Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Lake Seliger. Ostashkov. View of Voroniy Island.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2021 at 07:45:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info created & uploaded by Александр Байдуков - nominated by Александр Байдуков -- Александр Байдуков (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  Info This has nice ambient. Just correct tilt, seem a bit clockwise. --Mile (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Hydatina albocincta 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2021 at 05:58:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support This is amazing when you think about the size of the shell. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Richard Gerstl - Nude Self-Portrait with Palette - Google Art Project.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2021 at 21:59:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info created by Richard Gerstl - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  •   Support -- Andrei (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support A valuable and useful resource for Commons. -- Radomianin (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Henry Scott Tuke - Beach Study.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2021 at 21:47:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info created by Henry Scott Tuke - uploaded by Verseturns - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You're not the first one to notice that; I think it reflects that historically a lot of painters have been men, and they have either been commissioned or chosen to paint a lot more women. Daniel Case (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Good thinking, but not that interesting a painting to me. w:Henry Scott Tuke shows a number of more interesting compositions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    Scott is complicated because most of his works are kept in small galleries or private collections. Those, unlike major national museums, do not have serious digitalization projects and therefore most of his paintings are simply not available in good quality. And not everything is in PD. On the other hand, this particular piece provides "in a nutshell" all his characteristic features, including the marine theme, sensitivity, youth, combining nature and human, isolation and anonymity. Similar yet a bit more promoted painting can be found here (National Trust, not HD quality). In the broad category can be found more complex scenes, yet they often lack the atmosphere which is present here (or sometimes they are slightly badly framed). --Andrei (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • There are also great male nudes by Renaissance master painters and so forth, just saying, and of course loads of sculptors have made male nude sculptures. Some very famous and great artists who aren't known as specializing in male nudes for the majority of their work nevertheless did great male nudes. So there should be lots to choose from if we're looking at this by motif. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • No doubt in that, yet, on my opinion Henry Scott Tuke is important enough and deserves a nomination --Andrei (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Like I said, I do see some other compositions that look more interesting to me. I disagree with Daniel's opinion: Inevitably, part of the evaluation of whether a photo of an artwork has wow is a person's reaction to the work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support This is not Commons:Featured paintings, but featured pictures. We make this decision on the quality of the digitization, not the quality of the digitized artwork. Daniel Case (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel -- Radomianin (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Partial eclipse.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2021 at 14:33:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info created by Meshari Alawfi - uploaded by Meshari Alawfi - nominated by Meshari Alawfi -- Meshari Alawfi (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  •   Support -- Meshari Alawfi (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very normal, routine image of a partial eclipse, with a lot of dead space around it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Info Gallery link improved – we have a ‘Sun’ section on the ‘Natural phenomena’ gallery page, and this is a solar eclipse ;–).

  •   Oppose It's an eclipse picture. It's fine but nothing special, it's been done. --Tungster24 (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Definitely a nice capture for you, but nothing outstanding compared to the very best photos on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Portal of St. Andrew's Church.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2021 at 13:55:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info created & uploaded by Maksimsokolov - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Čertovy schody TK 2021-07-23 5.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2021 at 22:38:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info created by Nefronus - uploaded by Nefronus - nominated by Nefronus --Nefronus 22:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Welcome, Nefronus! I believe this is your first nomination here; sorry if I'm being forgetful. In any case, I would really like to hear your thoughts on what makes this photo exceptional. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the welcome, Ikan Kekek, you are right about my first nomination. In my opinion the subject is exceptional, the quarry looks majestic and has interesting connections both with the geological history of the area (which is essential e.g. for stratigraphy/paleontology internationally – sadly there is not a WP article on that topic yet) and industry. Regarding the photo, I like the different colored “layers” (sky, vegetation, stone, vegetation), the layering is further supported by the stages of the quarry. Also the drilling machine gives an idea of the scale. So, all in all, the photo is not brutally, but rather softly striking. It is a favorite one of my photo uploads yet: it combines my favourite scientific field and well executed aesthetics. I was also curious about the FP nomination process/reactions. --Nefronus 23:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you. That was a very clear answer. I think the photo is interesting, but I wonder whether a more horizontal composition might have worked better. That said, I'll give myself the time to live with this photo before making any decisions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Ikan suggests, landscape orientation might have worked better. Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I didn't see anything written on the picture Александр Байдуков (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition doesn't really work for me, per above remarks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Pardalotus punctatus - Glen Davis.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2021 at 06:20:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Two-Tone Fountain Pen Nib-Plum.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2021 at 01:28:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

[Plum Version (Preferred by me)]

  Info created by ElooKoN - uploaded by ElooKoN - nominated by ElooKoN -- ElooKoN (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Info gallery fixed to Tools because similar image is also listed there. MZaplotnik(talk) 22:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose background is distracting Buidhe (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay 💬 17:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 22:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 10:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Since i made similar, i spent hours to edit scratches on the nib. So could be done here - to become FP. --Mile (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Please don't understand me wrong, but that is an absolute no-go. At least for me, because I am documenting. This is a close-up of the two-tone nib of a historic vintage fountain pen and shall not look like a synthetic product photo for advertisements. On the contrary, such details are important to give the photo depth. The viewer shall see the reality. --ElooKoN (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Question Can we get some information who used it, since historic. When was made. This background isnt compatible for "historic mode", but more as an commercial. --Mile (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support This close up is very nice. I like it. --Tungster24 (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I also prefer this version. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Alternative [Gray Version]


File:Bloemen van een Ratelaar (Rhinanthus) 13-06-2021. (d.j.b).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2021 at 15:26:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info Flowers of a Rhinanthus. Rhinanthus is a semi-parasite. Focus stack of 16 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Weak support very good quality, but the timing could have been better – most flowers are already faded. --Ivar (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment. Rhinanthus is a sloppy bloomer. The top flowers have yet to come out. The lower flowers are already in decay.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Photo with high value for Commons. IMHO, the above-mentioned defects are of minor importance. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Question My usual question: How big are these flowers? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Answer: the corolla (yellow part) is ± 12 mm. long. The seeds develop in the green ball under the corolla. When the seeds are ripe, they can rattle in the then brown ball.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks. Can you add that information to the description on the file page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Done. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --IamMM (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay 💬 17:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 10:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Fonte Avellana.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2021 at 14:33:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info created by Giacomo Alessandroni - uploaded by Giacomo Alessandroni - nominated by Giacomo Alessandroni -- Giacomo Alessandroni What's up! 14:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  •   Support Me, of course! ;-) -- Giacomo Alessandroni What's up! 14:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Uninspiring lighting conditions and composition. -- King of ♥ 19:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lacks quality.--Ermell (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Hazy, unsharp, looks like a cellphone picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. Dull light as well ... even with no technical issues this is a QI at best. Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Today even smarthphones make great shots, i think its older version od phone. Would not bet it would get QI.--Mile (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell and Ikan. IMHO also for QI it is not appropriate. I'm sorry. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, no. WB off (looks reddish), tilted, poor quality, uninteresting light, and not the most inspired composition with so much meadow in the foreground – would be nicer to see some sky. Sure it’s a nice place but that’s not sufficient here, we look for excellent pictures. Might be a good idea to first consult Commons:Photography critiques next time. --Kreuzschnabel 08:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Info Thanks to all for your constructive critiques, in particular to Kreuzschnabel. I'm here since 2009, but this is the first time that I try to candidate an image of mine, so any criticism is appreciated. Giacomo Alessandroni What's up! 10:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Environmental disaster in Levikha Village, Sverdlovsk region of Russia DJI.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2021 at 21:34:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info Another FP drone pic from this disaster. created and uploaded by Vasily Iakovlev - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  •   Support -- IamMM (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks like another planet in a movie. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel. Extraordinary image. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel. --Aristeas (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 10:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Ruisseau du Vialais - March 2021 - B - BW.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2021 at 19:01:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info created - uploaded - nominated by me. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  •   Support This is the result of a Nik Collection preset, the result is not very sharp, but IMO it have big wow regarding as to the atmosphere / mood. I am unable to obtain the same thing without that preset. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support On closer inspection, it looks like a painting or a drawing. Seen from this artistic aspect, this is an FP for me.--Ermell (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with Christian; I prefer this version, which to me is more unusual and special than the color version. However, I support the other one, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this one better than the color version. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer this one, the colours are not so strong --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay 💬 17:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)



  •   Support From the same RAW file as above but this time all done by me. Much more sharp, and still some wow effect regarding the atmosphere / mood but less than the monochrome version IMO. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support One of the rare cases, where I like ND filter, because it fits perfectly. I more prefer the colored version though :) --ElooKoN (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Very pleasing, high value on the aesthetic axis. On the other hand, the educational value of such shots, while well done and beautiful, are somewhat limited from my point of view – there’s not really much information to gain here. Drastically speaking, there are valleys like this to be found in many mountaineous regions all over the globe, so I fail to see what’s so special about this one. Don’t take me rude please, of course there’s nothing really bad or wrong here. So I am not going to oppose. Just a little bit tending to be out of scope since Commons is not about aesthetically beautiful images in the first place, right? --Kreuzschnabel 11:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Question Why do you think it isn't? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Several things to answer here. Firstly far from me the idea to be rude with you, Kreuzschnabel, we crossed one each other several times from years here or in QIC, and without reminding myself if I always agree with you I'm sure that I'm always interested by your photos or by what you have to say about photos. Therefore the fact that you don't have any reasons to oppose is already a good thing from my point of view. So thank you for your comment. The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to store media "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". Question: how can you able to know that this place is precisely like that wihout such photo? how can you able to know that in this place there is a litle stream that can grow up to the point to (likely) uproot trees and create banks of more than 2 meters highs (for the story I finished my descent from the bank on the buttocks :)). If we follow your logic, what is the difference between one street of one town and a street of another town? they may be sometimes very similar, doe's that mean that only the photos of streets where there is a monument or a famous buildings are in scope? There is also a lot of mountains in the world... does that mean that we can only promote photos of "special mountains" and not the "special photos" of mountains. This is exactly where we approach to talk about of the "wow factor". This is a photo of a quite ordinary stream in a quite ordinary country, yes, but there is a rather dramatic atmosphere which emerges, which makes that not the place but the photo is special. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support This is a special photo for me. In Nature always fascinates me. And I like the atmosphere.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Probably works for me because I was able to do some real hiking (i.e., boots, knapsack and poles) for the first time in quite a while last week, and saw a few scenes like this (albeit thousands of km away). Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivar (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't want to oppose here but this image has an IMHO too strong HDR, too visible effect. And I'm a bit surprised that noone yells here 'overprocessed' as it happens often on some landscape images. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Tell me stupid, but IMHO the photo does not look at all like a typical HDR image, it just looks like a photo taken in the wood with high contrast. If I develop a simple RAW file of a photo taken in the wood with high contrast (i.e. some sunlight here, shadows elsewhere), without any fancy adjustments, it looks like this – and Christian has even resisted the temptation to lighten the shadows, therefore the shadows are very dark, very realistic, i.e. IMHO absolutely not HDR-like. (Cf. examples of ‘artistic’, i.e. overdone HDR.) --Aristeas (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Indeed that is not a HDR, it is 30s long exposure taken with a filter as well noted by ElooKoN a bit above, then edited manually in Lightroom and in Photoshop. However Aristeas I have to moderate your statements a bit, in order to not to have the sunlighted areas entirely burned I had to limit the exposure, and the result is the shadows in the right part of the image in the RAW file are very strong, even almost black, and the lighted areas are of course very bright. Hopfully the camera registered all the details for the shadowed areas, and a lot of details for the brighten areas. But I had to lighten the shadows a lot to obtaim the current result, trying of course not to overdo it, and I had to decrease a lot the highlights for the sunlighted areas too. So more you have to touch it more it's hard to recover a natural aspect, so it's quite logical that some persons find it not natural, I did my best but it's very hard to make such an extreme RAW file looking natural. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, sorry, I took it for self-evident that most RAW photos of a high contrast landscape are photographed ‘underexposed’ to preserve the highlights (more or less applying ETTR; better explanation, scroll down to “Exposure”), and then, when developing the RAW file, the midtones and shadows are brightened again. That’s a standard procedure and goes without saying. What I wanted to say is that you did not lift the shadows too much – the shadows are still dark, the blacks are still black, and this is what distinguishes the photo very much from the usual overdone HDR look in which both the lights are too dark and the shadows too bright. But I am sorry if I have interfered with your debate, I just was astonished that the photo was associated with HDR and wanted to question that impression. --Aristeas (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
No problem, to discuss photography is a pleasant thing. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per ElooKoN. After some time of consideration: I personally prefer the color version. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --IamMM (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support definitely prefer the color version Buidhe (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 10:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Pocket Watch (Savonette).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2021 at 16:11:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info created by ElooKoN - uploaded by ElooKoN - nominated by ElooKoN -- ElooKoN (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  • (I removed my own vote, because I am the author and think I must not vote for myself)
  •   Comment ElooKoN, you may vote for your own photo at FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --ElooKoN (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Don't like the unsharp lid. -- -donald- (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose per donald. The unsharp lid is too distracting, more so as the unsharp part comes in so suddenly. Otherwise well done. --Kreuzschnabel 10:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Regretful weak oppose Done with such care and such a great old watch, but ... not only is the blurred lid a distraction, the awkward crop is too. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your feedback! For me the lid was never at all a distraction. I intentionally left the lid as it is, because otherwise the photo may have looked synthetic to me. For me there was no point in highlighting the lid. Nonetheless this is important feedback, so thank you! It shows that something which not at all draws any attention for someone, can cause distraction for another person. Only one thing I don't understand: You say the crop is awkward? I don't really understand what you exactly mean by that, since this is meant to be a close-up. I would be thankful if you could explain that more fully for me :) --ElooKoN (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
@ElooKoN: I mean the crop on the right. It might have looked better if you'd just taken it off the chain completely. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback! --ElooKoN (talk)
  •   Oppose I agree about the lid, but this would be a QI if nominated and a great VI, most likely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Asparagus soup (spargelsuppe).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2021 at 11:12:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info Asparagus soup (spargelsuppe). My photo. -- Mile (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support interesting approach for presenting a dish that would probably not look very interesting on its own.. --El Grafo (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but the layout is not aesthetically pleasing to me. The wooden spoon is too small, failing to counterbalance the visual weight of the asparagus, which are also a bit disorderly. Overall the composition just doesn't seem balanced to me. -- King of ♥ 03:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support works for me — Rhododendrites talk |  16:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose artificial composition. who puts spears on the table? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment For the purpose of art. Do you also criticize still life paintings as artificial? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I could do, if it was contrived, like this one. This nomination is one where it would be good to just say "I don't like it". How can one try to rationalize one's opinion of an artistic image? Your reasons for support are very personal. Would anyone else see what you see in the photo? You write "The slant between the spears of the 3 asparagi also helps to create a nice curvy motion to the spoon". Objective criticism? Or (dare I say this to one of our most thoughtful and fair reviewers) - pretentious? Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think it can be pretentious because it describes my own experience of viewing the photo as well as I can describe it. Also, anyone looking for an objective basis for taste is wasting their time; taste is and should be subjective. I also think it's completely fine and reasonable if you don't like the composition but, I submit, probably not just because it's contrived. Every still life is contrived because the artist deliberately sets up the objects in such-and-such a way. Therefore, this composition is in that sense comparable to a still life. But again, that's quite a different question from whether the composition works for you. It could be, though, that I'm taking the word "contrived" too literally, and what you're getting at is that the composition feels unpleasantly unnatural to you, whereas some still lifes, though literally contrived, may feel natural to you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Weak support because for the right part of the image I would have wished a better lighting. But nevertheless this composition works, it is eye-catching. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Changed to full   Support because IMHO the lighting is much better now. Thank you Mile :) -- Radomianin (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support The asymmetrical composition has grown on me and is now working. The slant between the spears of the 3 asparagi also helps to create a nice curvy motion to the spoon, through the spoon and then around to the near side of the asparagi, at the same time that my eyes pan over the soup. It's not the most complex composition, but that's not a problem, and at full size, there's a very good view of the soup. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Info Radomianin I put some light on rigth side. Its better now. I still try to make food on natural light. Wish i had a garden for this. --Mile (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  •   Support --IamMM (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 10:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 14:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtyard to the Sky at the European ParliamentEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2021 at 09:10:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 [discuter] 09:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  •   Support -- Gzen92 [discuter] 09:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not convinced, sorry. Quality is mediocre (grainy, not very sharp, and artifacts around all edges). Vertical image needs a clockwise rotation, horizontal a CCW one to be symmetric. --Kreuzschnabel 10:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Regretful weak oppose per Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Darter .jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2021 at 07:16:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info created by Mildeep - uploaded by Mildeep - nominated by Nirmal Dulal -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  •   Support -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad artefacts, i whish too see original, even 1st is badly edited. --Mile (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Mile author uploaded the original. -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Nirmal Dulal Image might be good, the one before editing. Problem is even 1st uploaded is bad-edited. Otherwise i could give a try to make more acceptable. --Mile (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support once-in-a-lifetime (going by the description) action shot, I think we can forgive a bit of blurriness. --El Grafo (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think it should be possible to identify the species (there are four species of darters!) and to add this information to the description. --Llez (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Llez it's Oriental Darter (Anhinga melanogaster), you can see it in caption and category. --Nirmal Dulal (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
But not in the file description. --Llez (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  Done added -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    •   Support -- Per others --Llez (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not good quality image for FP, especially low contrast. -- Karelj (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Any "Low contrast" may reflect the fact that the prey is available or vulnerable during lower light conditions (dawn, dusk, overcast). Remarkable natural event. --Ooligan (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Prey is available all day. Athmospheric pollution in Chitwan is the likely problem. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The framing is too large and the light dull. Spectacular action unfortunately ruined by these two problems -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support It’s not perfect but sufficient for me to support. --Kreuzschnabel 06:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile Morin. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The first impression is very good but the quality is unfortunately not enough.--Ermell (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

File: Duomo nuovo Brescia supplica la Madonna della Salute Francesco Paglia Brescia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2021 at 14:34:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info All by - nominated by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Grapefruits - whole-halved-segments.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2021 at 14:21:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info all by Ivar (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Pangong Tso Lake, Ladakh, India.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2021 at 08:09:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info created by ManoharD - uploaded by LearnIndology - nominated by LearnIndology -- LearnIndology (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

  •   Support -- LearnIndology (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Gallery link improved ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noise + dust spots, not one of the best photos on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan, and missing benefit of a 160mb PNG in relation to a 10-20mb JPEG. --A.Savin 13:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Foreground unsharp. Saturation overdone. Seems a bit tilted CW to me, and the composition looks just arbitrary, I don’t get a clear idea. --Kreuzschnabel 08:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose Even without the serious noise (.PNG is not the most advisable format for this type of image) this is a remarkably unremarkable picture of a lake at ... is it dawn or dusk? The description does not say, another thing that does not augur in its favor. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Museu da República 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2021 at 15:31:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info created and uploaded by Fwsbsb - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  •   Support -- IamMM (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Wow, but unfortunately too noisy and please think about the verticals. --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    IMO it would be good to cut the upper part of the image so that the building and the street are in the middle and the lamp beam creates full symmetry with its reflection in the water, but Im not sure that the photographer agrees with this. --IamMM (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose noise Buidhe (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Buidhe. Daniel Case (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support as is. I see this as visual art, not a documentary. --El Grafo (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Alternative Version


  •   Comment The uploader doesn't look to be active on Commons, so I took the liberty of uploading an edited version. I adjusted verticals, gave it a tiny bit more space at the top, and denoised it. The amount of denoising it needed makes me still unsure it would pass FPC, but I really like the image so I uploaded it anyway: File:Museu da República 1 edit.jpg. If you see this, Fwsbsb and would like this version to replace the original rather than be separate, just let me know. You can reupload it yourself (or another version) and I will request deletion of this version. Pinging participants thus far to see if it's worth putting this up as an alternative: @IamMM, Michielverbeek, Buidhe, Daniel Case, El Grafo:. IamMM, I will defer to you. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I would support the alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Well denoised but verticals are not straight, so unfortunately no support --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Rhododendrites, for taking the time to create and upload the edited version! IMHO it is much better, I would be happy to support it. --Aristeas (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Why are people here so obsessed with noise? It makes not sense to me to pixel-peep an image that is intended to be viewed as a whole. The new version does not look any better at normal viewing sizes and it looks worse at 100%. Yes, the sky looks smooth now, but at the price of posterization and loss of detail on the subject. I'm not against selectively de-noising the background a bit, but this went too far, in my opinion. That little bit of additional space on top was a very good idea, though. --El Grafo (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Regarding posterization, I don't disagree. That's part of what I meant by my hedging in the beginning. I tried a few different methods of denoising and didn't find one that worked all that well. I don't mind some noise, but the reality is a very noisy image of a static subject has little to no chance of passing FPC. I think it's worth trying to get this one to pass. I'd be happy for someone else to do a better job than mine, though. — Rhododendrites talk |  12:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
My problem with the original version was not the noise, but the leaning verticals. --Aristeas (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Per El Grafo. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support for the alternative version. --Aristeas (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support, this one is much better.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 10:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I do wish some things were different, and would support someone else taking another pass and fixing it up, but I think this is a really interesting shot worth featuring, too. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 14:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per Aristeas -- Radomianin (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Easter breakfast in Serbia (close-up).jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2021 at 08:38:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info Serbian Easter breakfast (close-up). Close-up is written since some dont want croped dishes etc, but this is how it goes. All made with love, new tablecloth, Common Dandelion to show springtime - time of Easter (blossoming time). Pic with wider angle some other day. All by me. --Mile (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 13:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Though there’s nothing really bad or wrong about this picture, I just miss some wow. Just a vertical shot of food, and rather grainy (looking like oversharpened noise), so nothing really special or inspired for me. Sorry. --Kreuzschnabel 13:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Kreuzschnabel and the corners are lacking sharpness. --Ivar (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Karelj (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Appetizing and well-lit. --Aristeas (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. --Fischer.H (talk) 08:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Aristeas, plus I like the colours --Kritzolina (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Kreuzschnabel --Tagooty (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♥ 15:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  16:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

  Info I made few improvements, opposition can re-check. I think its much better now. --Mile (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

  •   Question You're objecting based on the idea that a photograph of a traditional Easter meal is a "trivial" subject to you? Why is it any more trivial than a photograph of a church? Both are aspects of Christianity and tradition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I guess FPC evaluates more the objects than the technique and there is a little difference between an apple or a meal and a piece of art --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
If you're evaluating the technique, I certainly have no objection to that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)