has some flaws, but a striking picture. --Tony Wills 12:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Unfortunate in what way ? --Tony Wills 12:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 CommentIf you are not able to see the name of the file properly, you should read en:Help:Multilingual support (Indic) --Spundun 23:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Winiar✉ 11:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose the gull is a bit out of focus; moreover I can see JPEG compression artifacts next to the gull. Plus a detail: it's better not to use non-ascii characters in the filename, it can cause compatibility problems. Alessio Damato 12:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose very nice impression of movement, but like Lycaon: lack of details caused by post processing --Packa 19:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Overexposed parts on the gull, unsharp. Nice capture otherwise. --Atoma 20:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose overexposed, unsharp, artifacts --Leafnode 07:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support When evaluated at approximately 11"x14" @ 100dpi at a 2 foot viewing distance it looks great. The artifacts and unsharpness listed above are only visible at extreme magnifications. I have to question the assertion that this image is overexposed. Check the histogram: the highlights are not clipping. The exposure is very good given the lighting conditions. You would need to shoot this in film or perhaps a FujiFilm S5 to get the kind of highlight dynamic range that is being complained about. We probably have too many black-gull featured pictures, such as this, this, and this but this is also pretty nice. Since it is not in flight (like the other FPs) it does add some educational value in addition to its artistic value. -- Ram-Man 17:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment overexposure is not visible on histogram because image was darkened, but it can be clearly seen on even 100% magnification. About your other comments - yes, downsized and seen from 2 feet it could be fine (but it isn't, because of overexposure), but it's FP, not "if we watch the image from proper distance, blurred, squinting at it etc. FP images should be outstanding from the rest, not "not worse than some other". --Leafnode 20:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Darkened or not, there is pixel information above the threshold for the parts of the image that appear to be overexposed. The histogram is not clipped at those highlights. At 100% magnification the image would be 20"x30" at the 100dpi that I view at, which is of overly large size. Based on your comment, I looked at it at 100% and STILL think it looks pretty good at the same viewing distance. I think this image is good on its own, which is why I support it despite having others of the same animal (That was intended as a neutral comment). Let me clarify: the highlights could clearly benefit from more dynamic range or perhaps better in-camera contrast control, but determining proper exposure is much more complicated. Would exposing less result in more noise or a background that was too dark? I'm not denying the loss of detail in the highlights only that I don't think the image would be improved by lowering the exposure. -- Ram-Man 20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very easy to determine whether it's overexposed or not: using any software select color range with zero tolerance using brightest pixels from gull's wing or stomach - it's not possible, that so many pixels would have identical color without being overexposed. Determining proper exposure is much more complicated - of course, but I'm not saying that some virtual photo would be good - I'm saying what's wrong with this picture. And to me this picture has technical flaws (visible from distance or using magnifying glass), which FP shouldn't have. For me - EOT. --Leafnode 06:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Karelj 21:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose purple fringing, overexposure, and non-ascii file name. --Digon3 16:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Larch 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 16:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:- Schlumbergera trunctata -.jpg, not featured

edit

 Comment You need to strip out the artificial background before examining the histogram to see what is clipped. But clearly there is a loss of detail, for instance compare the very nice detail on the lower petals to the white featureless areas on some of the upper petals and stem of the flower. I expect photos of stationary objects, taken under controlled conditions to be of very high quality :-) --Tony Wills 22:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and looked at the picture again, and there are three or four discrete steps of tonal detail in the histogram in the blown-out white petal that would be considered "featureless". Not much, for sure, and there is a decent chunk of it that was a single tone, but it was definitely not clipped around the highlights. Notice in my comment that I was talking only about clipping, which did not occur, as there is brighter detail elsewhere in the image. The background was irrelevent as I was looking directly at the highlight threshold. Your assertion that images under controlled situations should be judged more strictly is interesting and I certainly respect that opinion, but I don't think it's a serious problem in this image. That's why we all give our own opinions. Perhaps I should be more strict. -- Ram-Man 00:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 CommentI thank you all for the all the many words, appreciative or not. Anyway the picture has stirred a little interest and discussion and that was my goal. It was taken with a Canon 300D, no tripod and window light, the background was done with a very simple graphic program. I don’t care if a line is slight tilt or if the corner of the leaves has not the little hairs, for me is more important the visual impression, the feeling that a picture awake at a first look. You are all very motivating people. So long --Nino Barbieri 04:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Sweet chestnusts (Castanea sativa) in Fredville Park, Kent

Well, I was there for three hours (there are also a number of magnificent oaks there). In the morning and evening it is, because of the position of the sun, not possible to photograph al three sweet chestnuts on a row with the light coming from the side. I prefer this, because then the gnarls and other irregularities of the impressive stems are stressed. Probably more ideal according to your taste would be a low sun, but from the midday position. I like the lighting as it is now. Tbc 14:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Monument Valley

 CommentAaah, but this is FP not QI ;-) --Tony Wills 23:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the??! Being FPC means that quality is even more stringently scrutinised! --Fir0002

www 06:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fir, I sometimes really think you take this whole FPC thing too seriously. He was joking! And please, fix your signing style. A link in your signature really makes it hard for other users. --Arad 20:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

A Panorama shot of Edo (present day Tokyo) 

result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though it's many months later and the vote long ago decided, I'd like to point out that the historical value of this panorama is, in fact, exceptional. There are extremely few photographs of Edo (i.e. pre-1867 Tokyo), and virtually no other panoramas of the city from that time - let alone photographs of such high aesthetic and technical quality as this (and others) by Felice Beato. Beato's images of Japan are unique views of the country before Meiji and "modernisation". Pinkville 18:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

I do have some understanding of what it is and an appreciation for how much goes into producing such an image, but don't really see it meeting many FP criteria. But it seems to have a few enthusiastic supporters, so to give it half a chance, I've changed my vote to neutral :-) --Tony Wills 05:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Marseilles' Roadsted

This picture was taken about five years ago. This shot is a unique vue of Marseilles Roadsted that includes Vallon des Auffes and Frioul Islands. This point of view can only be obtained from a few privates appartments.

  •  Oppose Sorry, but it is too small. It needs to be at least 2000 x 1000. Also, the horizon seems unnaturally curved and I don't like the perspective or composition. --Digon3 16:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Quality is not good either. Image is a little blurry and focus is quite soft (why this exposure choice?). Alvesgaspar 16:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info The quality isn't perfect, I know. But this picture was taken with a now obsolete digital camera. The horizon is indeed unnaturally curved. The perspective is the only originality of the picture. It is taken from a private building about 60 meters above see level in the alignment of two major touristic sites of Marseille : Vallon des Auffes (the tiny harbour in front) and Chateau d'If (the castle on the island). I'm not a photogaph (as you may have noticed ;-)) and I wish I could take this picture again with a more modern camera, but unfortunately I no more live in that flat :-( I don't know either if retreatment can improve the quality of this original picture (for instance correct distorsion or focus).
  •  Oppose Do I oppose because the camera isn't that good? Considering that film cameras are always theoretically available, one can't blame the camera for the technical problems. The photographer needs to choose appropriate tools. Not all pictures need to be featured pictures to be useful either. There are not enough mitigating factors to support. The perspective is the prime feature of this image, but the technical flaws would seem to overpower it. -- Ram-Man 03:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Piran street 

result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Panoramic view of Nakchivan Mountains 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Baha'i World Centre in Haifa 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Dallol, flaque d'acide et formation de sel, souffre et autres minéraux 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Bryce Canyon Hoodoos Amphitheater Panorama 

result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Big Wild Goose Pagoda at China/Xi'an. Photo took at 2007-10-17 near sunset. 

result: 0 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Soline 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 15:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Georgia Aquarium - Giant Grouper edit.jpg, not featured

edit

A giant grouper taken at the Georgia Aquarium

The orginal image. The fish at the right have been flipped and pasted over the rock—the preceding unsigned comment is by BenAveling (talk • contribs) . Do not vote for this picture—the preceding unsigned comment is by Digon3 (talk • contribs) 
result: 5 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

particular of the Colosseo of Rome 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 06:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Furg citadel 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 06:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

A sweet violet (viola odorata) 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 06:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

the stone pillar on the right is naturally inclined, if you meant that. --Orlovic (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AS THE NOMINATOR I retreat my nomination --Orlovic (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 06:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Stuartia pseudocamellia

  •  Comment This is an extremely close macro, at close to 1:1 reproduction. The depth of field at that distance is only a few millimeters deep. This image is shot at f/11. Any higher would start to degrade sharpness due to light diffraction. I didn't see a good reason to degrade bud sharpness to increase the depth of field by perhaps a millimeter or two at the stalk. The point of this image is to show the two buds in high resolution detail. Everything is natural, this was not a posed shot. Just because it isn't a flower or a cone doesn't mean it isn't beautiful or useful. -- Ram-Man 18:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I don't know the exact conditions this picture was taken under and I'm pretty much sure you know about that, but there are other ways to increase DOF than using smaller apertures. You could have got closer and use a shorter focal length for instance. Framing would have been the same but with a greater DOF. And this picture is good, but not much above average and if I support this one, then I'd support plenty of others... Benh 06:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I couldn't have gotten closer. At 1:1 magnification, I was already at the limit of the lens. You'd need a micro lens (as in microscope, not Nikon) to get closer. Ignoring pupil magnification effects, if the image in the frame is held constant, the DoF is basically constant as well (see here), regardless of the focal length used. Shorter focal lengths wouldn't work here, even if you include pupil magnfication which gives additional advantage (if anything) to telephoto lenses. Increasing the depth of field further would have required work outside of pure photography, such as image stacking of different exposures in software or some other trick. -- Ram-Man 12:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting far :) (and the DOF issue wasn't really my reason for opposing :)) but that's an interesting thing you tell me here. If I take the exemple described in the page you linked (paragraph focal length and depth of field), for a given framing DOF is, as you said, virtually constant but it seems the shorter focal length still have a few extra cm in DOF (up to 8cm which could have been enough for your subject). Wouldn't have this been sufficient (of course, this is given you have a (macro?) lens which can focuse at short distances) ? Benh 21:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know, there is no such thing as a 1:1 magnification 10mm-20mm macro lens in the SLR format, although some point and shoots can do macro at that focal range, but most point and shoots suffer from severe lack of edge sharpness when that close and they suffer more quickly from diffraction degradation. Plus the table provided wasn't for macro. Apparently at macro settings the slight DoF advantage of wide angle lenses is lost anyway due to pupil magnfication. I realize that the reason this FP nom failed was not because of DoF but because of the other issues given. I've just noticed that in a number of situations there is a misunderstanding on how DoF works. Take this orange slug FP nom taken at 5mm with a small point-and-shoot. Even at only f/2.8 that image has almost the ideal depth of field/sharpness possible, due to the focal length of 5mm. -- Ram-Man 21:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only potential way to make this picture sharper would be to take the picture at a different angle so that more of the stick lies in a single plane perpendicular to the camera lens, that is, put more of the subject in the DoF range. However, the twig was blowing mightily in the wind and this was the best of a whole bunch of pictures. -- Ram-Man 21:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 07:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description Version of image at left with no tilt

Original, not featured
result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative, not featured
result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

White flowers of Osteospermum ecklonis 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Landwasser viadukt 

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Slime mold on a beer can

Maybe it will get identified sooner or later, unless you need a microscope to tell... I'm a horticulturist, not a mycologist. The photograph is meant more as a demonstration of why slime molds aren't really something to worry about it they pop up in the garden (for use in a gardening Wikibook). "They grow on everything, so if you see them, just enjoy watching them and don't worry." --SB_Johnny|talk|books 18:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A support is a support in my book. It's only weak because I personally like the species identified, but it's still a support because that personal reason is not sufficient to ignore a great picture. -- Ram-Man 23:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

NASA's Helios high-altitude aircraft in flight. 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Fringilla Coelebs (Chaffinch), Female. 

result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Larch cone

  • Chuckle! That's hilarious. The picture isn't upside down, I took the picture just a few weeks ago. It was taken on a tripod. Its not even physically possible for the tripod to tilt the camera upside-down. -- Ram-Man 22:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, the cone is held up-side-down . . . comes to the same thing! - MPF 20:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well I suppose so. This cone was no longer physically attached (in a lifegiving sort of way) to the parent anyway. I suppose you could flip it upside-down if you wanted to. -- Ram-Man 20:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither? Both? I did deliberately pose this picture, but I was not trying to be deceptive. The cone was attached to the piece of twig that wasn't attached to the tree. I posed it to make the picture easier to take: I wanted the parent tree as the background. I've rotated this picture 90 and 180 degrees, and in either case the cone isn't pointing straight up and I don't know what the natural configuration might look like, not being an expert. It wouldn't be hard to rotate it though. My intention was to be descriptive of the cone itself through the detail provided by a macro shot. Since it was no longer part of the tree, I didn't pay it's orientation any consideration. Maybe MPF can tell me how many degrees to rotate the source image and I can replace this one with another one. Or perhaps this one is good enough for its purpose. -- Ram-Man 16:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • About 150°CW; unfortunately doing so makes the direction of the illumination (from below right) look rather odd. Would it be easy to take a new photo? - MPF 18:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's theoretically possible, but it wouldn't be for at least a week at the bare minimum and probably more than that. I don't have immediate access to the site at the moment. Of course it would be different lighting, a different cone, etc. etc. -- Ram-Man 21:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Goe Platz der Synagoge Detail 2.jpg

edit

Platz der Synagoge Platz der Synagoge, reduced purple fringing

Original (left)

edit 
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => Waiting for the result of the edit. Simonizer 07:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit 
result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Antennarius striatus.3 - Aquarium Finisterrae.JPG, not featured

edit

Larch cone Larch cone

edit 
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit 
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit
You said it yourself, it is an exceptionally beautiful image. Most sunsets look alike and are easy to take. If you look at FP Astronomy, they are quite varied, and only four pictures are of Nebulas. --Digon3 19:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

alternative 2

Brushtails are another animal which have no survival instincts, they become very tame in camp sites and national parks where they scavenge food off tourists and campers and I have always assumed that this is learned behaviour. But this (completely wild) one ended up letting me get so close that I could have touched it, they are inquisitive and quite inteligent and probably realised that I wasn't going to eat it.

  • They are nocturnal, and their eyes are red and the slightly glazed look seems to be natural as it was in all the photos I took of them
  •  Info That glazed look gives substance to the expression "like a possum in the headlights" :-) --Tony Wills 12:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • self nom and  Support --Benjamint444 02:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Winiar✉ 19:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Ram-Man 03:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose tight composition (ears almost cut), paw is cut in half --Leafnode 08:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose framing --Orlovic (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Karelj 19:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Colour of the animal doens't seem right. Please refer to the discussion in Quality Images Candidates - Alvesgaspar 23:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Wrong color, tight framing --Digon3 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose In the discussion of this and other images at Quality Images Candidates you said "I also had a powerfull torch for focusing, it's light would not show up in the photo but it's eyes would have contracted from having the torch shone in it's face". The glazed look is probably a fear reaction on the animal's part to the bright light. I can't approve of the lack of consideration given to your wild subjects in this and other photos, and I'm opposing on that basis. Your photos would in my view be much better if you kept well back and avoided stressing the subject. Any serious wildlife photographer will always take great care not to intrude, and I'm sorry that you seem to have no qualms. --MichaelMaggs 21:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a load of possums eating the garden and they had every opurtunity to run away as I was aproaching, or to climb higher up the tree, I only used the light while taking my photos, I sat with them for about 20 minutes without the torch on waiting for a clear shot of one and they came closer, not in any way disturbed or scared. when the torch was on you could say that it's eyes would contract and it couldn't see anything outside the beam,and so could not run away, but why then did it continue to eat while I was photographing it? and why did it not run away when I turned the torch off? because it was not scared. I think the best sign that an animal is not scared is if it will eat in your presence, it shows they're comfortable with you. I agree with you that animals should not be disturbed, I can see that in nest photography the animal is inclined to stay even when scared and I will not get so close to nests again. your concern for the animals is touching, but I think you have no understanding of these animals. They had every opportunity to run away when the torch was off and instead they inquisitively came closer (I had got my photos by then so I did't reward it with a torch in th face) even after the torch had been on. --Benjamint444 00:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Maggs is of course quite justified in his concerns about disturbing the wildlife being photographed, but I think it is misplaced concern regarding brush tailed possums. Yes they are probably wondering what is on the other end of that torch, but they are rather robust beasts, not particularly afraid of people and have been known to make their homes in peoples attics or beneath their houses. If they're in a tree they're usually quite sure of their own security and aren't intimidated by people or dogs. If they get annoyed by you they'll stop eating, climb higher and screech and cackle at you. Theses ones don't look to be worried at all (ok, I'm a bit biased as they are introduced noxious animals around here, with tens of millions chomping their way through our forests every night ;-) --Tony Wills 12:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

A palm tree. 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

A metronome from W. Germany.

  •  Comment I like how some of your shots use the wooden table. I'm referring specifically to the white wall, which detracts from this particular photo. -- Ram-Man 14:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Agree with Ram-Man. A good effort, but not enough care has been taken to get top quality lighting nor a good background. --MichaelMaggs 14:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose ack Ram-Man on lighting, it could also be taken at a better angle and background --Digon3 14:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I only had 2 x 2 feet of table to work with, so I put a board behind it. I don't like the shadows either; perhaps an edit could fix that? (I don't know how to do that; does one of you?) AndonicO Talk 17:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The way to fix it is to take it again under different lighting conditions and perhaps a different background. If I was taking a shot like that, I'd put the table outdoors on a cloudy day (for diffuse lighting) and take it against a nice natural background or use a white bedsheet or even white printer paper. If I took it indoors, I'd try to put it where it gets indirect light from a window and take a long exposure. I'd always use a tripod. It gets much more complicated if you want to do it in a professional manner with full macro lighting (I wish I owned some!). Another good option is to turn down the power of the flash (if the camera allows it) to lessen the effect of the hotspots and increase ambient light input. It also occurs to me based on the question to another picture that perhaps this metronome is copyrighted (how old is it?) and the picture cannot be published here on the Commons. If that's the case, it may be allowed on En-wiki under fair-use. -- Ram-Man 17:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I like the alternate version, with the suggestion of motion. Since you are going to shoot th metronome again, maybe you could repeat that version too with a better background. Alvesgaspar 23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Sorry, the pictures I took today were worse than this one (natural light, but the background was overexposed). Unfortunately, I'm leaving in a few hours, and won't be back until Thursday, by which time the nomination will be almost over (it's 1 week, right?). When I return, I'll take new pictures, and re-nominate. AndonicO Talk 15:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Elisenturm in Wuppertal, Germany 

result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Böhmzebra 

result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Cercocebus chrysogaster 

result: 0 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

#1Paperbark Maple Bark #2Bark Closeup

  •  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man
  •  Info Both images are of the same tree, but are not the same image. I think they are both beautiful but serve different purposes. One is a closeup showing extreme detail, the other provides more perspective. This image provides additional context. -- Ram-Man 02:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Picture #1, not featured
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Picture #2, not featured
  •  Support // These two pictures are incredible. The detail... the vivid colors... and so life-like, it couldn't be more beautiful if you were looking at it in person. Well done. JL (UTC) Please log in to vote --Digon3 15:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Comment This is a vote from a friend of mine, User:Jina Lee, just learning how to use the Wikipedia/Commons. I didn't seek her vote on this and didn't want to push the issue to prevent allegations of ballot stuffing. -- Ram-Man 14:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have another vertical shot, but it's not nearly as good. The only other option would be to crop it. -- Ram-Man
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

A blueberry muffin 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 11:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Swedish-made train 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 11:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

The Irmscher 7, created by Irmscher (de) Edit 1 by Digon3

You were absolutely right! Perhapps you could rethink your Opinion... BTW: Now it has 5.3MP --Stefan-Xp 23:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Could you fix the image description page? Thanks. --Digon3 00:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? --Stefan-Xp 09:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Info I uploaded a edit with a curves and lightness adjustments. --Digon 01:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thats much better than my Edit :) --Stefan-Xp 09:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 12:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Ice Frozen on Tree 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 12:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

snow in streetlight 

result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 12:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 12:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 12:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 12:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

It plays audio in a .ogg format just fine. --Digon3 02:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
.ogg Vorbis (audio) support is fairly common. .ogg Theora (the codec we use for video) is less common winamp does not support Theora at this time.Geni 12:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 12:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Lighthouse Mazagón (Andalusia) 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 12:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

NZ North Island Robin

  •  Info Sorry, the rings don't come off until he dies :-(, but an essential part of the program to monitor their survival in the wild during the re-introduction program. --Tony Wills 23:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info They usually feed on the ground inside the forest, so most often you see them from this angle anyway. This particular one was hopping from branch to branch (looking for insects) on cut down trees on the edge of the forest, so in good light for a change. --Tony Wills 12:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

#1A place where information are transmited via radio#2The orginal image. 32-Meter-Antenna and four 16,4-Meter-Antennas#332-Meter-Antenna and four 16,4-Meter-Antennas

Picture #1, not featured
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Picture #2, not featured
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Fulmer Falls

Well the exposure time (~1/3 of a second) is stylistic, I won't disagree. If people don't like it for that reason, so be it. I probably have others with a faster speed. Update: I don't. If they don't like the long exposure, they can oppose, but it's the only one I have or can get. I would likely never be able to reproduce the exact conditions shown in this image: specific time of year, time of day, weather, naturalistic conditions in a failing Eastern hemlock forest. Within a few years, the hemlocks shown in this picture may all be gone due to the Hemlock woolly adelgid. It is not uncommon for dead hemlock trunks to clutter the image. See this image for an example. -- Ram-Man 12:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you're referring to the water being slightly overexposed? I did bracket the exposure and this one was the best. Any darker and you lose the detail in the darker regions. I even had ideal lighting to eliminate even more contrasty lighting: taken in the evening near sunset on an overcast day. If I put up a lower exposure shot, someone else would complain about the underexposure. I've made large prints of this waterfall and the white water looks more than natural in this case. The water of the falls already spans ~65% of the image's range. Perhaps I'll see if I can reprocess the image. -- Ram-Man 20:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually on a closer inspection, the picture looks quite noisy in the dark parts too. FP should be almost flawless. Lycaon 09:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious, what magnification are you looking at? Poor image quality? It's a 7MP image, and the minimum requirements are 2MP. If we applied this standard to all images, barely a one of them would pass. There is at most 1 or 2 pixel widths of CA anywhere in the image. This is invisible. You'd have to make huge prints just to notice what you are talking about. Maybe I should downsample to 1600x1200 and apply photoshop filters? At that resolution the CA wouldn't be visible because there wouldn't be enough resolution to show it, but the lost resolution would then be noticeable at the magnfications you're talking about. And what artifacts are you referring to? -- Ram-Man 12:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at 100% which is what all voters should be doing. You are falling into the common error that more megapixels is more quality. Your image at 100% is poor quality. To illustrate the point, you can take a crop of a high grade image such as this and increase the res by 200% and you'll be getting similar quality to what your image is at 100%. That's not good. It's much better to resize it to a point where it is crisp and detailed at 100% - full res as I mentioned earlier of your current image has poor level of fine grade detail --Fir0002 www 06:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not even slightly am I falling to that error: If anything, blaming the camera (cheap?) for the "problems" indicates a false belief that a better camera will yield better pictures. If there are flaws that actually matter, they are mine alone as the photographer. I'm referring only to the standards for an FP, which states that 2MP file resolution is sufficient (saying nothing about the effective spatial resolution). This image has more than 2MP of spatial resolution as you've proven here. It's great that some images have more resolution than others (for a number of technical reasons), but unless we've changed the FP standards, it shouldn't matter. I don't care what it looks like at 100%, because either you are looking at an image crop (which makes it a different image) or at a large print size at an unreasonable viewing distance. If I wanted a crop of the image to look good, I would have taken a different picture. If you want to view a large print size, you may be better off with the extra spatial information that you lose from resampling. At least users can make that choice for themselves. I strongly disagree that voters should use 100% crops as their viewpoint, as 99% of the time that is not how the end-user will view it. -- Ram-Man 12:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Just to be clear, are you saying that a down-sampled image, that is then enlarged to the original size will be better quality than the original at that size? --Tony Wills 08:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all!! Dunno how you came to that conclusion. I'm saying that the full 3000px image has very poor quality at 100% (a result of a cheap camera I suppose). I used the example of Big Ben to show what a high quality image is - not necessarily because it's high res, but because at 100% there is heaps of detail. So much detail, that I could blow up the image to 200% and get as good or better quality than this photo at 100%. I'm saying this image has to be downsampled to solve the problem of poor IQ at 100% --Fir0002 www 09:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not a conclusion, it was a pointed question :-). So we have established that down-sampling looses information from the picture that can't be re-gained. Yes, of course we can hide deficiencies by down-sampling, and get the image past the eagle eyed FP/QI analysis. But do we end up with a 'better' image file? As the guidelines say, we can't predict what people will want to use the file for, by down-sampling we have destroyed a little info and restricted how users view the file (What if they want to print out a large poster, are they not better off with the original? A solution is to upload two versions, one for long term use, one to pass FP/QI scrutiny - but that's a wasteful solution given that the wiki has adequate software for scaling the image on the fly. Perhaps a better solution is to just specify the optimum resolution for the image (and set the FP display pages to serve it up at that resolution). --Tony Wills 11:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at that resampled image and find it oversharp with way too much contrast. I could take a similar picture with harsh contrast any day and adding photoshop sharpening later. However, getting a nice low-contrast image of a falls like that is very difficult without losing detail in the falls themselves or resorting to film or HDR/Photoshop tricks. Modifying it takes the photographer out of the photograph. I could have heavily post-processed the orginal image, but I don't like how that loses data through generational changes and restricts user's ability to use it. I don't see the purpose of tweaking an image to look good at an arbitrary resolution at 100%. Who even looks at images at 100%? The FP process is nice because it allows us to find and catalog some of the best looking pictures, but I'm not so obsessed that I will do anything I can for a FP. If it falls to been a FP, who cares? At least the picture is still useful. Also due to Bayer interpolation all digital cameras suffer from poor sharpness at 100% unless they are artificially sharpened or downsampled (possibly in camera). Some have slightly better spatial resolution than others, but they can never technically achieve 100% spatial resolution. -- Ram-Man 12:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I agree with Fir0002 when he says that downsample should be used to improve image quality, when necessary. As a matter of fact that is a common practise among our best photographers, like Dilif and Fir himself, and the only way I know to get the kind of detail and sharpness of images like this, when using digital cameras. If an image looks poor in the screen at full resolution, we may be sure it will look alike, or worse, when printed. Then, I believe that we won't loose important information when we downsample a picture in order to improove its quality. In my opinion, all pictures nominated for FP or QI should be reviewed in full size and declined whenever they don't look good enough at that resolution. Alvesgaspar 14:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You make so many points, it's hard to address them all. I'm going to ignore the fact that many monitors are so poor that photo-sensitive printing will always look better and assume that everyone has sharp, high contrast, high quality monitors. Even so, it is total nonsense that downsampling improves overall image quality. Perceived image quality depends solely on pixel density (dpi) at a specific viewing size and a specifc viewing distance. The reason that downsampling appears to work is because it takes information that is only visible at higher pixel densities and tries to cram it into a lower density to make it visible. This is great if you want to optimize for web viewing on a 72dpi to 100dpi monitor, but it is very bad if you want higher dpi photo-sensitive prints used in a hardcopy format. This is the reason that this image looks great printed at ~220dpi at 11"x14" (I have the print right here), but not as good at 11"x14" on my 100dpi monitor viewed from the same distance. If I printed that same downsampled image at the same print size, the quality would be no better than 100dpi on my monitor even if though the print medium is capable of 300dpi. There would absolutely be a partial quality loss and we should not mandate that for our users who may not use a monitor for image reproduction. Downsampling removes the subtle gradations between pixels by eliminating some of those pixels and introducing changes in contrast or sharpness, either more or less depending on the algorithm used. The other problem with reviewing at "full size" is that it isn't standardized. Unless you require a specific pixel density, viewing size, viewing distance, and identical eyesight, you can't compare them all the same way. Change any one of them and the evaulation criteria changes. It's not the fault of the image that a 1024x768 CRT display at 72dpi doesn't look very sharp, but you can downsample it to look great under those specific conditions. Viewing at "100%" doesn't mean the same thing for everyone just looking at one of the factors! Viewing at 100% is the same as cropping. You're not comparing what it would look like if it was printed at, say, 300dpi, unless you change your viewing distance accordingly. You're looking at a different image. If my image was printed at 3 feet wide and you viewed it from 6 inches away, sure you'd see problems, but who does that? I believe it is common practice because these photographers know that it is usually required to achieve FP status. It just makes it appear to have more image quality when viewed under certain specific conditions. Some are just unaware of the misconceptions. I suspect some professional photographers intentionally downsample their images to prevent commercial usage by not looking as good when sold as prints. -- Ram-Man 15:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Barbed wire 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Car accident in Japan

They don't have to. They are in a public place and have no expectation of privacy. Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. --MichaelMaggs 21:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Support in that case (thnx for the explanation) Lycaon 09:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. Simonizer 06:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

  • LOL. This is why we should close these earlier, so people like you can't ruin perfection. Haha. Oh well, you won't sway too many people I think. -- Ram-Man 02:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 22 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. Simonizer 06:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Equisetum fluviatile in Belgium 

result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. Simonizer 06:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tobey Maguire and Jennifer Meyer by David Shankbone.jpg

edit

Tobey Maguire and his fiance Jennifer Meyer at the Spiderman 3 premiere in New York

esto no es imagen del dia --Jacopo 12:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: [1]. ZooFari 03:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Leucorrhinia rubicunda - couple 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 19:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Blüte eines weißen RittersternsAlternative

THIS IMAGE IS AN EXAMPLE ONLY
Fringing on the edges of the flower petals
If that is not masking, what is all that fringing on at the bottom of the middle flower? See the picture of the crop. -- Ram-Man 22:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, this must be from RAW-conversion and contrast adjustment. ---donald- 07:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Well it looked fine at quarter to one in the morning when I uploaded it, but yes it is a bit rough around the edges ;-(. The clarity of the flowers is great (I don't know what Karelj is looking at) and worth the effort of fixing the fringing, so either upload it with the background intact, or edit it out completely :-) --Tony Wills 11:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Whether or not this a masking job or not I don't care. Without the weird fringing it just looks better. The edges are a little choppy perhaps from the fringe fixing, but it's now acceptable. I love the detail in the flowers. -- Ram-Man 13:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose poor masking in version two: has got even worse now! (for masking, I normally cut away bit by bit at at least 1000% magnif.) Lycaon 19:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Could the original uploader consider reprocessing this from scratch or someone else redo the mask? Perhaps you'd change your vote if the masking was improved? -- Ram-Man 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Masking --Digon3 13:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support If he says he did not mask it you have to belive him. Maybe we are all trained on bad masking, sothat we no do not longer know how good low-key shots look like ;) Metoc 21:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THIS IMAGE IS AN EXAMPLE ONLY
Crop with absolute black background colour filled
 Comment Perhaps it is a misunderstanding of terminology or methods, but I am surprised to see an absolute black background that isn't the result of editing. I have added a crop with the absolute black part replaced with another colour. Note things near parts of the flower, like a right angled edge and pockets of red. I am happy to accept the background was not removed with a 'mask', but I am convinced it was incompletely removed by a person or persons unknown ;-). Nothing wrong with removing it, but it needs to be done a little better :-) --Tony Wills 13:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 19:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 19:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

St Genes Fountain in Clermont-Ferrand 

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Glacier Express with newly commisioned (2006) panoramic coaches on the Landwasser viaduct 

result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 19:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Senj, coastal town in Croatia, north Adriatic 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Zavratnica, bay near Jablanac, Croatia (Adriatic sea)

 Info There is no 'required' 2MP, it is a guideline --Tony Wills 10:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was intended to be a word of advice, not my reason for opposition. The reason it's a stated guideline is because many, including myself, will not support an image less than 2MP. It's a guideline, but it's one that people follow. I personally exempt 1600x1200, because it's such a common size and it is basically 2MP. -- Ram-Man 11:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 19:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 20:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

I hope the size doesn't matter - see this photo --Orlovic (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small and poor quality - Alvesgaspar 13:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. 
result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 20:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 20:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

La dame à l'hermine 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 20:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Η Θεοδώρα από ψηφιδωτό του Αγίου Βιταλίου στη Ραβέννα. Eastern Roman Empress Theodora, in San Vitale in Ravenna. 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 20:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Madonna in the green

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: much too small Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 12:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 20:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Panorma Cognata

t has just left;)--Luc Viatour 11:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
original file name should be showing. It is sometimes criticized when not appropriate (not here). Lycaon 19:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Romary 12:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I've seen Luc Viatour's website and his work is amazing, but I feel that this particular image falls just barely outside my standard evaluation criteria. At f/4.8, the DoF is just too shallow in this case. An oppose vote here would be injustice, as it is right at my evaluation threshold. It's a great shot. -- Ram-Man 13:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

lotus seedpod 

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

USS Lake Erie (CG 70) missile test 

result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eiffel Tower Keychain.jpg - not featured

edit

A keychain of the Eiffel Tower.

 Question Could the keychain be copyrighted? --Digon3 14:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

try with Quality images, I would vote it there --Orlovic (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Lacks relevance (the guidelines call it value), first of all because the subject is kitschy and trivial and second because it doesn't illustrate in a clear way any photographic technique. Also, quality is not good enough: the subject is not perfectly focused (a higher f-number would probably be required) and the "flou" in the background looks artificial and not pretty. In this case I think that our evaluation criteria are all we need to not promoting this picture. Alvesgaspar 18:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't try to convince you to change your mind, but it is used on this Wikipedia article: Keychain. -- Ram-Man 14:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's "flou"? Oh, French for "blur"--MichaelMaggs 21:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:English Walnuts.jpg - not featured

edit

A whole and shelled walnut. Edit by digon3 Edit 2 by digon3 Edit 3 by Ram-Man 

 3 support, 1 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Silvereye - juvenile.jpg - not featured

edit

Short description 

 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Choco chip cookie.jpg - not featured

edit

A chocolate chip cookie. 

 2 support, 7 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kostel Nejsvětější Trojice (Fulnek) – idt-003.jpg - not featured

edit

Statue of St. Teresa of the Child Jesus in the Most Holy Trinity Church, Fulnek, Czechia 

 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NZ Red Admiral Butterfly (Vanessa gonerilla).jpg - not featured

edit

Vanessa gonerilla

 Comment I am surprised at the comments about the background. The whole point of interest about the photo, is the contrast between the beauty of the butterfly against the harsh clay ground covered with plant debris - not just another butterfly on flower cliché. --Tony Wills 08:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hence the support ;-) Lycaon 22:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Is it the blurred green & brown piece of grass coming in from the left side that annoys people most, or the short green piece on the ground beyond, or the whole stem of grass growing on the left? --Tony Wills 12:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For me it is the very blurred green and brown piece of grass coming in from the left side and the whole stem of grass that "touches" the butterfly on the left. Tbc 07:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 5 support, 6 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hurricane Isabel eye from ISS.jpg - not featured

edit

Hurricane Isabel's eye 

 4 support, 2 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Scatophaga stercoraria 1 Luc Viatour.jpg - featured

edit

Scatophaga stercoraria 

 15 support, 0 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 10:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Water droplet blue bg05.jpg - not featured

edit

A droplet of water.

According to the file history, it's by Fir0002. --MichaelMaggs 21:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, this picture is not mine. I have made other pictures of water droplets, but not this one. Roger McLassus
 6 support, 4 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 12:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:M82 Chandra HST Spitzer.jpg - featured

edit

Short description

  •  Info Messier 82. Composite of Chandra, HST and Spitzer photos. created by Chandra, HST and Spitzer telescopes - uploaded by Winiar - nominated by Winiar --Winiar✉ 15:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Winiar✉ 15:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Space pictures are a lot like sunsets. All very pretty. They have to be something special (like this one) to support. This one has banding and other issues. I'm sure there are good technical reasons for all of this, but I don't care for the quality and the content. I won't deny that it's pretty. -- Ram-Man 22:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, "space images" fall inside our project scope ten times better than your average sunset. -- Cat chi? 23:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Either I misunderstand you or you misunderstand me. I'm referring specifically to featured picture requirements, not project applicability. There are many thousands of images that are not FP quality but are extremely educational and useful. I'm not worried about whether or not this image is educational, because clearly it is. In fact, project applicability should be a core/basic requirement for all FP candidates. The reason that guidelines discuss sunsets is because by their very core nature they are beautiful, so beauty alone is not enough for a FP. These "space pictures" are similarly almost always very beautiful. If beauty was the main reason to add them, then there would be no reason to vote. Just automatically make them FP. Looking at the technical quality of this image, there are defects, not the least of which is banding and streaking. The banding also distracts from the beauty. This is art and art is inherently subjective. Obviously people disagree with me, and that's fine. -- Ram-Man 01:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many pictures of sunsets. Making all good ones as featured wouldn't make sense. This space object does not have another "Featured" version so your approach is flawed IMHO. -- Cat chi? 17:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because my reasoning is not totally clear from the above statement. From my evaluation criteria: "Not all useful and thoeretically best images of a particular subject should or need to be featured pictures" (emphasis added). -- Ram-Man 17:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Cat chi? 23:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Its large, its pretty, its special (IMO). --Digon3 23:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Luc Viatour 07:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support just for the beauty of it, and although I don't quite understand what this represents :) -- Benh 20:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose ack Ram-Man -- Lycaon 07:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Jina Lee 05:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose as Ram-Man --Karelj 20:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 6 support, 3 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 12:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LantanaFlowerLeaves.jpg

edit

Flower and leaves of Lantana camara Flower and leaves of Lantana camara

Original version - featured

edit 
 9 support, 1 neutral, 0 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 12:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New version - not featured

edit

 Info - I'm adding a new version in which the leaves and buds are sharper. Not sure which one is best - Alvesgaspar 15:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

 2 support, 0 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 12:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rana temporaria LC0030.jpg - not featured

edit

Rana temporaria 

 3 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 12:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bigleaf Hydrangea Hydrangea macrophylla 'Tokyo Delight' Flowers 3008px.jpg - featured

edit

Bigleaf Hydrangea 

 9 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 12:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mexico-Popocatepetl.jpg - featured

edit

The volcano Popocatepetl in Mexico

I would say the exif record is wrong, look at the long shadows of bumps on the side of the volcano. --Tony Wills 09:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the vote is valid, even if not signed, as the history records who it is anyway. --Tony Wills 09:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If it isn't anonymous, it should count. -- Ram-Man 14:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 7 support, 0 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 13:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Abbaye de Fontenay-Scriptorium.jpg - not featured

edit

Short description 

 2 support, 4 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 13:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flowering Dogwood Cornus florida Leaf 2000px.jpg - not featured

edit

Short description

  •  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 12:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info New formation of a leaf of the Flowering Dogwood (Cornus florida) tree.
  •  Support ---- Ram-Man 12:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Just a QI. Great detail, but distracting background and not very spectacular overall impression --Simonizer 12:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentInteresting to note that this image is great (and will be a FP) and it has a big dark blotch next to the bird's head and a dark diagnonal bar. Of course this one failed and it has a non-distracting background. I only have to wonder if it was a pretty flower if the votes wouldn't be totally different. As far as I can tell there are no FP of plants that are just "boring" leaves and other equally important items biologically and educationally speaking. There are, however, quite a few flowers. I've tried grey, blue, and green backgrounds for "boring" subjects. If I try this sunflower, I'll add red to the list. My cone was brown against a brown background, but people seemed to like that one. Go figure. Maybe I'll just take a piece of paper and shoot against a fake white background instead from now on. -- Ram-Man 13:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you see my votes at the mentioned pictures? So, dont flame around. The white stains next to the leaves are distracting in my opinion, so I vote against it. Thats all! --Simonizer 07:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Winiar✉ 13:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Nothing special. --Karelj 21:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose nothing special Metoc 21:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I disagree - I think this image is "special", it is aesthetically pleasing. It's got nice color, both in the subject and the background. True it's not a flower, but it's not a "boring" leaf, either. Jina Lee 05:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Technically its very good but i saw pictures like this many times before, whats so special on this object ? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Bergwolf (talk • contribs)
  • First of all, if this was a pretty yellow flower with the same technical quality, it would be an easy FP. If we oppose this because "I've seen it before", why don't we do it for flowers as well? or NASA images? The truth is, we don't have any leaf FPs and there are no equivalent photos on the commons of this species. Leaves are just not as "sexy" as a flower, NASA image, sunset, or a butterfly. Second, it's pretty in its own form, as emerging life. The "bunny ear" shape is also aesthetically pleasing. The green foreground on blue background and red foreground on green background add additional interest and contrast, incorporating the three primary colors of light. The composition is simple, unlike many other plant and animal pictures with cluttered backgrounds that become FPs anyway. And even though the leaf is almost centered, the stalk is not, giving it lovely anti-symmetry. The reason I put forth this image is to ask the question: Can we have a FP of objects that are not flowers, insects, nice landscapes, or NASA images? This image may be simple, but who has ever taken the time to truely appreciate this natural form? There are very few high-quality images like this available on the internet or in books, so it has quite a bit of educational value. -- Ram-Man 18:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, it is very good, but it has no wow-factor. And thats what FP is all about. If the voters are not enthusiastic about it, the picture wont become a FP. I must admit that its hard to get a wow-factor in picture with an subject that is not as beautiful as a flower or a galactical nebular, but i dont think that it is impossible. --Simonizer 06:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Simonizer. --MichaelMaggs 21:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 13:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Orange slug.jpg - not featured

edit

The Arion rufus slug. 

 11 support, 3 neutral, 6 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 13:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ayamonte boats2.jpg - not featured

edit

Boats on the banks of the Guadiana river at Ayamonte (Spain) 

 4 support, 6 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 18:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of very poor quality Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 12:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 20:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 20:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

The ruins of the roman city and the stone fortress of Petra 

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Mars Pathfinder 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ViperaBerusMale.JPG - not featured

edit

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 12:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

 1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 10:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Roofs of Castro Marim.jpg - not featured

edit

Roofs of Castro Marim (Algarve, Portugal) 

 1 support, 1 neutral >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 10:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jarro-2.jpg

edit

Zantedescia aethiopica Zantedescia aethiopica

Version 1 (left) - not featured

edit 
 1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 10:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2 (right) - not featured

edit
  •  Support - Alvesgaspar 10:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Like the heart the flower draws but the picture is burned--Alipho 18:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I checked the histogram in detail. A large portion of the whites occupy the uppermost 4% of the tonal range. On an 8-bit image, that's almost invisible tonality. Expanding the range artificially replaces the burned out highlights with posterization. "Burned" here should mean overexposed, not clipped, since technically the histogram is not severely clipped. The heart is beautiful, for sure, but the petals are almost pure white. This image (and mine below) show the problems with 8-bit digitized images of white objects. Try to reproduce the natural whites and you blow out the tonality in the highlights. Expose less and the whole thing looks unnaturally murky. So on this image people are complaining about blown highlights, while on my image there is question about it being "murky". It's hard to get it right! -- Ram-Man 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - When we look at a white flower like this, under these same light conditions, do we really see much more detail than the one which is depicted in the photo? Very often we forget that that our own eyes also have a sensibility limit. Is it fair to require a photo to show more than what we see with our own eyes? - Alvesgaspar 21:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OpposeThe human eye sees with *much* greater tonal range than what the 256 tonal gradations are in an image. It can also see at a higher resolution with which to distinquish slight variations in tone. The eye can distinguish between lights and darks automatically and our brain makes it all seem good. This image is overexposed and it doesn't look natural to me. In some images this isn't a problem, but in this image the whites make up most of the content. This image seems to have about the level of tonality that I'm looking for. I really appreciate the difficulty. I find this image of mine to be extremely beautiful, but it's overexposed. I think it looks good anyway, but it wouldn't survive a FP candidacy. -- Ram-Man 04:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 10:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. Images nominated here normally need to be at least 2Mpx in size. Are you able to upload a higher-resolution version? Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

the preceding unsigned comment was left by User:MichaelMaggs 

result: Nomination closed => not featured. Simonizer 11:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mist - Ensay region2.jpg Vote on alternative - not featured

edit

Short description

  •  Neutral Great image ! Would support if the image would be replaced by a higher quality image (less compression). The jpeg artficacts are really visible in full-size resolution. --Atoma 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment W-O-W ! please provide us with a better quality image :) Benh 23:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I don't know how that happened because I just a have a load of photoshop actions that downsample and save for web so the compression should be exactly the same as all my other images.
  • close this nom, please vote below on alternative --Benjamint444 08:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Withdrawn by nominator - not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mist - Ensay region3.jpg (less compression), featured

edit

Short description 

result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Jackson's Sawmill Covered Bridge

  • It's not the HDR that's important, I only state that to be absolutely clear that it's been manipulated as such. Evaluators tend to oppose images that have been manipulated when it wasn't clearly stated. It was not my intention to showcase it as an HDR image, as I think that's a very minor aspect (basically it kept the sky from being somewhat blown out and didn't affect the rest). The special part of this image is how it showcases a traditional Lancaster County covered bridge. See this article for more information on these bridges. -- Ram-Man 18:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A nice image. Majorly (hot!) 18:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Good quality of picture, but the subject of it is totally tedious. --Karelj 20:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Not special enough, good technique though. The photographer of the "Bridges of Madison County", by Robert James Waller, used to get up very early in the morning just to get the best lighting... Alvesgaspar 22:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what would be special enough? I just don't get it. These bridges are historical and iconic, and this is a great picture technically. More specifically, what does this picture lack that these here do not? -- Ram-Man 23:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't know, all attempts for parameterizing beauty seem a little ridiculous. But although we cannot explain the "wow factor", it happens quite often than we agree in identifying its realizations. There are quite a couple of examples in this page right now (at least one of them is yours) - Alvesgaspar 23:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe it needs an Amish horse and buggy (this and this too). You said so yourself, this image is good technically. From an artistic standpoint, it has all sorts of visually appealing attributes, from the bright primary color contrasts (Red, Green, Blue) to the various lines showing perspective, contrast and texture. It even has a farm for the unspoken barn similarity. Perhaps it's unfamiliarity for many people who have not ever seen such a covered bridge or witnessed the cultural romanticism surrounding it. I still don't see why most other structures have a wow factor more than this one. I find some of them more boring or only there because they are of a famous object. (Of course some are truely exceptional) I realize art is in the eye of the beholder, but sometimes I just wish I could understand it, as facinating as it is to see all these people try to vote on art. -- Ram-Man 23:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I have seen a lot of covered bridges, mainly in Vermont and New Hampshire. And these bridges have something romantic. But this picture dont show this romantic thing. Try another daytime, another point of view (maybe with the river on the picture too) or even another season (indian summer for example). --Simonizer 07:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other points of view: inside, side, underside, and inside again. Other than that, I just don't get it. This FP candidate is basically unanimous, so what does it have that this one doesn't? -- Ram-Man 12:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This FP candidate is a capture of a moment, with a great composition. A few moments later the motif was gone. Your motif is a covered bridge that dont move and it will be at the same place until a fire or an earthquake or the regional administration destroys it. ;-) So you have enough time to find the best possible compostition for your motif. Thats the difference. Here are some beautiful pictures with covered bridges: good light and colours, great composition, sky and colours, great composition, another great one and wonderful! Just my two cents worth! --Simonizer 14:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the links. It helps explain what you are looking for in a FP covered bridge photo. I have quite a few photos (not of this bridge) that are similar in composition to the first two, speaking nothing of other technical aspects. I personally find them boring (!), having taken so many of them in that basic configuration. To me, the "three-quarters" view is the most dynamic and pleasing. I don't care for the hard lighting of the first one, although fall colors are never a bad thing. Sky and colors are good on the second, but again I find the composition boring. The third one is a great shot that has emotion, but as a educational tool, it's less useful. Nothing wrong with the fourth. The fifth one is beautiful. It reminds me of this and this (ignoring the obvious exposure differences). Now that I've cataloged 28 of the county's covered bridges, I may go back to them from time to time at the ideal time of day and selectively try to get better pictures technically. Not sure we'll ever agree about some of the compositional issues though! -- Ram-Man 15:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just for your information, I have uploaded 178 covered bridge pictures. Most of them are not FP quality because I had to sacrifice lighting to get so many pictures in a span of just 3 or 4 days. I've tried all sorts of compositions. I'd try my first QI as a FP, but I fear that it would be shot down because of the exposure, despite being very difficult to take well under only natural lighting. Either you blow out the highlights (daytime), or you slow the shutter speeds and introduce long exposure noise (sunset, sunrise). I suppose the compass orientation plays a huge part, but I can't really move the bridge for better lighting :) -- Ram-Man 15:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info For me, the thing that's missing in this nomination is interesting lighting. That's not always needed, but here the combination of flat lighting and a straightforward treatment of the subject gives the impression (wrong I know) that this is a simple record photograph. Not all technically excellent images are necessarily right as FP material. I for one look for at least some 'wow' factor which is missing here. Hope that helps; just my view. --MichaelMaggs 21:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Castle Kacenštajn (right), church st. Urh (left), Begunje na Gorenjskem, Slovenia in the evening before storm 

result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Eastern Tiger Swallowtail 

result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Ground beetle 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

El Rocío town centre (Andalusia, Spain) Edit by Digon3 corrected version by MJJR 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Ladybug with aphids

Vote left by User:Groupie alias Heidi, looks like a valid vote to me, I don't think there's anything in the rules that says they've got to sign properly, just that they must be logged in --Tony Wills 13:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are probably right, but users don't have different levels of ability to vote - creating a usercode to vote on something is quite valid, so long as they aren't using multiple 'sock puppet' accounts. If that is your concern then you should ask an admin to check-out the account and find whether for instance the same IP address has been used to create lots of accounts and there are lots of invalid votes and other activities. --Tony Wills 23:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Aurora Borealis 22Jan2004.jpg

edit 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Milky Way core regions in IR 

result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 4 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kraftwerk-rostock.jpg - not featured

edit

Rostock coal fired power plant 

 5 support, 4 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 08:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mallard ducklings.jpg - not featured

edit

Short description 

 2 support, 2 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 08:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mus Musculus-huismuis.jpg, delisted

edit 

result: 8 Delist, 1 Keep, => delisted. Simonizer 11:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Yellowtail barracuda schooling 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 10:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Springatbearlake.jpg - not featured

edit

Spring Bear Lake Spring Bear Lake

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of very poor photographic quality, due to small size and high compression - Alvesgaspar 22:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  •  Oppose Great shot, but the camera needs to have been using a much higher quality setting, for example look at the water in the fore-ground, very pixelated. Higher resolution, less compression needed --Tony Wills 23:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Charlessauer 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

 Withdrawn by nominator >> not featured Alvesgaspar 09:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pudrerivertrail.jpg - not featured

edit

Pudre River Colorado Pudre River Colorado

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of very poor photographic quality, due to small size and high compression - Alvesgaspar 22:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

 Charlessauer 17:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

 Withdrawn by nominator >> not featured Alvesgaspar 09:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MGBGT.JPG - not featured

edit
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: far too small in size Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

--MichaelMaggs 19:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

 0 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (Rule of the 2nd day) Alvesgaspar 09:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Offbearlakeroad.jpg - not featured

edit

Bear Lake Road Edit by Digon3

 Charlessauer 17:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

 Withdrawn by nominator >> not featured Alvesgaspar 09:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bearlakeinspring2.jpg - not featured

edit

Bear Lake Spring Edit by Digon3

Would you support a corrected version? --Digon3 14:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Charlessauer 17:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

 Withdrawn by nominator >> not featured Alvesgaspar 09:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Panthera onca.jpg - delisted

edit

Short description 

 5 deslist, 0 keep >> delisted - Alvesgaspar 14:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lightmatter flamingohead.jpg - delisted

edit

Short description 

 5 deslist, 0 keep >> delisted - Alvesgaspar 14:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Anolis marmoratus.jpg - not delisted

edit

Anolis marmoratus

  •  Info The file is ~2MP (1600x1200), but its not particularly sharp and elements are blurry/blotchy. Overexposed elements. Original nomination is here.
  •  Delist Don't think it meets current standards, despite the beautiful composition. -- Ram-Man 12:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist --Digon3 14:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The bulk of the creature is sharp enough. And we have a shortage of Featured Reptiles. If we remove this we should probably remove Image:Red-headed_Rock_Agama.jpg as well, as it suffers the faults with a less attractive composition. And that would leave us with only 3 featured reptiles. If someone can upload/nominate some better reptiles, I might change my mind. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using that logic, we should have different entrance criteria for featured pictures based on whether or not we already have that type of picture, but it is clear that it doesn't work that way. No, I think we should judge each image on its own merits, and the one that you suggest should be defeatured. Both it and this one would fail if they were attempted as new FP candidates, which is the whole point. -- Ram-Man 13:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 2 delist, 1 keep >> kept as FP - Alvesgaspar 14:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Muscari Grape hyacinth DOF.jpg - not featured

edit

Grape hyacinth (something of the muscari genus) 

 4 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 14:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sawtooth Oak Quercus acutissima Dried Leaves 2100px.jpg

edit

Picture #1 Sawtooth Oak leaves Picture #2 edit

Picture #1 - featured

edit
  • At some point I will just give up trying to get a featured picture of a plant that isn't a flower, since this may be my absolute favorite of the bunch, but I'm fairly persistent. And this is natural sky color on a beautiful mostly clear day at noon. Had I shot it 180 degrees in reverse, the sun would have been in the picture and it would have been washed out. This image proves that you can take good pictures at any time of day. As for the content itself, the leaves are what are special, but alas they are not flowers. The sawtooth pattern and the sharp texture on the leaves are being highlighted along with the fact that they stay on the tree all the way to spring, so there is an educational appeal. The leaf texture is more beautiful to me than that of some flowers. From an artistic side of thing, combine it with the natural color contrast and you get the "wow factor", IMO. Oh and as a thumbnail, this isn't a very good picture. It must be viewed large enough to see the leaves in detail. -- Ram-Man 11:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 6 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 07:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture #2 - not featured

edit 
 3 support, 1 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 07:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amur Tiger Panthera tigris altaica Eye 2112px.jpg

edit

Original EXAMPLE: Eye of the tiger original Picture #1: Eye of the tiger nomination Picture #2: Eye of the tiger edit by Chris_huh.

Picture #1 - not featured

edit
  •  Support — Cool! — H92 (t · c · no) 14:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info This would benefit from some work in Photoshop. The blacks look washed out, but that should be easily fixable. --MichaelMaggs 20:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's interesting that you mention that. If you look at the file upload history, you'll see that I intentionally darkened the blacks from the original version. I, and some others I showed it to, prefer the one with darker blacks and more contrast. Perhaps it's personal preference or something, but on my monitor the blacks appear fine. But yes, the detail is just not there. Cest la vie. -- Ram-Man 21:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I do not feel like any specific subject asserts itself within the photo. I'd prefer to see either more of the animal at large or more detail of a specific part; not an in-between area. ...Would it be too much to ask for a closer photo? :) Decent detail, though. Also: the blacks appear washed out on my screen. --Thisisbossi 02:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support it could be brighter but i like the moment --Bergwolf 18:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was shot through glass on a snowy day when myself and another professional photographer were unable to get a great shot of this animal. My wife, who took this picture with her point-and-shoot, managed to capture what was in my biased mind a special shot. The camera wasn't able to capture the subtle detail in the black hairs and the resulting contrast was too low. I darkened the blacks (because there wasn't much detail there and it was a little noisy) to increase the contrast. The original version is still in the file history. -- Ram-Man 19:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Please place new votes below. Vote for (or against) one or both. 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. -- Ram-Man 11:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Re: the closing. I know it makes little difference, but the above votes were at least cast for picture #1 below, if not for both pictures. If the first picture should be closed, then all the votes under "Picture #1" should be counted. As a result, I've updated the count. -- Ram-Man 11:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture #2 - featured

edit 
 8 support, 2 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 16:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vinton Cerf-20070512.jpg - not featured

edit

Vinton Cerf 2007

  •  Info created by Joi Ito (Wikipedia User:Joi) - uploaded and nominated by User:Susanlesch --Susanlesch 14:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Susanlesch 14:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Huh, an image taken with a Leica M8. In any case, while the file size is high on this image, the quality does not appear so high. The image looks to be dithered or is that just some strange effect from the camera itself? Maybe it was upsampled. Or perhaps it's just noise reduction. It almost looks like a scan from some print source. I'm not sure what to do with this one. It look like a very nice B&W portrait, but my evaluation criteria are not helping me on this one. Update: Perhaps it's because I like B&W portraits so much (and the composition) and because of it being of a famous, iconic person. Nevertheless, I'm still torn because of the low quality. -- Ram-Man 18:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Support. Call me insane, crazy, whatever, but I think the focus on technical quality is ignoring what is really important: the content. The subject matter is exceptional. From the comments below, it seems this image was severely underexposed resulting in lousy quality. Lousy quality didn't, however, mask over the vision which is more important to photography than quality, thus a sufficient mitigating reason to support. -- Ram-Man 15:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Hi. Photo was taken in person. No it is not a scan. Yes the 6.3MB size is odd and looks like an enlargement. Would it be better to revert to the first, smaller upload? Done. Please see what you think of the 296,750 bytes size. -Susanlesch 17:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The enlarged version is poor quality; the smaller version better quality, but too small. Majorly (hot!) 18:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Composition - almost half of mans head is missing. --Karelj 20:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I really like the mood, intensity of expression and how the subject is separated from the background with shallow DOF. However, I really, really wonder about the quality. With 6+ MP, as the original was, the image should have been razor sharp, easily showing about each and every thread of subjects jacket, each and every hair of beard and pore of the skin. Unfortunately this is nowhere near of what could and should have been. I can only wonder if there has been some kind of major, devastating, post processing failure and if the original could be reprosessed and uploaded? Or was the original simply a radical and upsised crop of larger image (which I do not believe to be the case, considering the shallow DOF)? In its current form it is far too small to be FP. --Thermos 17:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support because of the subject matter, and only because of the subject matter. Strongly agree with Thermos et al, would be really good if the above faults can be addressed. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question. The uploaded photo looks like a crop. Has anyone contacted Joi and asked for the original yet? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info. Ben, after reading Thermos's evaluation above, yes I did contact the photographer who tried three other versions last night. But his first try above seems to be the best that can be done. The original is very dark, and what we have above is reduced to B&W. I apologize for nominating despite the size and technical failings and appreciate the tough standards you have here. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 15:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination was a good one, and there is no need for an apology. Certain images become icons because they are taken by a certain photographer, or they speak to people in a certain way, or they are of a certain special content, or a combination of these things. The content of this image is FP-worthy and it is clear the despite its technical failings that it has some support anyway. That says something. -- Ram-Man 15:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ack Ram-Man. I would certainly appreciate if this kind of images were nominated more frequently. However, what I said in my post, still stands. If it were about nominations based on thumbnails, this image would have my vote. However, the image should be printable/viewable at larger sizes too, which this image is not. What I would like to suggest, is that you submit the original non-processed image to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab
or:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bilderwerkstatt
...and ask for some contribution. The French wikipedia should also be able to assist, but due to lack of my language skills, I do not know for sure (I understand that the French lab is the original and very skillful). With more than 6 MP, it should make a stunning image when properly processed.--Thermos 20:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Sorry I didn't chime in before. As Susanlesch says, the problem with this photo was that it was taken in VERY low light and hand-held. The PDP-1 display required a very dark room. It was even too dark to focus very well. I'm not sure why the higher quality image from Flickr didn't come over properly. If you view the largest size from Flickr in a Firefox window and let it resize, the thumbnail created by Firefox is better than the converted jpg thumbnail here. (Larger jpg on Flickr: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/204/494396202_9193d2f83a_o.jpg ) Also, I have uploaded the M8 RAW as well as several different jpg exports here: http://dav.ito.com/vint/ . I'll try to get more involved in the Commons stuff directly in the future. ;-) Anyway, despite all of the technical issues with this photo, I appreciate your attention to it. Thanks Susanlesch for the nomination. -- Joi 08:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

 4 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wet kookaburra 6674 Crop Edit.jpg - featured

edit

Short description

EXAMPLE: The original uncropped, unedited version
  • Laugh. Because it's "common" understanding that placing the subject in the center is less aesthetically pleasing, aka, The Rule of Thirds. I cropped it to increase the probability that those evaluators who subscribe to that viewpoint would support this image. It's always interesting, in my experience, how many non-photographers think centered pictures look better. You just can't win, really. -- Ram-Man 18:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the picture a lot. However, I don't like your attitude. I am an amateur photographer and it pains me to be laughed at when I am trying to learn something. Majorly (hot!) 18:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You misunderstand and that's my fault. Text is not the best way to show emotion and tone of voice, and I apologize. I was laughing at the irony. I try hard to tailor the image to the picky crowd that often evaluates these images and then the first person to come along shoots it down. It's a comedy of irony, perhaps only to me. Your way of thinking brings to light the fact that the "Rule of Thirds" isn't always obvious or even the "right" way to think. I myself often compose my pictures in the dead center and as a result will sometimes have difficulty acquiring a FP. Please don't be offended! As for non-photographers, I was referring to those people that I interact with on a daily basis, not those here on the commons. -- Ram-Man 19:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's dry enough to fly, I was thinking of small birds when I mentioned exposure, which you do find dead around the place in winter. I was just commenting on the fact that people think a soggy bird is hilarious. Even Kingfishers don't get soggy like that though, penguins don't for that matter, about the only (Australian)birds that will are cormarents and darters which spend most of the day in the sun drying their feathers out again. And Aust isn't even very cold --Benjamint444 07:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


 8 support, 2 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 16:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HH Alsterarkaden pano1.jpg - featured

edit

Alsterarkaden in Hamburg, Germany

 Support The unnatural look doesn't bother me, it still looks good --Benjamint444 11:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

 9 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 22:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Externsteine pano.jpg - not featured

edit

"Extern" rocks, Teutoburg forrest, Germany 

 2 support, 4 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 23:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tulip Tulipa clusiana 'Lady Jane' Rock Ledge Flower 2000px.jpg

edit
EXAMPLE: Original nomination

Edit: Lady Tulip Edit

Original Nomination - not featured

edit 
 Withdrawn by nominator >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit version - featured

edit 
 5 support, 1 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 20:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hortensia-1.jpg

edit

Leaves and buds of an Hortensia Leaves and buds of an Hortensia

Version 1 (left) - featured

edit 
 7 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 10:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2 (right) - not featured

edit
I'll have a try at photoshopping it. Alvesgaspar, do you have any other photos similar to this? --Digon3 17:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 2 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 08:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Goe Sternwarte pano.jpg - featured

edit

Historic observatoy, Göttingen, Germany 

 5 support, 1 neutral >> featured - Alvesgaspar 12:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HH Hygieia-Brunnen.jpg - featured

edit

Hygieia fountain, city hall Hamburg, Germany 


 13 support, 2 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 10:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mount McKinley and Denali National Park Road 2048px.jpg - not featured

edit

Mount McKinley

EXAMPLE: 1:1 crop of the mountain
EXAMPLE: Underexposed, downsampled from 8MP to match resolution
  • Compare the underexposed image with the 1:1 crop from this image. The underexposed image of course looks better because it shows more spatial resolution: it was downsampled from an 8MP camera preserving more detail, whereas the original is just a crop. But most of the tonality in underexposed image is still in the 1:1 crop. You can see all of the major variances in light and dark in both images. You have to look extremely close to see the differenes in tonality that would only be visible at these very large viewing sizes. Had this image been exposed less to pull out that very subtle detail, the entire foreground (which is important) would be mess of noise. It's supposed to look bright: it's snow. -- Ram-Man 16:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears the camera coldn't handle the contrast in the scene. Exposure bracketing could have helped, or reprocessing from raw to save the highlights (helps with my camera). And for the snow I'd prefer a compromise between the two exposures. I said it was a tad overexposed. Anyways I know the chant about blown out snow, believe me, I just feel this pic could have been better. I have a few pics with snow issues here and have been reluctant to nominate them for this reason. --Dschwen 09:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon a cursory look, the bright snow doesn't overly bother me in any of those pictures. They may or may not be FPs for other reasons (I couldn't say), but speaking for myself, if anything can be overexposed it is snow which has very little detail to begin with. -- Ram-Man 11:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose the composition is quite nice. The subject is great. But the color quality is very bad! The extrem color noise and the dust. The mountain is too hazy. The last can be fixed but the noise - what a bummer!. Metoc 22:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noise and dust? Do you mean the foreground? That's not noise, that's the natural color. While there may be a small amount of noise visible at extreme magnifications, this picture was taken in the "late fall" (effective seasons, not calendar... some of the first snows were while we were there in august). I have some closeups of the flora from the 8MP camera, and if you really want me to upload them, I can, but even magnified it looks much the same. The low blueberry bushes and willows are all mixed colors of red, green, and yellow. Perhaps you can't appreciate how much area this picture is covering, but it's impossible for any camera to resolve color that changes by the centimeter or less on a scale this large. As for the mountain, this was as clear a day as possible. The mountain is many miles/kilometers away and is remarkably clear. I'd ask that you reconsider your vote! -- Ram-Man 23:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 5 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 15:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Phyllobius calcaratus spornblattrüßler quadrat.jpg - featured

edit

Short description 

 12 support, 0 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 20:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dolceacqua43 - Artista locale mentre dipinge un acquarello.jpg - featured

edit

A watercolor painting working in Dolceacqua (Liguria, Italy)

no, I'm sorry --Dongio 08:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 18 support, 0 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Mating 2150px.jpg

edit

Picture #1: Butterflies mating Picture #2: Butterflies mating

Picture #1 - not featured

edit 
 1 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 15:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture #2 - featured

edit 
 6 support, 0 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 13:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gazania rigens-1.jpg

edit

Yellow flower of Gazania rigens Yellow flowers of Gazania rigens

Version 1 (left) - featured

edit
  •  Comment Yeap, I support the idea that Alvesgaspar buys a DSLR. You have some great images, but and some of them didn't got featured because of quality issues which would be solved by a DSLR camera. --Atoma 10:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 6 support, 0 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 22:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2 (right) - not featured

edit 
 4 support, 0 oppose >> not featured

Image:Hoverfly on flower-2.jpg

edit

Unknown species of solitary bee feeding on flower Unknown species of solitary bee feeding on flower

Version 1 (left) - featured

edit 
 7 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 13:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

version 2 (right) - not featured

edit 
 1 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 13:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PortoCovoDec2006-1.jpg - not featured

edit

Evening sea at Porto Covo 

 3 support, 4 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 13:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hiking at Mt. Four Girls.jpg - not featured

edit

Hiking at Mt. Four Girls,SiChuan,China 

 0 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 15:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Landscape Arch in Arches National Park.jpg - not featured

edit

Landscape Arch in Arches National Park 

 1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 15:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Everglades 001.jpg - not featured

edit

The Everglades (Florida, USA) 

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 15:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bumblebee in flight.JPG - not featured

edit

snapshot of Bumblebee 

 1 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 15:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WW1 Prospect Park.jpg - not featured

edit

Augustus Lukeman WW1 memorial, 1921, bronze on granite, Prospect Park, Brooklyn 

 0 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 15:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Schlossgartensee (Stuttgart).jpg - not featured

edit

The Schlossgartensee of Stuttgart

  •  Info created by Stefan-Xp - uploaded by Stefan-Xp - nominated by The same guy
  •  Oppose The scene is ok but th e contrast is way too high due to the time of day the picture was taken. Oh, and the nominator has not voted in support of this image and should do so explicitly. -- Ram-Man 11:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created the File from a RAW-File, during doing so, I increased the contrast and sharpness... And I dindn't support my own picture, because I think its a bit too selfconfident ;) --Stefan-Xp 05:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you don't support your own picture, that's one less support vote. It's not a bad idea to have that. If an image had 4 support votes, it would fail because not enough votes were cast, even if it hit the support/oppose ratio. -- Ram-Man 12:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose ack Ram-Man on contrast. As for the nominator not supporting his own picture, he is probably doing what I do, waiting until a couple of people have voted. --Digon3 01:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 0 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 15:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MC Blaureiher.jpg - not featured

edit

Short description

  •  Info created by, uploaded, and nominated by Chmehl --Chmehl 06:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Chmehl 06:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Because of the distracting, unfocused plant by its neck. It is a great picture though, I don't know why anyone else isn't voting. --Digon3 18:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose A lot of pictures are not being voted on, and I can't figure out why. A picture at least deserves an up-down vote, but many of my images barely have a quorum, if at all. As for this image, I wasn't voting because I was on the fence. I try to take picture of large water fowl (egrets, heron, etc.) like this and they are often very skittish making them hard to capture, so I wasn't sure if that was a mitigating reason for the foreground, since the bird itself is so good. Had I taken this, I'd be proud that I got the bird so clear and sharp and detailed, but I'd be disappointed with the foreground. It would make me want to try again. I'm still not totally convinced and could swing my vote later if my mood changes. -- Ram-Man 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Sometimes I don't vote because I don't like a picture enough to put my support behind it, but I don't dislike it enough to want to explain why, especially if the vote isn't close. This is one of those cases.  :-) I guess that's a weak sort of oppose. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 15:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PortoCovoApril 2007-8.jpg - not featured

edit

Seasight, Porto Covo, Portugal 

 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 15:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stone Steps Wide Angle Perspective 1933px.jpg - not featured

edit

Stone Steps

  •  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 12:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Besides showing external steps, this image also highlights perspective and wide-angle distortion. Used in this article.
  •  Support Another try at a non-animal, non-plant. -- Ram-Man 12:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like. Romary 12:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose sorry, all the beauty is in the simple things stuff aside, this is way over the line for me. Neither does it do a good job illustrating external steps (context is missing completely) nor does it illustrate wide-angle distortion (it would need an easily recognizable subject, like a face up-close where the distortion is apparent). Please don't take this personal but the pic does not wow me at all. With the rationale in the nomination just about any semi-artsy wideangle snapshot should become FP. --Dschwen 14:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't illustrate wide-angle distortion well? The distortion is how the steps at the bottom appear to "tip forward" compared to the steps at the top which seem to be facing the camera. This is a perfect example of such distortion because it is uses simple geometric shapes (lines and rectangles) instead of something organic or other more complicated subject matter. The steps appear to bend a full 90 degrees from top to bottom (you can't see the top of the step at the top but you can see the side, and you can't see the side of the step at the bottom but you can see the top). Had this shot been taken to include more of the surroundings, it wouldn't have been the same angle and/or field of view and thus wouldn't have shown the distortion that this image shows. The human eye cannot see things from this perspective. I agree that it's not the best example of external steps, but it's also not being used to illustrate them (although it could be). The distortion that makes it a good example of a wide angle of view also make it look unnatural as a normal example because of the human eye limitation. I certainly don't take it personally, as I realize that range of possible subject matter for a featured picture is extremely small and I'm just trying out new areas. This nom is yet another attempt to take a break from my potentially dozens of flower and animal photo nominations. But I still completely disagree with your assessment: it's educational, artsy (The "Wow Factor" is about subjective, artistic evaluation), and strong technically. -- Ram-Man 14:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Dschwen. Jon Harald Søby 15:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry too, but I have to agree with Dschwen. If it had been concrete or modern wooden stairs, e.g., then the perspective argument might cut. In this case, with the nature stone slabs, I've seen old stairs that do just that: tilt and bend. There are some at the Zimbabwe Ruins if I remember correctly. Lycaon 15:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your opposing because there exists some stairs that might really bend like that? 99.9% of stairs do not bend at 90 degrees, so I can't imagine why people would be confused. A simple image caption would make it perfectly clear. I find it hard to believe that my argument doesn't work because a very small minority of stairs may look like this to the human eye. Besides, your argument doesn't work either: If they were real, the relative size of the each step would be similar, as opposed to this wide angle image where the nearby steps are dramatically larger looking than the ones on the top. Also, you can clearly tell that the steps are not separating as they would if it were the deteriorating steps that you mention. These are obviously in good shape. If we have two flowers, one real and one silk, we wouldn't reject the real one because a plastic one might look very similar. I've seen photographs of glass flowers that I'd swear were the real thing. -- Ram-Man 16:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Derek, if an image needs lengthy defence or explanations then it's likely it doesn't have the necessary wow factor to be a good candidate FP. --MichaelMaggs 17:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct me if I'm wrong: Except for one line of Dschwen's objection, the argument was that the distortion was not illustrative (useful/encyclopedic) enough, which has nothing to do with the wow factor. Lycaon mentioned that my technical argument was invalid for that same reason. I still maintain that it is useful and encyclopedic. I don't have a problem if people think it lacks a wow factor, but I do have a problem with opposition for the other technical reasons. If they really don't think it has a wow factor, they should say so. -- Ram-Man 17:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Certainly no wow factor. And as for illustrating distortion etc, Dschwen is precisely right, we don't know what these steps are meant to look like, are all the slabs the same size & square, fitted at right angles? I can certainly visualise stone steps that I've seen that start off straight at the top, but then fan out towards the bottom. To illustrate distortion you either need something universally familiar or juxtapose an undistorted view next to it. --Tony Wills 13:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I took another image with a normal (50mm) focal length and created a composite image showing both images, would that really be an FP candidate? Or would it be better to show two separate images in an article showing (a) and (b)? I don't have access to the wide angle lens to reproduce this shot, but I can certainly do a normal one. -- Ram-Man 15:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Withdrawn by nominator >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 07:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Newtroot 1 0 0 0 0 m1.png - not featured

edit

Basins of attraction for x5 − 1 = 0; darker means more iterations to converge.

  • I've added a temporary jpeg version to be used until the thumbnail problem is resolved. If this is promoted to a featured picture, the .png file should be used instead. I've changed to support now that I know what this represents. -- Ram-Man 16:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 6 support, 5 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 22:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Camponotus ligniperda.jpg - not featured

edit

A black Forrest Ant in a tree trunk 

 6 support, 4 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 22:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Superb fairy wrens mark 2.jpg - not featured

edit

Short description

  •  Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by --Benjamint444 10:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC) This is a completely different image than the original, I re-stitched and edited it from scratch. In this version the stitching is completely flawless and I have made several other improvments, on the original image large parts of the males face were blue blown and there was some fringing on the face of the male - I have rectified both of those things along with it being a neater and cleaner image than the old one regarding the unfeathered lines of filtering running across the birds (I don't think anyone noticed that last time), the BG is better and the whole image is crisper (although I haven't sharpened it) and slightly warmer.[reply]
  •  Support --Benjamint444 10:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Winiar✉ 13:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- MJJR 20:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Because I don't like the colours tones (the left bird has really weird blues) and find the lighting flat (flash again ?). I also strongly oppose image manipulations which change the subject too much as it's the case here. It's like I put an Eiffel Tower next to a Statue of Liberty. I would probably be a good looking picture, but it would make no sense. Benh 21:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see your point of view about "It's like I put an Eiffel Tower next to a Statue of Liberty." but an Eiffel Tower next to a Statue of Liberty is impossible whereas it's quite possible for these birds to perch together. The color is real, the only thing I have done is an Apply image adjustment layer and stroked in some red contrast to bring it back from being blue blown, that doesn't change the colour and the detail is real.--Benjamint444 23:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are right, the images I found on the net show the same "odd" blue. As for the manipulation thing, my exemple was a rather extreme one, but let's take one more appropriate : what about if I stick a en:George_W._Bush shaking a hand next to a en:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad shaking a hand and photoshop them a bit so they shake each others hand ? Wouldn't be impossible, but very unlikely to happen. Sometimes, a picture is great because of the "instant" it catches. Here we know this instant is "fake", which take away a lot of its charm. Benh 15:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is some other photos of the species, unfortunately all of the images of males are mine except one.cyaneus--Benjamint444 23:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - This is a beatiful picture and would certainly qualify if it were a single shot. But I also feel that this kind of manipulation shouln't be encouraged in nature pictures. Is really possible, or common, for these birds to perch together? Probably yes but we really don't know until someone gets a straight photo of it. Alvesgaspar 12:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Info Perhaps not as unlikely as I too originally thought, see [2], [3] --Tony Wills 11:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Oppose As above. Great job on the stitching though. --Digon3 14:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose partly because of the manipulation. I have no objection in principle, as it's been disclosed, but because it's very easy to conjoin images in this way it makes it harder - much harder - to show that such an image is really the best that Commons has to offer. Individual bird images are more likely to be successful here. But I'm not happy with the frontal flash, anyway. Did you buy that angle-backet that I suggested for the flash gun, by the way? :) --MichaelMaggs 15:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet, I have done some research about them though, I want to get a new flash soon anyway so I'll wait and make sure they're compatable. --Benjamint444 10:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Support This composition follows the long standing tradition and practice of bird illustrators eg Category:NAUMANN or Category:The_Birds_of_America in putting together birds into one frame for illustrative purposes. The difference is one of quality, this has a high degree of photo realism, something not achievable by those illustrators of old.
The image is now clearly described as being a composite, there is no excuse for people mis-using it or being confused about it. If commons accepts composite images, edited videos, and edited or multi-tracked sound files then this image must be accepted as valid, and assessed on its qualities.
FP highlights quality images with a bit of 'wow', there is no requirement that they be photographs straight from a camera (Merges from focus bracketed images which show otherwise unobtainable DOF, are accepted as FP. Stitched panoramas are accepted that show otherwise unobtainable resolution. Composite images are accepted/opposed that show otherwise unobtainable composition?)
I should add that I don't particularly like composite images, but can't justify opposing this on quality or 'wow' factor appeal. Perhaps FP just needs a category along side 'non photographic' and 'animated' images, for 'composite' images. --Tony Wills 11:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral. Nice composition. I regret the original pictures are not clearly cited in the image description. I guess the left bird comes from a wider version of Image:Superb_blue_Wren1.jpg but where does the right bird come from? Moreover, if the image is the composition of two pictures, what is the exact meaning of the EXIF metadata ? Finally, the resolution does not meet the 2 Mpixel requirement. — Xavier, 01:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 2MP requirement, only a guideline --Tony Wills 11:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose While I agree with Tony Wills (amazing that I would even consider that, considering my stated bias against manipulated images), this image is below the resolution guidelines and there are no mitigating reason stated. -- Ram-Man 05:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution is in the ball park of the guidelines, the file is 4 times bigger and the image sharper than the original nomination. --Tony Wills 11:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 5 support, 1 neutral, 5 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 19:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grotte fontaine.jpg - not featured

edit

Photos de la grotte des jardins de la fontaine à Nîmes

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: rather blurred and it's unclear what the image is intended to illustrate. The background is also distracting. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 11:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. 
 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 2nd day) - Alvesgaspar 09:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Siberian Iris Iris siberica Unopened Flower 2000px.jpg

edit

Siberian Iris*Siberian Iris

Picture #1 - not featured

edit 
 Withdrawn by the nominator >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 08:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture #2 - not featured

edit 
 Withdrawn by the nominator >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 08:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Foamflower Tiarella 'Cygnet' Flower Closeup 2000px.JPG - featured

edit

Foamflower 

 10 support, 1 neutral >> featured - Alvesgaspar 08:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Thorn Tree Sossusvlei Namib Desert Namibia Luca Galuzzi 2004.JPG

edit

#1Short description  #2Short description

Original - featured

edit 
 9 support, 2 neutral, 2 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 20:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New version - not featured

edit 
 5 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (featured alternate version) - Alvesgaspar 20:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:A Cantharis fusca Soldatenkäfer Paarung.jpg - not featured

edit

Cantharis fusca 

 3 support, 4 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eupeodes lapponicus on jeans.jpg - featured

edit

hoverfly from the side. 

 16 support, 1 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 20:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lotus Nelumbo nucifera Flower Large 3264px.jpg - not featured

edit

Large lotus flower

  •  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 05:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info A lotus (Nelumbo nucifera) flower in full bloom.
  •  Support -- Ram-Man 05:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose centre not in focus, colours too light --Karelj 20:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't begin to understand this comment. Look at the leaf on the left, it's top tip is behind the flower and its bottom tip is in front of the flower. The entire leaf is in focus, thus the flower is also in focus. What you are seeing is probably diffraction effects from the extremely small aperture (approximately equivalent to f/28 on a 35mm film camera) descreasing the effective spatial resolution, but unless our standards now require downsampling from a point-and-shoot camera, this shouldn't be an issue. Since the actual resolution of this image is probably around 4MP, I'll downsample it to that point if you'd be willing to change your vote. Otherwise, why bother? As for the colors, that's just nonsense. This is what the flower looked like. Compare it to this image of the same flower from a different camera. -- Ram-Man 20:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question It seems that the plant was taken indoor. Isnt it ? --Makro Freak 00:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - The lack of success of this image has much to do with the delicate colours of the flower and we can't blame the photographer for it. Maybe with a little more green ... ;-) - Alvesgaspar 11:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lack of success with only two votes? Seems like lack of opinion to me. In any case, I'm not sure what you mean about the colors. Do people honestly have a problem with how this flower looks? I don't understand that at all. The colors are very beautiful. -- Ram-Man 17:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral  Support I do like the colours, and the POV. But the tight framing (just) prevents me from supporting. What the heck, it's good enough for FP Lycaon 22:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support ack Lycaon, but I still don't like the very tight framing on the right. --Digon3 18:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Jina Lee 16:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question I suppose there is no chance that we could get another 2 oppose votes or a single support vote to reach a quorum here? Why exactly are these pictures being ignored? They deserve a full vote. -- Ram-Man 03:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One reason I almost didn't vote because I didn't quite know whether to support or oppose. It was very hard for me to judge this photo and probably hard for other people too. --Digon3 16:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 4 support, 1 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bejsce church 20060624 1321.jpg - not featured

edit

Saint Nicholas Church

  •  Info created by Jakub Hałun - uploaded by Jakub Hałun - nominated by Charlessauer --Charlessauer 03:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Charlessauer 03:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry but I can't see any wow factor here. --MichaelMaggs 06:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Bad lighting (subject too dark), uncorrected geometric distortion (vertical lines not parallel) - Alvesgaspar 09:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. Not to pile on, but just to make some suggestions. The fence is distracting, it either should have been in or out of the photo, but not half in and half out. The roof line gets lost in the light. The photo appears to have been taken with the camera pointing up to fit the whole church in? The problem with doing that is that it makes the left side of the church appear to lean right, and the right side appears to lean left. And there's something happening in the door of the church, but it's hard to see what because of the light. Lastly, the shadow on half of the roof and front of the church is unfortunate, it makes part of it too dark, while leaving part of it too light. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC). PS. Some of your own contributions look nice, but they would be much more useful if you put them in categories. Otherwise no-one will ever find them, even if they go looking for them.[reply]
  •  Oppose as Alvesgaspar --Karelj 20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • [This is not a criticism it is just a comment]: I suppose you would prefer Alexander Pope to e.e. cummings, too. I think this photo is far better than the image above or below it... But, that is just my opinion. Charlessauer 00:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Perspective. If all images are corrected to have parallel and perpendicular lines, they start to have a medieval appearance. I like a little perspective.Charlessauer 00:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Not all photographs are taken at noon on a safari. Some photographs are taken at dusk, dawn, or at night. Correcting the lighting to make it look like it was taken at a different time takes some of the appeal away. The high contrast in this picture is appealing. It emphasizes the building's structure. Charlessauer 00:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Oppose This image is good, but just not quite good enough for a FP. The fence issue is important and I don't like how the left tree obscures the roof. I think if this image was taken a bit farther to the right and either closer or farther away it would have been better. I think the lighting is fine. -- Ram-Man 04:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 20:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chinchón (Madrid) 03.jpg - not featured

edit

Short description

Sorry. I hadn't realised that unnatural Martius sign, probably added as a signature :-( --Javier ME 21:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Withdrawn by nominator >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Colosseum in Rome, Italy - April 2007.jpg

edit

#1Colosseum in Rome #2Colosseum in Rome

#1 - not featured

edit 
 9 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (featured version #2 below) - Alvesgaspar 11:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#2 - featured

edit 
 14 support, 0 oppose > featured - Alvesgaspar 11:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Giraffe Ithala KZN South Africa Luca Galuzzi 2004.JPG - featured

edit

Short description 

 15 support, 1 neutral, 0 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 07:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Comet P1 McNaught02 - 23-01-07.jpg - not featured

edit
Comet P1 McNaught
 3 support, 1 neutral, 6 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 07:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cairns birdwing - melbourne zoo.jpg - not featured

edit
Cairns Birdwing
 3 support, 4 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 07:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Honeybee landing on milkthistle02.jpg - featured

edit
Honeybee Landing
  • Only one image nominated for delisting didn't reach a decision because of a lack of votes. Is there a consensus about the reasons and criteria for delisting? --Tony Wills 06:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 9 support, 3 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 07:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Common Eggfly02 - melbourne zoo.jpg - not featured

edit
Common Eggfly
The guidelines do 'allow' any image, we must judge them on their merits, the size guideline is just that - a guide to help us judge. We are here to judge the image only, I can not vote against the image just because I don't agree the the authors philosophy. --Tony Wills 09:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with you. The core goals of the commons should take precedent over anything else. Both the four freedoms and the project scope based on those freedoms are fundamental to the project. This proces, however, is not fundamental. Thus the guidelines are just guidelines, but the core principles of the commons are not. That said, I do want to take some more time to consider this issue, so I'm changing to Neutral for now. I don't want to rashly turn down good images if there is not a very good reason for it, but at the moment I think there is a good reason. -- Ram-Man 23:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After some thought, I've changed back to oppose. I understand that opposing based on project scope can scare off new people from the project and thus for the future I have to be very careful when using this argument. So it may seem unfair or whatever, but Fir0002 has been with this project for a long time and understands why I am opposing. I respect his right to his view and appreciate the difficulty that he faces. However, I must stick true to what I believe is important to the Commons: that the philosophical goals of the project are more important than the pragmatic goals. Someone who intentionally downsamples their images, even as high quality as Fir0002 does, does not match with the project's scope and the four freedoms, specifically not restricting use. To his credit, he freely admits that he is restricting use, and I respect that openness, which is why this isn't personal. It's very legalistic and inconsistent to not oppose all images that are downsampled in this manner, but for now I'll stick with those below 2MP, so as not to anger everyone who disagrees with me. -- Ram-Man 19:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 07:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cairina moschata-1.jpg - not featured

edit

carina moshata

 It's no use - Alvesgaspar 22:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

 Withdrawn by nominator >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aesculus hippocastanum-1.jpg - not featured

edit

Leaves of Aesculus hippocastanum

  • Join the club. Sometimes I just nominate a picture that I'm sure will at least get 40% or 50% support and it gets overwhelming opposition. I say just keep trying: eventually you'll get one that people like. As for this picture, a little better quality and I would have supported. -- Ram-Man 00:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Withdrawn by nominator >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 23:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Passchendaele aerial view.jpg - not featured

edit

Aerial view of the village of Passchendaele (North is to the right of the photo) before and after the Third Battle of Ypres, 1917.

  •  Info Aerial view of the village of Passchendaele (North is to the right of the photo) before and after the Third Battle of Ypres, 1917. Image created by the United Kingdom Government, uploaded by User:Gsl and nominated by Ben Aveling 23:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I know how many of our technical rules this image breaks. But it reduces me to tears. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It made me stop an look, and go read the wikipedia page. I found it hard to understand what the second image was showing, now I realise the roads are masked by the sea of mud, and those dimples are the craters from 1 million artillery shells per square mile. Certainly a high value picture, the world needs reminding of the stupidity of war - 750000 people died here in 'the war to end all wars' --Tony Wills 07:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support probably this image won't be featured because of low res, anyway, I add my vote due to its great historical value. Ziga 09:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose as this is a digitized (scanned) version of an analog photograph, there is no mitigation for the abysmal resolution, historical value (of which I am convinced, btw) notwithstanding. Lycaon 11:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I think it might be a scan from the book "Tommy: The British Soldier on the Western Front" by Richard Holmes. Does anyone know if photos are available directly from the Imperial War Museum? --Tony Wills 12:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info They've got it online, but it's not clear how to get a soft copy of it. See [4] (I hope that link works, if not, go to [5] and search for image Q 42918A.) Regards, Ben Aveling 13:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Online version is just a thumbnail, £7.50 gets you an A4 copy --Tony Wills 20:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I agree with lyacon, this is probably a bad scan from a book. Scanning this with a better scanner would probably already result in a better image. -- Gorgo 13:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I live in this area. Passendale (or Passchendaele as it was called during the First World War) was only one of the many towns that were completely destroyed during the battles round Ypres. The entire area, for miles and miles, was completely destroyed. The woods, the farms, the little rivers, ... absolutely everything, there was no tree left alive. This image gives the impression that only the buildings of the towns were destroyed. In the entrance hall of Tyne Cot cemetery where some soldiers who died during this battle are buried, a mosaic of multiple areal photographs is shown, of which this is only one (a big "collage" that show the situation before and after the battle, a few months and more than half a million deaths later). I'd appreciate it very much if someone would find that hi-res mosaic, which shows that the destruction was on a far larger scale than shown on this image. That mosaic would show the situation better than this one. When you look at that mosaic, tears start rolling every time. Tbc 17:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose as Lyacon --Karelj 19:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Historical value is of course immense, and the world needs indeed to be reminded again and again of the stupidity of all wars (and the stupidity of people promoting wars...). But this does not compensate the very poor technical quality of these pictures, which are definitely not FP. -- MJJR 20:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The quality of this picture is not measured in dots per inch. Sometimes you don't need a million pixels to have an emotional impact. Would a higher resolution version have more impact? I suspect not. But the point is moot, we don't have a technically perfect version, there is no technically perfect version of this photo. We aren't voting on photos we'd like to have if they existed. We are simply deciding, as is, where is, is this one of our most important images? Not prettiest, not most technically excellent, just most valuable. I will order a hardcopy and if a better quality scan is possible, I will do it. But it will not have a million pixels. If that is your measure of quality, then vote No now. If this picture, as is, doesn't touch you, then vote No. Otherwise, vote Yes. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This picture is not as good as this FP. -- Ram-Man 02:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Technically, no, this image is weaker. But emotionally? I don't want to get into comparisons, but for me, the Passchendale images hit harder. I'm not sure if a logical explaination of an emotion is useful, or even possible. This is emotional. There's no absolute scientific formulae to calculate the worth of a picture. Suffice to say that it moves me. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was referring only to the technical quality and using the previous FP as a benchmark. Judging emotional appeal is near impossible, as you say. -- Ram-Man 14:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment At the Imperial War Museum (London) they have lots of glass negatives of such striking pictures from WWI, which can perfectly be scanned according to modern digital standards -- MJJR 19:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Withdraw. I've ordered a copy of the image. I'll be renominate when I know what I can get out of a scan of it. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Withdrawn by nominator >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 23:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Selling fish 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Loppem Castle near Bruges 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 22:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Hornet King 

result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 22:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Cygne des Bains romain jardins de la fontaine Nîmes 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 22:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 22:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

 Info Palais Bourbon (seat of the National Assembly) in Paris at dusk. In the foreground is the river Seine crossed by the Pont de la Concorde. In the background on the right hand side the cupola of the Dôme des Invalides can be seen.
 Info Photographer: Webster (20 November 2002 evening time). Uploaded on february 6, 2005 at 01:14 by Webster.
 Comment although the image may look a little grainy at its full resolution (due to minor noise caused by low light conditions), it is not when viewed at 1.8 megapixels (so this fits with the conditions of quality, editing is then not necessary as we can just reducing a little its resolution to one that was judged sufficient for many featured pictures here). The perspective is good and does not produce undesirable optical effects on the size or orientation of elements. The composition features only important elements(distracting elements were avoided by not showing the street with cars). The colors are well balanced and rendered, including the many colorful reflexions on the River Seine. The subject itself is useful to locate the Palais within Paris, and give information about relative distances, and anyway this is a nice place to see (it is also featured as a good illustration for the articles on Wiipedia, and Palais Bourbon also has its own gallery page in Commons. Verdy p 07:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Who is nominating? Lycaon 22:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Lycaon 07:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose noisy, even at 1024 × 624 pixels preview. Lycaon 07:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose sorry, at 2MP viewing, this image is blotchy and lacks definition, probably due to noise reduction (although the "why" doesn't matter too much). -- Ram-Man 01:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I did NOT remove any definition, because noise reduction did not remove any contracting point (the noise reduction filter was adaptative, with a very low threshold, manually adjusted to avoid loss of details (made with The GIMP from the original, look at the history) ; this just allows the image to scale better at different sizes while preserving its contrast; no change was done to the color or light balance). The noise in the night sky is them completely removed, but no details are lost. The image is still best viewed with a reduction of size (the extra resolution provides details). It looks good at about 1.5 megapixels, instead of the original size. I think that the image waould have been qualified if I have reduced its size (using preferably a bicubic algorithm), despite this would have removed details... Unfortunately, Ican't contact the author of this cliché; using a longer exposition time would produce less details on water, and also because of waves at the surface of the Seine; the olysolution would be to use a special "night" mode in the camera, with long exposure at low sentitivity, terminated by a short exposure at high sensitivity to get contrasted on waves; or a serie of at least 4 fast clichés). Verdy p 19:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 22:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:formica 2.jpg

edit

Short description * Short description

Image #1 - not featured

edit 
 2 support, 2 oppose > not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

 Info This image shows a Carpenter ant (Camponotus ligniperda) --Makro Freak 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Bodhisattva statue at MaiJiShan, Tianshui, Gansu,China. 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Pittsburgh Union Station 

result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Saimiri sciureus 

result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Red Spider White Dots and Bars 2600px.jpg - not featured

edit

Six-spotted Fishing Spider Six-spotted Fishing Spider

EXAMPLE: Downsampled to show effective resolution

Picture #1

edit
  •  Support I wish the resolution was higher, but this was as close as I could get, hence the crop. He was in the same pond as the lotus. -- Ram-Man 15:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nice, but too small DOF. --norro 14:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I think the resolution and lighting and composition are great, but it seems to be not very sharp, although the DOF seems to put the spider in the centre of the focus range. Maybe it's a compression problem, maybe it's camera movement. Processing with the 'unsharp mask' filter in Gimp helps quite a bit. I won't vote against it as perhaps I'm being too picky. --Tony Wills 22:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had to hold the camera arms outstretched to try to get as close as possible to the spider. As a result, there was some amount of camera shake, but it's not terrible. This was also before I had a macro lens, so I couldn't get the magnification that I wanted. Of course cropping is never as good as downsampling for the same end resolution. I'll see if I can perform some more processing to clean it up. -- Ram-Man 22:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 1 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 15:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit 
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Colors of Altiplano Boliviano

* Oppose -- The clouds do not appear to match the sky. My suspension of disbelief is gone. {71.208.156.72 17:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC).} Please login to vote. --Digon3 17:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC) [reply] 

result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Heartsease (Viola tricolor) 

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Hydrangea flower*Hydrangea flower

Picture #1, not featured
  •  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 04:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info A single dried flower of the Bigleaf Hydrangea (Hydrangea macrophylla 'Tokyo Delight')
  •  Support -- Ram-Man 04:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Non-interesting, non-descriptive image. MatthewFenton 11:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose as MatthewFenton --Karelj 21:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I like it, but its too dark and I would prefer different lighting (though probably won't succeed because it is not a "flower" photo). As for being non-descriptive, it is a lot more descriptive than most other photos (it even has links). --Digon3 14:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean "it is not a flower photo". It is a flower. And it is descriptive and shows sharper details than most flower featured pictures. It also has perfect DoF control. Two people who think it is boring is not the end of the world, but I can see about changing the brightness of the image. -- Ram-Man 14:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant other people might vote against because it does't look like a flower (I was making an observation based on your other nominations). It is very descriptive and interesting photo of a flower, I was addressing the two people above.
p.s. It is a dead flower :) --Digon3 17:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a dead flower, but one in which being dead actually has significance. These plants are grown partially because the flowers last into spring, thus providing garden variety during the winter months. -- Ram-Man 22:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to explain, I was just trying to be funny. --Digon3 20:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Picture #2
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 08:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Underwood Typewriter

  •  Info created by Kolossos - uploaded by Kolossos - nominated by D-Kuru --D-Kuru 10:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --D-Kuru 10:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info A very nice idea, and well done. My only concern about promoting to FP status would be that the part in focus, to which the eye is drawn, is right on the far side of this image, and the central blurred section is too large and prominent. You have to look quite hard at the image to see what the true focus is. Maybe another shot with the ends of the keys less off to one side? --MichaelMaggs 11:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This is one of those shots that just looks like it should be great, but something just bothers me. My eyes are drawn to the blurry section. The DoF is either too shallow or the composition wrong. The shot has potential and trying it again until it is perfect is a good idea. -- Ram-Man 01:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Agree with Ram-Tam. Also the top left corner blur bothers me. /Daniel78 18:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 08:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Giant petrel.jpg

edit

A Giant Petrel at South Georgia Island

Withdrawn: [6]. ZooFari 02:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Drop Impact1.jpg

edit

Short description

Withdrawn: [7]. ZooFari 02:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/May_2007&oldid=118220756"