Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Mackay Island Wildlife Refuge 11 LR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2017 at 15:58:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Mackay Island Wildlife Refuge 4 LR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2017 at 15:57:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#United_States_of_America>
  • Mackay Island Wildlife Refuge, North Carolina. All by me. -- PumpkinSky talk 15:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 15:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the ripples on the water and the lighting is nice. I'd be interested in a photo of just that. But the rest isn't doing anything for me. Just looks like you were out for a nice walk in some wetlands and took a few photos along the way. I'm not seeing something to make we go wow for FP. I think the contrast and saturation and blue is unnaturally high (esp compared to this taken a minute different, which I know is underexposed). You can get away with that if doing an abstract but for a natural scene it needs to be modest adjustments. Also, please export your JPGs in sRGB, not "ProPhoto RGB". Many people will not be seeing the correct colours if you use that colourspace, and it greatly increases the risk of posterisation. -- Colin (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Cabo da Roca on sunset.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2017 at 14:39:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Olga1969 - uploaded by Olga1969 - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- JukoFF (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Way too much saturation and contrast. We like our nature natural on Commons FP :-) -- Colin (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice artistic shoot and composition, however, like Colin told you. For us is important see the natural colors. Try change for the natural version and I could change my vote. --The Photographer 16:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:SA 20130811 1355.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2017 at 13:00:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
  •   Info created by USERNAME - uploaded by USERNAME - nominated by Sara Afonso -- Sara Afonso (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sara Afonso (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hello Sara and welcome to Commons. I see that you are new here and with this nomination you are certainly jumping in at the deep end. :) Most newcomers are advised to start by first nominating their photos at Quality Images before doing a nomination here. There are a few technical details that you need to be aware of. A photo nominated for QI or FP must have a name that accurately describes the photo and not just a number, it should also preferably have the location in coordinates ( {{Location}} ) and you should also provide which FP category you are nominating this in. If you look above, the slot for that is empty. You have also put your photo in too many categories, they need to be sorted out, you can read about how categorization works here: Commons:Catégories. I don't know how much English you speak, so if it's difficult for you to understand what I have written here, you can make a comment in French and a French user could help you instead. --cart-Talk 13:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Castillo de Goluchow, Polonia, 2016-12-21, DD 15.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2017 at 11:08:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bergtocht van Alp Farur (1940 meter) via Stelli (2383 meter) naar Gürgaletsch (2560 meter) 002.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2017 at 06:11:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural # Switserland
  •   Info Alternating clouds play around the mountain peaks. Mountain trip from Alp Farur (1940 meter) via Stelli (2383 meter) to Gürgaletsch (2560 meter). All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't think the vertical format suits this. I just want to see more on the left and right. Your "other version" is horizontal but misses out on the interesting ridge. But the sky just looks really strange. The clouds should be brighter. Looking at the EXIF I see you reduced both highlights (-53, perhaps ok) and whites (-50), and did the opposite for the shadows and blacks. Why boost the contrast +26 then? In my experience, dealing with over-bright clouds/snow is best handled by the highlights control alone, and similarly lifting the shadows is best done by the shadows control alone. I find the blacks/whites controls only really give nice results when used to stretch the white/black contrast (i.e. +white and -black, and rarely ever by the amount the Auto setting wants to do). Trying to use the Whites to lower the brightness of clouds just makes them look dull grey. This was taken at midday, so I'd expect the sky to be bright. The white balance is perhaps a little yellow too. -- Colin (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2017 at 01:00:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Silene vulgaris in Aspen (91171).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2017 at 22:42:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @King of Hearts: New version uploaded. Brightened the whole image slightly, and the plant itself slightly more. Also some minor denoising. — Rhododendrites talk |  01:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 01:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 04:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Backgoround is disturbive. Needs more light, and better (more close-anoted) crop. --Mile (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Erftstadt 10-2017 img07 Schloss Gracht.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2017 at 21:32:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Germany
  •   Info All by --A.Savin 21:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 21:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Harmonious and restful composition, IMO, and high picture quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 01:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice apart from the crop on the left. Charles (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice enough reflection and lovely day, but the angle of view isn't good because we can't see the castle and that tall street lamp totally grabs the viewer's attention. -- Colin (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
      Comment The lamp I can clone out, if desired --A.Savin 16:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition. Cant settle my eye anywhere. --Mile (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:20171122 Khone Phapheng Falls 3935 DxO.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2017 at 11:33:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Khone Phapheng Falls, Laos. All by me -- Jakubhal 11:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jakubhal 11:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- I love the sense of power in this river and dark colors, especially in that line of clouds--it gives the photo an even stronger intense atmosphere. PumpkinSky talk 12:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I agree, but some selective sharpening, particularly of the rocks and vegetation on the right side (if done well) would not be misplaced. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Maybe crop above, see note. Works better. --Mile (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment New version uploaded with different crop. Please All voting earlier, let me know if new version is still Ok. -- Jakubhal 17:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Storgatan Säter 2017-12-03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2017 at 11:16:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Sweden
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Vivo -- Vivo (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Vivo (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Nothing amazing to me, though I'd consider a statement of what's outstanding about this, if someone would like to express that view. Perfectly good picture and long sightlines; is that what's engendering support? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good composition. All the sunstars on the lights add a nice touch. -- King of ♠ 00:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Slush is never a good look. The right hand side is leaning, possibly because camera is not level. The illuminated street sign is very jarring. -- Colin (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Very weak oppose I don't mind the slush at all—it's Sweden in de facto winter, after all, and maybe my own perception is affected by it being two days after our own first snowfall here—but Colin is right about the effect of that street-crossing sign. Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Modern Tongkonan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2017 at 10:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bud of Tiger's footprint (Ipomoea pes-tigridis).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2017 at 09:52:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:West Lake at night in Hangzhou.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2017 at 09:44:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info Most people don't know how much Chinese people love bright lighting, which sometimes makes for landscapes like this. Created, uploaded and nominated by Zeupar -- Zeupar (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I do know this, but this picture does not depict it well. It is unsharp and noisy, and even if it weren't it is poorly composed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Electric guide 3×2.5 mm.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2017 at 09:37:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2017 at 01:49:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info created by Buffaboy - uploaded by Buffaboy - nominated by Buffaboy. The Edward M. Cotter is the oldest active fireboat in the world. Here it is escorting USS Little Rock (LCS-9) to Buffalo's Inner Harbor for its commissioning. -- Buffaboy (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Buffaboy (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support as a onetime Buffalo resident and member of the NRHP project on the English Wikipedia. Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I love the feeling of motion in this picture. Very good composition IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2017 at 19:43:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support Good focus to the dark clouds, foreground is only not really interesting --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful and like a good Romantic painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. One of those images where the sky is supposed to be the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Galtür - Heuernte - Heuballen 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2017 at 19:37:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Austria
  •   Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 23:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good focus to the heuballs, but they are too greeny for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Michielverbeek --Llez (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
    **  Support This explains the colour --Llez (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question Basotxerri (also pinging Michielverbeek and Llez since this might interest them too), the farmers where I live have started to use pale green plastic wrapping on the silage bales instead of the usual white, probably to make them look eco-friendly and blend in better with the landscape. Is this the case here too, just like in this photo? To me it doesn't look like a green tint on white, more like the bales are supposed to be green. --cart-Talk 08:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @W.carter, Michielverbeek, Llez: Indeed, the silage bales of this photo weren't white but pastel green, like in the other image. Thank you, cart, for noticing this! --Basotxerri (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've added the colour to the image description. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • You might want to clean up the description and the categories a bit since silage and hay are not the same. Silage is fermented (it ferments inside the bales) grass or other crops while hay is dried vegetation (hay bales are always open in some way to allow oxygen in). --cart-Talk 11:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, I've removed hay bales, although I'm really not sure what they do technically. As far as I know they cut the mountain grass, let it dry on a sunny day and then they put it in a silage bale. Next time in the Alps, I'll observe this better. --Basotxerri (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Grass for silage is usually let to dry off a bit for a couple of days to remove excess moisture, before it's put into silage bales. The things you accidentally learn when you suddenly find yourself living in the middle of farms... :-P --cart-Talk 12:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good compo. --cart-Talk 09:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I think that these plastic balls spoil the landscape, but at least these are green here. --Ermell (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Image:Junger Mäusebussard.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2017 at 14:34:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes
  •   Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- Bird is nice but there is CA and noise in the tree leaves. Can this be fixed? PumpkinSky talk 15:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think you need to use the local adjustment brush to select the background and apply a negative sharpness (of equal value to the positive sharpness you have applied globally) which will cancel out the very strong sharpening applied here. You really mustn't sharpen the out-of-focus areas. The resulting noise is quite visible at screen size. -- Colin (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Ancienne gare de train de TENDRARA.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2017 at 14:00:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created & uploaded by Farajiibrahim - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Very striking, but could the sharpness of the left side of the station be improved a bit? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan I like the image but the left third is blurred. Is there problem with the lens? -- Colin (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would support it, but it's out of focus, or focus at the end of house. --Mile (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficient sharpness, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Fallout 4 Pinup Cosplay.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2017 at 10:40:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info Fallout 4 pin-up style cosplay featuring a young lady dressed as a vault survivor wearing a Pip-Boy which is an in-game device representing a portable personal computer. This cosplay was reviewed by at least Kotaku [1], GameStar [2] and Kanobu [3]. Created by Makar Vinogradov (Flickr) - uploaded by Александр Мотин - nominated by Александр Мотин -- Александр Мотин (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Александр Мотин (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Definitely has a certain wow factor. If anybody's curious about the copyright issues re cosplay images, here's a link to the previous discussion on the subject.--Peulle (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The previous FPC Peulle mentions was a 19MP high quality photo with good background. This is a 2.6MP photo and while the model and pose is fine the seat with loose white covers looks rather inappropriate. The image is simply too small for FPC for this kind of photo (indeed there are vanishingly few images at 2.6MP that would pass FPC for any subject) and while we continue to get 20+MP photos pixel peeped to death, it would be very unfair to pass this, which wouldn't print sharp at A4. -- Colin (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I have opened the photo, its more than A3 size i think. Much more than A4, and should be sharp. So what site is OK then - now is stated above 2.08 MPx ? I miss EXIF data, but it looks like some Kodachrome portrait from some '90 game. Its fine shot i think, maybe this colors suit that era game. --Mile (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Mile, what are you talking about? A3 is 420mm tall (16.5"). At 300dpi this can't print taller than 169mm (6.6"). Even A4 is 297mm. Even at 240dpi it doesn't fill A4. Mile please look at our other portraits and see that even full-size-out-of-camera photos get a hard time here. So I have no patience for images that are soft at 10x fewer MP than "our finest". It is fine for a cheesy thumbnail but no more. -- Colin (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • 300 dpi, why ? I see my screen, it is showing correct ppi/dpi... otherwise than migth change it. This can be printed on A3 and you wouldnt know dpi/ppi. Isnt that pixle peeping ?! I rather see quality on 2 MPx than 20 MPx of failed colors. --Mile (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • 300 dpi is the standard for normal paper printing. --cart-Talk 10:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Seiser Alm 16.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2017 at 06:47:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support awesome. Maybe (?) you should clone out the antennas... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great picture and wonderful labeling. I'd keep the antennas. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good. Keep the antennas. Charles (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info I cloned out the antennas, but I can revert it, if it is wanted; what do you think? --Llez (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it without the antennas. PumpkinSky talk 11:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very pleasant to look at, you're feeling all the depth of the landscape. Good job done indicating the summits, too! --Basotxerri (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 22:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A little soft at distance but I think this was a necessary compromise. Beautiful color and composition! Daniel Case (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Woman under yoke carrying wicker baskets.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2017 at 02:27:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - Also, I don't think anyone's mentioned this to you yet, but in all portrait photos, you should have a "Personality Rights Warning". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • PR template added, thanks @Ikan Kekek. I usually always add the template to my portraits. -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info This person is a neighbour who lives a few houses away from mine. Unfortunately she lives alone, without children at home, and her husband is dead, perhaps the reason of her sad face. But I offered her a print of this photo already and she was extremely happy to receive it, but really much happier than I would expect, perhaps because she had no picture of herself and this one is thus precious. There's another version of this image here. At that moment she had not seen me already. Her face is neutral, and she also looks neutral when facing my camera. At this precize moment when I pushed the shutter button I'm certain she had not already realized that she was taken in picture because I was about 20 meters from her (focal length is 286mm). As a consequence, her facial expression is just natural. Not angry, not joyful, but herself carrying something during the monsoon. After that she was laughing, and I saluted her. -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I therefore   Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good sharpness.--Peulle (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wish that one stick wasn't coming close to the left side, but otherwise very Geographic. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The looks embarrass me a little, but a very nice image it is sure. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent picture. I also know that this is what a neutral expression can look like when you get old, I only have to look in a mirror. Gravity does that to you. --cart-Talk 09:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Sandcastle at Sunset on Morro Strand State Beach, Morro Bay, CA.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2017 at 17:20:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
  •   Info created by Mike Baird - uploaded by Gary Dee - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Has a lot of wow as a thumbnail, but quite noisy, with dust spots. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Ikan and and IMO too dark --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Ikan Kekek. Man this could have been one of the most gorgeous picture I have seen. Its eerily beautiful but the quality on zooming degrades. Thats really sad. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too soft and contrast too overdone. As a cover for the paperback version of a fantasy novel it would be great. As an FP, no. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't think that my vote could change the result, but I really like the idea, the light on the castle, the birds flying between the Morro and the castle. --Harlock81 (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Shimano Hyperglide cassette 8-speed CS-HG51 11-32.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2017 at 13:51:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others 2
  •   Info Shimano Hyperglide cassette 8-speed CS-HG51 11-32. My work. --Mile (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Very wow-y and nice but I find the flesh-colored tint on the lower half of the photo a bit disturbing. It looks like the thing that happens very often when you are photographing some shiny metal, you get the color reflection of your hands and face on the metal. I think it would look better if that color was substituted with greyscale (as in describing the color not the technical term or other obscure refs) . --cart-Talk 14:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info cart it not flashed, of course, i would get mess here with flash. Its softbox, with lights around. That "hands reflection" isnt my reflextion, first cogset is much different color. --Mile (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC) p.S. I didnt choose BW, i tried, but i did vibrance -46.
    • Cart, let's keep greyscale away! I agree the golden tint to the inner cog is natural but the pink/orange tint to the bottom of several cogs is a reflection as Cart suggests. Either skin or the carpet or something else low down. It should be possible to use Lightroom/ACR colour saturation slider to click on the pink/orange bit and desaturate just that tone. -- Colin (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, you want more clinical colors. Probably was from book, this is sitting under some angle, made with book. Situated on book with silk thread above, thread was set not to disturb inscriptions on cogset, and latter removed. Yeap. Use what you have. OK, bottom is redone. --Mile (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

File:CzechRepublic-geographic map-en.svgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2017 at 12:59:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Ikan Kekek: That's right, it is a very common map. The beauty is not only in the presentation but the details and the format.--Ikonact (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing unusual about that, either. I've been a geography-lover since I got my first atlas at the age of 6. I'm very experienced in looking at maps, and I just don't think this is that special. If it were 5 or 10 times bigger and more detailed, like the paper maps I had from the National Geological Survey and whatever the Malaysian equivalent was in the 1970s, I would vote to support without a second thought. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I would change the SVG so it chooses something like Helvetica in priority for the font, but looks quite nice to me. Benh (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
@Benh: I use fonts that are supported in Commons. But I can put Helvetica as fall back font. --Ikonact (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Well that's a bit more complicated I think. The version we see on the thumbnails (and the PNG restarised by Commons' servers) will use those fonts supported. But putting another font of your liking (in my case Helvetica, but don't feel obliged) will only choose it in priority over the other ones when viewed on a device/engine which supports it. Note that Helvetica is available in Mac, but not necessarily in Windows or Linux (the latter has equivalent, and the former can always fallback to Arial which is similar to Helvetica). Also note that I don't know which font you choose (I haven't opened the sources) but the names of the major cities render with a serif font on my Mac. The font should be chosen wisely! - Benh (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The last font in the list is 'sans-serif'. I wonder if someone has a serif font in their browser configuration for the default sans-serif.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice! It would be more nice if it could be translated into more languages. Thanks for English. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@RaboKarbakian: The advantage of doing these maps as .SVGs is that the text can be independently edited, making translated versions much easier to make. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: That is true, and this map might only need the legend details translated for many languages. If it does end up as the POTD, it should have more.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressing job done! --Basotxerri (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A lot of work, I presume.--Ermell (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Nijmegen, de Waalbrug RM523067 foto2 2016-08-24 20.20.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2017 at 15:29:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Netherlands
  •   Info In the foreground you see recently build extra protection in case of a river flood, the monumental bridge is just in the background.
  •   Info created by Michielverbeek - uploaded by Michielverbeek - nominated by Michielverbeek --Michielverbeek (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Michielverbeek (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 17:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Curves and lines going everywhere; from the stairs down and curving to the left ... over the bridge, another bridge... Neat. :) --Peulle (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice light on the bridge but too much of the photo is unlit. And the couple in the centre of the photo catch they eye but are dark. -- Colin (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I find the crop on the right too tight, and the stairs in the foreground too distracting --Uoaei1 (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- HalfGig talk 22:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Foreground is too dark, lots of uninteresting sky at the top. -- King of ♠ 03:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, but I have to agree with the other opposers --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, the foreground takes away too much from the bridges, which also suffer from this angle. Daniel Case (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Zöbigker Hafen, Cospudener See, Markkleeberg, 1709102012, ako.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2017 at 14:58:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Yachts at Zoebigker harbour (lake Cospuden), Saxony, Germany. You can find some other versions of the same scene on the file description page. All by me. --Code (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Code (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp evening photo with beautiful colours --Michielverbeek (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it. Charles (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support clearly --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 17:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Awesome. :)--Peulle (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'd be tempted to clone out the thin line of cloud on the far left. What's the thing sticking up there? A tree or a TV mast? -- Colin (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Colin: I'm not sure. Maybe it belongs to the Belantis amusement park. I don't think it's really distracting, but if others agree with Colin I'd consider cloning it out. --Code (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm more happy with cloning out some distracting cloud than removing a permanent feature. -- Colin (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't understand your comment first. I'll give it a try later. --Code (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! --Uoaei1 (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Cool - calm. --cart-Talk 23:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Well Done. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 03:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 06:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely!!! How does the exif info show ISO of 50 when the camera range minimum is 100? --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very striking image, great light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Transport of buffalos on the Mekong.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2017 at 04:47:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support Not quite perfect, but I'm guessing you had a lot of constraints from the situation and got what you could. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, the main constraints I had was the speed of the boat and the direction of the sun. Obviously my tripod was of no use here :-) Though I'm still happy with this shot. The other versions I have with the boy looking left make no difference, from my point of view, because his eyes are hidden behind the shadow of his cap, and that detail is probably less important than his particular posture -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I like the composition, but IMO not sharp enough. --XRay talk 06:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin + light a bit dull. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Bank myna (Acridotheres ginginianus).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2017 at 21:37:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nope. It looks purplish to me. PumpkinSky talk 00:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@Peulle, PumpkinSky: New version uploaded. Charles (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 13:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes.--Peulle (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I imagine, though I don't know, that you've gotten the bird's personality across. Regardless, you have certainly captured its gaze. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support the lighting is great --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Asian pied starlings (Gracupica contra).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2017 at 11:05:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Maybe 8f is too much and 400mm too far. IMHO this low quality is acceptable only when the birds are movement, for example this one --The Photographer 16:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Obviously some sharpening is present, could get it - 400mm, but foreground and back could be redone some. At least middle part between the birds. --Mile (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Sharpening in Photoshop CS6 was Unsharp Mask Radius 1 Pixel; ammount 50% Theshold 0. Charles (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Agree the quality is a bit unfavorable in full size, perhaps because 1/500s was still too long at 400mm. However, the composition with these open beaks face to face is very nice, and the background color highlights the subjects -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Tempered support per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I could nitpick some things but as much as I criticize the "wow effect" this is the reason it's there. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 03:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - "Hey! Would you shut up while I'm talking?" I agree with others that the moment you captured overrides the degree of unsharpness, which is greater than usual for your bird FP nominations but not at all bad. If you know which one is the male and which one is the female (my guess: the male is on our left), or if they're both male and both female, please indicate that in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry, can't tell the difference. And as you say, the technical quality is not quite as good as a typical portrait shot. But it's more fun, though not quite Tower-of-London-Raven fun. Charles (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support My opinion: both female. "Get away from my nest! Don't bother my eggs!" --Schnobby (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Lake Shkopeti, Albania.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2017 at 10:24:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Albania
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:Pudelek - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very pleasant shapes and colors, IMO, and it helps that there are clouds in the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 05:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose An excellent place to make a beautiful composition. Unfortunately the right bottom corner irritates me because my attention strongly goes to all those branches and leaves --Michielverbeek (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose I love the composition and want to walk through the monitor into this scene, but it is too unsharp in the background and betrays, on the clouds and the ridgeline, some signs of possible overprocessing to offset a perhaps-blown sky in the original. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- HalfGig talk 22:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support per Daniel. -- King of ♠ 03:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Good composition, minor halos from sharpening. Resolution could be better. --XRay talk 06:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - Pudelek, would you like to make any edits to address some of the critiques expressed in this thread? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    • no, because I like this version --Pudelek (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2017 at 10:20:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose My problem isn't so much the sharpness as the unnatural texture of the stone near the openings and the trees seen through them. It may be a byproduct of the tonemapping. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment The limestone has been treated by the rain for millions of years, giving it its structure. The trees are unfortunately not optimal which is probably due to the tonemapping. --Ermell (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support interesting view --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Uoaei1 --Michielverbeek (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Does not look natural. The winter sky is not bright enough and the underneath not dark enough and the trees just a strange murky colour. I should get the impression of looking from darkness into light, but everything the same. -- Colin (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
      •   Comment The view goes through the collapsed roof of a cave. The side light is quite natural. HDR was necessary to represent the sky to some extent.--Ermell (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- HalfGig talk 22:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral the appearance of trees disturb me a little, but I don't know very much about HDR. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment The yellow parts are morning sunlight shining in from the side. I uploaded a new version and fixed the bug in the sky.--Ermell (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Rana temporaria at Muhalnitsa, Botevgrad 03.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2017 at 09:48:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Nebulosa de Trífida o M20 y Nebulosa de la Laguna o M8.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2017 at 21:51:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
  •   Info created by Fedaro - uploaded by Fedaro - nominated by Fedaro -- Fedaro (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Fedaro (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Colorful, yes, but looks too much any other deep-sky astrophoto. Were it of just one or both nebulae it might be more striking. As it is it's just too busy. Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose on account of composition, which is nothing special to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ikan, Daniel: just for the record in the case you didn't realise it. This image was not published by the NASA ant taken with the Hubble, but is the work of a Wikimedian! Poco2 06:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I didn't realize that. That's amazing! But I still have to compare it to other photos in its category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, Ikan, I understand, but still unfair to compare WM photographers with the possibilities of the NASA --Poco2 10:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  Question Fedaro, since this wasn't done by NASA and we can't see deep space with standard camera gear, what camera/telescope did you use? PumpkinSky talk 13:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  Question - Why is it unfair in FPC to compare the work of a Wikimedian astronomer that was funded by Agencia Nacional de Investigación e Innovación de Uruguay with NASA photos? Is there a new category of "photos by Wikimedians" that we should separately consider, or is Featured pictures/Astronomy the correct category for considering this photo? Do you feel the same way about reproductions of paintings: That we shouldn't consider the photos put out by museums or Google Art Project when deciding what is an FP? I would disagree. FPC is about the best of the best, regardless of source. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Ikan: I didn't say that your are wrong, I just said that, specially in cases like this one, it's unfair...Poco2 18:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I haven't seen any other astronomy work of a Wikimedian of this category. Poco2 06:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@Poco a poco: I wasn't comparing it to NASA work, not implicitly and certainly not explicitly. I was just saying it's rather busy. I mean, good work for an amateur, but that doesn't change the FPC standard. Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


@Poco a poco: There is another astronomy FP by this user: File:Nebulosa de Eta Carinae o NGC 3372.jpg, a better pic than this IMO. --cart-Talk 22:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment (Pictogram voting comment.svg Comentario),The photo was taken with a Nikon D700 camera with a 500mm Nikkon lens, in Piggyback on a telescope at the Los Molinos Observatory, nine shots were graded and then added using pixinsight, a software for astronomical photography.--fedaro (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- And thanks for the response. PumpkinSky talk 01:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Angelo su una tomba del CImitero Monumentale di Milano, Italia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2017 at 20:13:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info An angel spreads his wings on a tomb at Cimitero Monumentale in MIlan, Italy. Backlight, dark look, cemeterial feeling, created by Paolobon140 - uploaded by Paolobon140 - nominated by Paolobon140 -- Paolobon140 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paolobon140 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The high level of chroma noise and lacking detail makes the quality below what's expected from an FP, IMO. I recommend first nominating your images at QIC to see if they are described as good.--Peulle (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Dear Paulle, as i already did, i suggest you to calibrate your professional Apple monitor better so that you will be able to appreciate your traffic lights pics even more. A good techincian costs little money.Paolobon140 (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  Comment I reviewed this image on a brand new Macbook Pro, which was pre-checked by a professional technician before handed out to me at work. There is nothing wrong with the monitor. As for the traffic light photos, those were an effort to contribute some public domain photos to Commons, and most of them are not very good.--Peulle (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle -- Prismo345 (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition --Cvmontuy (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I do like the light on the face and arm. But Peulle is right: the chroma noise is awful and the shadow parts of the picture quite posterised and lacking tonal detail. These both indicate to me the image was under exposed and recovered in post, which you might have got away with on a new Sony or Nikon but the older Canon cameras are poor for that. Unlike luminance noise, chroma noise doesn't disappear much even if I downsize the image a bit, and unlike film grain, chroma noise has no appealing aspects. As an aside, wrt "over sharpening" discussion elsewhere, I do see some oversharpening here, which a clear white pixel halo to the high-contrast edge with the sky. -- Colin (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, and I also don't really understand why you chose that particular orientation and those particular crops. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
* Becasue i like that particular orientation and those particular crops, it is quite evident:-)Paolobon140 (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Clear but non-explanatory. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose Too dark generally, the color noise, the oversharpening noted by Colin and the awkward crop. Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The shadows are too strong --Michielverbeek (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While I do get the angle and crop, I mean it's the same representation that Stan Lee came up with in the 1940s and it's been a template for hero shots of all super heroes ever since (you can almost see Hawkman in this), it would need a more dramatic lighting to work here. There are also the technical issues noted by others. Nice try though! I'd love to see someone recreate the extreme angles and light from Sin City: A Dame to Kill For or any of Frank Miller's books. --cart-Talk 22:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- agree with Daniel HalfGig talk 23:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Ruine Neideck PA300138-PSD.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2017 at 11:40:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Paolobon140, I'm not sure I understand your oppose here. I see a very high contrast scene, and possibly that is enhanced (+ Clarity, say) but hard to tell here as the light should be high contrast already. But I don't see the artefacts one would expect from over-sharpening -- there's no noise in the sky nor halo round high-contrast edges. The lens used here (7mm, equivalent to 14mm on a full frame) is an ultra-wide so I'd expect large depth-of-field giving near-to-far sharpness, excellent centre sharpness but less good towards the edges. -- Colin (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Der Colin, the pic iss absolutely overshaped, nothing in real looks so sharp, even the sky. Its not a matter of lenses, cameras, mm, focus, apreture. This pic is so sharpened with Photosho that looks more like a cartoon, in my opinion. ANd, more, there must have been something interesting around the ruins to show, as the ruins themselves arae not an interesting subject, at least for me. Paolobon140 (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Paolobon140, I can only think we are talking about different things. When I think of sharpening I'm thinking of (sub)pixel contrast enhancement. I suspect what you are complaining of is local (a region of several pixels) contrast enhancement which with Adobe Lightroom and ACR is achieved using the Clarity control. This can indeed make textures look hyper-real and artificial and perhaps that has happened here. Would Ermell tell us if the image has been boosted in that way, or with some sharpening tool? The EXIF data doesn't indicate any clear adjustment because it has been through four programs (Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.12, Adobe Photoshop CC 2017, Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 9.12, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7) and the last one didn't apply any adjustments that are recorded. -- Colin (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
      •   Comment @Colin:@Paolobon140: In Lightroom I corrected perspective, raised the shadows and reduced the lights. Then in Photoshop I removed some lensflares and branches sticking into the picture and then sharpened the picture with Nik sharpener which might not have been necessary. In Lightroom I reduced the highlights again. Sorry for answering so late, I didn't follow the dialogue properly.--Ermell (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the details Ermell. I'm not familiar with Nik sharpener to be able to spot its flaws so well as with the Adobe sharpening. But still, I don't see any evidence the sky is sharpened, which seems to be Paolobon140 criticism. -- Colin (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
          • I always skip the sky when sharpening because it usually doesn't make sense like in this case.--Ermell (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Side light brings out the detail in the wood and stones. -- Colin (talk)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 17:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 19:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Qualified support I wish more could have been done to tamp down the highlight on the clouds at upper right, but realistically I don't think you could go much further than this without making other compromises. Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I cant see any sharpening effects. Defishing from 7 mm, I think more than good. --Mile (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Really very nice. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 14:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Albeck Seebachern Fahrweg zum Weissen Kreuz 22112017 2052.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2017 at 03:38:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
  •   Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- I saw this at QIC a little bit ago and instantly loved it, and flagged it as a FPC possibility. I love the way the gently winding road makes a leading line toward the center (from the side) and into the point at top center where the mountains drop off into the valley. I also love the colors and sharpness. The unpainted wooden rail fence adds a nice rustic, rural motif too. PumpkinSky talk 03:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I salute PumpkinSky for providing an eloquent argument for this picture. That's great and worth emulating. However, I don't happen to agree that this is a great composition. Maybe if there were something striking in the upper right corner of the sky, I might feel differently. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Palacio de Comunicaciones, Plaza de Cibeles, Madrid, España, 2017-05-18, DD 32-34 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2017 at 21:00:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Fishing in El Manglillo Bay, Margarita Island 15.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2017 at 19:00:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
  •   Info This picture was in my last year in Venezuela and I take this picture on the end of a long fishing day with my family, it not was a market or whatever, the fish was alive in this picture. All by -- The Photographer 19:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Neptuul (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The crop at the top is too tight IMO.--Ermell (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The crop doesn't bother me here because the main subject seems to be the central fish, the one with a visible head and beautiful colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree the top crop is a bit unfortunate with only two fish, and one facing away too. The top left corner is a little distracting and I'd like to see a proportion with more room in front of the fish than behind. You could try cropping off some of the left and bottom. -- Colin (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Urheilupuisto metro station (Nov 2017, 1).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2017 at 17:16:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Msaynevirta --Msaynevirta (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice composition, but for me not sharp enough for FP. Btw: it is a good Q1-photo. --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Prismo345 (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - It's a large file. I think it's sharp enough, and I really like the long sight line. -- Ikan Kekek (talk)
  •   Oppose - Nice compo but plenty of CA on the lamps and unfortunately not very sharp.--Ermell (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak support see note, I'd suggest a tighter crop that helps get rid of unecessary elements and strengthen the compo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment I made a minor crop to the image and removed the unnecessary elements on the right. --Msaynevirta (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I find it an excellent picture with a smart composition divided in thee vertical parts: colours are bright and the presence of few people gives more warmth to the photo. All the right part is interesting with its colours and decorations, the left part shows that this is actually a metro station. Well done.Paolobon140 (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't think it is quite at the level of most of our other similar metro FPs. There are others that are no sharper than this, but it would have been a plus if it was sharper. However, I think the station either needs to be empty of people or else they are helping the picture. Here the eye is led towards a random clump of people facing away from the camera wearing dark clothes. It would have really made this photo if we had a larger couple walking towards us (or the train) and colourfully attired. -- Colin (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment This matter of sharpness starts being annoying. Even the Last supper by Da Vinci is not sharp. I ask you all to reconsider your ways of judging a photograph Paolobon140 (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Paolobon140, I kind of agree that sharpness shouldn't be a reason to oppose this. If we look at the many other metro photos we have, most of them are no better. Often this is because tripod photography is not permitted, or longer exposures mean people aren't sharp. I share your despair about pixel peeping and have written about it here. If you note my review carefully says that if this was sharper that would have been a plus. We are drawn to the people in the image, both because we are drawn to people anyway and because the lines lead us there, and they are disappointing -- soft dark shapes walking away from the camera, overlapping with more distant people. Interior photography at FP level does I think require some patience and perseverance to capture the scene when quiet or when the other people are cooperating. -- Colin (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Colin, i understand your point of view but i think we should start talking about this catchphrase about sharpness. A picture talks by itself, and sometimes sharpness is not a plus or its even a minus. Ok, i will take a close portrait of an aged woman, lets say about 60 years old: what kind of lens will you use? I would use a 100 mm softfocus lens, which is intended to reduce sharpness, in order to avoid to show the old lady how old she is in her photograph. The result will be a good possibly unsharp portrait where an aged lady doesnt show all the wrinkles etc. I might even use a red filter in addition if im shooting black and white, which is reducing sharpness even more. Then i will post that photo here. What will i get? A number of "oppose" becasue the photo is not as sharp as the people here like? Colin, i find you a very good counterpart here in discussing about photography, so can you please answer this question of mine? And whou will tell the impressionists that their paints were nt good becasue not sharp enough? Paolobon140 (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
        • In my essay on pixel peeping I tried to separate "bold subjects" from "detailed subjects" to consider what level of perfection we might need/expect in an image at pixel level. And of course there are other groupings such as impressionistic or portrait photography. When I mention a "plus" for sharpness (detail), I'm thinking of the sort of image that could well be blown up huge and enjoyed in great detail and I've taken a few of them myself. But for many pictures I'd be happy if it prints in high quality at A4, say. In my experience, portrait photographs get a rather hard time at FPC and very few of us reviewers have ever tried to take any such photos for FP. So you can work out for yourself that review comments for those are likely not based on personal experience, unlike the dozens of photos of architecture for example. I'm afraid your 100mm soft focus photography has gone out of fashion and we are expected to pay $1500 for this or this super sharp lenses, and the Photoshop the result. So yes, your soft focus grandma may well be killed at FPC. But sometimes not: FPC is a roulette wheel. I think if your old lady was an interesting enough subject and you displayed great skill with lighting, then you'd have people going wow before they click the magnify button on their browser. -- Colin (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Paolobon140, if you want to get acquainted with what sort of photos get promoted to FP without having perfect sharpness, you should take a look at the work of Tomascastelazo. His photos often have such intensity and wow that sharpness comes a distant second. Examples: 1, 2. Or the work of Ggia with photos like these: 1, 2. Sharpness in photos is only a factor when it is possible, expected or vital for the composition. It is not always demanded for FPs (examples: 1, 2). --cart-Talk 22:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • While I'm most certainly no stickler for petty pixel peeping, I don't think we should deliberately disregard all technical qualifications when assessing an image. I do agree that overall sharpness tends to be an overrated category though. That being said, I (personally) would not use a soft focus lens (or "secretaries' prettifier" as my organization's old photographer used to quip). Ever. But that may be a matter of taste. Paolobon140, please do go ahead and nominate bold images. But please don't be too disappointed if the roulette wheel turns against you. Been there myself, done that myself, experienced that myself. So did Colin and many others... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Paolobon140: I agree with most of what Colin, W.carter and Martin Falbisoner wrote above. Commons FPC already sets itself apart from similar places at the Wikipedias by requiring some kind of wow-factor. That's a pretty subjective thing and people are used to see the "wow" in a beautiful landscape, a well-reproduced painting or even in technical perfection (focus-stacked HDR extreme macro). But the Wikimedia projects have always been more about content than about form, so it is difficult for some people (including myself, I guess) to get away from that and see the "wow" in the photograph itself. I think the appreciation for those "bold" nominations has been growing considerably lately, though. Heck, I almost managed to get the star for a massively grainy film shot taken on a semi-functioning SLR from the sixties ;-) I, for one, would very much welcome more photographic "wow", so please keep 'em coming! --El Grafo (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Short of focus stacking, which would have been very impractical in this situation, you weren't going to get perfect sharpness all the way through. Not with a narrower f/stop; that would have required compromising on the exposure. Daniel Case (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think sharpness is not great but acceptable for this kind of image. But we've seen a bunch of pretty astonishing shots of metro stations at FPC (scattered across the"Interiors" gallery), and in my opinion this one is a bit behind the others in terms of "wow". --El Grafo (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak oppose It's a nice picture but with visible distorsions on the right column and other little problems (CA, sharpness) -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not up to sharpnes, but composition isnt good here. --Mile (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose Like Mile, but vice versa. Composition OK, but sharpness too low. --A.Savin 20:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)