Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2007


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


a late Aglais urticae in autumn.

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 23:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 00:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  •  Info created by Astrokey44 - uploaded by Astrokey44 - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ちぃ? 17:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Cat ちぃ? 17:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now - Needs some improvements to reach FP level. Here are a few suggestions: (i) Crop the map at north, that area is never used; (ii) Insert the legend in the picture so that it is always visible; (iii) Instead of just writting the date, insert a time scale and a marker, which should move from left to right (BTW, times before Christ should have some kind of indication); (iv) The Europe map looks naked, some generalized geographic information would fit well in the representation. This suggestions also apply to the animation below - Alvesgaspar 19:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment If the legend is included, it can only be in one language. If the legend is external, it can be done in every language needed. So just add the legend to the description page.. --Jeses 11:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 00:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken at the Catavina region of the Baja California peninsula, Mexico, showing the flora of the area

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 11:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • (*ponders strangling Beyond silence and deleting his template*) If it doesn't succeed here because of technical quality and composition, why would it become a QI? --Pumpmeup 05:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because QI requirements are much more forgiving than FP. Calibas 00:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true; same technical qualities required, just less of a wow requirement... Doodledoo 19:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 00:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

50 buick model hood

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 01:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description Short description Short description

edit
result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 4 neutral => not featured (not enough support votes). Cecil 00:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit
  •  Info - I have uploaded a edited version, but I really think the image is beyond repair. It's a shame because the composition is very nice. Alvesgaspar 22:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - First of all, thanks Alvesgaspar, I like your version better... On the other hand, I come from the days where grain is just grain, generally accepted and given "normal" considerations, part of the image. Noise is nothing else but digital grain. Back in the old days, one could choose fine grain film, fine grain processing at the expense of not getting the image. It is no different now... one must choose ISO speed over other considerations in order to get the image. Not because the camera can produce noisless images, due maily to ISO setings, it means that every picture must be grainless. All pictures will show noise at certain magnifications, just like in the old days. And besides, screen displays are so far from print displays that some of these observations about noise are completely irrelevant. Noise, most of the time, is irrelevant. Grain, most of the time, is irrelevant. Some of the greatest pictures ever, were taken with the good old Kodak Tri X film, pushed, pulled, and grainy... What I see here, over and over, is a general misunderstanding of the medium and how the medium is evaluated and appreciated. Form is privileged over content. Alleged technical quality is privileged over true photographic quality. As I have often said, do not miss the lanscape beyond the window... Photography is just a medium... ----Tomascastelazo 03:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --For the edited version : if the noise of the background is better, the post-processing introduced heavy rainbow artefacts on the birds (head, body, their image in the water). Sting 12:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Oppose all versions. Very beautiful picture and composition but for my taste I dont see any mitigating reasons here. Low Q @ 3k, its a pity!° --Richard Bartz 14:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --Beyond silence 23:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 05:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 05:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 16:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is that really the scope of commons? Lycaon 23:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I quote: "Wikimedia Commons is a freely licensed media file repository (similar to stock photography archives) targeted at other Wikimedia projects." Wikipedia, I think, is an encyclopedic effort. Problem here is that there is sooooo much photography around here that is not appreciated for that value...--Tomascastelazo 23:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 05:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Pic du Midi d'Ossau, Pyrenees, France

* Support --85.24.202.140 15:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Please log in to vote ;) --Richard Bartz 16:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I only have a beginner camera can I make my photo FP, only because I only have low possibilities? No, so you can't too.

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 19:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to make sense (and stop redirecting people to QI when you reject FP status for technical reasons. It makes no sense.) --Nattfodd 21:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I want to support but it really isn't sharp enough, that's a shame. Great composition and colours. Hopefully next time, you'll have a bigger camera :) --Nattfodd 21:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your opinion.
  •  Neutral Ack Nattfodd. This world is not really hostile, but just (very) critical. Don't let you discourage. Try and try again, first in the QI section, and you will succeed! -- MJJR 21:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your opinion. I understand the critics.
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Cecil 05:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  • Full line labelling = les pointillés rouges foncés pour les annotations would probably look better as full lines, but it is not a conditio sine qua non. And I've looked at the request of the French graphics workshop, but there no explanation is given why the bolt has to be in 3D. Oh yes, BTW, you don't have to be sorry that you are French ;-)). Lycaon 18:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... je suis aussi de ton avis mais hélàs faire une jolie mèche en svg n'est absolument pas de mon niveau. J'ai donc pris une photo de ficelle, tenté et intérgé. Si tu peut faire mieux j'en serais ravi  ! -- Walké 21:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 05:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Central Massif of the Picos de Europa, showing the peaks of Peña Main overlooking the village of Sotres in Cabrales, Asturias, Spain.

BTW, I use my pano's in Powerpoint with a custom animated path to scroll them around automatically. Lycaon 21:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 05:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arc de Triomphe, in Paris

  •  Info Of course :) this is a 4x3 mosaic. I used a Canon EF-S 17-55mm at 55mm, f/8.0, 1.6sec and ISO 100. The original picture was much larger, but my target was something which fits into a 5000x5000 square with great sharpness, hence the actual resolution. I oversharpened the larger version (but not so much) and then downsampled it so even the little details remain visible enough. I'll update the description page tonight. Benh 09:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to accept the compliment, but I can't :) It seems you believe I used the 18-55mm... the 17-55mm is a totally different one, and it is a topnotch lense !! The best or one of the best in this focal range for sure... (see links on my user page for reviews). That said, it's certainly possible to get similar results from the 18-55 -- Benh 06:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Support --Thermos 04:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Pumpmeup 05:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Great colors. Rocket000 05:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I agree with Jaga, sharpness is really unbelievable! Great work, and thanks for sharing. --Nattfodd 07:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral - The detail on the arch is amazing and I'll probably support this picture later. There are some issues though: (i)I also don't like the perspective very much, the monument seems to be leaning to the right; (ii) What about the strict French law on monument pictures? (iii) The picture won't pass with this noisy sky!... Alvesgaspar 08:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Support - After the improvements. Great photo! - Alvesgaspar 11:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the perspective, I chose to have the vertical lines converging slightly, so it looks natural enough. I could choose another anchor point and another anchor vertical line. What would you suggest, so I can give it a try ? I'll fix the noise in the sky tonight (I used wrong parameters when sharpening this one...). There is no copyright problem, as Semhur mentionned below. Benh 09:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the perspective, nothing wrong with the converging verticals but I would move the anchor vertical line to the longer edge of the building (or slighly right of it?). Like it is, the edge at right is almost parallel to margin. Alvesgaspar 15:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question And what about damned French night light copyright law?--Beyond silence 08:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Detail is excellent. About the french law, it's not a problem here, because the Arc de Triomphe is two hundred years old. Sémhur 09:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Beautiful mood and colours. Good sharpness. Bravo Ben! --Simonizer 11:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose (for now) Good point of view and very good lightning. Excellent idea to make a mosaic which brings the level of details of a medium format camera, but… there are perspective problems and heavy lens distortions in barrel (for sure the use of the EF-S lens, one of the worst of Canon, didn't help). One concrete example : at the right, just left of the Eiffel Tower, the first level of the building is curve and goes to the left and the upper level goes to the right. This picture needs a lot of work in order to correct these issues (that's the problem of making a mosaic of a too close subject) : you will have to correct the distortion of each photograph (see here) and after mounting the mosaic, the general perspective. Alternatively, as Alvesgaspar wrote, it would be also good to soften some parts of the sky which makes blurs. Sting 12:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True. Hard to fix... It may be not only due to distorsion, but also to the fact that overlapping areas between pictures are very small, and then Hugin takes some liberty when warping pictures. I tried a restitch last night, which didn't give expected results, and I'll try another way when I can (hopefully by the end of this week)... Benh 07:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Juste une information concernant l'objectif utilisé... ce n'est pas un EF-S 17-55 de base mais le 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM qui est un excellent objectif (voir les liens vers les tests sur la page de Benh)... Sanchezn 09:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oups ! Ah oui, ce n'est pas le 18-55 mais le 17-55 qui a été utilisé. Désolé. Mais à priori il a était réglé sur une focale de 17mm au vu des distorsions. Dommage. Sting 15:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Décidément je n'ai pas les yeux en face des trous !! Il serait alors bon d'essayer avec un autre soft parce que celui-ci fait àmha un travail catastrophique qui n'est pas digne de cette image. Sting 17:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ça n'est pas Hugin, Hugin utilise les Pano Tools, comme PT Gui (bien que maintenant, celui-ci a son propre moteur dans certain cas). En fait, comme les images ne se chevauchent que sur une petite zone, Hugin déforme l'image en ne donnant priorité que sur cette zone, et se fiche du reste. Les images du droite sont corrigé en priorité sur leur partie gauche, ça peut donner de mauvaises surprises, comme celle que tu as si bien remarqué. J'ai refait le collage hier, avec nouveau paramétrage, et je suis fiers de te dire que j'ai corrigé le problème (ainsi que les autres mentionnés dessus) ! J'ai demandé à sanchezn mon bêta testeur ;) de faire une dernière passe dessus, puis j'écraserai la présente version. Benh 06:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. : Btw, the picture is not categorized !
  •  Support now : The perspective is much better as well as the sky, the picture is now categorized (but I cleaned them as cat:Arc de Triomphe is a sub-cat of all the others so they were unnecessary). The barrel distortions in each single image from the mosaic are still well visible so the picture is not as great as it could (should ?) be, but the overall quality (and work it needed) makes me think it's a very good picture which deserves the Quality label. Sting 14:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No copyright problem, I think. The building itself is too old for copyright and although in France claims have been made to copyright in lighting schemes (especially of the Eiffel Tower), this is not a copyright lighting scheme but a series of flood lamps. --MichaelMaggs 16:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Yes, no copyright problems for the building itself. As far as I know (I haven't checked the accuracy of what I'm going to say), night lightings aren't copyrighted either, unless they add a very artistic value to the rest. I think the "standard" lighting of Eiffel Tower (as seen on this pic) isn't copyrighted but the sparkling lights are. Benh 16:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info This FAQ says that publishing night pictures of the Eiffel Tower is copyrighted. Normally, this picture isn't concerned as the eiffel tower is far from being the main subject, is show in half of its part, and because of this case law. Benh 17:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support MichaelMaggs 16:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- MJJR 22:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support nice colours --Jeses 10:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info About copyright issues (again !). I just gave a call to the people in charge of Arc de Triomphe, and I've been confirmed that this picture is freely diffusable. Arc de Triomphe is in the public domain, lighting isn't copyrighted either (it seems to be very specific to the Eiffel Tower). The only thing that could have prevented such a picture to be diffused is the location from where it was taken. Some people might be interested to know that Pictures taken from the roundabout cannot be diffused (I don't understand why !! The more I dig into copyrights stuffs, the more I get lost...). Benh 14:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info About copyright issues (again and again !). People has to understand how this stuff works in France in order to a) not upload copyrighted material, b) stop asking each time the same questions about the legal validity of a photograph. The two most famous school cases are a) the Eiffel Tower by night because the lightning is operated by a commercial and private firm earning money from it's pictures (even if the building is public, that's why you can shoot it by day without problem) and b) the Pyramid at The Louvre (day or night) because the building is recent and considered an artistic work copyrighted by it's architect. This, as well as for some other buildings, applies only if the photograph pictures the building as main subject of the image. The striking (and quiet contradictory) example is the Pyramid which is so big that if you want to snap the main courtyard of The Louvre Palace, the Pyramid will occupy a big part of the picture. That's authorized as you can neither move out the Pyramid, nor find another POV for the courtyard without it. That's why this one is legally authorized, but I doubt this other one or that one are and should be deleted imo. For our example above, the Eiffel Tower is really a minimal element of the picture and obviously not the main subject, that's why the copyright on it's lightning can't apply here. About the Arc de Triomphe itself, of course it's an old building so no problem on this side and it's lightning isn't operated by a commercial firm in the contrary of the specific case of the Eiffel Tower. I hope it's clear enough so these questions about freedom of panorama and copyright law in France will not be asked each time a picture appears here. Sting 16:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks.--Beyond silence 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the french government?? And I thought the US was messed up. Dori - Talk 02:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing really wrong : as well as in other countries, recent artwork or firm / private creations are protected by copyright. What makes people usually think wrong about these two examples is that they are located in public places. Sting 14:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Cecil 05:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flower on aerogel

I agree, I like that picture more, but it's too small to nominate :( Rocket000 15:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 05:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Duck

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 17:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 17:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 17:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Blue Heron Colour halo

Effectivement, je ressentais la peur dans les yeux du poisson, hé hé hé ;) Acarpentier 19:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, forgive me if I have encroached upon a voter block here; it is fun how little groups of people always support each other, isn't it?! Doesn't everyone have fun with this? -- carol 05:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also like the heron 4 version showing wing... you are right about the cropping, I’ll do as you proposed. ;)Acarpentier 19:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't it obvious? When have you seen a seen where you get vivid yellow beak and eyes and virtually monochrome background? Including autumn colored leave? Including green growth near the river? Check out another one of the shots by Acarpentier, Image:Female Mallard Duck.jpg - anything strike you as odd with that? The only colour is on the bird? But that aside there's some pretty obvious clues, namely the colour halo around the heron's legs. See Image:Le Grand Heron temp.jpg. Honestly I've said it before but I'll say it again - you commons folk need to become a little more careful when examining photos.... --Fir0002 www 22:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I've said it before and I'll say it again - you need to learn how to make a point without being condescending. Most people will just see the negative tone and disregard the point altogether. Not to mention it makes you look kinda silly. --JaGa 06:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting perspective on this - if anything I would expect it would leave a lot of the above voters looking pretty silly that they didn't notice something which is pretty obvious. I think it would do voters well to take notice of this, because I've only decided to comment here in hopes of getting a better version of a pic I really liked; dare I suggest that if I hadn't comment this would never have been noticed? Dare I suggest that numerous images with manipulation which have gone unobserved by voters here? And if people are just letting there egos get in the way of proper voting well that's just another failing of com:fpc IMO. --Fir0002 www 09:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that you are wrongly presuming that people didnt notice it and that's where you're bit too fast on conclusion... Even on QI process people remarked it, and it pass the test anyways. You should just step down a bit and relax, think twice before acting like that and insult people... ;) Acarpentier 14:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK if any of the above supporters (prior to my comment) can honestly say that they knew that the image had been selectively desaturated and still supported without comment I'll gladly apologise. But I seriously doubt anyone did.... --Fir0002 www 22:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Is there some sort of Australian kids vs. Richard Bartz war going on? Well, anyways, I for one don't know what selective background desaturation is or why it's bad. Could you enlighten me? --JaGa 07:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??? It's not even taken by Richard Bartz! Selective background desaturating is where you either use a sponge tool to desaturate or as I suspect was the case in this image, duplicate layers and desaturate the bottom layer to about 70% and then erase through. This is bad because it presents reality in a way which is impossible (leaves and that will never by near monochrome whilst the bird is full colour, and I personally find it very bad aesthetically. --Fir0002 www 22:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer using adjustement layer in photoshop than to duplicate a layer. In that way you keep the image layer clean and original. I also found very usefull the photo filter tab to fight against bad lightning, and cost less money than buying real filter. Anyway I found it better like that and think that the background where distracting. Take a look, do you like it better? ;) Acarpentier 23:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer this one

edit

Great Blue Heron

* Info - If you prefer without the vignetting. ;) Acarpentier 23:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 17:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  •  Oppose Sorry, too much of the boring steps for my liking, and the shadows are also rather noisy. --MichaelMaggs 06:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose sorry I know it is hard work to stitch that. But it really is the typical shot of that church. I know the square in front of that church makes it difficult to get a better view on the church as it is sloping and those stairs are also not helpful.... Maybe one day someone will upload a picture of that church made out of a building opposite to the church. --AngMoKio 07:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree and I don't agree:). Yes it it is a typical view bottom up. But what makes it different is that this is the only angle where no lighting poles or fountain are obscuring part of the building (as also taken here). The opposite buildings are quite low an I don't think they are readily accessible (small shops, a few restaurants, if I remember right). I hope someone who lives there, one day obtains a reasonable digital camera, takes a good shot and posts it on Commons (or is this too long a shot...). ;-). I do acknowledge your critics however. Lycaon 10:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 17:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

Would say a reflection of the red wall on a metallic surface --Richard Bartz 08:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tried it before but it looked to stocky for my taste. There is not much choice to find a spot to take a nice picture without disturbing buildings in the background. If taken from the left side you have the Kalaschnikov museum in the background, taken from the opposite side there is a unfortunate hill I was very happy that there was no parked cars on this time :) Otherwise the white lines on the ground fits with the white decoration lines on the building, just my opinion --Richard Bartz 08:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are accustomed to a high image, it appears stocky cut. But stocky itself even for a picture makes no sense, the size suited to its subject/ Si tu es habitué a une image haute, découpée elle paraît trapue. Mais trapue en soi même pour une image n'a pas de sens, les dimensions son adaptée au sujet.Sorry, all my english com from Google translate. walké 13:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Great picture. I'm going to change to support, if this file with progressive jpeg-encoding is replaced by a normal jpeg version. I think progressive jpeg is rather disturbing the whole thing. --Jeses 10:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
? No clue, whats the difference? --Richard Bartz 11:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's very disturbing when you load it with a slow internet-connection. --Jeses 15:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Support much better --Jeses 10:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Digitaldreamer 18:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- MJJR 19:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose After reflection, I think the parking is really annoying -- Walké 08:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Composition is really nice... surely a definitive image. - Noumenon talk 16:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question This picture is really nice, but why is it so small ? I have in mind people complaining about Fir0002's lowres pics, but we aren't that far from a picture fitting in a 1600 square here (and most of your recent submissions seen on FPC fit in a 1800 square)... I can understand that a picture of an insect needs being downsized to produce apparent quality because from my experience, it's harder to shoot macro than shooting landscape. But taking this kind of picture doesn't require that much dexterity I believe (so I suspect the larger version to have sufficient quality for FP), one just need to be at the right place, at the right time, under right conditions. Benh 17:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Size? surely, because its a one-shot taken by hand and to avoid these unpleasant commentaries about noise. Its not a 155 picture collage but it can stand --Richard Bartz 18:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. I was just finding that this was quite a huge downsizing from a camera which takes 10mpix pics. I personnaly don't find the Canon 400D that noisy at 200 ISO (not enough for being a reason to oppose on FPC). I do the same (I reduce pics to fit them in 2000 square) when using my 18-55, which isn't very sharp, but I think you have some much better lenses (which one here ?). Benh 20:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A cheap and not so sharp Sigma 18-50mm when iam travelling, but i am going to upgrade with this :) ASAP and this in a few weeks :)... The downsampling of my last insect macros was because i bought a Tamron 180mm Macro which has a strange backfocus on my 400d, but works great on a 5d or 1d. Its possible to adjust it but i give my 400d away :) :) :). --Richard Bartz 00:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, and sorry to make you justify... I own "this" and strongly encourage you to get it :) But this is an EF-S lense and you said you wanted to give away your 400d ? does the new body you want to upgrade to take EF-S lenses ?? -- Benh 08:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that EF-S doesn't fit on 5d/1d but after (feb-may) i will sell the 400d with it as a kit lense. ;) --Richard Bartz 11:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]
result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 17:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aloe aristata

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 08:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 17:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

You can often find her on the ground. --Richard Bartz 22:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dito --Richard Bartz 20:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldnt say easy shot .. this caterpillar is moving all the time, just 1 of 15 photos was usable --Richard Bartz 09:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but its alot easier than for example a bird or a wasp or similar. And i never said the picrure wasnt good... But, it just looks to artificial. Yzmo 07:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 17:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  • Somewhere around munich, cant remember it was long ago. (June if exif says September) Why you asking for ? You planning to oppose because it has no location temp ?`--Richard Bartz 08:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion about Slaunger gets bored on Insects on flowers pictures is moved to here
result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 17:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Cecil 23:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 19:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment I am intrigued by the interference pattern of all the circular small water waves. Is this a wild-life shot? I suggest you add geodata to the photo. The photo is not thaat sharp, and all this water gives a subjective feeling of blurriness leaving the impression of a slightly messy composition. I cannot make up my mind on what to vote on it though. I would like to give an additional comment. I do not like sarcastic comments and personal attacks rearding other reviewers evaluations as above. There seems to an uprising of harsh sarcastic comments like that, which are not in the spirit of the guidelines stating that you should always be polite. I too do not always agree with other reviewers opinions and often shake my head. However, I propose either to ignore reviews you cannot approve of or give a more balanced reply. In the end single wrong evaluations does not normally influence the end result as normally quite a lot of users vote on FPC, which averages out anomalies. The rules state that any Commons user is entitled to vote on and have an opinion on the photos here. It is not stated that you should have qualified as a reviewer somehow. -- Slaunger 20:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You get out what you put in, just my opinion. No robots here. --Richard Bartz 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Slaunger, It is a wildlife shot, hanging from a manglar, low light conditions. Sharpness? Well, that is an academic point… The picture was taken at 60th of a second, so there is motion blurr, and the subject itself was moving. The skin color and texture do mimic the environment, a good predator camouflage. Distance? 10 feet? Maybe less. But of course, the technical difficulties and the danger inherent in this type of situation in no way match the mortal danger incurred in close up lady bug photography. Next time I will take to the swamp lighting equipment, a make up artist, several crocs in order to take that “Feature Picture” with a 200 megapixel camera. Sarcasm? Yes. But what is sarcasm an answer from?--Tomascastelazo 21:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, the danger incurred is of course irrelevant: or you take the picture or you don't, and BTW you can make a 200 Mpix picture by stitching 40-odd 5Mpx (allow some overlap) snaps. Lycaon 21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The circular patterns in the water are most probably produced by the croc vocalizing with infrasound underwater. Lycaon 21:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose if only for those patterns. But quality is really too low. Lycaon 21:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Thank you for explaining the special circumstances. That is one of the reasons why I asked without coming to immediate conclusions first. I think the special circumstances overcompenstaes technical issues. Very nice. And no, I still do not approve of the sarcasm, I was just asking a question to learn more. -- Slaunger 21:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Slaunger: Sarcasm not directed at you and thanks for your vote!. Lycaon: Thanks! All: This is true for me: I am my own harshest critic, and when I critique someone else's work, I do it following well established photographing judging criteria. That it the least I owe to someone I critisize. Do I fall short? Probably, and due to my own ignorance. However, by acknowledging my own ignorance and shortcomings, and doing something about it, I lessen the damage bad judging can create.--Tomascastelazo 21:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I think Lewis Carroll put it best: Calibas 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How doth the little crocodile
Improve his shining tail,
And pour the waters of the Nile
On every golden scale!
How cheerfully he seems to grin
How neatly spreads his claws,
And welcomes little fishes in,
With gently smiling jaws!
  •  Oppose Not so much on its technical merits - it is sharp enough and has sufficient light - but the subject is too much hidden in it's environment to generate an outstanding image, a wow factor. I understand that hiding is the predator's intend and yet as a photographer I have to have the patience and yes luck to find it in a situation where it stands out and presents itself in all its beauty (well here beauty is relative) to the viewer. Wwcsig 23:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose due to technical quality, and I hope people are not getting themselves in dangerous situations just to get FPs. Dori - Talk 17:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I said elsewhere that I was not going to be participating in these things, but this photograph is awesome! I know that the collection which is the Featured pictures is not necessarily mentioned in the guidelines but if you look at the collection; the photographs that are there and the photographs that are missing and judge photographs like you would how a teeter totter works where it is a total weight not just both sides being perfectly matched. As far as safety goes, the more crocodile photographs there are, the less of a need for them and that much more is understood about photographing them. I can see a day in the future when a photograph of a crocodile is not supported because the Featured pictures collection has 30 of them and 4 dead photographers as well. My support hopefully will move these photographers into a future like that. Thank you for not only giving this photograph to the commons collection but having the balls to show it here where the bug and flower people will try to hurt your feelings. -- carol 05:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This kind of so-called support vote is actually there to debase photographer who do an effort to sit still for hours trying to capture a high quality botanical or entomological picture. Sarcasm has become the rule in FP. It doesn't matter whether you make a picture of a fly in your garden with your 100€ digital camera or whether you are fortunate (as in having lots of money) enough to make that shot with your state-of-the-art camera on the top of the world. A good picture is a good picture. Every good syrphid picture gets my support, every bad Asian tsunami pic my oppose, and vice versa. If the only thing you are here for is to insinuate and spew sarcasm, it would be better if you stayed away. Criticize pictures not people, you can always start FPh (Featured Photographer) if you want to do that. I can very much appreciate critics (in al senses) from people who contribute and show they know what they are talking about but in your case it is as we say in Dutch "De beste stuurlui staan aan wal", Lycaon 06:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sir or madam Lycaon, I love those Macro shots as well. I really do. Lord knows, they do not get the support they deserve around here and I will try to vote favorably for more of them. Thank you for correcting me. -- carol 07:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, do the Commons Photographers use a buddy system when getting photographs like this? I was wondering if there was a gallery of photographers being eaten by their subject yet or plans for one in the future? You know, things just happen and it would be nice to have a camera around when they do happen. -- carol 13:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, what happened there, Carol? Did a million neurons just zap instantaneously in your brain causing a spasm of arbitrary keyboard commands followed by a violent jerk unwillingly pressing you finger on the mouse button while having the pointer positioned over the Save page button? (This is not meant as sarcasm. This is meant as concern.)-- Slaunger 13:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. And no offense is taken. I was imagining hanging from a tree getting photographs of a crocodile and thought it would be nice to have a photograph of this photographer taking that photograph -- regardless of the outcome. There was that bird photograph and Dori mentioned (or hinted) that the photographer had to be lying on his belly in the wet sand to get it. There is a joke somewhere within all of this about imagining imagery imaging but I can't make it work out correctly. I began all of this with the assumption that the photographer knew the equipment that was being used and was comfortable with it and was mostly safe the whole time.-- carol 14:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so that's what you meant? I got the impression from your previous comment that you suggesting feeding Commons photographers to wild animals while photographing it. I'm glad we settled that misundertsanding of mine. I think these thoughts about imagining imagery imaging (albeit interesting) are quite off-topic for the evaluation of this FPC though. -- Slaunger 14:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MichaelMaggs – I normally upload images that are mostly unprocessed, except perhaps histogram adjustments and minor color adjustments. The reason I do this is so if the image is used in print (or other media), it can be manipulated with freedom for any application, that is, from unsharp to sharp, from low to high contrast, to the measure required by the final output. Over processing may look a picture look nice on screen, but be usless for other applications. In fact, most of the time reduces the possibilities of the editor.
  • ALL: Well, I leave you all, and take my sarcasm away with me…. Have fun with the bees and the flowers!!! Love,

--Tomascastelazo 15:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support - It is sharp enough all right, and if it has not enough wow factor, I don't know what has. Sometimes this evaluation process is a real farce. We accept very-very simple maps only because they are self-made, but very old and rare ones are rejected, because they are old...--Szilas 18:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 22:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

Short description

  • The concept of an Aquifer is explained on en:. The image is a vectorized version of a drawing by the USGS geologists, whom I trust to know what they are talking about ;-). Not being a geologist myself, I have to rely on specialists for the correct terminology. Lycaon 07:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 supports, 1 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 22:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  • CRITIQUE First of all, bad time of day to take photograph, harsh light flattens the image. Second, I would have taken it from ground level so it silhouettes against the plain sky, giving us a better shape or contour. Third, I would have chosen a larger aperture in order to have just the plant in focus and foreground and background out of focus in order to concentrate on the subject. Enough environment detail would have been conserved without distracting attention from the subject. Fourth, I would have taken the picture with softer, side light in order to enhance volume and texture. --Tomascastelazo 23:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point 2 may have been remediated at the time. The lighting conditions however were as they were. We were on our way from Twyfelfontein to Sesfontein over several hundreds of kilometres dirt roads. We only saw P. lealii that once and it happened to be almost lunch time. Are those mitigating circumstances? I would think not. But where these plants grow (20°S, no trees, no clouds), soft light is limited to the 90 minutes after and before sunrise and sunset. And what concerns point three: it was very windy high up those hills, so I needed the speed. Alas!. Lycaon 23:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not say "Oppose", I said "critique".A larger aperture would have given you a faster shutter speed and reduce depth of field.--Tomascastelazo 00:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, that could have been an option. But don't you think that showing the harsh stony desert environment where these plants grow is an asset here? IMO it enhances the encyclopaedic value of the image (and probably slightly reduces the phototechnical value). Lycaon 07:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It is by far the best photo in Commons of this unusual tree depicted in what appears to be a very hostile environment. The light is harsh, yes, but I actually think that adds to emphasizing the harsh environment. Taking the photograph in the morning and evening would have lead to a "nicer" light, but it would not be representative of the scenario I think. -- Slaunger 20:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Love it. A wonderful subject with TONS of wow (seriously, I'm drooling) and I think that outweighs the few problems raised above (Can't we all just get along?) Doodle-doo Ħ 21:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I also think the lighting is flat, and DOF could be shallower but overall quality is good to me, and the subject is unusual (to me also). Benh 00:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't find the subject very interesting, don't like the light, focus seems subpar. Sorry. --JaGa 17:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 supports, 1 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Cecil 22:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sligachan Bridge on Skye

  •  Info Regarding brightness, the blue channel is already at the limit. As I think that altering the contrast would change the image character, I see no proper way of making the image brighter. -- Klaus with K 11:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Yellow-legged Gull (Larus michahellis) on a guano encrusted rooftop in Gibraltar

edit

Perpendicular Gothic architecture, Palace of Westminster.

Edit1

edit

Perpendicular Gothic architecture, Palace of Westminster.

Short description

  •  Info created & uploaded & nominated by Richard Bartz talk 19:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info If you think the earlier picture is to straight and enc. I can offer you this.
  •  Support Frisky and surreal, for those who know Richard Bartz talk 19:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral for now - The subject is lovely if a twinge small, but I really don't like what appears to be an applied blur over the rock in the foreground. The line along which it ends intersects with some of the rufous colouring on the rock near the fly and it bothers me. Perhaps a more graduated blue to give the illusion of DOF would be better. Therefore the neutral for now; I'd like to see what the photo looked like before the blur. Gorgeous otherwise, no complaints aside from the blur : ) Doodle-doo Ħ 20:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - No way, I take this as an aesthetical experience (which didn't work out) - Alvesgaspar 21:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't like the composition either, and for another insect it should be something amazing. Dori - Talk 04:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I think it has too much blurred background and foreground. /Ö 09:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Good selective DOF, nice dynamic lines. --Thermos 14:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I think the line ascending from left to right shouldn't go directly through the corners and it is in general a bit too steep. The fly should look in the other direction...not "outside the photo". I give neutral bcs i always appreciate it when people experiment with compositions - i would love to see more such experiments here. --AngMoKio 14:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Cropped, I support. Because the rest is good -- Walké 14:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, a similar image with the fly at the top instead of at the bottom i would have supported. This i can not support. --Aqwis 19:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I thought a lot about the comments regarding the composition. Not that i have planned/calculated this before but even a golden spiral fits perfectly onto this composition (showing that i dont unlearned my sense of proportion) ... just to show up that this picture is not trivial. It's a matter of opinion if the fly is moving upward or downward, is the journey the reward ? Is it christianity that you have always the feeling something should go upwards, like jesus was going on the Mount of Olives ? Or is it the feeling of the conqueror who want to be the king of the hill. The truth is that i have taken 120 pictures where no flies moved upwards, they all came along from the top of the treestump, dont ask me why and I as a nature-photographer tried to ban this on my sensor with my own style of symbolic speech. --Richard Bartz 20:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I would like to see the not-pshopped original. -- carol 22:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think a roughly 20 degree clockwise rotation and a tighter crop would make this a better picture, something like but without the horrible clone-stamp job. Of course, this may be impossible to do keeping it over 2 million pixels. Calibas 23:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info @ Carol'n'Calibas ;-) Find the uncropped, uninterpolated 10mp version here --Richard Bartz 01:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination Iam convinced now that this is not the right place to nominate such pictures, thank you very much for your constructive comments --Richard Bartz 09:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmm...what do u mean by "such pictures"? The picture is no far away from a picture i would support. I would regret not to see more "such pictures" here. --AngMoKio 10:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

You're right, I suppose. I've changed my vote. Doodle-doo Ħ 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It is indeed a good picture, however, I would crop out the orange section, as it "weights" on top without adding value to the image, it is a distracting element. As for the DOF, it is as it is, inherent to macro photography, no problem there. Congrats. --Tomascastelazo 20:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see it like BOB ROSS (rest in peace, buddy), a hill in the background with a surreal sky which gives a lot of space (works as a landscape). But if you view at 100% the background disapears :) As i hold it with creative commons this picture can be later cutted, rotated or whatsoever. Here is the raw material where everything is possible --Richard Bartz 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Nothing special, you have much better than this (for example this one, this one and this one, just to mention some of the first in your gallery). Technically it is a correct picture, though not exceptional. I think it would barely pass the QIC barrier. In aesthetical terms, it is a risky business to nominate this kind of critter, without a flower to soften its ugliness. Yes, that side could be also exploited but only with a better resolution/detail and sharpness -- Alvesgaspar 21:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find this fly beautiful and probably iam more courageous than you. Regarding my old pictures you listed, I dont like to repeat myself but rather try new scopes for design. This picture has a much better quality than my old ones because they're all crappy flashlight pics. C'est la vie, i'am more large hearted in reviewing macro pictures than you ;-)) --Richard Bartz 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buy a Sigma 150mm which is not that expensive and join the club of true macrofreaks ... if you do macro shots similar to your last great contributions then it would be a hot winter :-) Join the freaks ! --Richard Bartz 22:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination Iam convinced now that this is not the right place to nominate such pictures, thank you very much for your constructive comments --Richard Bartz 09:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment This one seemed to have a chance to make its way through to FP ! I liked both actually (with a preference for the one above), maybe you shouldn't have withdrawn them so quickly so more people can review it :) Benh 10:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Benh, i take this withdraw with a pinch of salt ;) Its a approach to test possibilities. The tendency is a decreasing admiration for a whole spamflood of insect macros. So i should come along with something outstanding, because my attempt for the return to essence in insect macros failed. Maybe because iam not surrounded with like-minded people, where finally said this list cannot be the place for this, and such great shots should be better contributed here or there for reviewing and promotion. Last sarcastic but precise joke: Why you dont place this Image:EM Spectrum Properties.svg on a flower to soften its ugliness ? CU back in spring 2008, Regards--Richard Bartz 12:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may not be appropriate, but it may be too :), but if you don't ask/try, you never know. This one was on a good way to being promoted, so the admiration hasn't "decreased" as much as you said. Hadn't you close the nomination, you could have had even more feedbacks, I don't think that would have bothered people here. Benh 17:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  •  Comment I pondered for a long time whether to upload this photo or not. Turns out I shouldn't have. I'm sick and tired of seeing great photos (not only mine) being dragged in the mud because the background looks a bit unsharp at 300%. I get the impression that (almost) no one really cares about the photo, only about technical nitpicking. Never does the value of the image, the difficulty involved in taking it or its beauty enter as factors in your decisions to oppose.
    This is the last image I nominate for FP (and probably contribute to commons, for that matter). Have fun promoting the 25678th image of a bee on a flower. --Nattfodd 11:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said. This is exactly what I've been thinking about too. Usually, someone submits a picture, one of the insiders finds some nitpicking reason to dislike it, and the rest follow. And like you said, nothing trumps the tech details (remember people disliking this war picture because the private who snapped the shot hadn't used a tripod? Sure, it's an amazingly powerful photo taken over 60 years ago during a war, but it just isn't sharp enough. That's plain ridiculous.) What's worse, only the people OUTSIDE the clique are subject to the nitpicking - the insiders receive a much lower level of scrutiny. I'll bet Commons loses a lot of photographic talent to the politics of FP.
    Nominations/authorship should be anonymous, and votes unseen until the result is decided, to stop this group voting; but that seems impossible, and sometimes people's comments are helpful in evaluating a pic (like pointing out noise or ghosting that I hadn't noticed or something like that).
    So it does seem very discouraging. I don't blame you for withdrawing; it's hard to put your own work out there and watch it get stomped by people who seem to take pleasure in it. But you should stick around to fight back.
    LOLed on the bee comment BTW. --JaGa 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support. As for fighting back, I wouldn't really know how to do it except than keeping uploading and getting rejected over stupid reasons (and the mere thought of Beyond silence leaving a critic on another photo of mine is making me want to kill kittens...). Honestly, since it's 'only' FP on wikipedia, I just don't see it as worth all the frustration it brings me. On the other hand, if you find some other way to lobby for e.g. anonymous voting (which seems to be a great idea), I'd be glad to help. --Nattfodd 20:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I much much agree with Jaga (and Nattfodd). I remember I felt very dissapointed that this pic of mine got declined for perspective reasons when it was the desired effect... and was thinking that it only has to be an insect on flower to succeed. I was also wondering if the earliest votes didn't have an influence on the following ones. But I also agree with Michael Maggs, I have the feeling the process is good, generaly, the pictures featured are very good. Probably my dissapointment was because I took me lot of work and time to produce the pano. As I seen somewhere (Ram-Man's page ?), this process shouldn't be taken too seriously, there's a lot of subjectivity involved, there isn't any competition or whatever and nothing to win but pride, recognition by other people (at least to me), hearing other opinions, and learning (I learnt a lot from Diliff's panos). Benh 17:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is a bit sad that you do not want to contribute more to commons, because this FP section has nothing to do whether an image is valuable or not. Even if I never get a picture promoted I will not see that as a reason to stop contributing to commons. It's important to remember that a rejected FP is not a rejected commons image in any way. /Daniel78 21:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't take this too personally. Loads of us have had what we believe to be unreasonable objections to our FP candidates, but in the end the results seems to work out fairly well. What bothers one person a lot (the upper crop in this case was the very first thing that drew my eye, and to me significantly affects the image's beauty) bothers others not at all. There are already several support votes and, who knows, this picture may well succeed. Please don't stop nominating or, worse, contributing. Your images are always of very high quality and are of great usefulness to Commons. Nobody wins every time, though. (ps I think we may recently have raised the bar for bees). --MichaelMaggs 16:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this time we don't riding on minor tech. problems! I think if your composition is more concentrate on the vulcan it can be really great. --Beyond silence 16:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who's citing any technical problems in your picture? It's an aesthetic issue this time. I disagree with the people here all the time, but this is to be expected since art is subjective. You're picture is of what looks to be a volcano summit, people expect to see one of two things, either the view from the summit or a good shot into the volcano. This picture is at least 50% rocks on the ground. Also "the 25678th image of a bee on a flower" (actually a fly) is currently doing worse than your picture and it's from our best macro photographer. Calibas 18:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This comes off as downright cruel. --JaGa 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So was the initial comment regarding the reviewer. -- Slaunger 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the initial comment was tongue-in-cheek. Calling a picture "really useless" is just mean. --JaGa 23:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bull. Didn't you see the mitigating smiley? Lycaon 23:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It is a great picture! Unless, of course, all the chairborne commandos around here have a better one... I've been in and out of this forum for a few months and sadly, I believe it has been hijacked by know nothing nitpicks, who of course, pride themselves in believing to be photography critics. A camera does not make a photographer nor language a critic. Nattfodd is a generous photograher that brings into this forum or effort great images from afar, from places most of us will only know from his pictures, and to knock them down with silly pseudo teckie arguments does a disservice to the Wikipeda effort, and to boot, only exhibits ignorance of the worst kind, contrary to the spirit of the Encyclopedia, in its true extension of the word. By knocking this photograh of Nattfodd and at the same time promote, for example the Neon picture to FP what shows is the vastness of stupidity. Sorry to put it that way... and if the shoe fits, wear it.--Tomascastelazo 18:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Excellent sharpness (even in the mountains in the background) - I get vertigo on behalf of that guy. --JaGa 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Digitaldreamer 18:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The crop is very tight indeed, but for a 360° this doesn't bother me really. Breath-taking view and excellent sharpness. -- MJJR 19:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support That crop is a bit of an eyesore - it is immediately noticed, but I find it is overcompensated by the otherwise exceptional quality of the photo taken at an unusual place at very high altitude. -- Slaunger 20:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment We're all here to try an improve Wikipedia (I hope), let's try to treat each other with respect. Disagreement is healthy, but resorting to personal insults is rather immature. We're here to judge the images, not the other users. If you have a problem with another user, tell them on their talk page. If you have a problem with the FP requirements, there's a talk page for that too. Calibas 22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Who is insulting who? Aren't the conditions, whatever they may be, that make Nattfodd and his talent leave this encyclopedic effort the real insult? --Tomascastelazo 22:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To quote you, "I believe it has been hijacked by know nothing nitpicks, who of course, pride themselves in believing to be photography critics" and "By knocking this photograh of Nattfodd and at the same time promote, for example the Neon picture to FP what shows is the vastness of stupidity". Know nothing nitpicks isn't an insult? If you or the other editors here have a problem with the way FPs are chosen there's a forum where we discuss these things, Commons talk:Featured picture candidates. Starting a flame war because individuals have different opinions is nothing but detrimental to the people here and Wikipedia as a whole. Calibas 03:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Technically outstanding, sharpness, light and stitching seem flawless but the crop is such an essential element of the effect on the viewer that the missing hilltop spoils the otherwise wonderful image. Wwcsig 23:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without the right part.
Without the right part.
  •  Comment. Maybe can you try to cut the right part of the picture to make the crop disappear. Whatever the length may be, it will remain a great picture, won't it? Thierry Caro 02:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Something like the one I've uploaded, or even shorter.
  •  Oppose For the crop. Not only the mountain on the right but also the smoking hole that is hidden... Sanchezn 07:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support the original image as presented - rhs - bulk presence, rhc volcanic gassed entryway surmounted by clouds, lhc presence and scale feature, lhs distance feature showing true scale of the photo and the accomplishment (high-altitude blue with cloud haze under). IFFF this sequence is contemporaneous, a masterful composite work, if separate timed shots, a very impressive montage. Either way a rich and worthy image. Franamax 13:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Extraordinary image. Keep up the great work. Jespinos 00:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support First you gotta get there. The contrastyness is what it looks like, isn't it? I appreciate seeing the panorama without having to go there myself. It was stitched together by someone who had a lot of respect for the situation as well, I think. I found one place where the stitching is not so good, I would volunteer to fix this if none of the other more experienced stitchers are available. I think the bickering about the crop is kind of moot, too bad there is no way to vote on the voters. -- carol 05:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done what I can to over-document that little error here.-- carol 07:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Also, it is a clone error (I think) and not a stitch error. I think I fixed my error as much as I can while sitting here on this chair critisizing the system. -- carol 11:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 15 supports, 7 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 11:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lascar summit

result: 5 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh 09:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lipostructure on Réunion

result: 6 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh 09:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A child waits for her evacuation orders to end and wonders whether she still has a home. Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego wildfires of 2007. Taken 24 October 2007.

result: 1 support, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh 10:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Street children

  • DORI, thanks for the gesture, I appreciate the spirit of the editing and the name change, and most of all, the critique and the time you took. I can go with no problem on the editing, however, the name change I do take issue with, for it is part of the picture, its meaning, its message. These are not street children, they are farm children, below poor, children of migrant workers who risk their life crossing the border to work the US fields, where they are not wanted, but needed, to put those nice, wholesome vegetables on US plates, displaced from their own fields due to the economic conditions created, in part, by agribusiness… But of course, none of that matters…. Bees and flowers definitely have a deeper, more sublime purpose… and they do!--Tomascastelazo 15:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first thing we learned at my old graphic school was: "Children, Animals and Erotic" when they're talking about what motif is the best to sell. Here on your nice picture we have children which are normaly most-favored as you can see here, here, here, here and here and .... :) --Richard Bartz 19:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (should have been rule of the 5th day). Benh 22:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Coat of Arms of the City of Sheffield

Mαяcιи n ® 15:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original have many gradients --libertad0 ॐ 16:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I agree with MARCIN N: the surrounding figures can have gradients, but the escutcheon itself can definitely not have gradients! BTW, this coat of arms is heraldically speaking rather bad, but that's not the responsability of The Photographer, who did a good job - except the gradients in the escutcheon: if you change them to flat colors, I'll support. -- MJJR 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (should have been rule of the 5th day). Benh 22:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original

edit

Short description

  •  Info A diagram of the EM spectrum, showing the type, wavelength, frequency and black body emission temperature. Adapted from EM_Spectrum3-new.jpg, which is a NASA image. Created and uploaded by Inductiveload, nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 07:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Alvesgaspar 07:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Lycaon 11:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC) to edit. Lycaon 22:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Jarekt 13:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Thermos 14:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support very nice work -- walké 14:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Very nice indeed. There is just one thing that bothers me: All such diagrams I have seen resp. noticed yet go from lower to higher wavelength (resp. from higher to lower frequency) from left to right. This was irritating at first view. Since this is an SVG it should be easy to edit. No reason to oppose though since I reall like this diagram. --norro 15:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not always so. I can add that all such diagrams I remember seeing has used the same convention of starting at the long wavelengths. Si it seems like there is not a fixed convention regarding this. -- Slaunger 20:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like this a lot. Very clear. --MichaelMaggs 15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC). Now supporting edited version. --MichaelMaggs 07:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I love a good, informative diagram. --JaGa 18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- MJJR 19:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support One comment though. I do not think peak wavelength is the best way of stating the equivalent black-body temperature as it could give the impression that it is the maximum wavelength emitted in the black-body wvae-length spectrum (which it is not). I have not found the perfect formulation, but I guess characteristic or most probable is more correct somehow. -- Slaunger 20:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC). Support moved to edited version. -- Slaunger 09:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - There is a slight improvement to make: instead of "Wavelenght /m" and "Frequency /Hz", it should read "Wavelenght (m)" and "Frequency (H)z". To Slaunger: none of the formulations is good enough because it is not possible to describe energy distribution(over frequency) with a single number. - Alvesgaspar 08:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ..unless you indicate descriptions of the distribution such as the mean of, the maximum of or the median of. The problem is it gets too technical for the targeted viewers. My suggestion to use "characteristic" is an attempt to use a more everyday word than the descriptive statistics terms. Peak is a pretty bad coice unless it is something like the wavelength of radiation with peak (or maximum) intensity. But it just gets too involved and long. Hmm...tough one. Did you not intend to write "Frequency (Hz)" by the way? I would say that "Frequency [Hz]" is equally good as it is an often used convention to enclose units in brackets. Actually I think the original notation "Frequency/Hz" is good notation too as it explicitly indicates that what you see is a number divided by its physical unit. But we are getting awfully nitty-gritty here I think. -- Slaunger 08:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally quite like "...is the emitted wavelength with peak intensity", but thats still pretty long. "Characteristic" is OK, but I don't particularly like it as it sounds technical but isn't the standard phrase used to describe it. Unless it is and I don't know it, in which case I'm wrong and that's the best option.
    As for the units, if you write frequency (Hz), then it could mean that frequency is a function of Hz, or that it's multiplied. By dividing, you get a dimensionless quantity which is actually what is on the diagram (how do you place a Hertz on a piece of paper?) Maybe I could have Frequency / [Hz], as this emphasises division by units, rather than a variable.Inductiveload 15:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment There's some objections over at the en candidacy. 124.178.183.181 09:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --WarX 09:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Scale, scale, scale!!![reply]
    Can you elaboare on what you mean? If it is the size of the image shown, it can be of any size as it is in the scalable vector graphics format. You can magnify it as much as you want. Or maybe it is something different you are referring to? -- Slaunger 09:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is same distance on scale between 10^15 and 10^16 as 10^16 and 10^18. This should be made as proper logarithmic distance (10^18-10^16 should be twice as 10^16-10^15). --WarX 12:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with that is that the cutoffs for accepted frequency ranges (radio, microwave) etc, are NOT logarithmic. Sure I could make it on a log scale, but then all the diagram would be unevenly spaced. This diagram puts them all together and gives each band approximately equal weight. The scale is not supposed to be linear or logarithmic or anything other than in order of increasing frequency, showing the major divisions and their approximate size of wavelength. Inductiveload 15:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose A ripoff is one thing, but a bad ripoff is another. This purports to be scientific - choosing arbitrary scales, Wavelength is measured in meters, thus wavelength / m = dimensionless = means what? Frequency is cycles/second, which is Hertz, divided by Hertz - doesn't that always equal one? Stick to emphasizing that pretty butterfly and the neat way you took the button away from the needle. Give the kudos to the NASA image - what single thing did you contribute? Franamax 11:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am new here and I apologize if this is what is considered as a feature candidate. I also note that on the temperature bulb it appears that the colour line in the "mercury" don't align with the scale lines. Also, leaving aside the approximate Celsius equivalents which aren't consistent in their rounding, why does Celsius get a degree symbol, whereas the Kelvin does not? Aren't they both degree scales? Maybe that's what Warx means? I'm at three scale-scale-scale's now too! Nice butterfly, way better than the honeybee. Franamax 11:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning units: Take microwaves for instance: Here the wavelength is approximately 10-2 m. If you divide that by m you get 10-2. Which is exactly what it says. This is a perfectly accepted way of notation. Likewise 1012 Hz is the frequency of radiation somewhere between microwave and infrared radiation, and if you divide that by Hz you get the diemnsionless number 1012 exactly as written. There are other notational ways to state the physial dimension as discussed above, but the divide by unit convention used is formally OK. When it comes to Kelvin and Celsius, the degree symbol is not used for Kelvin only for Celsius, so that is formally correct notation too. Finally the rounding. Well is does state an approximate symbol in front of the 10,000,000 K, and quite frankly reducing that number by 273 to get 9,999,727 K does not make much sense considering it is an order of magnitude figure. The scale lines on the thermometer is not supposed to align with the other scale lines. They do not coincide. Hope that clarified some of your concerns. -- Slaunger 15:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slaunger is correct. This is a perfectly normal and commonplace method of displaying units on a graph. Physicists do it this way all the time. Degree symbols are never used with Kelvin (as it's an absolute scale, the concept of 'degree' is not appropriate). --MichaelMaggs 07:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 supports, 2 opposes, 1 neutral => waiting for other nomination to be closed Benh 09:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
=> not featured (the other one has same count of support but less oppose) -- Cecil 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version

edit

  • Hi guys! Due to comments over at en, I've put in a continuous colour spectrum for the temperatures that (very approximately) show the colour (but not relative intensity except right down in radio) at that wavelength. Again, it's not supposed to be 100% accurate, as this just isn't possible in this drawing due to the non-linearity of the scale. Also corrected a rounding error in the temp scale. Also changed temperature caption. What do you think? Inductiveload 23:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Even better now! ps You should support your own edit.--MichaelMaggs 07:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - This one is better. But I still don't sympathize with the "/unit" thing in this particular picture. Yes, it is used in Physics but this is a simple diagram aimed at common people. On the contrary, "(unit)" is clear to everyone. Alvesgaspar 08:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - The temperature caption is more concise now, still a bit long, but I can't come up with a better solution. Concerning the units. Having established that your convention for the physical units is formally correct I do suggest changing the notation as Alves suggests as I think the (unit) notation is understood better among the broader audience. Your concern above that such a notation could indicate somehow a function which depends on the unit as an argument is a little far fetched. The (unit) notation is widely accepted as well (although us physicists freaks may have slight preferences for the more concise notation). -- Slaunger 10:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know it's far fetched, I was just commenting that if you use brackets it has the same notation and is therefore (very slightly) imprescise. I don't think anyone would actually do it. At least I hope not, becuase someone who could realistically make that mistake surely wouldn't know about the concept of a function anyway... xD. Inductiveload 10:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Changed to (units) under all the pressure ;). My physics teacher would turn in his tweed jacket but it seems like a pretty unaminous opinion here and over at en. Not something worth digging any heels in over, is it? Inductiveload 10:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment Just don't tell your physics teacher about the great work you are doing at commons ;-) -- Slaunger 10:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 supports, 0 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leucanthemum vulgare (Marguerite)

If the petals are over exposured, it's because of the regular sun of noon : picture is not retouched yet. This is regular nature without PhotoShop alteration! Give me hints to make it better, I'll work on it... or feel free to work on it if you have a second! Thanks a lot for your help guys!.. Benoit Rochon 05:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nearly nothing you can do when a picture is overexposed. The detail in the pedals is lost forever. You have to be careful when you take the picture. --Simonizer 08:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Simonizer about this. It would be hard do much about it in Photoshop without "cheating". The fundamental problem is that your camera sensor has clipped off the brightest parts due to a too long exposure time and/or a too large aperture. It is hard to avoid this on white flowers. If you would like more detailed feedback and hints on how to improve your photography, I suggest posting your images at Photography critiques. I have used that several times myself and it has helped me improving on certain aspects of photography, although I still have a lot to learn. -- Slaunger 07:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Cecil 01:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hellid from Entombed during Metalmania 2007 festival

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 01:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first!--Beyond silence 12:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 01:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 01:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 01:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viola x wittrockiana

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 01:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

Autumn foliage in Vermont, USA

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 17:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 01:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buick mid 50's hood ornaments

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 02:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chechen boy during the battle for Grozny, January 1995

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 very noisy 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.

Lycaon 20:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange of prisoners in Bosnia

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.

Lycaon 20:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue helmet in Sarajevo

  •  Info created by Evstafiev - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama --Rama 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The resolution is low by today's standards, but the image is from pre-digital-camera era, is a valuable historical document, and is photographically very strong. --Rama 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Could you please fill out the information-template (description, date) at the image-page, because right now I can't see the context to the valuable historical document. Just the picture-name tells that this man is in Sarajevo and thus gives a clue to the meaning of the picture. -- Cecil 16:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, while this picture has an interesting subject, i can't support it as it is far too small, even if it has some historical value. Also, see my comment to the Image:Evstafiev-chechnya-boy-house-burns.jpg above. --Aqwis 19:50, 5 November 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. 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.

Lycaon 20:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bud of Azalea, Genus Rhododendron

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.

Lycaon 10:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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: full of artefacts 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.

Lycaon 17:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terji Skibenas from Týr during Metalmania 2007 festival

result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Acarpentier 14:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

A computer animation like this is not like so many things that you might only see one time and perhaps never see it again or see it again decades later. I watched it run through its routine a few times before I voted. Consider that the speed of this animation might be perfect as it it because of the nature of the format to replay. -- carol 05:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Cecil 03:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

male hoverfly

result: 10 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Acarpentier 14:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foggy woods


result: 5 supports, 4 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Acarpentier 16:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topographic map of Corfu

  •  Oppose for now. First of all this is a nicely done map. The reason I'm opposing is because I would like to see it improved before supporting. Here are some suggestions: (i) The level of cartographic generalization is too high, meaning that for this scale the detail is not enough. If we look at the map in the 1:1 size, it looks quite empty; (ii) only a few symbols are explained in the legend; (iii) no need to put the units in every number of the elevation/depth scale. Better to have a title like "Elevation/depth(m)"; (iv) rivers have no names; (v) in the image file the nominal scale of the map (corresponding to the 1:1 size); (v) The map projection should be indicated in the map. Sorry to be so hard to please. - Alvesgaspar 15:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the few creek names I had and completed the key. About the elevation/depths scale, I made the choice to show it this way as it is more international and doesn't need a translation for each language. The map looks empty ? For the continent, yes, as it is a map of Corfu island so I concentrated on it (many times, the maps through the Web don't even represent the continent). Also, the data I was able to get about Albania is very poor. I also added on the description page the approximate scale for an equivalent accuracy compared to the commercial official maps. Sting 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 14 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 20:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topographic map of Easter Island

result: 14 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 20:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Man topographic map

 Info The link you give Lycaon doesn't show the maps I created but the ones where my name is mentioned, because of the re-use of one of my maps or even for other reasons. An example is the map of Easter Island in English below from which I only created the version in French ; at this time there are four other ones translated by other contributors. I made by myself a little bit more than 50 maps in over one and half year ; seems my productivity isn't so big at all. For information, some maps can take up to one week to be created, depending on the complexity of the additional data (like Image:Pyrenees_map_shaded_relief-fr.svg). Sting 22:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being a prolific quality producer is definitely a good thing. I could only advice you to spread the nominations a bit, lest people get bored or scrutinize on small details of the 'least' of the bunch :). Lycaon 23:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the nominations are not from my fact, I discovered them through a discussion in French speaking Graphic Lab. Btw, I have for principle not to nominate my own pictures, neither vote for them. Sting 00:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 16 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 20:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vulcanian Eruption schematics

I have removed the circles around the numbers, it wasn't a good idea. I added two keys, about the layers which Alvesgaspar speak (there are stratum and layers). If you think this scheme is better like that, I will do the same to the others. About the colours of the strata, there is no real meaning (except in this one), it's just to show that it exists several layers. Sémhur 12:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Support due to the revised, improved labelling. -- Slaunger 13:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 20:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maize for popcorn

result: 2 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh 20:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jürgen Drews, ger. musician

  •  Info created by Steschke - uploaded by Steschke - nominated by Tintagel --Tintagel 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Tintagel 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Dieses Bild von Jürgen Drews, einem deutschen Sänger, ist einmalig und genial. Es zeigt einen dynamischen Drews trotz seiner 62 Jahre. Seine Leidenschaft für die Musik kommt voll zum Ausdruck. Die Position des Arms und die Bewegungsunschärfe betonen dies nachdrücklich. Durch die schwache Belichtung des Arms drängt sich dieser nicht in den Vordergrund. Bei genauer Betrachtung zeigt der Arm jedoch die unausweichlichen Spuren des Alters. Das macht den besonderen Reiz dieses Bildes aus. Die spannungsgeladene Diskrepanz zwischen Alter und Jugendlichkeit, zwischen Vergänglichkeit und Energie. Das Bild sagt mehr über Drews, als der ganze Artikel. Das ist kein blasses Portrait, sondern ein Bild mit Charakter.[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. 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.

Lycaon 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

result: 6 keep, 1 delist, 0 neutral => not delisted. Cecil 23:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byrce canyon

  • Yeah, isn't it just disgusting how photographers with no talent or post processing abilities get their worthless pics promoted by idiot reviewers who care about nothing but pretty colors? I'm impressed with your ability to tolerate such widespread inferiority. --JaGa 17:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha, I knew you wouldn't like not being taken seriously. It's not his opinion I dislike, it's the snide delivery of it. I wonder, why are you not bothered by a sneering comment like his, but when someone calls him on it, you feel a need to defend him? Didn't you learn to respect other people's opinions? ;) --JaGa 23:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 keep, 5 delist, 0 neutral => delisted. Cecil 23:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

Short description

Asa's Dad]- uploaded by FlickrLickr - nominated by Astrogeek --207.80.63.129 17:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 03:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  •  Comment Painting at the ceiling of Atotonilco church, a 18th century church in the state of Guanajuato, Mexico. The ceiling depicts the passion of Christ, with this section showing the betrayal of Judas and the role of the devil. Notice the interpretation of the Roman soldiers. The artists, for lack of reference, utilized the model of the Spanish soldiers, a recourse used in art for lack of visual reference. The real credit goes to the artists that created this painting....
  •  Comment This is a section of a ceiling, and as a section, one is bound to leave something out, as it is the case here. This is a synthesis of a subject. As far as "centering", well, in photograhy one of the first things one does is unlearn to center, for centering is almostnever good photograhic composition (see rule of thirds), for one centers that which calls our attention (eyes, in case of a face, for example) at the expense of either leaving something out or having too much of of something else that is irrelevant to the image. In this particular case I tried to leave in place the elements relevant to the section of the panting without cutting abruptly the other partial elements. The elements, furthermore, face four different directions. The is no single right side up to the image. Please see [1] to se a complete ceiling. --Tomascastelazo 19:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 03:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

Versailles garden

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 03:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A sculpture made by Emmanuel Frémiet

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 22:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  •  Comment A thousand pictures are worth a single word...
  •  Support --Tomascastelazo 17:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment What would be happen if the model was a man with hairy feet ? :-) --Richard Bartz 19:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Could you add geo location so we can locate this species? ;) Acarpentier 21:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Would support except that the buttocks are not in focus (and don't try to tell me that's not the main object, I've got a few photographers who would disagree). Dori - Talk 23:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I've examined the buttocks closely and found it too noisy. --che 00:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I agree with ‘che’, what I like very much though is the facial expression of the lady holding the brochures/booklets on the right. I can hear her say, 'what’s the point?, no one cares about these @&#$#%@ brochures!!!'. --calyponte
  •  Oppose Bad crop, I'd have loved to see more of the subject above :). No I think this picture is a bit noisy and blurry. I also think it doesn't show something so special, I see men starring at beautiful womens everywhere (me the first). I remember I went to a show about photography and saw three ladies in bikini, to "test photography in studio conditions" ;) Benh 10:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment No, this picture is not abbout the buttocks, and yet it is... This picture is not about people, and yet it is too... This picture is about a moment, it is about technology (people are not REALLY looking at the girl directly) they are looking at the girl through their cameras, and they are not definitely looking at her buttocks... we are! It is definitely not a masterpiece of photographic quality, but about a photographic moment, unposed, fleeting, time standing still. If Henry Cartier Bresson were to post a picture here he would definitely be booted out... :0) --Tomascastelazo 16:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Way too noisy. Even if it has the artistic "capturing the moment" thing, I don't think that can compensate for the quality. Rocket000 01:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral noisy...yes. But you really spotted a interesting scene (men take pictures, women don't seem to be interested :). Very well composed! --AngMoKio 15:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I don't think che knows anything about buttocks. no anonymous votes please. Lycaon 06:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Benh. Lycaon 06:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 22:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

Main principles of Bauhaus teaching

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 22:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a sunflower

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 22:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rails - voie ferrée - train

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 22:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A fascinating map of England and Wales, published in an Ontario textbook in 1892.

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 22:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal Downtown S-W Panoramic

I wanted the most DOF possible on the building. Do you think it would be better on a larger aperture? I can take it again, this is from my office building... ;) Acarpentier 14:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can well understand Benh's comment about aperture. Although this is not about the image, perhaps some discussion about aperture is allowed. There are three points. First, to get the DOF from foreground to infinity, you can simply focus to hyperfocal distance and use big f-number, which should enable you to achieve desired result. However, because calculating hyperfocal distance is somewhat laborious, you can use a simple method:
1) focus on a point which is on 1/3 of Z-axis (i.e. depth)
2) use f number 11 or 13 (reason for f-numbers later).
With shorer focal lengths (approximately less than 50 mm) this should get you DOF from foreground to infinity. With telephotos or longer focal lengths (which have shallow DOF due to their nature), this may not work.
Regarding the f-numbers you use, although it is true that bigger f-number will provide you with more DOF, bigger f-numbers or stopping the lens down (too much) is not only beneficial. With every lens there is some kind of "sweet spot", where the IQ is at its best. Quite often, this is somewhere in the middle of available aperture range, which is often around 11-13. However, for specific lens, you should simply see relevant lens tests. However, note that when f-number is increased beyound the "sweet spot", IQ will decrease. Aperture of 11-13 should usually be enough to get maximum DOF, without breaking (too much) through the "sweet spot" of the lens.
In addition, there is a physical phenomen called diffraction, which effects the IQ. Regardless of the lens, but depending on the camera body, size of the sensor, the MP amount of the body and image size, when f-number is incresed too much, IQ will decrese due to diffraction. You can see more detailed explanation behind this link about diffraction limitations. And if we consider cameras with cropped sensors (those with magnification factor of 1.5 or whatever it should be called), the limit is around 11-13. If you were not aware of these things, I hope that this will help you. And in any case, perhaps this (longish) comment is beneficial to some readers. --Thermos 16:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
R.N. Clark has clear and accurate information on his website.[2][3] Googling "DOF calculators" is useful, too. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Wow, thank you very much, I couldn’t expect a better review than this! That’s great, it will take some time and test for me to understand all of that but do you think with my d80+18-135 nikon lens the sweet spot would be also in the middle of available aperture range? Acarpentier 17:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Just a little clarification:

Usually the sweet spot in most lenses is f8
Hyperfocal distance is that where the lense is focused at whatever aperture and yields sharp image from infinity to a point in front of camera. The hyperfocal distance will increase or decrease depending on aperture. The smaller the aperture, the larger the DOF and viceversa. For example, lets suppose that with a 50 mm lense you do critical focus at 10 meters and with an f8 aperture, anything between 5 meters to infinity will be on focus. By using a different aperture, for example, an f16, the critical fopcus would be done at 7 meters and from 5 meters to infinity everything would be in focus., by opening the lense, you get the opposite effect. The critical point of focusing would be further away and consequently, the area in sharp focus reduced. --Tomascastelazo 18:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Glad if the comments help you. Although I am not familiar with Nikon gear nor your lens, at least according to this review the 18-135 seems to perform remarkably well in wide end with aperture open (i.e. with small f-numbers). In my opinion, this is a very desirable property. However, as you can see from the review, the resolution starts to decrease when the f-number increases. Hence, at least with that lens increasing the f-number wouldn't seem to be beneficial. Contrary to what I wrote above, it appears that the "sweet spot" for this lens is on lower end of f-numbers (i.e. aperture open), not in the middle. Even though this is against "conventional wisdom", what can be learned is that it always pays to find out about pecularities of one's equipment. After all, the lens designer may make unconventional choices. If the DOF/big f-numbers and decreasing IQ bothers you because of your lense's properties, don't worry. With shorter focal lengths (wide angle end) you can achieve a lot of DOF even with apertures around 7-9. --Thermos 18:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you very much for these tips! All these info sure will help me. I'll withdraw this submission and will go back study on what you've teached me. ;) Acarpentier 19:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow I didn't mean (and know) that much. I just knew that this probably wasn't needed to get enough DOF and could alter the quality of the picture. One more thing, I don't know if you chose 30sec exposure deliberately or not (it's a limitation on my camera and if it is on yours, it may explain the darkness of your pano), but if not you can use the bulb mode. Benh 19:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • lol, I really want to take it back and better with those settings you propose and retry here after. Well I waz in A mode choosing the f setting and the nikon calculated the exposure time, but it's a good idea to use the bulb mode. Acarpentier 19:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aaah, then I'm pretty much sure this is the reason of the underexposure. 30 sec is probably a limitation (but if you retry with f/8.0 or f/10.0, you won't probably meet it). You shouldn't use A-mode, because it will recalculate the exposure for each picture, and this may result in inconsistencies between all your photos sources (resulting in a bad stitch) (here you were lucky because your camera couldn't go further, so it was 30 sec each time). Instead, I recommend you to find a spot for "anchor exposure", let the camera calculate the exposure on this spot (half press the button, and look at which exposure your camera has chosen), switch to Manual mode, and use these settings. See you soon here then :) -- Benh 19:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Acarpentier 19:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Gabor Talmacsi

result: 15 supports, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Benh 21:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 22:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment La Catrina – In Mexican folk culture, the Catrina, popularized by Jose Guadalupe Posada, is the skeleton of a high society woman and one of the most popular figures of the Day of the Dead celebrations in Mexico.
  •  Support --Tomascastelazo 22:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like this one. The composition is very good, with good use of DOF, the skeleton to the left is crisp and sharp. Very nice colours and lightning. My eyes are immediately drawn to the photo. Well done. -- Slaunger 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment I forgot to check your image page. I think you need to clean up on the use of categories, only use the most specific. Like death costums is a subcat of Traditions. This is redundant categorization, and you should only keep the most specific (death customs). I know there is a policy about that somewhere. Art and Culture also seems like overly general categories to use for this photo. Please look into this. -- Slaunger 23:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Excellent. Calibas 23:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very sharp Acarpentier 00:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Edited version by Sting uploaded above the original : sharpness enhanced in some areas and edge artefacts corrected. Sting 02:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support for the edited version An excellent photograph, useful and encyclopaedic, representing perfectly it's subject. The composition is very good, the colours are very well chosen and highlight the 2 puppets, their visual aspect is really nice (a tribute to Tim Burton ? – or the contrary, more probably –), the light is very good as well as the contrast and saturation, the noise in the background is like the grain of a classic film, the sharpness is excellent in some areas, but… there's a lack in the DOF : the front part of the skull, of the dress and the flowers are slightly out of focus. I've edited these parts and I think it's better now without loss of quality (noise or artefacts) and uploaded it above the original. There were also dark or bright edge artefacts in some areas, some of them well visible even at 100% (the picture has already been post-processed ?) and I've corrected them too. Of course, if my edit doesn't bring satisfaction, just undo it and revert to the previous version. Alternatively, I would have liked in the description page the info about the approximate size of them, as there's nothing in picture which could give a reference. Congratulations ! Sting 02:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sting - thanks for the contribution. And a few comments.
1. Size - they are about 15 inches high.
Thanks. I added the info in the description page
2. DOF - There were a few considerations. First, the distance between subjects. Second, the distance camera-subject. Third, the scale relationship between subjects and how it was affected by the focal length. In order to obtain the size relationship between subjects, I used maximum zoom on the lens (135 mm on a canon 20d, which translates aprox into a 200 mm lens in 35 mm camera) and then I adjusted camera-subject distance. Subject size, focal length, subject to subject distance and camera to subject distance were all factors. Focused on face and used several apertures until I got the desired out of focus effect on second subject.
Yes, I took a look at the exif info. Excellent sharpness regarding the shutter speed.
3. Shot this in raw format.
4. I do as little post processing as possible, in order to maintain information in file so it can be maniplulated for different applications, print, computer display, etc.
3 and 4 : strange as there were quiet heavy edge artefacts, like if the image has already been heavily sharpened before. May be it could also be the sharpness setting of your camera.
5. Noise does not bother me at all, for it will not show when printed. Noise appears in all images after certain magnifications, just like grain. For me, Canon technology is good enough...

--Tomascastelazo 15:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither as I wrote it. Here it looks like very natural grain, not like digital noise.
At the end, it's imo one of the best photograph I've ever seen here displaying a common subject : visual beauty, composition (the heads "looking" at the right of the picture makes feel there's something else out of the field), lightning, detail in the high and low lights, colours, sharpness… even if for the latest it's not perfect for the flowers zone. Yes, I really love this photograph ! Sting 13:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alvesgaspar - No, you cannot eat these ones... the ones that are edible are called Alfeñiques, made of sugar... --Tomascastelazo 15:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyright holder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases... VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places."
Assuming this was taken in a public place, it's perfectly legal except that the source needs to be cited. Of course, if you got permission from the owners it's a different story. Please correct this or delete the image, it's a wonderful picture but not worth getting Wikimedia sued. Calibas 00:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 22 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 17:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Night heron

result: 13 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 17:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schematic Diagram of a bicycle, new version with adequate image naming

result: 7 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 17:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Cecil 23:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Between a rock and hard place

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first!--Beyond silence 17:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 09:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

Marek Przewłocki

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 20:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bourges Cathedral (Cathédrale Saint-Étienne de Bourges), France.

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 20:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Female Mallard Duck

result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Cecil 20:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pressurized water reactor

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 09:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giza pyramid complex

In any case, I would suggest that you not try to match the colors of the sands and the structures and instead use standard map-maker colors, such as can be found here. Good luck, and if I find the magic formula, I'll let you know. MapMaster 02:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 09:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a scan which was then cleaned up. Yug (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's obvious (and the scan/cleanup was properly done), but that doesn't justify colouring it in a drab hue, does it? Lycaon 12:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I colored it for security reasons. These 1st aid techniques are outdated and could be dangerous if they were used, so this old color can help as a warning. historicair 15:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 09:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of some of the biggest ships

You have convinced me to  Support the image, but you should definitely add that important information to the image description. --Aqwis 20:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done so, but feel free to correct it if necessary. Thanks, le Korrigan bla 00:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 09:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map of the TGV

You might check this image for instance. Lycaon 18:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not wrong it comes from here. I think it represents projects from the SNCB, and not the current network. A current map would be more useful. le Korrigan bla 18:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 09:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lower part of the front façade of Notre-Dame Cathedral, Paris

result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 09:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drill bit

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 09:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama of Katowice

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 09:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monument of the Independence of Brazil. Built in the margin of the Ipiranga river, to keep the coffin of Pedro I of Brazil.

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 23:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Limmat River in Zürich, viewed from the Uraniabrücke

  •  Comment Thank-You Lycaon (But I have used the Photography Critiques before, you see). I was just asking Daniel78 if he could elaborate a bit more as opposed to a 6-word sentence. Booksworm 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well there is quite a bit of noise (grain) in the darker parts of the picture, and the artefacts (compression? camera related?) are most visible on the wall of the left low whitish house. Lycaon 20:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saving in jpg is a lossy method which uses compression to end up with a smaller file size. Repeatedly saving an image in jpg introduces compression artefacts: you loose (lossy compression) part of the original information that was stored in your photograph, every time you hit that save button. I'm not claiming that this is the case here, but it is a common way of introducing artefacts. Lycaon 21:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No wow", might be unclear wording but what I mean is that even if this image was technically good I do not think the view/composition is special/valuable enough for a FP (that little extra that is not so easy to put in words). About the compression artifacts I mainly noticed it in the bottom part of the image in the water where much detail is lost, but sharpness suffers in the rest of the image too. Many programs have a setting for the jpeg quality when saving an image. By the way I disagree about flowers having "no wow", some have, some do not, just as some rivers have and some do not :) /Daniel78 23:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't think flowers have "wow" you aren't really seeing them. Calibas 01:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add to the JPEG and lossy compression issue, when editing I save often to avoid losing my work (have not crashed in years, but it has become a habit...). If you do this, make sure you use a non-lossy format while editing (ex. .psd, .tif) and not to a .jpg. Each time you save it, the compression artifacts will get worse regardless of the quality settings. - Relic38 01:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I live in a country where I see 10'000 flowers every day, so frankly, I don't see any "wow" in flowers Booksworm 20:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's so sad... Lycaon 21:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say that but your image gallery tells a different story. =) Calibas 20:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 CommentWhat I meant by the above comment is that several users had suggested there was a "wow" in flowers. I don't see a wow in flowers - I see beauty Booksworm 14:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I like this composition, but the quality isn't that good (jpeg artifacts, unsharp, too dark). the preceding unsigned comment was added by Rocket000 (talk • contribs)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day) Cecil 20:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merton College library hall

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 09:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Otsuka Museum of Art in Naruto, Tokushima prefecture, Japan

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 09:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map of 79 Vesuvius eruption

  •  Info created by MapMaster - uploaded by MapMaster - nominated by MapMaster --MapMaster 04:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is what I hope is a useful map I created in response to a request raised over at the English language Requested maps page. It is clean, crisp, and shows useful information concerning the eruption of Mt Vesuvius in 79 AD. The names are in Latin, to allow the widest use -- at present, it is used in 25 encyclopedias in 43 different articles. There is also an English language version used in 10 articles. What do the assembled masses think? MapMaster 04:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm not really keen on the temperature scale in the right top corner: 20 degrees Kelvin is rather cold isn't it? Just kidding, but it should be corrected to give the map a chance. I'm also not too fond of the 'dark cloud'. Couldn't you have used a more delineated approach? Lycaon 07:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, it should be "Km". -- Lerdsuwa 15:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it should be "km". --MichaelMaggs 18:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 09:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

Chrysanthemum at Osaka Japan

Flower Moringa Oleifera

Subglacial volcanic eruption scheme

I can do this, but what will be the use of this "super-svg"? If it's only to have an easier vote here, I don't think it's interesting. Sémhur 12:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 10:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Submarine volcanic eruption scheme

I have done this from one of the other, and follow the demand made in the Atelier graphique, the french Graphic Lab. But if you have sources (like photo or scheme) from which I can be inspired, I am interested!
I have made the red color of lava flow shorter. Sémhur 13:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 10:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surtseyan volcanic eruption scheme

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 10:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phreatic volcanic eruption scheme

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 10:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plinian volcanic eruption scheme

result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 10:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pelean volcanic eruption scheme

result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 10:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strombolian volcanic eruption scheme

Now, there are no circles around numbers, the number 0 has disappeared, and two keys were added. It's not the same scheme as below, this is Strombolian eruption, and below it is Vulcanian (they are similar, but not identical). Sémhur 13:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 10:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scheme of a hawaiian volcanic eruption

Like above, the number 0 and the circles has been removed. Sémhur 13:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Cecil 10:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow of the Puy-de-Dôme on the clouds (viewed from the Puy-de-Dôme summit). Chaîne des Puys' volcanoes on the left

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 14:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arches Nationalpark, 360° panoramic view from a fin to Devils Garden.

  •  Info No over- or underexposure, many details, no tourists, the fin works as a guide for the eye and as a frame for the main aspect, Devils Garden. Own picture, so no support from me. MatthiasKabel 16:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no nomination page existing so far, so I just created it and put the nomination here on top. --Flicka 20:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The one speck of dust I saw was actually grunge on my monitor. There is a blue 'halo' on the left side of the rock on the left side, but other than that it is very beautiful. I really liked the little sign in the lower right corner -- I think that it is not a place to that is easy to get lost in. -- carol 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Question There are three (or four) sticks in the right corner, they are all laying in the same direction. Are they snakes and not sticks or what reason are they all angled the same? -- carol 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there where small areas not covered by the original photos, so I used the clone tool. I shall correct these and possible other points. (Waiting for more comments) MatthiasKabel 07:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The simmetry of the two hills -- in the thumbnail, it almost looks as if it is your (the viewer) knees and you are seeing the stark reality, the empty vastness which is to be seen there while cloud watching. People seem to be somewhat harsh about those clone errors there. -- carol 23:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could start a new nomination, but don't forget to mention that it is a new version. -- Cecil 20:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 20:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Disabled Tanzanians

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: not of sufficiently good composition. 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 20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Male Mallard Duck

That would be posted by Freedom to share. ; ) Doodle-doo Ħ 18:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sorry I forgot. :) Freedom to share 21:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral, i'm not sure about this picture. On one hand, it is sharp and has great colours. On the other hand, i dislike the composition - the bird is too centred. The "stuff" in the upper right corner has got to go too, either by cropping the picture or by using the clone tool. --Aqwis 16:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The composition doesn't really bother me because of the vibrant colours and lovely subject. I wouldn't mind a cloning-out of the "stuff" either, though. Doodle-doo Ħ 20:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Supporting below version : ) Doodle-doo Ħ 15:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh 17:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Male Mallard Duck

result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 09:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Male Mallard Duck

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 11:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Female hoverfly (Eristalinus taeniops)

1. Tilt of the fly, breaks the symetry.
2. The head ends up dead center, with too much flower out of focus behind.
3. The dark areas on top of the flower are distracting. If the color was meant to be used as an element, that creates a distraction.
4. The bottom of the torso, there is a curve that was cropped, it should have been included, it looks... cropped.
5. Not enough DOF.

--Tomascastelazo 19:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Cecil 11:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Female hoverfly (Eristalinus taeniops)

Crop - the curve in the body is cut out at the bottom of the fly.
DOF - insufficient

--Tomascastelazo 17:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 11:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping Caribbean Flamingos (Phoenicopterus ruber)

I'm not positive, but I think that's the rule. Doodle-doo Ħ 14:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a silly rule then. A picture should be judged on its merits. --JaGa 06:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is an 'almost' rule, which means strong mitigation is necessary for a zoo picture to get featured. And though colours and sharpness are well up to FP standards, crop and background are not so good. Lycaon 15:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Support After looking at this some more, I have decided that I like the background, and the only thing I don't like is the cropped off neck on the left (which should be easy to clone out). --Digon3 talk 15:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The encyclopedic value is one of the factors we look for when judging. Images of the animal outside it's natural environment necessarily have less encyclopedic value. Kind of a silly rule, though I think the main idea is that we don't get flooded with images of sunsets and artsy pictures that don't quite fit into encyclopedia articles. Of course, as Lycaon points out, it's not a solid rule, just a factor we look for when judging. If the image is beautiful encyclopedic value usually gets tossed out the window. Calibas 07:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - doesn't really stun me, and is quite uninteresting. Fairly low quality as well. --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 10:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like the colours and the composition. The purpose is to show sleeping flamingos, so it seems enough encyclopedic to me. Vassil 12:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think the unwritten "zoo rule" is not necessary. If the image has value, meets the image quality requirements for a Feature Picture, and appeals to the reviewer, the image can be supported. In this case, I could have tried harder to make this an FP (cropping and cloning) that I believe has value for Commons. As for cropping on the left, I didn't want to cut out the juvenile. Wow/stun factor is a per-user preference. On the topic of 'quality' (re: Karelj and Anonymous Dissident), more specific feedback is preferred. If it's sharpness that is referred to, I think it's decently sharp for ~8Mpx. - Relic38 01:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment No such rule exists. But people generally have a preference for natural environments. For me, it's a weak preference. For others, it's an absolute preference. In general, difficult to take shots have more wow factor. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 11:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mammatus clouds

result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 11:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rochefort Brewery, Abbaye Notre-Dame de Saint-Remy.

It's possible, not easy, to visit the brewery by appointment. I visited this legendary place (for a beer passionate) with Lorenzo Dabove, an international beer taster, that managed to obtain this appointment. I completely agree with you: Rochefort 6, 8 and 10 are fabulous! --LucaG 22:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Beer outside of bavaria does not live up to its name. That is my opinion. But we are not here to judge the beer, are we? ;-) About the image: good light, good composition and encyclopedic value --Simonizer 13:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's talk about Bavarian beers, too :)). I loved tasting Schneider's Aventinus Weizenstarkbier in Munich, the amazing Aecht Schlenkerla Rauchbier in Bamberg and many others Bavarian (and Franconian) jewels. But try to sip one glass of Rochefort 10 (or Westvleteren 12) late after dinner on your sofa at home listening to you preferred music... I'm sure you will change your mind about belgian beers ;-) --LucaG 23:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rochefort 6 is quite rare as it is brewed only once a year. This variety represents only 1% of the total production. I have 6 bottles of Rochefort 6 here. I'll share this liquid gold with the first five of you guys that will reach me in Milan, Italy. (for supporters only :) --LucaG 23:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 11:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chechen man praying during the war in 1995

  •  Info created by Evstafiev - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama --Rama 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The resolution is low by today's standards, but the image is from pre-digital-camera era, is a valuable historical document, and is photographically very strong. --Rama 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment, see my comment above. --Aqwis 19:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A very valuable image, that carries a message across beautifully. Please do not pick on minute technical details, they are not as important for an FP as the valuable mitigating qualities, which in this case push it way above the minimum FP bar. Freedom to share 07:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support An extremely powerful image, this is a good example of why we don't have solid rules. Calibas 03:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't see any mitigating reasons for this to be so small - the fact that it's a pre-digital photo means little, as it would be very easy to provide a higher resolution scan. The image uploaded appears to be deliberately small, for reasons unknown, but it is interesting to note that the photographer identifies himself here as a professional. Professional contributors need to be encouraged to contribute here, but shouldn't be granted special privileges to obtain FP status on images that are of lower resolution than that which we normally expect. If this could be re-uploaded at a real resolution of greater than 2 Mpx (not just upscaled) I will support straight away. It is a strong image. --MichaelMaggs 21:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Desciption... what is happening in the background...?--Beyond silence 22:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
War. Calibas 01:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment 1024 x 1522 is still 22% below the normally expected minimum resolution of 2Mpx - I'm afraid I still can't support if the resolution is that low simply because of a choice made by the uploader. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 supports, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh 13:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version

edit

Chechen man praying during the war in 1995 (alt)

Also, being a scaled-down duplicate of this version, the original should be deleted. --Aqwis 17:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notre-Dame Cathedral, Paris

 Support I saw your comment on the other image, so maybe the entire church is a bit tilted ? So not sure if it could be corrected without tilting the ground instead. /Daniel78 23:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Love the detail and that crazy funky background. --JaGa 02:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral for now (see below). Sting 14:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question I think very strange some architectural elements are not at the same level than others : guardrails at the base of the towers not horizontal while the ones at the lowest level are, tower of right lower than the left one. Couldn't it come from the stitching ? Because even having been built in the Middle Age, I doubt the architect(s) made such mistakes. Can somebody check this by taking a photograph of the cathedral from the same point of view in one shot for comparison ? Benh, could you do that please ? Sting 14:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks as if it already was like that 62 years ago ;-). Lycaon 14:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I was there to check the "what I believe to be similar flaws" on my pano below when Sanchezn took that pano. So we were very careful with the geometrical "properties" of the cathedral. For now, you can only trust us.. :) but we'll let you see a one single shot from same POV asap. I don't know where the assymetry could come from. Maybe it was desired (I don't believe that either) but maybe it's because of inaccurate tools used at time of construction ?? -- Benh 20:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most likely it is due to 'corrections' made by the builders as the cathedral was being constructed. Buildings of this date often have little or nothing by way of foundations and movement can be expected during construction. The famous example is the compensation made during the building of the Tower of Pisa, to counteract the lean which started to happen as the tower was going up. --MichaelMaggs 20:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the building is for sure not perfect, but looking at this picture the problems are quiet severe. Notre-Dame is not the Pisa tower and as I've never heard about it (but I didn't study the building in deep), I've doubts. Architectural photography is difficult, even more if making a mosaic, so I prefer have some more elements before giving my full support. Sting 22:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 15 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 13:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenile Mute Swan (Cygnus olor)

  • I didn't meant "washed out" (sorry for my poor english) but strange artifacts, it looks like a lot of "colours blotchs", I never know how to say in english (I'd say couleurs baveuses in french). Benh 07:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 14 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 13:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muscles in human's neck with marked Musculi colli stylohyoideus

result: 7 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 13:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upright piano mechanism - English type

result: 5 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 21:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upright piano mechanism - Wien type

I believe that the circles set the non-picture elements apart from the actual mechanism itself. I would suggest keeping them. MapMaster 04:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I Think you have a point. Here they seem appropriate, and it looks as if the author succeeded to centre them properly. On the volcanoes down however, numbers without circles look better. Guess it depends on the project. Lycaon 07:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 21:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A mute swan taken at Vaires lake.

  • Oppose ??? I dislike nominators that doesn't accept opposes, but here, with this argument, oppose is a bit strong IMO, isn't it ? I'll try to find the correct name, after, I hope you'll change your vote... Sanchezn 17:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 21:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-throught 16 inch gun turret from Iowa class ships.

  • Yeah, sure : every armament builder waited 67 years long for this SVG version and ? years after the USGov revealed the source scheme to be able to build the same turret… Sting 20:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 21:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Female Mallard Duck Resting

✓ Done Fixed see bellow ;) Acarpentier 16:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Fixed see bellow ;) Acarpentier 16:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh 13:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better crop with reflection

edit

Female Mallard Duck Resting Crop

✓ Done Sorry about that... fixed now, thanks. ;) Acarpentier 18:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Are you sure about that? Acarpentier 00:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not 100%, hence the "appear" in my statement. Here's where I'm seeing some of them
Dori - Talk 01:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Info Well they are not dust, lens clean, but only natural water imperfection. ;) Acarpentier 01:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Did the Latin species name. But for the centred composition, I guess fixing it for you would break it for others… it's non-senses but look like it’s the wiki way… he he he ;) Acarpentier 00:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Both the category called ducks and the gallery of ducks here do not contain many printable images and this duck is very beautiful. I see that the line on the duck is the shadow of that twig but now I am quite impressed with the completely different water that a simple crop provided. So impressed that I am only able to comment with surety here. -- carol 16:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's because it's not only a crop but a different picture... I had several one. ;) Acarpentier 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I would also consider supporting a 'commons jargon' page in which all of the ways that the words here are used differently are listed. This meaning for the word 'crop' is quite large in scope and perhaps would not be obvious to people following these debates -- even after a few months. -- carol 17:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 supports, 2 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh 13:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Female Mallard Duck Resting Edit

result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Acarpentier 23:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian jacare in water.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: not taken from a good angle, and the vegetation obsures too much detail. 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 17:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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: out of focus and noisy. Please try COM:QIC first - Alvesgaspar 17:48, 21 November 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.

Ipiranga Museum

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 14:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cute swans !!

  • Yes to me it's a strong mitigating reason. I don't think white balance is a problem here. The colours are nice and the mood is good. I agree for the exposure. For the other reasons, and given the size, I don't believe it will do so bad if printed at the same size as a 1600x1200 pic. Benh 07:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 14 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Cecil 14:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Barrage (Dam) de Monteynard in Isère, France.

This image as great potential, perhaps you could update your's with this version I've edited... Acarpentier 21:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a bit lighter, it seems a bit dark to me. ChrisDHDR 17:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Cecil 14:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 14:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 14:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

This is the schematic diagram of a tugboat.

result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured (other version featured). Cecil 14:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

This is the schematic diagram of a tugboat.

  •  Comment It is about as much work to create a translated image (Inkscape is free and quite easy to work with) as to translate a table of labels or a caption. A translated image is much more useful for a particular wikipedia. Lycaon 17:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 14:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A painter on the bridge of Arts, in Paris

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 14:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Hall of Orsay Museum

Other POV / framing proposal
  •  Oppose Because of the framing. The black wall, even if a natural element of the scene is highly disturbing. I think you should have used one of the framing I propose at the right. If I remember well, you cannot stay right at the centre in front of the clock so put it in the centre of the picture is a bad idea. So you have to force a dynamic in the image by placing the clock on one side and using the strong lines of the roof. The framing I give here is only approximated, you have to see on location. The pov for the red one should be shot more from the right in order to put the clock more on the side. Of course, these would give more artistic views than an informative + artistic one, but for these ones the main subject would be the roof and would be informative too. Note : I didn't check the overall quality of the picture. Sting 16:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose impossibly busy, nauseating fisheye, unremarkable or no subject. What's with the black splotch bottom right? Potatoswatter 02:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Cecil 14:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couché de Soleil à Saint Gilles les Bains (la Réunion), un soir en Octobre: la digue à l'entrée du port vue de la plage des Roches Noires, les pêcheurs, la sculture sur le bout de la digue (une voile)

 Support so, there are no bad thing that I would not have seen. I support ! -- Walké 19:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Cecil 14:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of aperture on blur and DOF

w:Diaphragm (optics)--Chabacano 18:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is also distracting. wiktionary:diaphragm -- carol 19:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because diaphragm is a polysemic word? Chabacano 23:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
maybe -- carol 00:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Now three colors are used for the lines, but I think it would be easier if the images and the lines had same color so you easier saw where they came from. For example use of a green spades, a red heart and a blue clubs such that they corresponded with the lines going from the corresponding image planes. At least I found it first confusing that the red lines did not end up in the red heart image plane. Also I would love to see this illustrated as an animation where the aperture opened and closed slowly, but a non animated illustration is also needed so that is not an argument against this image. /Daniel78 17:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 11:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Kingdom of scotland royal arms

I like it :) This is how they do in the French blasons project.Chabacano 15:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am impressed work of this project, but the concept of this pseudo-3D is great mistake. Coat of Arms should be something that:
  • You are able to paint on your shield
  • Allow you to be distinguished from your enemies on the battlefield
  • You are proud of
This pseudo-3D makes no 3 impossible for me. --WarX 00:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Well, it is very easy to change! modified version below Chabacano 01:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Variations in some parts (mantling, motto, supporters) are allowed, as long as it fits the description. this is a quite used version. The insignia of the Order of the thistle, in the other hand, is here Chabacano 13:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Variations doesn't mean a mishmash of 3D, 2D and cartoonesque elements. Lycaon 15:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it does not mean that: We were talking about the heraldic accuracy. If you do not like the style, that is ok, but a different topic. Chabacano 22:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Cecil 15:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Kingdom of scotland royal arms, less 3d

result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 15:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial for famous people of the Mexican state of Jalisco

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 11:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Stadium of Montreal from back at night.

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (featured edit 1). Cecil 15:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version

...ack. Hmmm. OK. --Thermos 20:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 15:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxya yezoensis at Osaka Japan

result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 15:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saulnier Watermill

  • That's funny because we talk about that with Sanchezn these days... :). I think it's quite some involvement and that would require us taking a break in our social lifes ;), but we are motived to do it. We'll give you news when it's advanced enough. Benh 19:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 15:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiery skippers

  • Macro tips: High f/stop (usually at least f/8), careful use of ISO (don't be afraid to use 400 ISO if your camera can handle it), a steady hand and patience. An SLR is a must for good macro photography since it gives you a much better idea of where to focus plane is. Go look at the EXIF data for User:Richard Bartz's macros if you want a good idea of the proper camera settings. Calibas 01:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 15:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

Simple is stronger to be understanded, I think.--Beyond silence 10:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Simple, but clear and well done. Romary 13:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Romary. Better simple and accurate than ornate and inaccurate. -- RedCoat 14:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I don't think I get what 6 refers to, also is it just me or is the perspective of the horizontal lines a little off. Dori - Talk 16:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, but this is confusing and inaccurate. The arrows do not aid understanding of the forces involved as there is no indication of what they mean, nor of what is intended by the full lines and the dotted lines. The two arrows to the right, one at an angle, are confusing, as is the curved nature of the dotted line. Is this a line of force? If so, it misrepresents the forces that are acting on each individual block. --MichaelMaggs 17:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It is difficult to understande --Al2 14:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The arc has 180°. Thus there are no forces led into the walls. For illustrating this the arc must have less than 180°
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Cecil 15:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sunset at Matterhorn

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 15:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overview from AngelsLanding

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 15:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An orange mushroom

  •  Oppose as above

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first!--Beyond silence 20:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Cecil 15:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cornflower - Centaurea cyanus

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 15:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Cecil 15:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palace of La Granja (Spain)

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 15:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

drawing of train station front projected by Roberto arch. Narducci in Italy (Fogliano Redipuglia) on fascist period.

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 15:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Blue Heron

Yes I understand your concern, I've nominated it because it's a good side-view... But after that one, I'll give the heron a break ;)  Acarpentier 06:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already removed. I where testing the signature features... ;)Acarpentier 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Great image of the bird - excellent details and exposure. What bothers me is the busy background and I agree that a wider aperture would have probably helped to emphasize the subject more. The separation of water and rocks seems to cut right through the bird's head which is also not quite ideal. My other nitpick is the central composition with a lot of wasted (as opposed to empty) space behind the bird on the left. Nice image but not quite the very best... Wwcsig 22:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Wisnia6522 12:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Basik07 08:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- the background around the head ruins it for me, and the composition isn't ideal. Sharp, nice detail on bird, but not FP quality in my view. -- 203.211.106.53 10:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC) you are late and you are anonymous and as such not counted. Lycaon 12:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 supports, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Benh 20:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  • Check the coordinates, on google maps (e.g.). Zoom in satellite mode to 50m (in Google earth you can zoom even further) and select the current picture (left panel). You see a few cars at the waterhole. That's about where we were... Lycaon 10:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Neutral no anonymous votes please. Lycaon 19:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support -- Walké 20:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --LucaG 20:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- MJJR 20:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This picture looks flat and the subjects aren't terribly sharp. I almost didn't oppose since I'm sure people will assume I'm just picking on Lyco, but the truth is I don't see a lot of wow here. --JaGa 22:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Karelj 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Vmenkov 03:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Bad lighting, bad camera angle. Midday light is not a flattering light to begin with. As with the camera angle, it makes the giraffes look short, as opposed to their natural height. The giraffes should have been photograhed by a low angle, highligting the contour of the animals against the plain, blue sky. They way the different backgrounds, the earth and brush and how the giraffes cut into them is displeasing. A little inteligent photograhic technique, like use of large aperture to render a shallow depth of field would have been of great help. Furthermore, giraffes mating, in my opinion, are no different than any other species, unless the image provides something extraordinary in the way of impact, surprise, anatomical characteristics, etc., therefore, I see no value on the fact that they are mating. At firt glance I thought it was mother and child. Now that I know what it is, well, then... he likes them small!!! --Tomascastelazo 15:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The angle could be better, both horizontal and vertical. /Daniel78 19:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it couldn't, sorry. This things happen for only seconds. In Namibia you are also not allowed to come out of your car in Etosha as to limit human disturbance, so choice of angle is very limited. These are wild animals in their natural environment so you take the opportunity you get, unlike in zoos or even at game ranches. Lycaon 20:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have, my friend.... in fact I wrote most of them. However, the value system around here centers on sharpness, wow factor, HDR, pixelmania, artifacts, etc... not circumstances. Just going along with the folkways (and you can count on me on never opposing an image for reasons other than the ones I state)... --Tomascastelazo 14:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's just because it's a new user, with nothing on either the user page or the user talk page. A welcome message has since been added. --MichaelMaggs 22:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I think I remember having come across this whilst browsing through other giraffe photos at en.wiki. It's encyclopedic, technically good, and good enough for FP, IMO. — RedCoat 19:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Voting time was over -- Benh 21:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 14 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 20:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinner is served

  •  Info Dinner is served. Oops! Forgot to wash the plate.

Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 13:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 15:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

A HDR image of the Dome at MIT

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh 21:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A HDR image of the Dome at MIT

  •  Info Original version created by Fcb981, this version uploaded, edited and nominated by --Thermos
  • As the actual edits done for this image might interest some users, perhaps the editing done for this image merit some further discussion. After all, even though composure and such are often discussed, post processing is often left behind. In addition, quite often opposing votes are given on the basis of blown highlights or too much noise. Although I can fully understand these votes, I think that contributors could benefit from more guidance how to address the issues. I hope that this longish explanation will help at least some users.
  • Highlight recovery
To recover the highlights and bring out the surface detail on the dome, I used Adobe Lightroom (which as a dedicated RAW-tools is not even intended for this kind of editing, although it can be used on JPGs) and a procedure described in Evening's book "The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Book." As a first step, I slightly reduced exposure with dedicated slider for that purpose. After that, I applied a small amount of highlight recovery tool. Then I went to curves tool and reduced highlights still some more. This was done in about one minute.
However, as this procedure is somewhat Lightroom specific (the highlight recovery tool at least, while the exposure tool is probaply found in image editing software intended for photograpers), for the benefit of users of other software, I tried if I could achieve comparable results by other methods.
By working with curves tool alone, by reducing highlight area by some 50% and lights area by some 25%, I think the final result was comparable. Perhaps with little less highlight detail, but the general appearance was "close enough". As curves is available in e.g. Gimp, perhaps this should be considered some kind of generaly available method.
For Lightroom users, I also tried if I could achieve comparable result with simpler method. I found out, that I could achieve "close enough" result by just adjusting exposure or recovery slider alone. However, I think that Evening's method results in better overall result and when you know it, it requires just few more seconds of work and should be used.
However, to avoid false impressions of what can be achieved with the "highlight recovery procedures" that I described above, out of curiosity I tried to apply the procedures to several images in Commons by other contributors. As non-scientific subjective hunch, I would say that with about 50% of the test images I could lift out significant amount of highlight detail, which was hidden in original image while leaving other parts of image relatively original. On the other hand, the other 50% of the images could be improved somewhat, but nowhere near the amount that I think this image benefitted from the procedures. Quite simply, this image was good to begin with and was easily improved. And ofcourse, this is not to critisise Fcb981, who contributed a wonderful image. It is just when I saw the original, I knew what could be easily done.
And as a final note for "highlight problems". Although this edit was done on JPG-image, in my opinion, it is much easier to address highlight issues if the original image is shot in RAW-format. Although properties of RAW will depend on camera, when the image is shot in RAW, at least according to tests I have read, there is usually quite a bit of more dynamic range available, which makes it much easier to avoid blown highlights.
  • Noise reduction
For noise reduction, the situation is quite different and dependant on the software. With this image I used a software called "Neat Image". I simply run the image through that software with basic settings and the result is what we have (when I now think about it, with more advanced settings even better results could have been achieved). Anyhow, I am happy with the results and with the ease it could be achieved.
Unlike the alternative methods for highlight recovery, for noise reduction I am not aware of alternate methods. Perhaps the "smart blur" method that Fcb981 mentions above could be such, but I am not familiar with it. Perhaps some Photoshop or Gimp expert could describe it. --Thermos 01:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The highlight recovery you spoke of is useful. however when I converted from the 64bit uncompressed tiff HDR file I specified a highlight clip of 0.025%... so there weren't really "blown highlights" to speak of. Recovering from RAW files is effective although I wasn't aware there was extra highlight info in JPGs. So, I'm not sure if the highlight reduction was needed but it looks good this way. The nosie reduction is a little heavy for my tastes and the grass lost all texture but whatever. The editing is nicely done. Smart blur gives results similar to these. I think it's results are a little more crude then neat image but in photoshop it's better then median or despecle and "reduce noise" is too weak for me. Regardless, I don't usually mind if people make an edit that addresses noise. While I think the composition and light are more important I'm definitely supporting of people making themselves happy ; ) -Fcb981 02:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. You are right about highlights. If they were really blown, i.e. without information, it would have been impossible to recover anything. And after thinking this some more, probaply the reason for the results I achieved with other images is that some images may just be adjusted to achieve more detail in light areas, while other images actually lack the information altogether. Would be reasonable conclusion. Anyhow, I hope this helps some users. And for NR part, I agree that on basic setting it is a bit heavyhanded... --Thermos 03:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the thing that used to be fun for me with GIMP -- perhaps it needs people who are well versed in pixel maths, photography and computer language -- was the decomposition of the technique into its components. The photoshop 'slider' would be controlling perhaps a couple of different constrained channel ops or layer modes or both at the same time. I watched one of them decompose the healing brush that way, for example -- where they figured out that it was just a brush constrained to use specific modes, yadda.
So, I realize, as I watch these images scroll by, that I am probably a fairly typical 'isn't that a pretty picture' kind of critic. That being said, I am also a 'isn't that an incredibly intelligent person' kind of critic and it would be really nice if there were people here who could figure out what the expensive software is doing. -- carol 07:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 21:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Barbary Macaque in Gibraltar.

result: 9 supports, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Benh 21:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cistercian abbey of Rudy Wielkie.

  •  Comment In strict terms the composition is fine. The main critique is like you say, a bit tight, which does not necessarily ruin the image itself. Composition wise the image is balanced, with good proportion, etc., etc. The cut off church top could be "resolved" by cloning some sky over the top part so as to enclose the church in blue... --Tomascastelazo 19:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My problem with the composition is that all the parts I'd like to see on the monastery are either obscured by the trees or escaping from the picture: top of the tower, entrance portal on the right, parts of the building on the left,... The photo looks like the author wanted to squeeze both the people and the building there, and I'm afraid the result isn't a great picture of the abbey. --che 22:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 opposes, 2 neutrals => not featured. Benh 21:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gabor Talmacsi

result: 15 supports, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Benh 21:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red-headed Woodpecker.

result: 13 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 21:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

Short description

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 15:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bastion of the Belvedere Fort in Florence

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 15:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  •  Comment Yes LucaG, 1/2 exposure. Aperture priority. I wanted a lot of DOF due to the general environment and ISO 100 to avoid noise. I used a tripod and delay shutter release to avoid motion blur, risking movement by subjects. Fortunately they did not move enough. --Tomascastelazo 22:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 14 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 21:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

I lost the exif data when editing/saving in Photoshop, is there a way to add it after the fact? In any case it was 70mm, f4.0, 1/400s. Thanks, Cacophony 01:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 21:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of the bicycle, with numbers and years

result: 11 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 21:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Originally promoted here

:  Info The photographer requested it be replaced with a lower res version, and it has been (although the hi-res version is still available from the images history). The new version has therefore inherited the FP label. So we need to delist the old one and re-nominate the new one to see if it still meets FP. But as the new one is over top of the old one it just becomes a single operation. A keep decision essentially gives the new version the FP tag, a delist decision means neither will be FP. If you want to argue that the original should never have been over-written then comment at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Image:SFO_at_night.jpg --Tony Wills 11:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Withdrawn --Tony Wills 10:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delist That is quite evident I think. This is NOT the picture given FP status. Does it even have to go through the delist procedure? I is a different image, so there is no old one to delist!!! Lycaon 13:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is still there (we just can't see it as easily, but I thought it reasonable to offer up this version as an alternative in case its small size was mitigated by its wow :-). The decision to honour the photographers request is rather 'soft', please go comment on the admin noticeboard (as above) if you think it shouldn't have been done. --Tony Wills 21:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I really hope the hires image is restored, it's a great image. /Daniel78 21:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment not that it is going to matter, but this should be a listing, not a delisting. Were the vote between 1:2 and 2:1 the difference would have been significant.  Delist of course. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I am in 110% agreement with Lycaon's comment above. We shouldn't be voting to delist this picture; we can't delist this picture because it is not an FP. I've removed the FP tag, and the other awards and left a note that another version of the image was so recognised. I hope that's not too bold. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes it is too bold, why bother doing that when there is a process in progress, with my reasons for doing it this way explained above? Why don't you just delete this discussion while you are at it ;-). I've been bold and reverted your edit ;-). Now if you want to be bold, simply revert the new version of the actual image instead (the full version is still there in the history). --Tony Wills 11:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, it was slightly tempting to move the discussion to Commons:Featured pictures candidates/Image:SFO at night.jpg (downsized). But I prefer your suggestion below. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have with this process is not that it will take a few days longer than direct action, the problem I have is that this is the wrong process. Supposed, for example, that the outcome was between 1:2 and 2:1, or that there were less than 5 votes - that is, that there was neither enough support to promote nor enough opposition to delist. Would you then say that this picture should be a featured picture or not? I acknowledge that this is a theoretical debate, but I'm guessing that this won't be the last feature picture to get replaced with a different version. Suppose for example, someone uploads a de-noised version of an FP they've taken, one which they believe is better, but other people disagree. Should not the new picture be an FP candidate? Why should this be different, why are we talking about delisting? Cheers, Ben Aveling 21:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the cc license was not even revocable so why was the image replaced at all ? /Daniel78 22:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: image restored, delist vote nullified => not delisted. Tony Wills 10:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hakka earth buildings at Snail pit village in Fujian

  •  Info What are these mysterious looking objects ? Nuclear reactor ? Nope.

They are actually hundreds years old commuity housing of the Hakka people deep in the remote mountaineous region at southwestern Fujian, a 4 hours bumpy drive by taxi from Xiamen.

Any one has seen this type of buildings made out of earth and timber anywhere in the world ?

UNESCO has sent experts the examine the site, it has high hope of becoming a World Cultural Heritage site in 2008. By then, it would be overcrowded with visitors, and would be impossible to obtain picture without people in it.

See en:Tian Luo Keng Earth Buildings--Gisling 13:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


result: 3 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh 20:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

Carta Marina

result: 9 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 21:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Skyline at night, hdr stitch

  • I wish I could lay claim to some special HDR-sense, but JDrewes is right - the tooltip popup mentioned HDR. Otherwise, I never would have known. :) --JaGa 18:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Ok, I dont want to flood this place but I cant hold myselft asking you if that 3-exposure settings: is it a programmable feature of the d200 or you have to set them for every angle manualy? Acarpentier 16:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many DSLRs have exposure bracketing, you usually set how far to under/over expose and that setting remains for future shots (until you change it). Your D80 seems to have some nice features for this :) Dori - Talk 18:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, I sure will check this ;) Acarpentier 19:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out where the striping is? I don't see anything. At what scale are you looking at the image? --JDrewes 23:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Strange - it certainly was there on my screen at 100%, but now it's not. I can only suppose it was some random rendering issue, but anyway I'm now happy to support. --MichaelMaggs 22:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 21:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castle in Będzin

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lestat --Lestat 12:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Lestat 12:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentIt is only my impression or the right tower is leaning to the left? Maybe is the perspective? Jacopo 17:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose First of all it is not clear to me what makes this photo particularly valuable? Besides that the photo has a distracting perspective distortion, which needs to be corrected (I am quite frankly a little surprised to see it has gone through QI). The lighting is a little too harsh for my taste as well. I suggest doing such photos at dawn or in the morning, when the light is softer. This has the added advantage that the distracting tourists are easier to avoid. -- Slaunger 20:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment I took the liberty of adding an English interwiki link to the English description of Będzin Castle on the image page. That helped me understand the significance of the place. I still think the technical problems are too severe to support it though. I also suggest you to add geodata - adds value for users independent of language.-- Slaunger 21:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 15:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leopard Tortoise

result: 3 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh 21:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh 21:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An illustration of cheating

 result: 6 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh 21:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  • I used to stay in Zambia 1988-1990, and that's when I visited the neighbours, long before I even started to pretend to be an amateur photographer... ;-). But sometimes you get lucky... Lycaon 21:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 supports, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Benh 21:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

Short description

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 15:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bastion of the Belvedere Fort in Florence

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 15:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  •  Comment Yes LucaG, 1/2 exposure. Aperture priority. I wanted a lot of DOF due to the general environment and ISO 100 to avoid noise. I used a tripod and delay shutter release to avoid motion blur, risking movement by subjects. Fortunately they did not move enough. --Tomascastelazo 22:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 14 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 21:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

Short description

I lost the exif data when editing/saving in Photoshop, is there a way to add it after the fact? In any case it was 70mm, f4.0, 1/400s. Thanks, Cacophony 01:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 21:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of the bicycle, with numbers and years

result: 11 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 21:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hakka earth buildings at Snail pit village in Fujian

  •  Info What are these mysterious looking objects ? Nuclear reactor ? Nope.

They are actually hundreds years old commuity housing of the Hakka people deep in the remote mountaineous region at southwestern Fujian, a 4 hours bumpy drive by taxi from Xiamen.

Any one has seen this type of buildings made out of earth and timber anywhere in the world ?

UNESCO has sent experts the examine the site, it has high hope of becoming a World Cultural Heritage site in 2008. By then, it would be overcrowded with visitors, and would be impossible to obtain picture without people in it.

See en:Tian Luo Keng Earth Buildings--Gisling 13:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


result: 3 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh 20:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carta Marina

result: 9 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 21:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Skyline at night, hdr stitch

  • I wish I could lay claim to some special HDR-sense, but JDrewes is right - the tooltip popup mentioned HDR. Otherwise, I never would have known. :) --JaGa 18:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Ok, I dont want to flood this place but I cant hold myselft asking you if that 3-exposure settings: is it a programmable feature of the d200 or you have to set them for every angle manualy? Acarpentier 16:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many DSLRs have exposure bracketing, you usually set how far to under/over expose and that setting remains for future shots (until you change it). Your D80 seems to have some nice features for this :) Dori - Talk 18:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, I sure will check this ;) Acarpentier 19:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out where the striping is? I don't see anything. At what scale are you looking at the image? --JDrewes 23:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Strange - it certainly was there on my screen at 100%, but now it's not. I can only suppose it was some random rendering issue, but anyway I'm now happy to support. --MichaelMaggs 22:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 21:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castle in Będzin

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lestat --Lestat 12:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Lestat 12:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentIt is only my impression or the right tower is leaning to the left? Maybe is the perspective? Jacopo 17:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose First of all it is not clear to me what makes this photo particularly valuable? Besides that the photo has a distracting perspective distortion, which needs to be corrected (I am quite frankly a little surprised to see it has gone through QI). The lighting is a little too harsh for my taste as well. I suggest doing such photos at dawn or in the morning, when the light is softer. This has the added advantage that the distracting tourists are easier to avoid. -- Slaunger 20:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment I took the liberty of adding an English interwiki link to the English description of Będzin Castle on the image page. That helped me understand the significance of the place. I still think the technical problems are too severe to support it though. I also suggest you to add geodata - adds value for users independent of language.-- Slaunger 21:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Cecil 15:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leopard Tortoise

result: 3 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh 21:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh 21:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An illustration of cheating

 result: 6 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh 21:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large topographic map of Falkland Islands

  • Now that I'm more accustomed with this kind of map (and specifically this one as it's the third version !), I only needed one or two hours for the topographic background. For the shores which need a specific work, several hours too, and more complicated they are, more time is needed because Inkscape runs very, very slowly when it has to handle with 3 or 400.000 points (when for example 16 SWBD tiles are used – a 4° x 4° map). In these cases, it may need several days to clean the SWBD file ! The rivers are also very greedy in time, as their course need to be corrected in order to follow precisely the relief of your map. For this version, only about one or two hours because I re-used the former drawings, but it can also need several days (like in Image:Pyrenees_topographic_map-fr.svg).
To resume, I would say that the topography and the bathymetry are the fastest and easiest to be drawn ; the shore limits (taken from the NASA SWBD files) may need from a few hours to several days depending of the area covered by the map ; the same for the rivers depending their number ; several hours too for additional data (roads) depending their complexity and the quality of the source. Sting 15:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I vote so Sting knows I'm impressed by his work :) But I think before voting that these kind of map should be checked for their accuracy first (I suspect it to be accurate), and I'm too lazy to take the time to verify :) Benh 10:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Benh. About the topography, you can be insured about its accuracy as it comes directly from the NASA. The only manipulation of the data is the simplification of the paths after vectorization, and for this I give the equivalent scale in the description page. The doubts could be on the rivers and roads, and I give the links to their source to be able to compare. Sting 12:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Info -You can check en:Shuttle Radar Topography Mission for more information about the en:digital elevation models they make available as well as their external links (specifically their accuracy report page). The SRTM data were measured by instruments from the Shuttle, so with no direct human interference, and post-processed afterwards. The SRTM project is leaded by the en:National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. I'm not a professional cartographer but for our project here and our needs, I don't see what kind of better references can be given. But note that these maps have to be taken for what they are, for example they aren't of course intended to be used for flight or sea navigation as this is not their purpose. Sting 14:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ronja 07:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  • I used to stay in Zambia 1988-1990, and that's when I visited the neighbours, long before I even started to pretend to be an amateur photographer... ;-). But sometimes you get lucky... Lycaon 21:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 supports, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Benh 21:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Wattlebird Anthochaera carunculata also known as Barkingbird or Gillbird, is a honeyeater; a group of birds found mainly in Australia and New Guinea which have highly developed brush-tipped tongues adapted for nectar feeding. The tongue is flicked rapidly and repeatedly into a flower, the upper mandible then compressing any liquid out when the bill is closed.

result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curry Tree flower

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vilnius panoramic view

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first!--Beyond silence 23:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  •  Info created by Maurits Vink - The Oudegracht is a canal trough the city of Utrecht, Netherlands. It's unique in the world because of their wharfs. These warfs are partly in used by restaurants and cafés. At this picture, you can see the Oudegracht at night., 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  •  Support --Mauritsvink 20:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Bad lighting and exposure. If you have the original RAW file, it might still be salvageable. Freedom to share 13:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --High lights widely overexposed and low lights widely underexposed which means no use of the advantage of the digital camera for this still photograph, the bridge and elements behind are clearly out of focus, the use of wide angular in conjunction of shooting towards the sky brought heavy distortions which weren't even tried to be corrected, not even a single post-processing to correct the blue/purple halos near the burned areas, poor composition… No technique involved. Not even a QI. Sorry, my comment is harsh, I know, but you didn't expect anything else, did you ? Sting 19:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 15:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 15:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

Bird is in context. Red-headed finches are granivores and feed (and just sit/wait) together with their wives in the sand under the patchy shadow cast by Camel thorn trees. They are not as jumpy as the Mossies, but also far less common (at least in Sossusvlei). The bird was photographed under the tree left of the second white car on the middle right hand side of this picture. Need more context? ;-) Lycaon 21:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fairness, I looked info on this bird, and yes, you are correct in what you say about it. However, I also found many good pictures (better, in my opinion) of the bird in the net. Photographically speaking, though, I still find the image with certain flaws. The background is distracting, the shadows, the feet seem cut-off. The bird itself looks as if he just woke up. Remember the saying... a picture is worth a thousand words, but if you need a thousand words to explain a picture, well, maybe it is not accomplishing its objective. The picture, however, does contribute encyclopeadic value, but not FP material. --Tomascastelazo 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption is correct. This was the orignal version. Lycaon 21:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eupeodes americanus

✓ Done
Thank you ;-)
✓ Done
Hmm, yes you made the species gallery alright but you still have the redundant species gallery as well. I recommend you get rid of the latter to avoid confusion for the next contributor of that species. That is how it usually done for species. Got it? If not, I can assist you. -- Slaunger 19:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category removed also. Calibas 21:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed -- Slaunger 20:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zinnia species, probably Zinnia elegans or a hybrid. Calibas 02:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed I think you are right. I took the liberty of adding the image to the unspecific Category:Zinnia. -- Slaunger 20:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  •  Info created by, uploaded by User:Lucag - nominated by Tomas Castelazo
  •  Comment I have navigated through Lucag gallery and I am not only impressed, but very, very pleased. This is talent. Wipipedia is in fact very fortunate to have his generous contributions.
This is definitely not the best he has aesthetically-wise, but is it a very well taken photograph with relevant encyclopaedic value, that brings to us today the enduring glory of the Roman Empire.
I feel a little embarrassed by you praise but...thank you very much Tomascastelazo! I'm happy you like my work. --LucaG 18:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Lucag - Well, I took the time to REALLY look at your work and it is very, very good work. No other intention on my part except to acknowledge the quality of it and congratulate you on it. Embarrased? Don't be! Proud, yes! --Tomascastelazo 18:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I've never thought that my name was annoying on my pictures!
    About Image I agree: It's not exceptional, it don't worth FP. I uploaded it only because I didn't find on Commons this arch depicted in his context, so the framing is OK for me. --LucaG 19:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't misunderstand me : it's not because I don't think a picture is not FP worth that it's not a valuable one. This photograph is valuable because it depicts well the subject and thanks to you for having uploaded it, simply it's good (well over the average) but not spectacular.Sting 23:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

✓ Done Fixed slight overexposure on sunny rocks and red edges, Thanks. About wow factor...I can't do more than that ;) --LucaG 00:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --I've corrected some few edge artefacts which still remained. Comparing this display with the one on my computer, more neutral, the picture could have been a bit less saturated. Btw, like the other ones, I don't like the file name. Sting 03:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  •  Comment Flicka - I think Luca used a polarizing filter, hence the sky. That has happened to me, and you get the blue grading especially when the sun is not perpendicular to the film plane. The further the sky (left side) from the sun the darker the blue, consistent with the way polarizing works (look at the shadow direction). What I would have done, in any case, is like you suggest, photoshop it a little, burning in the bottom left area of the picture, bringing it down to about 50%, or a little less. Digital manipulatons are no different than dark room manipulations, therefore, I do not see why an image of this type should be disqualified on that basis. On top of that, digital cameras have a very limited dynamic range, therefore, photoshop is a valid and must resource. Ansel Adams's final photographs looked nothing like his negatives, he manipulated heavily and look what he left us. Regards, --Tomascastelazo 20:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think he used a pol filter, but I'm not sure if this was enough to get this kind of dark sky at noon behind a rock that is half in the shadow. I agree personally that it shouldn't matter whether the picture is great from the beginning or great after working on it on photoshop. But I remember I read some guidelines about digital manipulations on FP candidates and maybe this one should be mentioned in the image text. --Flicka 21:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Flicka, yes I did. I used a pol filter. I shot this one at 10:30am to have the sun at 45° both in heigh and side to enhance the effect of the polarizing filter. And yes, I always shoot in RAW so I need PS to develop my pictures but I'm not so keen in the digital darkroom to "change the sky". In PS I work only on levels and curves and here I slightly increased contrast. I think this sort of blu sky is not so rare. You too have an amazing picture of Double Arc with a beautiful blu sky. --LucaG 22:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! :) But unfortunately my pic is just acceptable and I HAD to do all the digital manipulations that where possible to get a picture with blue sky and without black or overexposed rocks. But you have convinced me that it's possible to manage that all. So at least I have learned from that discussion three things: to go to the double arch in the morning next time when I spend my vacation in Utah (what maybe in about 20 years...), to use my 150-Euro-kaesemann-pol-filter instead of carrying it with me in my photo bag and to do more pictures on the RAW mode ;-). And after all I'd like to say sorry for being such doubtful. --Flicka 17:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevermind ;). Even if you don't want to manipulate your photos, RAW format can save an image. How many pictures we take with wrong color temperature? With RAW you can change temperature without loss of quality, but I'm sure you know that :)) --LucaG 20:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tombeau du frere Andree

2007 (UTC)

✓ Done Fixed. ;) Acarpentier 12:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result:15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schematic Diagram of Garden Snail Anatomy

* Thanks for the information. I did not know how to sort it out. --Al2 13:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is for the angle of the blessed snail. --Al2 14:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 16:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram of a Trolleybus, based on an actual vehicle still running in Valparaíso, Chile.

result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

  •  Info created and uploaded by Flicka - nominated by --Tomascastelazo 19:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Flicka, it is indeed a beautiful picture, so I am taking the liberty to nominate it, not as a competition to the one by Lucag, but as a complement. And a tip. When I do landscape photography, I get there before the sun comes up, even when the sun strikes the subject, the contrast value light/shadow is much lower. I prefer morning to afternoon. One last comment... clone out the airplanes streak... --Tomascastelazo 19:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support As I said before this one is an amazing picture of Double Arc with a beautiful blu sky. Please don't clone out the airplanes streak. I'm not a fan of digital over manipulation as Tomas :) --LucaG 20:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, the chromatic aberrations on the arch are too much for FP, also not all that sharp. Dori - Talk 21:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, i like this one better than Lucag's photo. --Aqwis 22:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Very poor quality at 100% - obvious haloing between the rocks and the sky resulting from heavy photoshop work. --Fir0002 www 05:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Oops! I just wanted to have a look at your picture again, Luca, and what do I find? To be honest, I just did another edit on the original picture yesterday evening to see if I'm able to do it better, so I'd like to upload the new version and show it here. In my opinion it's better than this one. So see you later. --Flicka 17:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edition
  •  Comment Okay here we are - and I like the airplane streak. It looks like pointing to my friend who's standing alone under this huge arch :-) --Flicka 17:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Rollopack 20:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --The POV of the second version is very good (why having cropped the first ?), the original quality is poor, the post-processing is awful (look what you did to the clouds) and the hallowing remains. Sting 02:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose chroma noise, halos, focus. Lycaon 12:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment You're right and in my opinion also the picture is nothing for FP. As I already said before in my comment to Luca's picture, this one is just acceptable. So Tomascastelazo, would you withdraw the nomination please? And at Sting: You don't know the original picture. Maybe your opinion about the post-processing would be better if you knew ;-) The painted style of the clouds is because of the heavy noise reduction I had to do after getting the sky from nearly white to a friendly blue. --Flicka 17:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Tomascastelazo 22:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC) at the request of author --Tomascastelazo 22:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. And thanks for nominating too. Though it's not good enough for FP, I'm happy to know there are other people who also like the picture. --Flicka 18:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church in village Siána on Greece island Rhodes

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taxidea taxus ♀

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 16:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apses of the parochial Church of Santa Maria of Cambre. Galicia

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 16:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anantanagaraj Royal Barge of Thailand 2007

  •  Info created by Lerdsuwa - uploaded by Lerdsuwa - nominated by Lerdsuwa --Lerdsuwa 16:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Royal Barge Anantanagaraj of Thailand. It's from full dress rehearsal with crew in their genuine, bright red costume. I won't miss the next real event - best guess would be 4 years from now celebrating King's 7th cycle.
  •  Support --Lerdsuwa 16:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, composition, unsharp. --Aqwis 16:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Picture is unsharp probabaly from the crop Jellobie 19:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too bad the sharpness is all I could do. The crop is only the top and bottom of the photo, the way how Royal Barge photos are often presented. I decided to keep the full width (full 3,888 pixels) from the camera rather than scale them down to 2,000 pixels or something wide. --Lerdsuwa 10:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose ...and severly overexposed in the red channel. A pity because it is a nice scene. -- Slaunger 22:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, none of the rower red costume are overexposed. The overexposed part is the golden barge. No matter how I tweak to pixel value to somewhere below 255, it always returns back to 255 after saving to JPEG format. It's just the way JPEG compression works in the area with lots of details. (I have DSP knowledge and understand how it works). Another way would be saving the image as PNG and I could make the image having zero overexposed pixel. --Lerdsuwa 10:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ✓ Done Fix sharpness and overexposure. I thought I would have to rewrite parts of a JPEG library to solve compression-induced overexposure but tweaking JPEG quantization table is much easier. Now the fullsize photo only has 16 pixels with value 255 on GIMP, down from 49937 pixels (should be about the same on other viewer). --Lerdsuwa 15:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - per the others, really. [[Anonymous Dissident]] 15:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question The red still looks strangely flat, and it sometimes has auras next to it. While the latter could be from lack of focus, the flatness seems to be due to oversaturation/overexposure in the red channel, as mentioned above. When you say "Fix sharpness and overexposure.", did you go back to the original raw file? If you worked from a jpeg, it's no use - in jpg, colors blown once are blown forever... --JDrewes 17:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could go back to original JPEG and redo them. I doubt it would change anything. The costume is made from wool felt and has those smooth look. I did avoid overblown during shooting of the photo which cause the original to look somewhat dark and lack the color and intended to fix it during post processing. You can look and judge from the oldest version of this file. It only had some white balance fix and curve correction but didn't correct for saturation. I applied saturation after seeing how other photographers image looks. Image:Narai_Song_Suban_HM_Rama_IX_bow.jpg shows greater details on the costume to see how it looks like but the focus was on the figure on the barge, not the crew. (Note: from different barge, slightly different costume, notably the silver decoration on the hat and sleeves rather than gold/red.) --Lerdsuwa 12:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just experiment with the original again while checking each step not to overblowing the cloth. The result actually look flatter, the version I uploaded above is more 3D because of the higher sharpening. --Lerdsuwa 16:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 16:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

result: 1 Delist, 1 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 17:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

I've moved the picture to the top of the nomination. -- Cecil 10:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 17:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short description Sitching errors

result: 3 Delist, 2 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 17:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cello player in Sarajevo

  • And yet, it's a valuable picture. Some, (perhaps most) of our featured pictures are featured (valuable) for their beauty alone, others are featured (valuable) for other reasons: their emotional impact, their historical significance, their education value. I cannot believe that having less pixels than (to pick a soft target) a typical macro shot of a pretty flower with a hoverfly on it makes this rare, perhaps unique, and hopefully unrepeatable image somehow not valuable. Regards, Ben Aveling
  • Thanks for the fresh breath of sanity in a nitpicking world. :) --JaGa 09:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being valuable is not equal to being featured. Would you feature this version wich is 50% reduced on the side? There has to be some limit. And I would also like to quote Doodledoo:"This is likely a film scan, though, so is there a higher resolution possibilty?". And lastly, it may be valuable, it may also be not, but just a staged image. Is there not something like sources/references for historical images? Lycaon 09:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've reduced the size of that picture by 75% and you're asking me how much you've reduced the value of it? The answer is, you've reduced the value to 0. We still have this picture, so the reduced picture is worthless. Had you also deleted this image, then the smaller image would have value, less than this one does now, but far more than 25% of the value that this one does. If someone does upload a better version of this image, then the value of this image would drop to 0 but until then, this image has considerable value. It is one of our "finest pictures". Regards, Ben Aveling 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is? I wasn't expecting it to be. There is a limit, but it isn't hard and fast. For some images, 2M may not be enough. For others, lower limits are appropriate. I can think of one photo which has about 3 pixels that aren't solid black that I would support if we could get a free copy of it - the shot of earth from a vanishing space probe. (Can't find a reference right now, sorry.) I think I have already addressed the issue of hypothetical could exist but we don't have a copy pictures. As for it being staged, I don't see how to answer that, it's like asking was this taken with a camera. For certain, the player was deliberately sitting where he was so that he could be seen and heard, that goes with performing. Does that make the image any less real? Even if he was posing only for the camera, the image would still be an expression of how one man reacted to what was happening around him - which certainly was very real. Most of our FP are 'staged' in some way or another. We choose the subject, where to place ourselves, perhaps we have to wait for the right conditions, sometimes conditions present themselves to us if we are ready for them, sometimes we can create the conditions we want. Is that closer to a 75% answer? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 Delist, 7 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 17:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Hamza Issa Farid est un Djiboutiens,et il est un etudiant .Il a commence L'etude de 1 er année jusqu'a second;ecole Champion et Lycée Mandela.Et Mantenant,il passe L'anticipe blanc.Il à une belle Famille,les noms des freres: Mahomed,Ibrahim,Abdi,Idriss,Sadik,Hamza,Bilal,Youssouf;et les noms des soeurs:Moumina,Rahma,Zamzam;les noms des parents:Issa Farid Adaweh,Fardoussa Sayed Idriss.Et aussi son couleur préferée est: Rouge;son matieré est:Arabe.Il est Muslumans; il decteste les menteurs et les voleurs;il aime ses familles et ses amis; et il aime trop voyage comme Dubai;Turkey...


  1. REDIRECT Nom de la page de destination