Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 15:29:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:AllianzArenaII.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:AllianzArenaII.jpg
Oppose the spot you chose is a bit unfortunate. I havent walked around there but there seems to be quite good spot to make pics of that stadium. Good old Richard took some very good pics from there. --AngMoKio (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2009 at 14:34:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mignon Nevada Ophelia2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mignon Nevada Ophelia2.jpg
Comment I just about wept when seeing this beautiful piece so lovingly restored, while browsing through WP:Featured Pictures. I really couldn't go past those hauntingly beautiful eyes...
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 12:41:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:U S Air Force Thunderbirds.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:U S Air Force Thunderbirds.jpg
Info That's exactly the point. Thunerbird 5 (the Lead Solo) is the one that flies upside down in all stunts where an upside down flight is necessary. Wolf (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps a formality supporting this image but it is really good. Agree as been stated above that it does take a special kind of divvy to attempt such a stunt, perhaps retaking this image would be a daft idea (least of all for the photographer). Its a while since an image stunned me so much (mostly at how bloody daft some people can be!) Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2009 at 04:22:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lake Manyara Wildlife.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lake Manyara Wildlife.jpg
Karel, I can take constructive criticism. But "no wow" is kind of lame, and empty (and some of the images you have voted for lacks any "wow" in them). I hope you did notice the use of DoF to show four distinct 'layers' - from foreground to background, with animals in their natural habitat and movements. --eismcsquare02:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2009 at 08:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Probably the best photo of Dead Vlei we have. I first saw that location in the films The Cell and The Fall, both of which use it to add to their surreal atmosphere. This quality is captured really well in the candidate image. -- JovanCormac11:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2009 at 07:21:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:GlenHelenGorge NorthernTerritory Panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:GlenHelenGorge NorthernTerritory Panorama.jpg
Comment Thanks for your comment and attention to detail helping to improve the image. I had accidentally stripped the EXIF while cut/paste cropping in GIMP. I've resaved with the original data and cloned dark sky regions. See what you think now. --~ (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about your color profile ? When I download the image, open it in Firefox (v.3.5.3 – color mode by default) and compare it to the one opened in Photoshop, it's displayed like if it hasn't any profile embedded and with pretty harsh saturation, well far from sRGB rendering. Btw, when I open it in Photoshop, it tells me there's no profile embedded in the image. Weird, isn't it? Sting (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit out of my depth on this one. I'm sure the camera only takes sRGB (that is the default and I haven't changed it), and each image is marked as such. Would it have been mysteriously changed during the use of hugin/GIMP/Picasa? I hardly did any manipulation, so I doubt anything would have changed it. I use firefox and it looks accurate... 99of9 (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Open it in IE which doesn't handle color management and you'll notice the colors are the same than in FF, which means no sRGB profile is embedded in the image. But if you think these saturated colors with imo an unreal sky are ok... it's your taste. Anyway, I'm uploading a version with the sRGB profile embedded (no other change has been made) so you can see what I'm meaning. If you don't like it, just revert to your previous version. Sting (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical quality insufficient for FP: Looks somewhat blurry and washed out in full resolution, especially on the sides. --NEURO⇌11:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info This discussion comes up every few weeks for panoramics with high resolution. 99of9 could have uploaded a downsampled image only and you would say that it's sharp now. However we should engage people to upload full resolution pictures (this one has almost 25 MP). Judging such large images on computer screens at 100% is nonsense because you actually look at a small zoomed area. Reduce to 50% on screen to get an idea how sharp an image will look as a printed poster. --Ikiwaner (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Ikiwaner is correct that I have not downsampled at all since (I even turned off the hugin default) since I wanted to provide users with as much information as possible. 99of9 (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO lacking sharpness is not the only issue with this image as I pointed out above. As to downsampling or not downsampling: an image that is overall blurry contains redundant information (a form of w:Oversampling if you will). By downsampling you get rid of that redundancy but the information content is the same. Thus downsampling isn't always a bad thing. --NEURO⇌22:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2009 at 08:02:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment If it a colourfull HDR, the image gets shot down for unrealistic colours. If you get a plain image, it is shot down because of dull colours. Weird, huh? --Muhammad (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2009 at 21:04:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:US Navy 041201-N-4308O-030 An F-A-18 Hornet assigned to the Silver Eagles of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron One One Five (VMFA-115), prepares to launch from one of four steam powered catapults.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:US Navy 041201-N-4308O-030 An F-A-18 Hornet assigned to the Silver Eagles of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron One One Five (VMFA-115), prepares to launch from one of four steam powered catapults.jpg
Weak oppose, if even I can see the technical flaws (see above), that means there is clearly something wrong with the picture. A pity... Airwolf (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info One should be a bit more careful when judging an image like this terrible or Promoting this is a non-sense. The pic was shot back in 2004 with a Nikon D2H. This was Nikons flagship-line professional camera that cost USD 6000 for the body only. It had 4.1 MP. There was simply no better technology available. The photographer Ryan O'Connor knew what he was doing by shooting this with manual exposure and spot metering. Who ever did a picture of fog knows that this tends to be noisy. Besides the fact that noise is better visible in uniform areas such as fog the fog itself is no homogeneous structure. Therefore I would not recommend to apply a strong denoising filter because the fog would look like semi-transparent plastic. Kudos to Ryan! --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Daniel, I doubt that noise, posterization and artifacts are all camera-induced if we're talking about 2004 technology. Point-and-shoot cameras were better than that in 2004 (my 1 year old 5 mpx sony point-and-shoot was already 1 year old when this got taken). This picture's histogram was probably stretched one way or another, causing low contrast areas, like fog, to be severly degraded. --S23678 (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beside the compression artifacts - which can ruin any photograph taken with both-handedly wielded best and most recent camera in the world, using state-of-the-art deep-matrix metering system, this photo is just FA-18 in the fog. Looks nice, but not informative enough. -- Blago Tebi (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not fog, this is steam from the catapult that is about to launch this aeroplane in the air. This is imho a very illustrative picture exactly because of what you call "fog". — Preceding unsigned comment added by GerardM (talk • contribs) 19:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mind that I have written "informative", not "illustrative". It would maybe be informative had the "fog" be visibly being emitted from mentioned catapult. Here, I don't see any catapult. Thus, I have to rely on your written description. Now, that is not enough information in the picture, sorry. -- Blago Tebi (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 11:38:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 16:47:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spider webs in Muir Woods.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spider webs in Muir Woods.jpg
Infow:Muir Woods is always dark, even on a bright sunny day. The trees are too tall to let the sun through. Yesterday I've noticed many spider webs that were lit by the sun rays in some places. I was amazed by mystic of the lights and shadows that are clearly seen at spider webs and some Autumn leaves. It was almost as Photographing a model #2, only now it was all natural. BTW how many spider webs do you see :)
Oppose It's a little too hard to see what's going on in this picture (darkness, no clear center of attention). Also sharpness problems. -- JovanCormac09:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 22:24:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zvíkov 8.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zvíkov 8.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 03:57:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:City Lights at Night.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:City Lights at Night.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's composition and quality are sub-standard to normal FPs. --S23678 (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2009 (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.
Comment Anyone with some Vietnamese skills could write to Mr Lê and explain him a little about FPC? Out of the 10 FPCs he nominated, he received a total of 1 support vote (considered "weak support" even)... --S23678 (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2009 at 21:14:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:360 degrees fogbow.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:360 degrees fogbow.jpg
Info It is a very rare indeed 360 degrees w:fogbow. Of course nothing is really sharp at the image because of the fog that made fogbow possible. There is even no need to see the image in the full view. The whole thing is seen better in the preview. My shadow in the middle could not have been avoided. Fogbows are always formed around antisolar point, and besides isn't this fun to see your own shadow inside ghostly looking white circle
Low modesty levels detected ;) It's a good representation of a very rare phenomena, but IMO it's not an eye-catching image, as the rest of the FPs usually are. That's why we have VIs. --Leafnode✉13:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is, where we differ. IMO the image, is very much eye-catching, interesting and educational. It surely cautht your eyes, if you bothered to oppose :)--Mbz1 (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the phenomenon is rare enough or the composition is exceptional enough to mitigate the low quality. --S23678 (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what makes you to think that the phenomena is not rare enough? Have you seen it yourself? Have you taken an image of it? Have you seen many images of the same phenomena taken by others? Were they better than the nominated image? Just wonder :) BTW the quality is not low, it is almost as good as it gets with such images.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that most of your pictures are extremely rare, that word looses a bit of it's value when you use it... But since you provide pictures of this phenomenon on 2 other separate occasions in the Fogbow category, I guess it's not that rare. And, no, I am not a specialist, but I'm probably not more a specialist than the people who supported your picture. --S23678 (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that I am lying, when I said that the image is very rare? I have quite a few images nominated now, and I did not use the words "extremely rare" to describe any one of them, but that one. Maybe you could link to my other nominations, where I used the words "extremely rare" to describe my image. BTW I said that this fogbow was "very rare" and not "extremely rare". About fogbows. They are more or less rare. "Very rare" are 360 degrees, full circle fogbows, the one, which is nominated now. But I guess you do not see, and do not want to see the difference. May I please suggest you to give it another thought before making the statements as you did? Please have a nice day. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference is that I could prove my disagreements with you with the facts, while you are good only at ignorant talking without any proves at all :) --Mbz1 (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I'm keeping on going with this, but I guess I'm taking it as a challenge. I'm wondering what kinds of facts you need from me, so I added notes on the image about the quality problems. For the rest, it's a mater of personal taste. You think the rareness of the phenomenon is a good enough mitigating reason for the defects that your image have, that's ok, after all, that's why you nominated your image. But I have the right to think that it's not a strong enough mitigating reason as well... If everyone had the same opinion, what a boring place FPC would be. So, is this the last round? --S23678 (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in continuing that discussion either, but I'd like yo explain what statements of yours prompted me to respond the way I did. First was that one (highlighted by me) "I don't think the phenomenon is rare enough or the composition is exceptional enough to mitigate the low quality." In that statement you put my statement that the phenomena is very rare under doubt. You had no reason to do it. You know nothing about fogbows. IMO, if a person "thinks" about something, he'd better be able to explain what made him to think that way. Even after I explained to you why this particular fogbow is very rare you did not bother to admit you were wrong about rarety of the phenomena. The other statement was that one: "Given that most of your pictures are extremely rare, that word looses a bit of it's value when you use it..." I asked to give some examples of those. You did not bother to respond.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I agree that some of the images attributes are not perfect (colour is a little dull), I think that would be splitting hairs when accounting for how special this image this is. Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2009 at 21:35:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sanger Institute and Hinxton Hall, Cambridge, UK.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sanger Institute and Hinxton Hall, Cambridge, UK.jpg
Oppose Oversaturated, even to a point where the tone-mapping software created a halo around the red building in the distance. -- H00521:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Such a saturation would actually not be that bad if there was no man-made objects, since trees at fall can be deeply colourful, but it's not the case. Composition is not optimal as well. --S23678 (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Not sure whether I'd support it as FP (just had a quick glance), but it's a significant progress. -- H00521:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. At this level of correction you get awful artifacts. Check the shadows on the building on the right side. And why this need for dramatic photographs? --Blago Tebi (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment die andere Version ist viel besser. Für ein QI würde ich erwarten, dass du die Lichter (Fassaden) noch besser in den Griff kriegst, die sollten nicht überbelichtet sein, da sie sonst wie sterne funkeln und so das Bild stören. Bin gespannt auf die Resultate! --Ikiwaner (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 03:25:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eiffel Tower at night.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eiffel Tower at night.png
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2009 at 20:50:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Echium wildpretii LC0203.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Echium wildpretii LC0203.jpg
Support Technical criticims is less important than the composition. The colours are good too. Quite a nice foto with the cloud in sky. --Korman (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2009 at 16:40:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2009 at 16:19:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Puck cover2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Puck cover2.jpg
Comment Considering the questions being asked about the role of the USA in world affairs, I thought this was a rather appropriate picture to be featured. As always, thanks go to the wonderful and talented Durova, whose (often overlooked) work contributes so much to what makes Commons a world class image collection.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 18:00:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Venezia - suggestiva foto con giochi di luce.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Venezia - suggestiva foto con giochi di luce.jpg
Oppose I won't FPX, since it will generate ridiculous support votes, but : composition (element on top right corner) and quality (noise, low resolution, as in amount of details). I would request someone else to FPX for me. Thanks. --S23678 (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
S23678, IMO it is not the right thing to do to call "ridiculous" support votes of the people, who have an opinion that differes from your own.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2009 (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: Very blurry and noisy. --Aqwis (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2009 (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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 15:39:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Two silhouette profile or a white vase.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Two silhouette profile or a white vase.jpg
Oppose More VI. This image is not of high artistic merit High artistic merit is not intended for such images in the guidelines, so I remove this, but maintain what's written below. --S23678 (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)--S23678 (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to add this : (in the sense that it's a widely known optical illusion, hence making it not very exceptional). Don't get me wrong, the illusion is well done. I just can't see it's exceptional character, as required for FP. --S23678 (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I totally agree with you on this point, but as much as a cliché shot of Machu Picchu must have some exceptional character to it to make it better than most of the other cliché shots done at the same spot, this widely done optical illusion must have some exceptional character for it to make it FP, IMO --S23678 (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the merits that I do not think we have a single optical illusion image featured, and on what merits you opposed the image, if I may ask? Not that I am really interested to find out. I mean who cares --Mbz1 (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should read featured picture criteria. FP is not a picture that we don't have nothing against. First picture has to fulfill some requirements, that this picture does not fulfill. First of all, picture should be the finest of commons. Exceptional. This simple drawing is not exceptional. We even have a whole category for pictures like this. I really don't see any feature that makes this image better than the other vase/faces images. I don't know what you meant by saying "Again familiar all faces", but I sense that conspiracy theories are coming on soon. --Leafnode✉21:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should read feature picture criteria. Of course the nominated image is the only one from vase/faces that could have been promoted to FP because it meets the size requiremnet, while others do not. Besides you did not even bother to read what I said about the image. It is not a drawing. The image was made from a photograpgh of a real young man that I took last night.I am not sure what "conspiracy theories" you are talking about, but IMO it will be better, if you kept your "sences" to yourself, except of course sense of humor that I believe you're missing --21:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not familiar with vector drawing, and have no idea how such images are made :( I looked at the category, and saw the images of only low resolution. Then I decided it will be fun to make the same image with the real face and of a high resolution. I still believe I've done nothing wrong, when I nominated the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you did nothing wrong. Anyone can nominate any image. And while I tend to put self-nominations under scrutiny ;), it is still just vote, with no very strict rules regarding the substance of pictures (only technical matters), so (almost) any vote is valid. I could have added more philosophical remarks, but that is not the place for my opinions, and you probably won't like to listen to them, so I'll pass here :) Cheers --Leafnode✉22:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW thanks for telling me about vector drawing. Now I know why my image is an exptional between vase/faces - it is the only one that is not a drawing! Best, --Mbz1 (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vector images are readily made with Inkscape. Inkscape has a "Trace bitmap" feature that will convert an image like the candidate one to a vector image, which is indeed better suited for the subject. -- JovanCormac06:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd love to see this well-known optical illusion Featured, but it has been done a lot better than in this image. The "vase" is barely recognizable here. Compare [1], where both the faces and the vase are better done. -- JovanCormac17:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your example was probably made with the nose of w:Cyrano de Bergerac. My image was made from the image of a very real young man I photographed last night. The vase is still there only with more gentle feauters than in the example you provided.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop PA, immediately! As for the language, I'm allowed to call your insinuations stupid and childish, if they are stupid and childish. I did not not call YOU stupid and childish. Do NOT make public assumptions about my personal characteristics (my sense of humour, my intelligence, my looks, my skin colour etc.). That is an ad hominem attack. -- Petritap (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 13:12:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:011218-N-9769P-047 F-A-18 With Weapons Ready for Mission.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:011218-N-9769P-047 F-A-18 With Weapons Ready for Mission.jpg
The Resolution criteria is over 2 MP. This is 2.6 MP... I know it's close to 2 MP but if the criteria has changed this should be stated in the guideline. How large should it be? 3MP ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That issue has been discussed to death (I don't even know which one of the numerous related threads to link to here; this is a recent one), and it appears to be the opinion of a vast majority that the guidelines are non-binding (compare the repeated refusal of the community to delist File:Evstafiev-bosnia-cello.jpg, which has 0.3 MP only). Everyone seems to apply his or her own guidelines (otherwise we'd just purge every single image on this page from FP); therefore, so do I. My opinion is that a Featured Picture should be of sufficient quality to be printable at a reasonable size (say, an A4 page). I will still decide on a case-by-case basis, but in general anything below 5 MP is insufficient for me. -- JovanCormac16:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 01:34:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:91 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:91 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.jpg
Info HDR image of a small water canal going through Machu Picchu's ruins, taken with ND filter. I'm using this HDR nomination as testing grounds for recent Machu Picchu HDR images (heavy link, may freeze computers) I want to nominate as FPC. Given the general opposition (including mine) to HDR images that don't look natural, I tried limit the saturation and contrast. Hope you think I did a good job.
Weak support Sharpness is borderline (roof), but at the image's high resolution that can be forgiven since downscaling sharpens the image. -- JovanCormac09:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing that no downsampling has been done to "increase quality". As mitigating factors for the (small!) quality defects, there's quite an important NR done, the DOF required is very large, the lens themselves are very large as well, AND I had to hurry-up to avoid pissing off more people by completly monopolizing the stairs ;) but that's not a REAL mitigating factor I think...! Downsampled versions are available here to compare with standard lower resolution FPC. --S23678 (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is valid (I can't convince you about liking the composition), but I'll just point the large FOV (14mm on APS-C) and the fact that moving back was impossible --S23678 (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that what I will say might sound like a profanity, but with a crop like this, at the first sight it looks to me like an ordinary pile of rubble. And I understand that there might be no space to move back. And while I'm very sorry, in my struggle for better FP level, which recently deteriorated, I can't vote "yes" :( --Leafnode✉14:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know much about HDR, but it seems to me that the shadows are just as dark as the original. The main difference to my eyes is a yellow cast on the stones, and a more blue sky. Is this the intent of the HDR work? --99of9 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HDR is a very wide field, just as a photoshopped image isn't just an optimized image of a girl in a magazine. I used HDR here to get more color saturation, more local contrast and more details. Having put the shadows less dark would have created an image too far from reality, and while it can be pleasing artistically, it would not have stood a chance in FPC. Verify for yourself and check the difference in details in dark areas. As for the yellow tint, while playing with the levels in photoshop, I got this pleasing golden color and I decided to keep it, since the Incas are associated with gold. --S23678 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 11:24:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anser Anser Domesticus.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anser Anser Domesticus.JPG
Oppose Noise is not an issue here, but white should be white and not grey. I'd support a version edited in such a way. -- H00517:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO no, to the contrary. White balance was quite well in the original photo and should remain unchanged, I'd rather add some light to the image, either as a whole or selectively via gamma curve. -- H00518:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 17:46:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:B17g and b52h in flight.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:B17g and b52h in flight.jpg
Oppose The background is ruining that picture IMO. Having a beige/brown aircraft with a grey one against a... grey background is not pleasing. And on the side, I don't know why people of commons in general should be grateful to these airplanes... --S23678 (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Composition is good, quality isn't (unsharp, noise on tailfin). On a side note, given that those are bomber aircraft, I really don't see how anyone could be grateful that they exist, except maybe for Boeing, the company that built them. -- JovanCormac11:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, the B-17 carried much of the tonnage over Germany, and brought many crews home alive due to good design and performance. The B-52 was (and still is) a potent symbol of American military power, which one could argue, counterbalanced by Soviet forces, kept the world in a state of relative peace for 50 years. So I suppose, upon reflection, we do have something to be grateful for. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I and you and a couple million people can probably be very grateful indeed, but it's very americano/western civilization - centric. "We", as far as I'm concerned, includes the entire world, and should be used with a NPOV. --S23678 (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with official rules. It's just that logic dictates that a worldwide project like Commons has nothing to gain from such nationalist propaganda in it's file names and descriptions, and that a NPOV is the best option. I'm wondering what name some pictures would get if we were to adopt a non-NPOV...! --S23678 (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Airwolf and I are merely stating what we think; notice that the file isn't called "Who Should We Be Grateful To.jpg" and that the picture of GWB isn't called 'AmericanHero.jpg" or "howdidthisbuffooneverbecomepresident.jpg" There's a difference between expressing a view civilly, and being POINTy about it. And don't forget, you did ask why people should be grateful for planes like these, I'm simply giving you an answer. I've got no idea whether the 'correct' answer (if there is such a thing), but I don't see why I shouldn't state my opinion if you've asked for it. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the comments of you 2 as arguments to change the picture's title. We were both right, just arguing on different levels. --S23678 (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I'm afraid I'm going to have vote Neutral as per Jovan. While I love the composition, the setting and quality (sharpness and noise) aren't the best. Also Jovan, I think you mean 'Boeing' :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWho Should We Be Grateful To - what a ridiculous leading question for a title - for a start, that depends on your nationality/allegience, and of course the fact that were not all flag waving morons. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too many irrelevant arguments are used. These are military planes and they need illustrating. Having only "blue arrows" or other colours because that is pretty is rediculous and also does not illustrate the subject well. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don´t think the backgroung and the plane's body color make the contrast worse. The picture has a very accurate exposure as well as a good DoF and excellent resolution, so I think it´s among the featured-deserved pictures. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 09:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe in a Hollywood film the airplanes looks better than this, but this is a real image captured by a normal camera in a real flight. --Cesco77 (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 14:38:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bay Bridge at night.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bay Bridge at night.jpg
Oppose I think a shot at a time of the day with more light would be better. Yes, it is beautiful, but so beautiful that the loss of detail due to bad light can be forgiven. Plus there are dust spots in the water to the left and a possible one if not a very strong star to the right of the bridge in the sky. I still like the picture, but not enough for FP, sorry. and please keep on with you work, I like it.--Korall (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the caption of the image specificly explains the illumination of the bridge :
The illuminations on the cables, while part of the original design, are actually a relatively recent addition, made practical by the availability of high efficiency compact fluorescent lamps.The original roadway illumination was by low pressure sodium vapor lamps, which while efficient give off a garish monochromatic yellow light. On the lower deck these have been replaced with tubular fluorescent lights attached to the bottom of the upper deck, while on the upper deck the illumination is by high pressure vapor lamps, which give off a more full spectrum light.
It would have been hard to talk about illumination in a day shot I guess :) Dust spots are easy to fix, except I do not see them :( I will appreciate, if you could fix them please. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of the slightly off-center composition (not quite thirds rule yet) and the busy composition of the bridge from this perspective (the bridge towers stacked-up one behind the other). --S23678 (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info It is the only perspective that allows to show the illumination of the bridge, which was the idea of the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. I am not sure about the sharpness. The sparkling lights prove that the image is sharp enough IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral interesting image, but the glare from carlights are ruining the mood and making bottom of this picture distracting. Also, there are some spots on it - maybe sensor needs cleaning. I'll mark them in a sec. --Leafnode✉10:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThe composition is a lot better, but the quality is not enough. A 3 mpx FPC should be more crisp when viewed at 100% zoom (the f/14 aperture probably didn't help). HDR, image stacking and/or multiple row panorama would get rid of the quality problems IMO. --S23678 (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not right to talk abot 3 mpx. If the image were downsampled, then maybe, but it was only cropped and not downsampled at all.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 03:42:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Black Panther convention2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black Panther convention2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 06:14:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chrysopa sp. AF 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chrysopa sp. AF 1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 23:40:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Confederate 5 Dollars.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Confederate 5 Dollars.png
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 17:31:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Early morning fog over San Francisco and Golden Gate Bridge.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Early morning fog over San Francisco and Golden Gate Bridge.jpg
Comment There's a CW tilt that should be corrected before voting starts. The disruptive foreground elements (some grass and a small tree) could be cutted away at the same time. --S23678 (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just brought the image to PS and placed a grid over it. I could not see the tilt. Vertical lines seem to be vertical. If you would like to correct the tilt, please do, but I am afraid I cannot do it because I do not see it. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are, but not all. Some are traffic lights, while others are lights at the structures. BTW did you see Golden Gate Bridge? It also has a light on.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I nominated an image of Bay Bridge down below. The image is getting opposed, and the bridge got so upset that part of it colapsed It has been clossed for few days already. The traffic is horrible. I asked the folks to support the image (not for me for the bridge :)), but so far nobody did...--00:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess the image is "not just enough for FP", it is the worst image from current nominations because you bothered to vote only on that nomination today, angmokio :)--Mbz1 (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 17:17:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Feijoa sellowiana .jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Feijoa sellowiana .jpg
Oppose Very nice, but IMHO technically not perfect enough for FP: seems to have lost quite some detail due to noise reduction plus there's a little chromatic aberration on the right side. --NEURO⇌18:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 23:38:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fredmeyer edit 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fredmeyer edit 1.jpg
Comment An interesting study of your typical supermarket; notice the huge amount of food, and the 2 people in there. A comment on our wastefulness? Jovan, I'm happy to say this is 5.12MP. Is that enough? :P
Oppose- Nice shot, but far too much going on, and there's no defined subject. It's an odd angle as well, so at thumbnail (and indeed at full-resolution as well) all I can see is a mess of different colors. –Juliancolton | Talk14:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2009 at 21:47:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:GIB 2007-09-18.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:GIB 2007-09-18.jpg
Support nicely done and it is a very interesting panorama for a change, not just many images stitched together for no reason -- Avala (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This panorama is awesome. I'd support if there was a higher resolution (not downsampled), which is probably easily achievable given the very low vertical size (800px) -S23678 (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting time-lapse. Great picture. I don't think there is any resolution problem. There is not need of artifical addition of pixels where they don't exist (which is the case of many photographs here) -- Blago Tebi (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - It has some over expsure / apperture in the most left part (not the sky, but in the buildings below). Can that be fixed without the need to retake the picture again? - ☩Damërung☩. -- 09:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that retaking the image would give you any different results. It is the combination of sea fog and sun that creates haze and if you want to include that part of the city in an image I doubt you would ever have different results at this time of the day. Maybe it wouldn't be noticeable if there wasn't for the part of panorama on the right, but these are essentially different images as they were taken under different light and geographic conditions.--Avala (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 17:24:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hurricane Bill in First Full Disk Thermal Image from GOES 14.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hurricane Bill in First Full Disk Thermal Image from GOES 14.jpg
Oppose Resolution is quite low - the actual storms are very small even at full size. Compare File:Venus globe.jpg, which has three times the resolution and better detail even though it is of a another planet. The fact that the candidate is a thermal image adds value, but not enough AFAIC. -- JovanCormac07:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 08:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Brazilian salmon pink birdeater, adult female (Lasiodora parahybana). It is one of the largest spiders in the world. This poisonous spider can eat birds, reptiles and small mammals -- George Chernilevskytalk08:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2009 at 03:17:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Prang's Valentine Cards2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Prang's Valentine Cards2.jpg
Alright, that's it. I'm getting pretty sick of your one word image reviews; they contribute nothing to the discussion, tell the creator/restorer nothing about what's wrong with the image and how they could improve it. That's just downright rude, but 'terrible'? That's just going too far. 'Terrible', you say? 'Great' I say. Durova is one of the most talented people I've ever had the pleasure of meeting, so the next words you type had better be 'sorry' and 'it won't happen again'. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is great missunderstandg on side of Lover of Waves. I did not mean, that Durova is terrible. I have never seen her, so maybe is, maybe not. And this is not important in this age of plastic surgery possibilities. But what I really claim is, that this image is one of most ugly kitsch I have ever seen and we should vote about it´s deleting from Wiki instead of FP nomination. --Karel (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And since my potential need for plastic surgery has come under discussion, here's a portrait. In future, please refrain from this level of personal commentary during reviews.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2009 at 04:32:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:San Antonio Christmas.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Antonio Christmas.jpg
Oppose Everything but clear. Heavy image noise, extremely blurry. You could try denoising & downsampling, but then I would probably oppose it for its small resolution. -- JovanCormac07:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 15:35:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Seattle Columbia centre.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Seattle Columbia centre.jpg
Comment I love the composition, but I think the picture could benefit from some noise reduction (mostly sky). Would support if done. --S23678 (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking a look at this just before going to bed, and I see no differences between the 2 version. I may be tired (or my screen may be dirty), but are you sure you uploaded a denoised version? --S23678 (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 05:40:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:SkansenSeptember2007 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:SkansenSeptember2007 2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 14:16:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tanner scale-female.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tanner scale-female.svg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 20:14:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tower blocks in Leeds.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tower blocks in Leeds.jpg
It's hard to believe you're not trying to make a point against me right after challenging the cleanliness of my screen. If you don't see the noise here, I think you need some glasses on your side. Could you explain why this picture is better than 99.96% of all the files in Commons?. --S23678 (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request As the poor hapless idiot who took this hopeless apology for a "picture" can I ask that it be removed from this "competition"? I have never entered a photo competition, and never will. It was taken standing in the middle of a busy road in the rain, so of course it's not a "great" picture, of course there will be "noise" and I don't any of you lot to tell me so, thank you very much. Tdgreen (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noise can be corrected, but it's not the only quality issue here (although the most visible). I don't think any post-processing can make this FP, if this is your intent. --S23678 (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 09:04:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:USS Mesa Verde (LPD-19) during shock trials - 080816-N-6031Q-213.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:USS Mesa Verde (LPD-19) during shock trials - 080816-N-6031Q-213.jpg
Comment How does one go about testing the capability of a war ship to stand up to the rigours of combat? By detonating a 10000 pound (4 535.9 kilogram) charge next to it, of course. The ultimate product demonstration. :P Special thanks to Lycaon for his unsolicited (but much appreciated) cleanup of this image.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 18:31:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:VW Wolfsburg.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:VW Wolfsburg.JPG
Support -- I think the reason given for excluding it from featured picture candidacy is poor. There is little cloud in the sky and in my mind it does not detract from the image. If cloud isn't aloud then how does one take a good picture of the North of England. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 23:51:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Water Dolphin.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Water Dolphin.jpg
Comment Normally I restrict myself to one nomination per day (if I nominated all 650 odd images I want to, there'd be chaos) but I couldn't walk past this interesting piece from our resident water photographer extraodinaire, Noodle Snacks. I doubt you could replicate this easily. Water dolphin indeed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 21:38:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Jan Garbarek-2007-2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Jan Garbarek-2007-2.jpg
Oppose Nice work correcting the exposure, but the extreme image noise is a no-go for me given the low resolution, and it also looks like the color balance is off (red). -- JovanCormac07:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not the best quality (see JovanCormac), but the way you look at the musican in action is imo so brilliant that i would Support --kaʁstn21:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 20:24:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Kleiner Fuchs bmn3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Kleiner Fuchs bmn3.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2009 at 00:17:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Paradiesbrücke.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Paradiesbrücke.jpg
Oppose Up to the task quality-wise, but problems with composition (that left handguard should be cropped, and it's shade is creating a non-pleasant straight line where there should not be). As well, a bit more color saturation would make this fall scenery look a lot better --S23678 (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Romazur 12:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2009 at 21:50:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Notting-Hill Carnival-Beauty.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Notting-Hill Carnival-Beauty.JPG
Oppose she is a beauty, no question, and the colors are nice too but I don't like the extreme tilt. Really too bad bcs the scene in general has the potential for a great shot. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop and too extremly tilt. Typical for the Notting-Hill Carnival are the afro-caribbian members and mainly their fancy costumes, but you reduced it to a nice face. What a pity... -- Ra'ikeTC09:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, typical for present NHC parades is almost everyone, probably from the whole world. Watching it live you may find out it's already transformed into a multicultural event. So, one is able to take a lot of extremely different pictures... Nevertheless, Your undoubtedly important remarks are being appreciated. romazur (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've got few more, but in my opinion this one is the most interesting... Thank You for Your point of view - of course - too. romazur (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I ought to say... at last! Little girl is cute, isn't she? When I discovered her on this picture, looking stright at camera, I started to think it is the best actress in supporting role I've ever seen. Pretty and misterious, as well. And what caused it? Tilt! :)romazur (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tlit was essential... Quality is everything what my compact camera can offer - I am only amateur in photography. Thank You for not long but concise statement, indeed. romazur (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Took me quite a time to think about it (tilt or no tilt?), and now I think the tilt is artistically valid here. But it's quite subjective. Overall, I feel it's an awesome picture (and model...!). --S23678 (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I want to see full costume. I think that a nice face is not enough for FP, especially with her eyes being closed (sadly, it makes the pic less interesting and lively for me). Also background could be better. And quality... Nice try though :)--Tired time (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly You have a full right of expecting to see nothing more but each one imagination of Yours. To be honest, this year there were parading several adult women I would be glad to see without any piece of costume... Unfortunetaly rules of the reality are heartless for daydreams :( Nevertheless, above expression of Your thoughts is important for me, too. romazur (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If "Per kallerna", ok - "Per kallerna": "Tlit was essential... Quality is everything what my compact camera can offer - I am only amateur in photography. Thank You for not long but concise statement, indeed." + I appreciate You were so kind to express some opinion. romazur (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sometimes a bit of tilt does an image the world of good. In this case, it adds a dynamic feel, making you feel as though you're right there shimmying alongside her. Well done! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's right - in relation to the facts: this is a picture with content focused on the one particular moment of the NHC, and I was not going to "photoshop" it to get anything more but real portrait of true beauty. So, thanks for wide reflections on this "raw"... picture!romazur (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 09:00:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sapona Panoramic.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sapona Panoramic.jpg
Upon further examination, there are indeed many visible stitching seams that, at full resolution, detract highly from the otherwise excellent quality of the image. –Juliancolton | Talk02:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've marked some visible stitching seams. The ones in the water are almost unavoidable, but I'd prefer to see them blended more smoothly. The one on the top right of the wreck should probably be fixed before featuring. --99of9 (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth did I miss those? Would there be someone more adroit with image editing than me, willing to assist? I gave it a go myself, but it ended up worse. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk)
A proper job would probably require the original shots. Otherwise all I can suggest is blurring down the seam lines, which will look much better, but probably wouldn't get up to FP standard. 99of9 (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 09:20:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:F-16 refuelling, Exercise Green Flag East - 081201-F-3071N-235.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:F-16 refuelling, Exercise Green Flag East - 081201-F-3071N-235.jpg
Neutral Great, but, I think it could even be better by cropping the foreground element, which has some sort of bizzare double-edge in the top right corner. --S23678 (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 05:22:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Olympic Bobsled Run Lake Placid2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Olympic Bobsled Run Lake Placid2.jpg
Oppose The restoration is good, and the image itself may be valuable, but there's no wow for me. It's just an advertisement? 99of9 (talk) 11:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a Works Progress Administration poster it is technically a public service announcement. An editor had requested a historic featured picture that pertains to the Winter Olympics, to run for next year's games. This was the only available file that was public domain and high enough resolution to restore for featured candidacy. A blog post explains the technical challenges. Durova (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously just because we (someone) *want* a FP on a particular topic that doesn't argue for or against support of any particular image. Nor does it increase the wow. I don't doubt that there were technical challenges, or that you've done a good job. It's just that you're restoring a fairly unimpressive original. --99of9 (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 19:18:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stadtkirche VIT (3).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stadtkirche VIT (3).jpg
Comment Per Jovan, plus needs a slight CW rotation. As well, is this a downsample ?(seems to me, from the corners resolutions) If yes, why not upload the full size version? Maybe the alternating red and green artifacts seen on the tagged window would disappear at full resolution. Finally, could you explain a bit the HDR processing done here? Thanks --S23678 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello. No, this is no real downsample, the original resolution was 3872x2592, but I rotated it to correct the perspective and lost some pixels. I also tried to remove the purple CAs at the windows, but its not perfect, unfortunately I am not a photoshop freak. And Jovan, how should it be corrected? My eyes don't see the distortion and thus I can't improve it, sorry. And: The HDR is made out of 5 pictures, (from Pentax PEF to JPG) and then with Photomatix 2 combined to the HDR. -Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously the vertical lines (window edges and benches) should be vertical, but in the picture they are leaning towards the center. This is what needs to be corrected. -- JovanCormac12:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose washed-out colors, some strange artifacts and CA on windows, perspective, overexposed windows (if it's HDR, this problem should be fixed by making additional exposures), the altar is unsharp. As this is a static setting, it is possible to make this photo again, and I'd support improved version :) --Leafnode✉09:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, but this version is not what I wanted to intend. Nobody wants to know, what's behind the church windows. The point of interest is just the altar and the interior, and from my point of view, focus and exposition are just right and create a certain ambiance. We can talk about aberrations and perspective correction, but not about the image itself. -Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Your new version is better than the first one, but my eye is drawn more on Leafnode's version, which is even better IMO. Still, I' m not convinced that I would support that version, so, I will not nominate it as well. --S23678 (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This really looks quite nice, but if we go on doing this, we will soon have trillions of versions ;) What shall we do now to get a fair result, everyone is happy with? -Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 14:41:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Su-27UBM Radom 2009 b.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Su-27UBM Radom 2009 b.JPG
Oppose Sad fate for this airplane. I have no comments about the quality, but the composition feels too simple, not developed enough for FP (slightly rotated CW, slightly off-center - but still too much centered). --S23678 (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 13:29:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:View over haifa-other.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:View over haifa-other.jpg
Support, I thinks it perpect. Big, no noise, no exposure, excellent color, have focus and depth, with some my edit by MS Paint. I hope I understood Image guidelines. -- Lê (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the noise in the upper part of the sky is really weird. Is this a composite of two pictures? Otherwise it's a good picture; I don't think the slight overexposure in the lower part of the picture is a major problem. --Aqwis (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image isn't bad, but not FP. Too noise in the sky, overesxposure in the lower part. And in image like this the resolution is too low. --Cesco77 (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose This brings back wonderful memories of my visit to the Baha'i Gardens 5 years ago, but the resolution is much too low for such a shot. -- JovanCormac18:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 09:49:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Trieves from hauts plateaux du Vercors IMG 0002-IMG 0027 v2 fused.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Trieves from hauts plateaux du Vercors IMG 0002-IMG 0027 v2 fused.jpg
Uh. There is a weird image bug in the middle of the sky - weird pixels. I'm regenerating the JPEG file. In the meantime, can you please evaluate the picture apart from this bug? Thanks. David.Monniaux (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You can clearly see the transition between pictures. Either vignetting was not eliminated, or each section of the panorama was tone mapped individually and then assembled. --S23678 (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Create a panorama with each exposure then use enfuse (either with hugin or as a standalone). Hugin is doing the opposite when creating HDR panoramas (tone mapping then assembling frames). It's faster but not ideal. --S23678 (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 22:14:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Valby Kirke 01-09-07 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Valby Kirke 01-09-07 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2009 at 11:25:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Clifton Beach 6.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Clifton Beach 6.jpg
Support I'm not sure who constructed the bridge. It is made of two steel RSJs with chicken wire and a plank or two between them. The steel girders have corroded rather significantly. I didn't cross it. Seems to be the only way to reach the point however. --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image is very small for such a static subject (a 1/4 of your sensor's resolution). Why not upload a full resolution? --S23678 (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find about 95% of reuse ignores the licence and treats the image as free (as in beer). I don't care about this when it is for personal or educational use. I am less happy when it occurs commercially, hence the downsampling to protect my images a bit. If I met substantial opposition here because of it, I would just stop nominating. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 01:59:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fisherman at Lake Merced.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fisherman at Lake Merced.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 19:21:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 18:36:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Impatiens lawii.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Impatiens lawii.jpg
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 17:29:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gaucho1868b.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gaucho1868b.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 07:35:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Oregon Convention Center Dusk 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oregon Convention Center Dusk 1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2009 at 16:39:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:P1150918 Cantharis livida.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:P1150918 Cantharis livida.jpg
Oppose Sorry but this one cant be a FP imho! My last try wasn´t even voted because of not such obviously failures! The magnification is fine but the beetle is nothing than unsharp mush! Sorry. --Leviathan (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome capture. Quality is not so good on full view, but it's still very good. Downsampled to 1700 x 1200 (minimum size) looks perfect. --Lošmi (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thats the worst argument I´ve read here for a long time! So we take, for example, a little unsharp 40mp (10000x4000) panorama and downsample it to 1700x1200 so it looks perfect?! The loose of quality is uninteristing or what??? Sorry but voting like this is pure nonsense!! Why should we upload the highest possible resolution if you vote by downsampled pictures? Cant understand... --Leviathan (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leviathan, you said "Sorry but this one cant be a FP imho! My last try wasn´t even voted". Do you think this is a right argument to oppose? --Cesco77 (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...wasn´t even voted because of not such obviously failures!" That was what I've written. And the next sentece tells why I think so. The link to my nomination is only an example. --Leviathan (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This picture may be "blurry and noisy", but it's not overexposed and its composition is, frankly, a lot better than that of your candidate. --Aqwis (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does make a sense. Images for web are usually in resolution of 72 px/inch, and for printing are in 300 px/inch. Thus, size of downsampled image and printed image might look similar. Full resolution of printed image won't be that big as full resolution on the web. That's what I taught. --Lošmi (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that, if the image was just a little bit better quality, and had just a little bit more details, it would not have been safe for the kids to look at --Mbz1 (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 07:53:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tasman Bridge Dusk.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tasman Bridge Dusk.jpg
Oppose I'm under the impression of already having saw this nomination before. I oppose because I feel the composition is not developed enough. The subject itself is quite ordinary as well. --S23678 (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 18:43:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dead Vlei 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dead Vlei 3.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 04:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Along The Riverwalk.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Along The Riverwalk.jpg
Support, I think it is very clear, with the light river, but too dark, I think, but it is not opaque when I zoom it. -- Lê (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of low quality (heavy noise, low amount of details) and composition (intrusive foreground elements). Overall snapshot feeling. You obviously did not understood. You should ask advice from regular contributors BEFORE nominating further images. Next time, I might be a little less polite. Google translate : Bạn rõ ràng đã không hiểu rõ. Bạn nên xin lời khuyên từ những người đóng góp thường xuyên TRƯỚC cử thêm hình ảnh. Tiếp theo thời gian, tôi có thể là một chút ít lịch sự.--S23678 (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Means I was very polite to take him by the hand another time, as it has been done numerous times in the past by me and other contributors. Mr Lê has difficulties understanding FPC quality concepts, but doesn't seems to learn from his mistakes. So if the childish way doesn't work once again, I might be tempted by a more direct approach next time. --S23678 (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, S23678, your impoliteness is far more damaging than Lê's nominating a few pictures that may not be of the quality you expect of an FP candidate. --Aqwis (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 20:33:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Berliner Olympiastadion night.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Berliner Olympiastadion night.jpg
Comment Now, I uploaded a new full-resolution version of my picture. I tried to improve its quality by denoising some parts (e.g. sky, roof and field). Obviously, my picture arises a strong controversy. Thus, it is hard to please everybody. Please give me a chance, because as Calibas has already mentioned, it's quite frustrating. If you have other propositions how my picture could be improved, don't hesitate to tell me! Thanks:)
Oppose I don't think the quality problems have been solved. The bright part of the soccer field is overexposed, contrast in the crowd is low, and the whole picture suffers from extreme artifacts and noise. -- JovanCormac12:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Late votes (note I removed the time extension that the edits got, I have not seen any other candidates getting that privilege so I just follow the usual procedure). /Daniel78 (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know the too-much-noise-in-an-ISO100-image group will decline this pic for having too much noise. However this is an excellent composition and esposure is perfect under difficult conditions. Last but not least it is very informative. Because the brightest part is where action takes place I think this version is far better than i.e. this day shot. -- Ikiwaner (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite a lot of quality issues (noise, moiré pattern on the track, very high pixel level defects), but these are almost invisible at 2 mpx downsample. As well, I would have liked to have the ring of flags not cropped on top, but, as for my final verdict, I can't help but really like this picture. --S23678 (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI don't think we can obtain an image without noise in this extreme low light condition. The atmosphere is beautiful. --Cesco77 (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 21:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compression is here really too much. And also, what’s the point in having that many megapixels, when the information simply isn't there? You can downsample this picture by 2/3 and still not loose any detail. -- Blago Tebi (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How everyone can prove this is wrong:
Use JPGSnoop to determine how the original image (18.7 MB big) was saved. Result: Adobe PS CS4, Quality 12
Open the image and downsample it to 66%, Save as with quality 12. Result: 11.3 MB file
Open the new file again and upscale it so it's 7149 pixels wide again. Result: 17.1 MB file
Final result: We lost 1.6 MB or 8.6 % of information.
A few years back I was thinking like you Blago when I uploaded this file as a downsampled version to reduce noise. A few weeks later we had to upscale the same image because we needed a large format print for an exhibition in Berne. That was when I realized that downsampling images is not useful for pictures here on commons. Besides: Take your favourite pictres and make some large format prints yourself. You'll notice how much harder to see noise is on paper compared to screen. Some noise might even increase subjective sharpness. --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not care so much about the noise, but I do believe that the image will look better (both on the screen and on the paper), if it is downsampled.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. At reasonable downsampled resolutions, it seems more than good enough quality. Some images should not be evalutated only at 100% size IMO. Diliff (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Please note, that the picture above is the new (third) version (and not the first!!). If you think that it is of inferior quality as the first, please tell me, so that I upload this edited version as independent file. --Tobi 87 (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Downsampling is not a way of enhancing quality, regardless of how bad it looks at 100% view. It sure look better, but this look can be recreated anytime using non-destructive downsampling (through software, not the image itself). In about 30 seconds, you can make your own non-destructive downsampling using the the wiki software, as I did in my previous vote. The old version should be the one featured. --S23678 (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not because it's not good enough for FP, but I prefer the full-scaled version. You can always downsample depending on the need you have for your image but not vice versa. -- H00513:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps we should come to some conclusion about downsampling here. People are opposing the original because it isn't, and the alternative because it is. Not very fair for the photographer, and all this is going to lead to is people automatically downsampling without telling anybody to avoid oppose votes. --Calibas (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible to come to some conclusion. Some like it better in full resolution, others prefer downsampled version. FPC process is not fair I am afraid, yet I believe one of the version will probably pass. Tobi 87, please revert the file you overwritten with the downsampled version, and let the first nomination to proceed. Please upload downsampled version as a new file. That way the reviewers will have a choice between the two versions, which will go parallel to each other, and you will have more chances that one of the two is to pass. Good luck :)--Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Calibas that having this debate here is unfair on the photographer. We need clear guidelines for if and by how much an image should be downsized, but lets establish them before we oppose images either way based on downsizing. 99of9 (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Given that the guidelines are clear, I think some votes need to be revised - even if both sizes are separate versions, the high-res version should be featured. Voting the way we are, there is a chance that both version could fail. 99of9 (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is not fair to oppose downsampled image. The passing size requirement is only 2 megapixels. The nominated image is much bigger. Some users claim that the image could always be downsampled as needed, but not the other way around, but I believe that Internet connection of some of our readers and reviewers might be too slow to load big resolution images. That's why I believe we should have both images as separete versions. Each will link to other version in the image's description. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On image summary pages, it says something like this:
Size of this preview: 800 × 234 pixels
Full resolution (15,150 × 4,430 pixels, file size: 25.28 MB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
In my opinion it would be nice to extend this to some common widths, heights, or percentages, so that the downloader could choose their own resolution. It seems odd to have duplicates with different file names. 99of9 (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For me the guidelines are very clear :
Graphics located on Commons may be used in ways other than viewing on a conventional computer screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible.
Images should not be downsampled (sized down in order to appear of better quality). Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file.
I see nothing indicating to voters and nominators that their image should be downsampled. I especially like the wording "in order to appear of better quality", since it's clearly stating (and it's a fact) that downsampling is just an illusion of quality, and that voters should be aware of it. Since I've started contributing on FPC, I've always tried to upload my images at the highest resolutions possible, unless strong mitigating reasons (such as keeping uploads under 100mpx...). I would personally make it mandatory for FPCs to be at the camera's native resolution, with the evaluation of quality done at a standard resolution for all nominations. This would put all nominations at the same level, encourage nominators and alleviate a lot of problems such as right now. --S23678 (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO that rule is all, but impossible to enforce. An image could be cropped, and one will never be sure, if it is downsampled or just cropped. The same with panoramas. Also, if that rule is enforced somehow, not only FPC, but Commons will loose some good and rare images IMO. Besides, if one would like to be consistent, one should oppose all downsampled images, and not only some of them. We have few that are nominated now, Would you like to go ahead, and to oppose all of them :)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Please note, that the picture above is the new (third) version (and not the second!!). So, please support the new version! --Tobi 87 (talk) 13:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 06:42:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:天安门夜景.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:天安门夜景.jpg
Interesting, I didn't realize that at first. But still, better results can be created by mapping multiple exposures rather than reducing the highlights on a single shot. -- JovanCormac14:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On a side note, it would be helpful if you used latin characters only in the file name, since older non-Chinese systems cannot display Chinese characters correctly, while all computers worldwide can handle the latin alphabet. -- JovanCormac10:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing bad composition-wise, but nothing exceptional as well. The light trails would look better if they were longer. But mainly quality issues as above. --S23678 (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2012 at 22:51:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chalciporus piperatus LC0182.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chalciporus piperatus LC0182.jpg
Info The Peppery bolete (Chalciporus piperatus) is named after its hot and peppery taste why this mushroom is also used for flavouring meals. Created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 02:24:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Morning after Halloween.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Morning after Halloween.jpg
It is exactly what the image's name explains: "Morning after w:Halloween" :) The girl is still wearing a costume (horns on her head,and something on her legs), the guy has special shoes. IMO this image is like a story with no beginning and no end. We do not know what happen on Halloween party and why they were sitting like that for half-an-hour (I found them like that and went for a walk. When I came back half an hour later nothing changed in their position). We do not know how it will end up.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read that recent news article (can't find the link) about an old man who was laying dead for 3 days in front of his house, with his neighbours thinking it was an Halloween decoration... Were this couple breathing? --S23678 (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 02:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:PalenqueAc.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:PalenqueAc.jpg
Not for voting: Comparison of the relief today and sketch showing significant differences between the two; this is a combination of loss of detail and addition of detail, causing the sketch to be idealized by the artist.
Comment uploaded an image to show the differences between the actual relief and the sketch, which turns out to be idealized and contains artistic liberty from not one, but two artists (see the en.wiki nom for more info on the history of the artwork and archeological dig), limiting its accuracy. Take it or leave it. upstateNYer06:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the fact that the artist who drew this picture in the 18th century took some liberties adds value to the picture, rather than taking it away, by showing that "reproductions" back then sometimes were inaccurate - probably on purpose (omission of the bosom). If someone today wants to see how the actual relief looks like, he or she should look at a photograph rather than a sketch. -- JovanCormac12:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 23:42:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stanley Steamer at 2009 Newport Hill Climb 1.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stanley Steamer at 2009 Newport Hill Climb 1.png
Oppose Somehow I fail to see how this image is special. The quality is good, but not stellar, composition is mediocre at best (several heads cut off in the foreground), and the use of the PNG format appears nonsensical. It just isn't made for photos, results in a ridiculously high file size, and given the average image quality is simply unneccessary. -- JovanCormac13:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks for the comments. I see what you mean about the heads; however, in dense crowd shots such as these it can be impossible to find a crop that doesn't cut through at least a few individuals, so I chose to give precedence to the placement of the central subject. As for filesize, it could be reduced as a JPEG, but it didn't strike me as ridiculous or prohibitive given that other featured images and candidates in JPEG format range much larger (some above 10-15MB). Thanks! Huwmanbeing☀★14:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Suggestions on how this can be improved? I'm happy to make adjustments, but "too much going on" seems an odd critique of a photo of a race. I'm also not sure how a photo of a crowd can reasonably be cropped without cutting through someone. Thanks Huwmanbeing☀★03:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I honestly can't believe that someone oppose this image with reasons like that. Too much going on? Well, this picture actually is about too much going on. The composition is anything but mediocre. You can't put the whole Universe in the image - something needs to be cut off. These heads in the first plan are just the part of the composition, implying that there are people on the other side, siting and watching. There's no need for them to be seen more than they are. And what does it matter if it's PNG? It's now 7,55 MB. If you save this as jpeg it's 3,71 MB. Big deal. Gee, you oppose this picture for really dull reasons. --Lošmi (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd better believe that, if one wants to oppose an image a reason could always be found :) --Mbz1 (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)18:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would any of the oppose voters support this alternative version which has the heads removed and is a JPG file? Note that I needed to use the clone tool to get rid of the tops of some heads as I didn't want to crop off the shadow or wheel. I also narrowed it slightly to make up for decreasing the height. --SilversmithHewwo09:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 03:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vatican angle° 0.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vatican angle° 0.jpg
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of quality (overexposure, noise, resolution) and composition (tilt and crop) problems --S23678 (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and be it only to remove that once again precipitate FPX by S23678. Where is your problem? Resolution is many times higher than required, can't see any noise, overexposure only in few spots, tilt is hardly noticeable and can be fixed, and after all, even if these were issues, they can't really destroy the excellent atmosphere in this picture. I'd really like to see more constructive criticism here than to piss of anybody who nominates pictures that just don't meet your personal preferences when it comes to technical standards. FPX is for clearly insufficient pictures, that's it. -- H00522:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overexposure masks all details on both sides of St-Peter's basilica, noise is very visible on the out-of-focus areas, image resolution (the amount of detail in an image) is very low on the sides, tilt is very visible and the cross on the top of obelisk is cropped. You may think it deserves to be FP because of it's atmosphere, and I respect your choice, but given what I said, FPX was clearly sufficient to me. About personal preferences, I'm wondering what's FP is, if not a bunch of personal preferences... Your support is as much a personal preference as my FPX is. As for constructive criticism, Mr Lê has some difficulties understanding FPC rules, as it's suggested by his nomination history and some votes about it's nominations. There's some limit at holding someone by the hand, hence the lack of constructive criticism in my comments. --S23678 (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've never heard or read of Lê but can't see any evidence from this nomination that he/she "has some difficulties understanding FPC rules". It's a nice image with IMHO only minor technical flaws, and I value the mood and content of an image higher than technical perfection to a level that only enthusiasts like us here see who inspect every single pixel, but not all those millions of Wikipedia users who just will see a nice image. Sorry for being a bit harsh with my comment, no offence intended, I just found it very annoying to see repeatedly what in my humble opinion is a misuse of FPX. -- H00523:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 08:34:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paeonia lactiflora 'Bowl of Beauty'-2459.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paeonia lactiflora 'Bowl of Beauty'-2459.jpg
Oppose. Trivial composition, underexposed. Yes, flowers are pretty, but this picture has nothing which sets it above other flower pictures. --Dschwen (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will support if the background is denoised. I don't understand the "underexposed" comment... any brighter and the delicate whites will blow? 99of9 (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are wrong here. Check the histogram. The brightest white is at only 90% prightness, the upper 10% of the dynamic range are unused, which, with a subject like this(!), points to underexposure. --Dschwen (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I withdraw this? I appreciate the nomination, Erin, but this is not FP quality, by a long shot . . . I'd rather not have lots of opposes telling me what I already know about my own photography! Maedin\talk19:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination As per request by Maedin. I'm still trying to figure out what gets supported and what doesn't. Seems to be a very fine line, as even ones which get lots of support will still have one or two oppose votes. --SilversmithHewwo22:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 10:39:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Exército no Rio.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Exército no Rio.jpg
Oppose I'll oppose based on what I saw on travels. This is indeed an impressive sight based on a western country point of view. However, it's extremely common in a lot of latin american countries I went to. I did not went to Rio, but I saw the armoured vehicles guarding the Peruvian president's palace in Lima, I got searched at military checkpoints in Colombia, etc. Being such a common sight for that region of the world, I would expect more from such a FPC, in composition and people's visible emotions for example. --S23678 (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People's visible emotions? You don't go see this in Brazil, sorry. It is only appearance, the army of Brazil never can react. Even when attacked by criminals.--Econt (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read again, I'm not talking about Colombia and Peru for Google search. As well, I personally remember sharing some common facilities with brazilian military members, and I can assure you they were not emotionless robots. --S23678 (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The composition is really good (though it would be even better if the civilian was wearing red clothes), but quality problems are there (noise and sharpness mostly), which makes it difficult for me to support this. I cannot say how common such a sight is in Rio, but S23678 does have a point in that this isn't a war photograph and can probably retaken. -- JovanCormac12:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm with Jovan, great composition. I love the fact that there is too much going on - this kind of image always has hidden treasures if you scour it. However the people's faces have defects in them, and there are other minor quality issues that stack up against promotion. --99of9 (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have to few pictures about ordinary life.. Certainly when it is different from a Western experience it is valuable.. 17:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)This unsigned comment was written by GerardM --S23678 (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2009 at 12:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rana esculenta on Nymphaea edit.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rana esculenta on Nymphaea edit.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 14:51:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Gypsy Girl Mosaic of Zeugma 1250575.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Gypsy Girl Mosaic of Zeugma 1250575.png
Support Normally, PNG format for a photograph is no-go for me (9 MB for 4 MPx), but the transparency is put to good use here. I can see a lot of interesting ways this photo can be used in print media. Reproduction quality is quite high. -- JovanCormac 18:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Durova's version is better quality-wise. I'd support that version if it was masked like the original candidate. -- JovanCormac06:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trim parts of photo aren't included in mosaic. The original parts are missing. I think the picture is sufficiently characteristic and succesful. --.dsm.01:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did notice that! It's in the filename. I can't see any tesserae that have been deleted. So which characteristic features were you referring to? By "original parts", are you talking about the mortar behind where some of the original tesserae were originally in place? --99of9 (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Durova's lighting argument. I still prefer the idea of transparency where there are no tiles, but it's nice to have Durova's natural colours as a more accurate base from which the erasing begins. --99of9 (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-edit from the original with perspective cropping, very extensive brightness and contrast corrections, and curves adjustment.
Comment Seeing the original and the nominator's crop makes a big difference. There are several problems with the nominated version in addition to Takabeg's comments above. Uncorrected perspective distortion is worth noting, but more important is the failure to correct for uneven and highly directional lighting. It stands to reason that the background tiles above the subject's head ought to have been made from the same stone as the background tiles behind her hair at far left, yet in the nominated version the former are nearly blown whites while the latter are quite dark. Also there's an unexplaned overabundance of red in the balance on the version nominated (no edit notes at all were provided on the hosting page, although significant digital edits to historic artwork should always be annotated). Here's hoping it doesn't offend the good intentions and hard work of the nominator to say that the result is not very successful: it really is necessary to correct for perspective and lighting before attempting that sort of edit. Have uploaded an alternate (displayed at right) which endeavors to address those issues. Over 100 layer masks were used to create this re-edit; could possibly tweak it further if people agree with this assessment. Durova (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2009 at 19:47:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Asa & Jätkäjätkät @ Bar Kino - Asa, Joska Josafat & Kari Hulkkonen.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Asa & Jätkäjätkät @ Bar Kino - Asa, Joska Josafat & Kari Hulkkonen.JPG
Support IMO this one has really nice mood. Asa is finnish rapper, Teosto-award winner and he nowadays plays with his band, Jätkäjätkät. The image is bit soft and noisy, but the lightning conditions were very challenging (and please check out for instance these FPs to compare noiselevel: 1, 2, 3). —kallerna™19:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2009 at 11:32:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment The source link ([4]) mentions a 24 403 x 13 973 pixel mosaic image available through Stéphane Guisard. Now that would be great to have on Commons. Anyone know how to contact him? -- JovanCormac14:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolution is above the 2 megapixels requirements, we can still vote. The resolution is a different matter and we can deal with it despite this nomination. Ditithe penguin — 20:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This should be promoted regardless of the bigger image that we might get. Btw, the website makes a weird claim about the mosaic being a gigapixel in resolution, when 24000x14000 pixels is actually only 0.3 gigapixels. Am I missing something? -- JovanCormac22:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stéphane Guisard has a WIKIMEDIA account if you want to talk to him. Looks like he doesn't use it that much. The 24 403 x 13 973 mosaic can be found at Stéphane Guisard's website but it is copyrighted.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 14:33:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Romanbathparis.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Romanbathparis.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 06:59:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:3Hagebutten 2008-2-10.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:3Hagebutten 2008-2-10.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 18:58:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:M-danilov-2009-01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:M-danilov-2009-01.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Dear people, I appreciate your comments and now I agree with them.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2009 (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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 07:13:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Papilio.machaon.7553.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Papilio.machaon.7553.JPG
Comment I've spent quite a few hours over the last couple of days scouring the categories and most images are too small, anything under about 2,000,000 bytes isn't good enough (for macro) and even when they have the sharpness, there is composition, focus, exposure etc. At first glance some images there might look better, but if you open each one up you might only find one or two good enough to nominate, only to find they already have been, and either rejected or featured.--SilversmithHewwo22:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a look through the category you linked to, and there are a few (ignoring caterpillars) that are high quality, but they are a bit noisy or blurry when you zoom in, and many have bad lighting or distracting backgrounds. this one is about the best that remains (excluding the one that is already a FP) and I doubt it would get voted in. If you think there is one that is worth nominating then please show me. And actually, having another close-up look at this one, it certainly has a few problems. I won't withdraw it at this point though, I'd like to get more feedback. --SilversmithHewwo12:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2009 at 09:52:52
Original - for comparison. Note the lines cut off at the bottom of the featured version are intact here.
Info Comparing this to the original, it becomes obvious that some details at the bottom of the image - the line on the right side of the lower left puddle has been cropped through. It's a minor flaw, but so incredibly careless: paintings have been opposed for far less, and it was entirely avoidable with minimum competence and care. At worse, the creation of a small amount of paper could have been used to fix the awkward angle of the cutting of the pages in this particuar copy of the book. As this has not been done, I do not think this can be considered as amongst Wikipedia's best work, and it should be delisted. (Original nomination)
Keep I strongly object to delisting-nominations for images that have recently been promoted. The problems sound minor, why not just fix the problems and nominate the improved version, if it gets promoted then automatically delist this one. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible to fix without going back and redoing the restoration, because the restorer foolishly committed to a rotation and crop even in the partial restoration. To accurately match a rotation with certainty is very difficult, far more difficult than redoing such an apparently easy restoration as this one. Redoing it is the only safe option. Furthermore, I kept quiet about these problems during the original nomination only because I was promised this would be fixed, a promise that has clearly been broken. If it could have been fixed easily, it woould have been. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have never voted to keep a delisting candidate before, but here I do. Calling the flaw minor is an understatement. Given the low-quality, low-resolution crap that often gets kept when nominated for delisting, delisting for half a cut-off line would be plain ridiculous. -- JovanCormac08:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2009 at 19:50:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:P1160778 Melitaea athalia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:P1160778 Melitaea athalia.jpg
Support One of the better butterfly macros I've seen, both in quality and composition. Sharpness is good, resolution is relatively high. -- JovanCormac11:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very boring and common picture. Quality is ok, and I like the colours, but there are many other better pictures of butterflies out there.
Boring - this is not an argument. Next time commenting on your post name, and comment are generally written in the order, in this case the bottom of the list. Remember also to put your signature. Anonymous votes are not allowed. Darius Baužys→ talk09:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2009 at 17:27:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Snowfall.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Snowfall.JPG
Living in a city that can recieve more than 5 meters of snow per winter (!), I am sadly not very impressed by a light snowfall. --S23678 (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe the foreground is in a good focus as well as many individual snowflakes are. Not an easy image to take.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2009 at 09:59:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Young muslim woman in the Thar desert near Jaisalmer, India.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Young muslim woman in the Thar desert near Jaisalmer, India.jpg
Comment And even more amazing is the fact (which I only realized after checking the EXIF data) that this was taken with a camera that you can buy used for 290 Euros! Yet it looks as professional as it gets. That's what I call a triumph of skill over equipment. -- JovanCormac18:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The strong shadows caused by the harsh sunlight are a point to criticize the image. I guess it is a candid shot and for that it is an excellent portrait. --Ernie (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She is not a muslim. Judging from attire and the fact that she is showing her face, I would say she is a normal Rajasthani village girl.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.86.92 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 2009 November 14 (UTC)
Comment "normal Rajasthani village girl", interesting choice of words. i guess muslim is abnormal? but she is : her brother (our guide in the desert) told us he's a muslim.--Paulrudd (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe what he meant is that in Rajasthan the vast majority of the population follows Hinduism, so normal would be his synonym for average. Wolf (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 14:21:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A couple of Tadorna ferruginea.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A couple of Tadorna ferruginea.jpg
Oppose left-bottom duck's head almost blends with the background. Generally objects do not pop out of the background enough. --Leafnode✉07:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to oppose the original because the ducks blend into the background too much, but then I decided to see if I could rectify that problem. I've cropped closer to the ducks (from the top and left only) and darkened the image using levels - the lower duck's head was the main issue with brighness. I would support my version or a version like mine, but not the original as it is now.--SilversmithHewwo01:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 13:15:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support and Question The Aster instrument has limited vision in the visible spectrum. Do you know which bands were used for this image? And if it's the case, could you write in the image description that it does not represent true colors? --S23678 (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I think it would be better to turn the file upside down. The water flows from the river downwards into the alluvial fan. That's ok. - The file shows now: the water flows downwards from the alluvial fan into the river.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 21:36:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Yes, I was concerned about the flash. I believe this photo was taken at night, which is when moths tend to come out. — Erin(talk)21:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lighting is unfortunate but it's hard to insist on having an umbrella/diffuser when you see an amazing moth. Shallow DOF is appropriate for subject. --99of9 (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 15:14:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Golf balls kallerna.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Golf balls kallerna.JPG
Weak oppose High resolution & good quality, but colors are a little dull, and there is some image noise. There also appears to be a color balance problem (blue shift). -- JovanCormac16:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 21:45:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ochlodes sylvanus MichaD.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ochlodes sylvanus MichaD.jpg
QuestionWould someone be able to remove the artefacts as I don't even know what that means and therefore can't do it myself. :( — Erin(talk)10:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so easy to get rid of the artifacts without affecting the rest of the image. The artifacts possibly occured during postprocessing, e.g. sharpening or denoise with sharpening. If you have postprocessed this image, you should upload the original, so someone else can give it a try. --NEURO⇌18:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 15:16:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Scale Common Roach.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Scale Common Roach.JPG
Support Sharpness could be better, but at 12 Mpx resolution is very high for a close up, and downsampling improves quality. Probably the best photograph of a fish's scales we have. -- JovanCormac16:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is quite good, but the composition isn't exceptional. More colors or different scales shapes, or some sort of symmetry could improve composition IMO. --S23678 (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 15:15:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sparkler 3.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sparkler 3.JPG
Weak support. The arcs at the top are cut, which is generally a deadly sin for an FPC, but the image is just too nice to turn it down. Wolf (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per George Chernilevsky + CA. Would be more impressive if some volume was added to the drawn shape by "painting" around objects. (Low quality example of added volume). --S23678 (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 18:21:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Surfer in Santa cruz 11-8-9 -1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Surfer in Santa cruz 11-8-9 -1.jpg
Oppose The scene is very impressive, indeed, but I don't like the way the post-processing has been done here. The contrast is too high and doesn't look natural. Unrelated to my oppose, but again : downsampling. Pixel-size droplets of water can be seen here. Please upload the full resolution, everyone would benefit from it. --S23678 (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really an impressive and great shot....but again it got spoiled by post-processing. You really shouldn't try to "dramatize" your pictures. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with that statement, there is clearly no point in making it :-). Apparently voters on commons dig dramatized pictures, so you cannot blame Mila for sexing up her shots. --Dschwen (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you got a point there....it is the inconvenient truth. It is just always a pity to see all those good photos getting spoiled. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the image's introduction, which I assume the user did not bother to read, the image is more about the wave than about the surfer. The "tiny surfer" is a very special bonus because he provides the scale for the wave. The image does illustrate the big, beutiful and special wave just fine.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again the image is about the wave and not about the surfer. That's why I do not understand what "Because of the tiny surfer this picture is hardly usable as an illustration" suppose to mean? Is it hardly usable as an illustration of the wave or it is hardly usubale as an illustration of the surfer? Would have you opposed the image, if there was no "tiny surfer" at all, and what oppose reason whould have you used then? I am just curious :) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this picture looks artificial, the surfer is an unmistakable detail that is too tiny. I have imho valid reasons why I do not like this picture. I do not like it either. I oppose this for a FP GerardM (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2009 at 03:08:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:SydneyUniversity MainQuadrangle panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:SydneyUniversity MainQuadrangle panorama.jpg
Oppose Quality is very high. But composition is not optimal IMO for such a perspective. A panorama where the clock tower would be in the middle would be more appealing. --S23678 (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now that you say so, it seems so obvious. I've put up an alternative. You'll have to excuse the shadow - it is not possible to have 3 sides of a quadrangle lit while the jacaranda is in bloom :-). I'm switching my support to the alternative. --99of9 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. Not perfect at full zoom, but a 1000 px high downsample shows that this is a non-issue. As an advice, I would suggest some HDR post-processing (enfuse) could be done to reduce contrast with the shaded area, but this could lead to bad results as well. --S23678 (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done How did you know I was equidistant from the two wings? Anyway, you're right, the correct rotation was 0.26 degrees - good eyes! I'd been lining up the verticals, but this horizontal is a much more accurate measure. Thanks for helping improve it. 99of9 (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I agree with those who are not happy with the strong shadows. Fine image, but not FP in my opinion. How to get a more even light? – I would shoot at dusk. By the way, is it just me or are there some heavy distortions going on? --Ernie (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By shooting at dusk I mean the moment when the sun disappears but there still is some rest light. The light is so even then that it produces hardly any shadows. Some people simply take an HDR during daytime though. --Ernie (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 23:02:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3444-7 Begrafenis bij plantageslaven2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3444-7 Begrafenis bij plantageslaven2.jpg
Info is it not great that it is restored as well, has good annotations and is of historical value ?
It's just such a horrible illustration. I don't think it captures the scene well at all, and therefore isn't so great for historical value. It's good enough to go on an article, not good enough for FP. — Erin(talk)20:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you know something about the subject matter, you will find that there is hardly any material about this subject and at that this is among the best I have seen. There are discussions about this one and similar ones.. one of the questions is "why is the boy blindfolded, what is his role". The dancing on the head of two people is to get a clue if the deceased lived a good life. The one thing that puzzles me is that everyone is in white .. this is not in line with what I know about Suriname clothing.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a bad illustration like this one can lead to misinformation. I don't think the boy was deliberately blindfolded at all, as he is wearing the same white head scarf that the woman bending over is wearing and a couple of blokes in the back. He could have easily pulled it down himself, or it slipped down etc. Just because a picture has a lot of historical value doesn't mean it needs/deserves to be a featured picture. I will change my vote to Weak oppose though.— Erin(talk)22:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This picture is known and used extensively in literature.. It is considered a good illustration and the blindfolding is found in other pictures as well, it is just not understood. GerardM (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 22:59:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Brombeerlaub.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Brombeerlaub.jpg
Comment There's some posterization quality issues on second look, I can't tell for sure if it's posterization in the top left corner, and the file size is very small (less than a Mbyte). I doubt this was uploaded at the best quality. I'm sure this can be arranged. I'll support if it is. --S23678 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain the modifications you did, as I still see very visible banding in the sky. As well, was this picture taken with a FinePix F30 (a camera you used in other uploads)? I hope no, since this image would be twice as big as your sensor resolution...! --S23678 (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like the crop and the changing color of the background (the sky I assume). Nice image, but not special enough IMO.Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine? Nothing in photography is genuine or "original". It's always images. Do you think the way we see the world through the human eye is genuine? --Ernie (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2009 at 19:45:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Asa & Jätkäjätkät @ Bar Kino - Asa 10.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Asa & Jätkäjätkät @ Bar Kino - Asa 10.JPG
Support I love the colours of this one. Asa is finnish rapper and Teosto-award winner. The image is bit soft and noisy, but the lightning conditions were very challenging (and please check out for instance these FPs to compare noiselevel: 1, 2, 3). —kallerna™19:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2009 at 19:45:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Asa & Jätkäjätkät @ Bar Kino - Asa 4.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Asa & Jätkäjätkät @ Bar Kino - Asa 4.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2009 at 21:38:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cygnus olor LC0201.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cygnus olor LC0201.jpg
Info Portrait of an adult Mute Swan (Cygnus olor) in the typical posture of the head
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 00:59:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Horse market in Lorenzkirch.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Horse market in Lorenzkirch.jpg
Comment Looking at that version, I would say you have lost some detail through the brightness correction, notably on the horses. Compared to the scan the candidate looks a little overexposed. -- JovanCormac13:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks, I made an update with lower contrast. By the way: this file is large and optimized to the resultion of 1600x1200 on the screen for the best view on the highly detailed and sharp image. It is a picture story with many freeze frames of the life in Germany 110 years ago. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think it is more a valued image than a featured one too. It's very difficult to make out anything as it's so far away, it's also very ugly and I don't like the glare. I'm also not sure the house is correct perspective-wise but I could be wrong there. --SilversmithHewwo07:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 21:59:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Inname van Godesberg - Capture and destruction of Godesburg in 1583 (Frans Hogenberg).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Inname van Godesberg - Capture and destruction of Godesburg in 1583 (Frans Hogenberg).jpg
Oppose Encyclopedic, and possibly feature-worthy if a higher resolution version becomes available. Not quite up to par as nominated. Durova (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2009 (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: Resolution is far too low.
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 06:25:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kralicky-Sneznik-03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kralicky-Sneznik-03.jpg
Info Kralicky Sneznik mountain, Czech Republic. Author - Marek Stránský - nominated by Anon
Comment I know the size is small but this picture just can't be ignored.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: size is below guidelines without mitigating reasons --Leafnode✉15:03, 21 November 2009 (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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2009 at 10:00:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 21:32:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 22:15:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Baha'i House of Worship, Evanston.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Baha'i House of Worship, Evanston.jpg
Support There is some red CA at the right-hand side snow and blue CA at the right-hand side of the dome, but I could live with it :) --Mbz1 (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I hate to use that argument, but the scene is missing a wow. While a simple and symmetric composition can work well on some pictures, the surroundings here lacks the grace and refinement I would expect to go with such a building. Different atmospheric/weather conditions and foliage could drastically improve the scene IMO. --S23678 (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love the simple and symmetric composition in this case, and I realy like the building, but the image is too noisy and yes, very slightly to the left... --Phyrexian (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2009 at 21:12:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fjærlandsfjorden2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fjærlandsfjorden2.jpg
Comment There are some blown areas (see image notes). Maybe they can be corrected with Photoshop. Besides that the picture is of great quality. -- JovanCormac22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only parts of the picture that are blown are the window frames of the green house. Neither the boat (whose brightest spots have the RGB values 248/248/235) nor the roof of the brown building are blown. If you see them as blown, you may need to calibrate your monitor. Also, this is not a tone-mapped HDR picture, so it is only natural that the picture has both bright and dark parts. --Aqwis (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to suggest an alternative white balance, but I think the current white balance corresponds approximately to how I saw the scene when I took the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've uploaded a version with better WB IMO. I simply used the mountain's snow as a neutral color. I encourage you to do the same with the original file (IOT avoid multiple JPEG rewrites) --S23678 (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 08:24:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:I35W Collapse - Day 4 - Operations & Scene (95).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:I35W Collapse - Day 4 - Operations & Scene (95).jpg
Info Submitted Photo - nominated by Anon
Cars rest on the collapsed portion of I-35W Mississippi River bridge.
Neutral – It sure is a story-telling picture with lots of value. On the other hand it does not strike me as an image with FP photographic quality. Maybe valued image? --Ernie (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this edit has better photographic quality. Not excellent, but the subject is intriguing enough to mitigate for that issue. -- H00523:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this edit fixed only white balance/levels, while generally its quality is bad. Very blurry, lots of strange purple haze (CA?) --Leafnode✉07:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition (size and shape of rubbles) and the very dramatic scene are mitigating reasons IMO against the numerous quality problems --S23678 (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:25:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - composition - There is too much space behind the truck and not enough for it to drive into. Would have been also good to have the hint of icecream on the beach...visible icecreams, children queuing to buy and so on - Peripitus (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2009 at 12:14:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Katholische Kirche Werdau.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Katholische Kirche Werdau.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 22:08:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Love What is It.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Love What is It.JPG
Oppose - image as image is nothing special and the inscription is not universal, it bears some meaning only for English language speakers.--Avala (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lettering is quite out of focus and the image doesn't really have the "wow" factor. Compostion and position of lettering could be better as well (a crop here would work a treat). Garden.14:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 08:26:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Napa Valley.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Napa Valley.jpg
Info Vineyards in Napa Valley. created by Mila Zinkova - nominated by Anon
Is it really appropriate for you to withdraw the nomination when you are not the nominator? I am aware that you created the picture, but still... --Aqwis (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I believed that the rule was voted for and added to the gudilens. I guess I am mistaking. Please acept my apology, everybody. Go ahead with the votes. One more humiliation one less, who cares --Mbz1 (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right, it was, and you won't see me saying otherwise. What I am saying is that this rule shouldn't have passed in the first place (which I already argued for during the voting process) and that I could have used Aqwis' support for my position then, rather than now when it's all over. -- JovanCormac15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is funny. I thought that "Where were you when we discussed this? " was addressed to me :). So, I thought to myself that some users are unhappy, when I nominate my images, others are unhappy, when I withdraw nominations of my images :) I kind of got lost in translation :)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, Aqwis, "sorry" is not good enough anymore. Now you should support the image. :) Otherwise ... I do not know what I will do... Maybe misspell your user name like I did last time :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Simonizer -> another case of excessive Photoshop use. Furthermore i think there is not enough space above the hills. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mila, I sincerely believe you are doing more harm than good by the extensive postprocessing (although the support votes seem to send a different message...). The colors are indeed fantastic, but rather as in fantasy ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmh, ok. I'm not quite sure I trust the color reproduction of a coolpix, but I trus you if you say the colors really were this vivis. The grass looks a bit iffy and there is a red blot somewhere in the right half of the frame. But it has been a while since I saw grapevines in fall. --Dschwen (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)s[reply]
Neutral The scene is magnificent, but the crop is too tight (bottom and top). As for the colors, they are on the limit of being too saturated, but it would still probably get my support if it wasn't of the crop --S23678 (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The colours are better, and in general I prefer this version, but it still has power pylons in the skyline. Could they be cloned out, or would people object to that much alteration of reality? --SilversmithHewwo04:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image made a great progress since the first version uploaded. Colours look more natural now and composition of the alternative 1 is much better than the original nomination. --Ikiwaner (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2009 at 15:32:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Orsopapera-cigno 013.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Orsopapera-cigno 013.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 12:33:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pilsudski 1910 1920 LOC hec 14263 restored.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pilsudski 1910 1920 LOC hec 14263 restored.jpg
Infoon the picture itself, today is Independence Day in Poland, so I'm nominating a portrait of the man to whom we - i.e. Poles - owe the independence to a large extent. I chose this particular picture for two reasons. 1. It was most probably taken some time during World War I, so Piłsudski was soon going to become the architect of Poland's liberation from over a century of partitions. 2. I simply like the mood of the picture and his appearance here, it perfectly corresponds with how he wanted to be percieved.
Infoon the restoration, this is my very first attempt at it so I'm not going to mind even strong crticism providing that it's backed with some feedback about what I should've done better. Thanks in advance.
Weak support Good restoration. My only complaints are relatively low resolution and the tight crop on top. I'm sure this great man deserves a little more headroom ;-) -- JovanCormac15:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not know why you cropped the top so tightly; I see that there was an inscription near the top in the original image, but if you had wanted to remove that, I suppose you could have cloned it out. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Inscription is very small, it should be easy to remove it. If you want, I can do it. But on the other hand, the writing itself is quite interesting. --Leafnode✉12:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've been trying to do it, but I just don't have enough skill (yet), apparently. Any help of yours would be appreciated. And yes, I think it will be better with the photographer's signature. I does add some value, after all. Wolf (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 15:49:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Proskowski-Lobkowitz CoA.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Proskowski-Lobkowitz CoA.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:16:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Raindrops on grass.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Raindrops on grass.jpg
Info created, uploaded, nominated by Dschwen (talk)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 03:50:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Clever angle which gives a great view of the spinning. Obviously full DOF is consequently impossible, but the main body is sharp. None of our current FP spiders show this educational aspect of web production. --99of9 (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find most insects images to be quite boring, but this one is really interesting! I would like to have this in full resolution however. --S23678 (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 09:51:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The burning of Columbia, South Carolina, February 17, 1865.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The burning of Columbia, South Carolina, February 17, 1865.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:00:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Thomas Bresson - Water droplet-5 (by).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thomas Bresson - Water droplet-5 (by).JPG
Oppose – I think considering all the water drop pictures there are one has to be extra picky on featuring them. What I really like about this picture is the green background – nicely done. I guess the goal was to frame the string in combination with the plant and thats where the picture does not succeed imho. The focal plane is not aligned to the plant too well, which renders most of it out of focus. Not a featured picture to me. --Ernie (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 13:22:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vineyards of Napa Valley panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vineyards of Napa Valley panorama.jpg
Comment Anything could be done to bring up the color saturation a bit (sky, foliage) without bringing quality down? Mid-day shots bring hard light on scenery.--S23678 (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean to change the color of the sky without changing the color of the hills? One should also remember that so-called "mid-day" shot in November are very different from "mid-day" shot in June. The sun never goes high up in mid November (of course I mean Northern Hemisphere :))--Mbz1 (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree that the hard light generates some white spots in the foliage which make it appear less colorful when seen in smaller sizes. Yet, when seen in full resolution, the picture appears saturated enough and seems realistic (well, i've never been there, otoh. ) So, I support this version and I'm not convinced it'd benefit from an increased saturation. --MAURILBERT(discuter)15:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict with Aqwis, with whom I agree).[reply]
Support – Hooray, the colors work this time! Nicely done. How about putting scrollbar around the image? I guess not every screen is 1881 px wide ... --Ernie (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a quick edit about possible modifications. The entire image was darken a bit, then the sky alone got it's levels adjusted (darker, again). As you see the sky quality is now terrible from posterization, but such problems should not be visible if done from original RAW images. --S23678 (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that darkening the land part of the picture makes it appear less sun-drenched and thus less compelling. As for the sky, well... I truly prefer the "natural" version over this one, per Ernie. --MAURILBERT(discuter)12:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 01:49:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sturnus vulgaris in Napa Valley.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sturnus vulgaris in Napa Valley.jpg
I don't like that you can't see all of the birds in the flock. I appreciate, since it was obviously a large flock, that it probably wasn't possible. The photo to me just looks like lots of dark flecks on blue and even the largest birds aren't clear when zoomed in. For me, I'd either like a picture with beautiful composition where you can see an entire flock but not make out the birds clearly, or a small flock where, when you zoom in, you have great focus on at least some of the birds. --SilversmithHewwo23:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a beautiful image that I'd love to support, provided that the plant is cropped out and maybe a gentle denoise is done. -- JovanCormac12:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is messy, which seems to be a deliberate choice by the author nominator (same thing). Evaluation of this scene is therefore very subjective. I praise the composition for being somewhat against the norms, but I don't consider this picture to be exceptional. --S23678 (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My deliberate choice???? What in a world do you mean?For everybody else here's how those birds are flying In my situation that "bird cloud" just happened to be all around me, so I guess it really was my "deliberate choice" . I wish I had many more choices like that one, I really do because it is a sight to behold--Mbz1 (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer to the points you've added after my answer below, even though you do not control the birds, you do control the composition to a large extent, and you are the nominator of this FPC, which makes the choice of such a composition for FPC to be deliberate (or, in other words : calculated, advised, intentional, well though out...) --S23678 (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These thousands of birds fly in a somewhat chaotic way, which is expressed in the composition. It seems to be deliberately chaotic, a picture nominated for it's absence of apparent order. --S23678 (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's the original File:Sturnus vulgaris in Napa Valley original.jpg. As you could see there was not just one plant, but two plants in the image. I did not want simply to cut the the plants off because then some nice birds would have been cut off as well. So I removed the plants using cloning. Of course I added "retouched" template to the edit.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not like Lošmi *sigh*. Lošmi supported the original one, while you only opposed alternative. On the other hand it is good that you opposed as Lošmi and not as S23678 :) --Mbz1 (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 08:42:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:99 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.edit1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:99 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.edit1.jpg
WARNING:
Some browsers may have trouble displaying this image at full resolution: This image has an unusually large number of pixels and may either not load properly or cause your browser to freeze. Downsampled versions are available here.
Comment I'm nominating 2 versions of the image, since I think the larger version (which I prefer by much) may get opposes from 2 reasons : quality problems on the left tried, but can't get rid and shade from the Wayna Picchu, on the right, hence the smaller second version. A third version, getting rid of only the left side, is also available, but I'll bring it up only if necessary. Both images were uploaded at full resolution and do suffer quality problems when viewed at 100% zoom, so they should be viewed with some downsampling. To do so, or if the image is crashing your browser, please view downsampled versions here. Some flare got removed on the left side by cloning as well. These are HDR images taken from the small ruins on top of Wayna Picchu, looking down on the Lost City of the Incas.
I've uploaded denoised versions, and they are shown on the downsampling page. I'll replace them in the nominations if people think they are better versions. Beware as well, on the downsampled version, of trees in the shade that may look like noise. --S23678 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like that you provide "fake downsampled" versions. That's enough to be seen how the image will look if it's downsampled, so there's no need for actual downsampling. --Lošmi (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 08:42:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:99 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.edit3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:99 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.edit3.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 12:31:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Buchenwald-bei-Weimar-am-24-April-1945.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Buchenwald-bei-Weimar-am-24-April-1945.jpg
Info Senator Alben W. Barkley of Kentucky, a member of a congressional committee investigating Nazi atrocities, views the evidence at first hand at Buchenwald concentration camp. Weimar, Germany. Source- US Gov. Archives - nominated by Anon.
Support Good heavens this deserves to be featured, restored or not. Thank you very much for one of the year's most important nominations. Durova (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Due to prior commitments I am unable to restore this image at this time, but would be glad to coach if some other editor would like to work on it. If interested please email for my Skype ID. Durova (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - GerardM (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC) I love the composition, the man has to realise what happened before he can more further .., yes, a higher resolution would be good, but is not essential ... this is not a digital snapshot ...[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2009 at 11:33:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cross sections of teeth ru.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cross sections of teeth ru.svg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 11:33:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Probably, not quite sure though. JPEG2000 compression sometimes produces a milky artifacting pattern. If someone would like to try their hand at this I'd be glad to give it a look and coach the restoration. Durova (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 08:07:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
This image was taken in Australia which allows freedom of panorama in its copyright law. Other similar images would depend on the local copyright law in the location where the photograph was taken. Durova (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on if the sculpture is a permanent installation or not. Im not sure I would see a sculpture made out of sand as a permenent installation, because it will fade in much shorter time than something made from a more time-consistant material.--Korall (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about a sand sculpting exhibition in Portugal where they change the the sculptures once a year? Would those images be OK to upload? Cauase if they are I have some pictures.--Korall (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 15:49:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Winterthur Stadthaus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Winterthur Stadthaus.jpg
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk)
But also, in this age with good panoramic stitching software and panoramic heads, there's little reason to use one for architectural photography IMO, unless you absolutely have to capture the image with a single exposure or you want to use the tilt/shift for creative DOF. Diliff (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The sky is stunning, the building may well appear over-exposed - or it may be that ashen, the foreground is (to me) incomplete. L-Bit (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right there is some left over perspective distortion. However just because you have a shift lens or a panoramic software that doesn't mean you have to correct it fully. Nothing looks worse than an over corrected perspective. For my pictures with a natural distortion of 10-15° I will leave about 1.5°. This avoids that not perfectly staight lines are tilted the wrong way round. --Ikiwaner (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is high, and the use of shift lens is interesting, but the overall feeling I get is a normal picture, not exceptional. Hard light and not very appealing composition in the foreground detracts me from supporting. --S23678 (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The 24mm T/S really is exceptionally sharp and at f/13 the usual light fall-off is not too harsh. On the other hand there really are some composition issues in my opinion. I think the wide angle look cries for more depth, but the building is pretty much the only object standing out. --Ernie (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 23:30:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Compliant Guantanamo captive is allowed to stroll the exercise yard.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Compliant Guantanamo captive is allowed to stroll the exercise yard.jpg
Comment As Jovan said, "...unlike the infamous "Camp X-Ray" pictures showing people in orange suits gagged and tied up, this one presents a much more balanced view of the subject. IMO, it is definitely not a propaganda picture; it shows a pretty ordinary scene, while not attempting to hide the fact that the Guantanamo issue is far from overcome. Also, the fact that we cannot see the man's face takes all emotion out of the picture, which is a good thing in this case as it allows the viewer to deal with the subject as objectively as is possible when dealing with a controversial subject like Guantanamo. With a hard-to-take picture like this, the blurriness can easily be excused."
Oppose Quality issues are too important IMO for FP. Unrelated to my oppose, but, as for the propaganda issue (or non-issue), I think it's a little bit simplistic to view this as candid snapshot, made and published in order to present a balanced POV rather than being a subtle but possibly efficient counterweight to the enormous controversies surrounding this detention camp. I am not against featuring shots that can be considered to be propaganda (this one is, IMO), since they can "have a life of their own" and can even be used against their publishers once released, but I don't buy into this "more balanced view of the subject". Sorry Jovan to hit on your citation that may be taken outside it's context (didn't found the source), but since it was used here as an argument, I am just offering the counter-argument. --S23678 (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hehe . Even the Guantanamo pictures released by the mainstream press were of worse quality than this one mostly. Add to that the fact that this photo, to my knowledge, hasn't even been published in the press before. This picture is so valuable and unique that I am more than willing to overlook almost anything in order to proudly present it as one of our best. -- JovanCormac07:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's originality vs quality decision. I like the idea, but when looking at photo without context I see just blurry, out of focus image. --Justass (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality is not there but this is not QI and exceptions can be made. I love the DOF effect and the man holding the rosary walking away. --Muhammad (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.--Ankara (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 17:04:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Blonde Woman.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blonde Woman.jpg
Barun (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC). Sorry. I think I made a mistake. I was a bit hasty in selecting the picture. I concentrated more on the person than the picture.[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 21:33:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Flags of Europe Andalusia and Spain.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flags of Europe Andalusia and Spain.JPG
Comment So if I understand right, these are all flags which apply to the autonomous community of Andalusia, because it is a part of Spain, which is a member nation of the EU. I'll annotate to clarify which flag is which. Is there any special significance to this image beyond its ability to demonstrate the political hierarchy (for lack of a better phrase) of Andalusia? —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A majority of official buildings (administration, town council, etc) and castles in Andalusia have in front of them (or on them) these three flags. These ones are on top of the Alhambra, in Granada. Geoloc : Done --Gregory Zeier (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this picture has potential, but apart from the aforementioned quality problems, front-most flag IMO is too dark - maybe other environmental conditions (different hour, other wind) would make it better --Leafnode✉15:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 21:30:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jardines de Murillo 1.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jardines de Murillo 1.JPG
Oppose – One thing I often recognize is the yellow cast Nikon Coolpix cameras and digital SLR's produce by default. Just by looking at the image I could tell it was Nikon. --Ernie (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 21:37:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Oliviers Andalousie.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oliviers Andalousie.JPG
Oppose For me, this lacks the value of a closeup shot (not enough detail) while also lacking the value of a landscape shot (not enough context). Because it falls into the middle ground and does neither of those things well, it's an unexceptional image. There are also distracting elements in the bottom-left of the image. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 22:05:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pabellon Mudejar.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pabellon Mudejar.JPG
Oppose The image quality is mediocre, the composition has some problems (I would like to see more space on the right-hand side), and there is a tree blocking part of the subject. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put differently: judging from the composition and the portrait orientation, this is a photograph of a building and some trees; but to be a featured picture, it should really just be a photograph of the building itself. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Un-refined composition. The scene has potential for FP (warm tones, nice building), but this picture left it un-exploited. --S23678 (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't know what's the object of this picture - trees? Building? Both? Now both of them are presented badly - trees cut, building obscured. --Leafnode✉15:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2009 at 02:22:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Polish victim of German Luftwaffe action 1939.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polish victim of German Luftwaffe action 1939.jpg
The image was supported by an user other than the nominator. It might be a good idea to read the rules before using the template.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2009 at 11:15:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cerkiew w Zabludowie obraz 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cerkiew w Zabludowie obraz 2.jpg
Oppose An interesting image, good quality, but no wow for me, sorry. Would benefit from perspective correction (right side vertical is not vertical). --99of9 (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 22:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Apophysis 3D fractal ball.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Apophysis 3D fractal ball.jpg
Request This is a beautiful artificial image, but would you please elaborate on why it is a valuable addition to Commons? I do not know much about this area. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great educational image since it shows that the concept of a fractal is wider than the Mandelbrot set and Sierpinsky triangle laymen typically associate with the term. -- JovanCormac07:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request None of that theoretical context and detail is present on the image's description page. Would you (or George) mind adding more information to help a layperson such as myself? Maybe a few well-placed wikilinks, too. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few words (in English) highlighting the two fractals shown in the image. The parameters given on the description page didn't work for me, though; therefore, I cannot give detailed information on the projection that links the surface of the sphere and the plane. It looks deceptively like a stereographic projection but I don't think it is, since the tiles are not evenly spaced on the surface of the sphere. -- JovanCormac07:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2009 at 15:20:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:M-nikita-kolokolna-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:M-nikita-kolokolna-1.jpg
Support as nominator. There is no extra exposition, as a bell-tower is white itself. The foreground roofs help to see the belltower in its historical context — as the monastery was always surrounded by village.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 00:12:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Inflatable structure in Bad Schallerbach.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Inflatable structure in Bad Schallerbach.jpg
Neutral. There are things I like, like the colours and quality, but I'm not sure about the composition. I appreciate the cleverness of the children running towards the castle, but I think the castle isn't made a big enough feature of the picture. --SilversmithHewwo11:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 06:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Laughing Kid.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laughing Kid.jpg
Neutral Great expression, colour and lighting. My regrets are the big white scarf label, and the fact that you can see the shape of the flash umbrella reflected in his eyes. --99of9 (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question I have the feeling that this picture got nominated before. Most likely with another filename. Is my mind tricking me or am I wrong? Does someone else has the same feeling? :) --AngMoKio (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunatelly the photo has the same problems as 2 years ago. I like the photo but the PS-work on the skin of the baby is really too much. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 14:06:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Belgian F-16 Radom.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Belgian F-16 Radom.JPG
Comment If you have the impression that this picture has already been nominated, you're almost right, this one has and now that I think of it, its failure was justified. The one here has a slightly lower resolution, but is definitely less blurry and I really like the diagonal composition (a rarity in aircraft photography) and the shadows which prevent a feeling of flatness. Wolf (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Significantly oversharpened. I can see the halos even at thumbnail size and they are rather distracting. Apart from that I love the image. Perhaps those from Konflikty.pl can be asked to upload the original so it can be more sympathetically processed ? - Peripitus (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - edits have significantly improved the image but there are a lot of dust spots that need removal. I've marked the ones that I can see at even modest resolution as image annotations. - Peripitus (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's also been corrected. What do you think now? However I just must add those dust marks were hardly visible on two different properly calibrated monitors. Chalger (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 10:10:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lagoon Nebula (ESO).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lagoon Nebula (ESO).jpg
Oppose Very subjective but, while the quality is gorgeous, the position of the nebula in the frame is not optimal (bottom center), and the nebula's shape is too vague, not "charming" enough --S23678 (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it is with sunsets, almost every image from space telescope is beautiful. Just two days ago we've featured other skyscape, which I find far more interesting than this one. And just basing on a comparison - I vote no for this image --Leafnode✉16:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 09:22:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Millesgården 2009.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Millesgården 2009.jpg
Oppose Hard contrasts (under and overexposure), noise, CA, low details, messy composition (sculptures + tree + clouds all mixed up)... Wished I could FPX... --S23678 (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 09:36:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spider internal anatomy-en.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spider internal anatomy-en.svg
Support I cannot speak for the accuracy, but the illustration looks clean, and all text is embedded as SVG text objects, allowing for easy translation of the labels. -- JovanCormac11:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 20:00:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:07:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ComputerHotline - Water droplets (by) (1).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ComputerHotline - Water droplets (by) (1).jpg
Neutral It's a beautiful image, but I don't like the fact that the lighting is artificial. (Full resolution shows a rectangular light source reflected in the droplets) —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 22:15:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Family George V of Hanover.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Family George V of Hanover.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:19:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sean Astin 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sean Astin 1.jpg
Info Actor Sean Astin (Rudy, Lord of the Rings, The Goonies etc.). Photo created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen (talk)
Oppose It's true that we don't have enough good portraits, but the quality is everything but stellar. Even the face isn't entirely in focus, and there is significant image noise in the background. -- JovanCormac10:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Significant image noise in the background? That's a bit too picky in my opinion. Noise/grain has always been a part of photography and always will be. Even high-end digital cameras produce noise at their lowest ISO/ASA settings. Personally I prefer noise over any smeary NR. Noise reduction always means some detail and color will be lost. Demanding noise-freeness is simply unrealistic. --Ernie (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – I like it, but it really is slightly out of focus. Or is it motion blur from shooting at 1/50 sec. when zoomed in to 150mm? --Ernie (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 16:56:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Thomas Bresson - Water droplet-6 (by).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thomas Bresson - Water droplet-6 (by).JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2009 at 19:37:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ocean Beach in San Francisco at sunrise.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ocean Beach in San Francisco at sunrise.jpg
Comment I would support if there was not that red thing (is it lens flare, I don't know) on the top of the image. As well, the sky shows some levels of posterization. Are you using your RAWs and converting to JPEG only at the last step, since it's not the first time I see this issue in your nominations, or it's only from post-processing?
I cropped out the red thing. If you add notes to posterization I will try to fix it, but I am not sure where it is.Is it all over the sky or only in a few places? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember how large my previous note was, but that red flare (I'll call it flare, without knowing exactly what it is) is still very visible below the sky/mountain transition on the red side. As for the new crop, from comparing with the previous image, I feel something important is missing in the composition of the image. Rather than being part of the scene as previously, the cliff is becoming more an intrusive element in the picture. For posterizating, I don't consider it a "pass or fail" issue here since it's barely visible, but it could be a point to improve on for future nominations. As for where it is, it's all over the sky. Just more the image from left to right at full zoom to see some Colour banding where we would normally see a nice gradient (and I'm not talking about the clouds themselves). Finally, is this a downsample or a crop? --S23678 (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editing has been well done at some places, but not at other, as per the new notes. The darkening of the sky caused the picture to lost a lot of it's charm as well. Fixing a problem creates other ones, I'll make you stop doing edits, and I'll just abstain from voting. --S23678 (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Between vote to feature and oppose is still a choice not to vote at all :). Both images provide a very good idea how the Ocean Beach looks, but who cares...--Mbz1 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 22:14:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Astrid Vockert - Projekt Landtag edited.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Astrid Vockert - Projekt Landtag edited.jpg
Strong support this is a quality picture of a German politician. Wikimedians have reached out and went to the parliament to make these pictures. These are not American politicians and they deserve equal respect. These pictures have additional value because of the effort involved.. An additional reason to support this image. I strongly urge the nay sayers to reconsider. GerardM (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took the original image, so I will not comment on the nomination itself. However, I fail to see how the points you raised have anything to do with the quality of the image. It shouldn't really matter who took the image under what circumstance. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC) and since there will be roughly 500 images coming from up to 100 members of parliament, taken by 4 Wikipedians, you might just want to wait until the upload is finished. Again this would not be a statement on quality, just on procedure. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 16:11:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A pond with reflection in Golden Gate Park 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A pond with reflection in Golden Gate Park 2.jpg
Sure. There's no clear subject of this picture. Most of the picture is blurry. Duck is underexposed, apart from the places, where it's overexposed (just like the rock in the bottom-right). Sorry, but I don't see any single feature of this picture that could fit in featured picture guidelines. --Leafnode✉19:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Duck is underexposed, apart from the places, where it's overexposed" Hahaha. It is really funny :), and I cannot agree more, I really mean it . Yet I still like the image because it is all about shadows and light, and the light was really amazing! About the sharpness. Of course the image is not sharp because it is reflection, yet it is a rare reflection because one could see every individulal leaf.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is reflection. Have you ever seen a sharp reflection? Not all images should be sharp. Some just should be beautiful.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know we have a very different ideas what is and what is not beautiful. So far you have opposed few of my images, and never supported any. The image is as sharp as it gets in such situation. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the water should be absolutely still in order for the reflection to be sharp, and it is really rare. Please take a look at that image (not mine) [5]. See how sharp the mountain is and the reflection is not so. If you have a sample of the image with a sharp reflection in a natural body of water I'd be interested to see one please. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has to do with on what you focus and the shutter speed you chose. Right now i don't have such a picture at hand but I am sure a google search can give you a lot. Your photo was made with a shutter speed of 1/20, this way the reflection can't get sharp. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2009 at 20:55:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Secret Service WMG.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Secret Service WMG.jpg
Oppose Wholly undocumented attempt at restoration on this image, broken source link at upload page. Appears to be a good faith attempt, though. Would gladly work with the nominator toward a viable nomination. Durova (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 02:52:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral of Learning stitch 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral of Learning stitch 1.jpg
NeutralI'm not convinced by the lighting/point of view/time of the day combination. Architectural features are difficult to see, given the angle at which we see them. Right side of the building has less perspective distortion but is in the shadow, and thus dimmer. --MAURILBERT(discuter) 13:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)vote striken by MAURILBERT(discuter)23:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are only perhaps two angles from which a relatively-unobstructed shot may be obtained- remember, this is a skyscraper in an urban environment. Also, when the building is uniformly well-lit, it appears exceptionally bland and "flat." For comparison on these points, see this alternate version. My intention with the submitted shot was (1) to illustrate the structure in a way which would not confound the viewer with other buildings in the frame, as well as (2) to use the angle of lighting to my advantage to reveal the volume and ornamental nuances of the building, rather than leaving it to appear homogeneous and flat. In a sense, I am not attempting to photograph a structure, per se, but an art style or a design philosophy, and I am trying to do so in a way that will not confound the viewer with extraneous details. (Crazypaco, an expert on this structure, articulated a similar analysis in his review of the photograph for valued image.) I hope that this helps to clarify my decisions. —Notyourbroom (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for these details and explanations. I agree that the alternate view you provided almost looks like a cardboard cutout of the building itself, whereas this view actually shows the intricate volumes that comprises this tower. Is it one of the best views one can get of this structure? I'm willing to think so. Is it superior to many others we can see on Commons and elsewhere? Once again, I'd think so. Is it thus a featured picture, a valuable picture, or something else ? Well, I don't know... --MAURILBERT(discuter)23:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really do like the contrasts in the composition : that imposing, grey, and, to some extent, scary architecture presented in such a vivid and empty blue sky, and surprisingly green surroundings (very cartoon-like). Everything fits in place. Bravo. --S23678 (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just barely acceptable quality in my view, but the lighting leaves much to be desired. Return just before sunset (or just after sunrise) for a better picture. I'd keep the same composition. Noodle snacks (talk)
Thank you for the suggestion—I may try that. I believe that sunset would be better than sunrise for this angle (because sunrise would provide almost full front-lighting), but in either case, it is now too late in the year to capture the lawn and trees in a non-dormant state. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 22:13:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3348-19 Huizen aan het water in Coronie, vermo2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3348-19 Huizen aan het water in Coronie, vermo2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 08:05:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:CVW-5 Apr2007.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:CVW-5 Apr2007.jpg
Weak SupportMaybe Takabeg is talking about the fact that none of the planes is very focused and there are also a lot of artefacts, especially in the sky.--SilversmithHewwo11:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great picture, but spoilt by overzealous JPEG compression. 1.22 MB for 12 Mpix is simply ridiculous, and it shows. JPEG artifacts are all over the picture. -- JovanCormac12:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality issues, per Daniel, especially in the top portion of the sky. Given this was a photo ops, I see no mitigating reasons for the quality not being better. --S23678 (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the quality related compression. Even at reasonable resolution (screen size) the clouds above Mt Fuji just look wrong with what looks like lots of posterisation. - Peripitus (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 11:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nk1046349362-20061210-hd.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nk1046349362-20061210-hd.jpg
Oppose for the file name and the poor quality of the description page. It would be great to have a species name and a geolocation tag, and why is there essentially an extra license in the "Permission" field? —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Also, what's happening here? Has the pelican just landed? It is flying away? Is it just flapping while floating in the water? This would also be nice to know on the description page. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 09:18:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Path on water Nanjing.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Path on water Nanjing.jpg
Oppose I don't support desaturated color pictures. Post the color picture instead; if someone wants to see it desaturated, he or she can to so with a single click in Photoshop. But posting desaturated already simply robs the picture of color information without giving anything back in return. -- JovanCormac12:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2009 at 21:44:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: this image is very small and has much too tight a crop. Some portions are also severely underexposed or overexposed. I encourage you to stick around to learn more from the community here and get a better idea of what images are considered FP material. :) —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2009 (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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 20:49:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A surfer in the air.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A surfer in the air.jpg
Support Impressive, and much better post-processing than the other similar nomination. I would still like to see full resolution, if this is a downsample. --S23678 (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of the images on Commons that are not used in any project, which most of the time does not mean they are out of the scope. What is out of scope here is the oppose vote of kuiper, who opposed not the image, but me personally. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find the concept that this image is "out of scope" simply bizarre I'm afraid. This is action photography of a sport. I look forward to seeing the deletion request removing all such images. --Herbytalk thyme18:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an action shot of surfing. The surfer is on the board and is making a manouvre. Your image isn't bad, but isn't good to illustrate this sport well. --Cesco77 (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position, but wipeout isn't the best moment in this sport to take a picture, for me. The two surf pictures you have upload and featured, are simply perfect (this and this), but this one don't have the same quality IMO --Cesco77 (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Shows the wave better than the surfer. To me it looks like the individual in the picture is falling of the board, so I think that the wrong moment is captured for a FA. If not, perhaps the surfing manoeuvre could be illustrated better in a video. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he's falling of the board. They all usually do in the end :) It is a normal , and usual part of surfing. We already have few FP images of surfers on the board. It would have been nice to have one out, and btw IMO to show a surfer without the wave is not nearly as interesting. The wave by itself has EV. A surfer provdides a great scale for the wave, which makes EV of the image only higher.BTW what "FA" stands for in your comment above?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the image description has been amended to explain the picture better. I have changed my additions above to a comment, and I might vote again later when I have considered the image again. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't understand the out of scope comment (above). I found no other pictures on Commons with the surfer in the air that shows the underside of the board clearly. It appears to have high illustrative merit, is probably difficult to repeat, and meets the other criteria. Walter Siegmund(talk)19:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 19:56:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Macaca sylvanus feet and hands.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Macaca sylvanus feet and hands.JPG
Neutral Decent level of quality, but if it's meant to illustrate the feet and hands (per the image's title), it does a relatively poor job due to the way the monkey is positioned. On the other hand, this is a photograph of a wild creature which is an understandably difficult subject. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 06:15:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rub' al Khali (Arabian Empty Quarter) sand dunes imaged by Terra (EOS AM-1).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rub' al Khali (Arabian Empty Quarter) sand dunes imaged by Terra (EOS AM-1).jpg
It's an air reflection, similar to the phenomenon called a "Highway mirage", which is described in the article Mirage (even though it arguable doesn't fulfill the classical definition of Mirage being = Fata Morgana). -- JovanCormac23:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is no air reflection! There are many little salt lakes between the dunes dry or filled with saltwater. Look a long time to the enlarged image: You can see, the salt lakes are lying in holes between the dunes. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be that, it might also be the "Typical pale gravel plains" mentioned in the WP article on the en:Rub' al Khali. I do think I see reflections of clouds there, though. Strange that the NASA page doesn't explain the phenomenon. -- JovanCormac15:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2009 at 15:04:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support gestochen scharf und wirklich realistisch. außerdem nicht verzerrt wie fast alle Auto-Bilder auf der wiki dazu gehören auch viele bilder von S40 Hybrid oder wie er auch heißt. -- Luft+ (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. That's my picture nominated here. Thanks a lot for it. Thinking that that is my best picture I hope that it will be a featured picture. -- S 400 HYBRID (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my opinion the picture has a sense. In the background we can see the little brother of the SL the SLK. So, I mean this composition is organized very well. For me this picture is also a featured picture because there are not so many good pictures at wiki like this. --Lukas.zz (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the second car is also a subject (which sounds fair enough), then I would prefer it was not chopped at the top. --99of9 (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Since so many languages have appeared here... Sama obecność automobilu w tle nie wydaje mi się wadą godną sprzeciwu, jednakowoż fakt, iż wzmiankowany automobil ma ścięty dach, jest z pewnością niejakim minusem rzeczonej fotografii. Wolf (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is a solid shot and might be a case for QI. But for FP the composition is too straight forward. And the SLK in the back is distracting. To combine those 2 cars is in general a good idea, but with the cut off roof of the SLK the composition seems random. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 09:13:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:CoA Città di Milano.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:CoA Città di Milano.svg
Oppose Purtroppo devo concordare con Jovan, ma se puoi continua a creare gli stemmi dei comuni italiani con questo livello di accuratezza, ne abbiamo bisogno su Wikipedia ;-). I have to agree with Jovan, by the way please continue creating CoA with this high graphic level of italian municipalities, we need it on Wikipedia ;-) --Phyrexian (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 07:21:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Etna eruption seen from the International Space Station.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Etna eruption seen from the International Space Station.jpg
I have to disagree. Looking at the noise I am quite sure a lot of detail will be lost due to noise reduction. The picture is fine the way it is and noise is just natural. --Ernie (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I know it's hyper-rare shot and so on, but the noise is just too much for me. NASA can make better photos (even though this was taken in 2002). —kallerna™21:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 13:54:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Julian Alps with Prisojnik and Razor.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Julian Alps with Prisojnik and Razor.jpg
Info Jovan, this image has the colours and the saturation of the former Kodachrome 25 film. I worked with Kodachrome 25 in the years 1974–2001 and know what I say. Kodachrome 25 has been one of the best films with great sharpness, and I try to bring the Kodachrome 25 feeling into the digitally world. Maybe you worked in the past with other films and likes therefore another feeling with soft colours and saturation, but that is your own window to the world of photography and is ok for your own images. - This image has the resolution 2,602 × 1,645 pixels (4.28029 pixels), that's more than the double of the needed 2 million pixels. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, after seeing this Kodachrome picture I'll have to say you're probably right, the saturation seems to be a feature of that specific film, though I would consider that image on the verge to being overexposed as well. Nevertheless, I believe that photography (especially landscape photography) should mirror reality as closely as possible, and I've certainly never seen grass as green as it is in your candidate shot. If I understood you correctly, this is a digital image that you edited to look like it was taken with the Kodachrome film. If that is the case, it should be clearly marked as auch ("retouched" template). As for the resolution, this is a matter of personal taste; I myself believe that landscape shots should have at least 6-8 Megapixels unless they are absolutely spectacular. -- JovanCormac08:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I retract my vote of "Oppose", the color issues have now been corrected AFAIC. Still don't know whether to support, though. The view is rather ordinary. -- JovanCormac07:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Actually leaning toward oppose due to the tight crop, but I do have an unhealthy-powerful zeal for giant photostitched landscapes, so I think that's probably influencing my opinion too much. —Notyourbroom (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And as it could be expected, I don't like the composition of the second photo either. And now why - horizon is in the middle, and as a consequence in this particular shot there's too much of the bottom part - even grass is rather boring. IMO this picture would be better with some cropping. --Leafnode✉12:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I made an update, cropped the Blumenwiese and made the green colour of the grass light. The "Blumenwiese" is an essential part of the high mountain region of Europa and IMO an important part of this image. Therefore I leaved a part of it. I didn't found any word for the "Blumenwiese" in the English language. JovanCormac, Leafnode and Kallerna, I hope, the colour and the composition is now ok. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2009 at 15:09:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kardo-lenin-kopia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kardo-lenin-kopia.jpg
Oppose it does not look like a photo and the justification or the explanation of the "own work" may explain things but it unreadable to me. GerardM (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry? It's a photo of the picture on the wall, of about 4*2 meters size. The picture is by Kardovsky, published in 1926; the photo is by myself, made in 2009. Where is the mess?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-1917 paintings are not protected in Russia. Thinking about the current law -- Kardovsky died in 1943, thus in 2013 all his works will be in PD. But, as far as I know, Kardovsky's date of death removes his work from the coverage of the current civil law because of the regulations of the Law of Implementing a Civil Codex. That law states that only works of the authors who died after 1943 are under this current 70-years protection.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 22:09:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:RhB Bernina-Express am Lago Bianco.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:RhB Bernina-Express am Lago Bianco.jpg
Info Two multiple units hauling the narrow gauge Bernina Express over the alps, at Lago Bianco. The picture was taken more than 2200 meters above sea level.
Info Das Problem des Bildes ist, dass der Bernina-Express als Hauptsache zur Nebensache wird. Das Bild ist groß genug, dass Du das Nebensächliche entfernen kannst. Vom See darf nur ein schmaler Streifen mit der Spiegelung des Zuges stehen bleiben, und auch vom Himmel kann ziemlich viel entfernt werden. Die Mindestgröße des Bildes (über 2 Millionen Pixel) muss erhalten bleiben. Dann hat der Zug mehr "Bodenhaftung", und das Panoramabild verstärkt die Wirkung des langen Zuges. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vielen Dank für die gute Rückmeldung, ich werde es mir für nächstes mal merken! (vielleicht sollte ich doch mal einen Kurs besuchen, bei dem man lernt, auf solche Dinge zu achten...) Diese Nomination werde ich jetzt aber nicht mehr ändern, bringt wohl nicht mehr viel. --Kabelleger (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 16:14:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Torre del homenaje.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Torre del homenaje.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 23:52:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mosquito Tasmania.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mosquito Tasmania.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 19:59:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vineyard in Napa Valley 4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vineyard in Napa Valley 4.jpg
Oppose I like the vibrancy of the colors, but the composition is messy :branch on the left, line of horizon right on top of the trees, background trees blending with the "main tree". --S23678 (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I might agree with branch on the left, but what could have been done to avoid "background trees blending with the "main tree""? I wanted to show the hills behind the vineyard, so I could not play with the DOF.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a different perspective would have worked, but as a personal opinion, I think a shallower DOF would have had more advantages than disadvantages. --S23678 (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as S23678 - there's no one focus point. Everything blends together making this picture very messy. Here shallow DoF would be appropriate. --Leafnode✉09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please, try some self-criticsm before nomination. Just look to number of your nominations! Images are good, but do you really think, that every of them should be FP. --Karel (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did I understand you right? Did you opposed my "good image" because in your opinion I nominate too many? I'd like to let you know that I could nominate as many images as I want, and you could oppose them all, or better yet you could ignore them, as I am ignoring your nominations that are way too boring to even bother to review, but please do not tell me what to do. Okay? Thanks. To answer your question, yes, I do believe that the nominated image (as well as others I nominated) is good enough and different enough from other FP to get promoted. Of course I never know what reviewers would say. How, for example, should I have known that one will oppose an octopus taken in a wild with "no wow" reason, and in few days is to nominate a boring, dull fish taken in a local aquarium :) BTW here's advice for you - please try not to look at the name of author/nominator, just look at the image itself.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forget to express that my Oppose is becasue I think (as others here), that this image is not good enough for FP. That´s all. But additinally I just wanted to give you friendly advice, but from your nearly hysteric reaction I see, that it was not the best idea. Regards, --Karel (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So was my reaction "hysteric" or "agressive" :) Ah, anyway... I am glad you understood that I could do just fine without your "friendly advices". Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCommons:Staying mellow - please bear that in mind. You usually aggressively respond to any critics of your behavior or your works. People have right to have their own opinion, to state it, and to have different opinion than yours. And if there are no strict rules in given subject, they can use any criteria they want. --Leafnode✉07:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that I know your take on self nominations, Leafnode, which is the same as Karelj has. It is against the rules. I have the right nominate as many images as I'd like to. I will just repeat that a good and fair reviewer should not even look at the nominator's name, but only at the image.Oh and btw could you please provide few diff of my so called "agressive responds"? I mean, if it is "usually" you should be able to provide quite a few diff, don't you, Leafnode? --Mbz1 (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it is a bad tone to claim something without be able to provide the diffs to confirm the claim. I've no more questions to you. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it will help, if you are to provide the diffs. How should I know what of my comments you consider to be "aggressive", if you do not want to point them out to me? How would I be able to correct my "usually aggressively respond", if I have no idea what you're talking about :) --Mbz1 (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. They are really soooooo agressive and there are soooo many of them that I believe it is a time for another block :) Everything is clear to me now. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]