Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Maria Taferl Basilika Kuppelfresko 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 06:47:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:President's Summer home, Rio Negro Palace, Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2016 at 01:07:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •  Info President's Summer home, The Palácio Rio Negro (English: Rio Negro Palace) is a palace located in Petrópolis, in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. All by -- The Photographer 01:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- The Photographer 01:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Weird light, not very sharp and several dust spots just above the building toward the left. I'd love to see a similar motif with more sharpness in better light, maybe with a tighter right margin to eliminate the partial inclusion of some uninteresting buildings. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharpness especially in lower left and lower right; I feel like standards have risen to the point where a standard centered architectural shot will either need a really good lens or panorama stitching. I disagree with Ikan on the lighting though, I think the cloudy day is great for bringing out the beautiful colors of the building and grass without worrying about shadows. --King of ♠ 03:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, far from being sharp enough, leaning to the right (at least it seems so to me) and the light's not pleasing. --Code (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Sailboat at sunset in Brofjorden.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2016 at 09:53:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Boats
  •  Info The last of this summer's pics. Time and photo opportunities will be scarce for a while now, but I'll be around doing other things instead. :) All by me, -- cart-Talk 09:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- cart-Talk 09:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I love this composition. Please attention with the noise reduction maybe is being too aggressive and strings is disappearing (I added a note) --The Photographer 11:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment and note, I'll revert that part (only part of some strings/cables) back to the original when I get home tonight. As you can see in the first upload, which is without any noise reduction at all, the strings are very thin and look almost the same there. These thin cables are in fact a bit flat and twisted, and in some parts where they look "gone" it is simply the light turning them into almost the same color as the sky, not the noise reduction. cart-Talk 11:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @The Photographer: Done Cables are de-de-noised. They are now from the original file, not that it made much difference per explanation above, but still fixed. cart-Talk 19:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Doesn't do much for me, sorry. Also, the sailboat isn't that sharp, which could be OK if there was more going on in the composition to fascinate me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose pretty much per Ikan. I don't think the boat is quite big enough in the frame, and it is straddling the join between the see and the rather dark trees behind. -- Colin (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The idea was to get the boat below those pretty clouds lit by the sunset. Had I gone in closer on the boat, I would have missed the clouds. cart-Talk 19:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ikan Kekek. --Karelj (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose An ok image but lacks the "Wow" to be a FP. Atsme 📞 22:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose. Nice light and composition but just too unsharp. --King of ♠ 03:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Sultan Pasha Al-Atrash2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2016 at 09:14:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Fuerte Bordj el Kebir, Mahdia, Túnez, 2016-09-03, DD 34-36 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2016 at 03:42:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •  Comment - Well, making the stars almost completely invisible is one way to deal with the issue, but I find it very disappointing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Ikan: I removed them all and took me a while to do so, editing each of them to make them look like spots is a request that I've never got so far and would take me much longer. If other reviewers agree with that I can do it, but right now I hardly have time for that, I could give it a try when I am back home and still I'm not 100% convinced about that approach. Sorry, as said, I only was able to do this change in the time frame I've now. Poco2 07:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, I understand. I think the stars improve the composition somewhat, but if the only way to get rid of the trails is to delete the stars, I still find the resulting picture featurable.  Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

 Support Nice colors; a little soft near the top left of the fort but ... it was a long exposure. Daniel Case (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Ruth Muskrat.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 23:08:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •  Info created by the National Photo Company, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 23:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --King of ♠ 23:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I am not expert in this subject, it's not a alternative nomination and I know that this alteration is destructive, however, my idea is explain you that you could go a litle more to improve the original image maybe fixing focus. --The Photographer 00:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'd prefer to vote on one image unless the nominator presents an alternate. I also don't like the idea of modernizing a historical image. Now I see that the nominator is talking about changes based on a surprise alternate, and Ikan's vote is under the alternate but mentions the nominator's version. I find this all confusing and off-putting (and intrusive to a good extent), so I'll have to switch to oppose. INeverCry 06:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, but the face is way too blurry for me. --Ivar (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per INeverCry. Present a normal, alt-free, non-double-trippel option nomination, and I'll probably change to 'Support'. cart-Talk 09:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

    • I see the idea there, but think it goes a fair bit too far, to the point of nnaturalness. I'll poke at it and notify all voters if I make any changes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support, and I prefer Adam's version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC) - To clarify, I oppose The Photographer's version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per what I say above. Good that there was only one version on Wikipedia. A nice simple nomination that didn't interfere completely with the original. The original photographer didn't have Photoshop or a Canon EOS 7D Mark III, etc... INeverCry 06:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, but the face is way too blurry for me. --Ivar (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination This nomination has been thoroghly derailed; I'll renominate it later. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) at Magdalen fjord, Svalbard (1).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 21:42:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Phocidae_.28Earless_seals.29
  •  Info created by AWeith - uploaded by AWeith - nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I know the filesize is somewhat small; however this guy was nosy yet very, very shy and would not come any closer. Therefore, I had to crop the image rather extensively. Nature photographers designate the view of the white in a seal's eye the best they can ever achieve. I guess spotting yourself on your RIB in its eye is not much worse ... -- AWeith (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 22:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --King of ♠ 23:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose light flares, dust spots and noise, fixable of course.  Support Excellent clean job, It's ok for me, maybe now you will need ping everybody that already voted --The Photographer 14:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Since AWeith is rather new to Commons he may not know how the 'ping' is done, so hereby I 'ping' those who voted before the cleanup to let them know what has been done: @INeverCry: & @King of Hearts:. cart-Talk 16:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that what you are referring to as "dust spots" might be out of focus water drops from general splatter or from the the seal exhaling near the surface. But if you see something that needs fixing, please make notes of it on the file page and let AWeith fix those minor flaws himself if he likes to, instead of doing your usual own fixing. cart-Talk 09:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your recommendation, I have added the notes. --The Photographer 11:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your time to indicate the critical spots! I am entirely with W.carter on the origin of them; however I agree they are disturbing. I have, therefore, just uploaded a new version with removed spots and reduced noise. I'd appreciate your second look. --AWeith (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Mostly for the sheer artistic quality of the photo. --cart-Talk 09:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 14:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I'm tempted to vote for this photo on the same basis as W.carter, but was the seal really that blue? Other QIs of harbor seals seem to show them as white and gray. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The seal is wet and therefore he's reflecting the sky the same way the water does, so he takes on the color of the water. Our grey seals here in my town looks the same when wet. (Yes, we have seals and "seal safaris" here.) --cart-Talk 16:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Exactly that is the case. The other seals of this herd not swimming (e.g. resting on the flat rocks) are rather beige in their fur color (see also my QI pic with the "dry seal" and the wet one tempting to climb onto the same rock as the dry one). On top, it was the blue hour in the shadow of Losvikfjella, which is 1083 meters high.--AWeith (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Thanks for the explanations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Colin (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Karelj (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - absolutely! I know full well how difficult it is to shoot seals, otters and the like when they're in water. This one made me smile! Good job, AWeith. Atsme 📞 22:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Per cart's !vote, I like the way it almost looks like it was shot in monochrome. Daniel Case (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support. Very nice. —Bruce1eetalk 06:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:NSB El 18 Hallingskeid - Finse.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 21:17:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
  •  Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment This was a rather difficult shot to get. Apart from the good weather, which was just a lot of luck (and by "luck" I mean "LUCK!!!"), the location is hard to get to. It's inaccessible by car and the nearest train station is a one-hour hike away (which is a nuisance) and has very limited service (which is a problem). Our solution was to to rent two bikes at Finse and follow the Rallarvegen. My butt still hurt two days later, as I have not ridden a bike for like 10 years and the Rallarvegen is not in good condition in many places...
  •  Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 22:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --King of ♠ 23:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I particularly like the reflections, and much respect to you for the great efforts you made to get this shot! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ivar (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support and for future treks: Norwegian roads are not made for bikes but for walking or Gå på tur. :D --cart-Talk 09:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 16:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is no embedded colour profile and the Colorspace EXIF tag is "Uncalibrated", which means "not sRGB" and so suggests the image might be in AdobeRGB colourspace. Is this an out-of-camera JPG and if so have you set your camera to AdobeRGB for JPGs? A colour profile is absolutely required for non-sRGB images to display properly for almost all users, and required even for sRGB images for those users viewing with wide-gamut monitors. If you are unsure how to fix the image, ping me. I can also insert the relevant tags (without affecting the JPG quality) if you know what colourspace it is. Other than that, it's a great photo. -- Colin (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment It's sRGB. I use sRGB everywhere because everything else is likely to cause problems sooner or later. However, I store the JPEGs (in current PS) without color profile because I found that it's not needed. Maybe that's not the best idea? As to where the EXIF tag comes from, no idea. --Kabelleger (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes, if your software you use to develop your raw files can export a JPG with an embedded colour profile, that's excellent and needed to ensure accurate colours. User:Colin/BrowserTest explains the problem, though it is hard to appreciate without a wide-gamut monitor. Jeffrey's Friedl's Image Metadata Viewer is a useful tool, as is EXIFTOOL upon which it is based. -- Colin (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
        • I've uploaded a new version with color profile. Note that it has small changes in brightness, these are because I did some corrections after the raw import, and I don't have the exact values of those anymore. --Kabelleger (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Almost looks like it's on another planet. This and some of your other FPs have prompted me to create Category:Water reflections of rail vehicles Daniel Case (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Chertkov Mansion, left wing, windows.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 20:25:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •  Info created by Dmitry Ivanov - uploaded by Dmitry Ivanov - nominated by Dmitry Ivanov -- Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unbalanced composition, hash contrast, lef column shadow is distracting --The Photographer 00:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild  Support - I like the composition. Of course it would be better if the column were on both sides, but I like the composition, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 06:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great composition, but without that left harsh and bulky shadow please. cart-Talk 09:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. I think the two window arches and designs above/below make an interesting geometric abstract. But the statue on the left, and its shadow, detract. Not sure whether this is fixable at another time of day. -- Colin (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Red admiral butterfly (Vanessa atalanta) underside 3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 09:53:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •  Info created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Charles (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Washed out details, especially on the red parts of the wing. Postprocessing has gone too far or the lens are not up to task? --Ivar (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment I do hope you are not being serious. Please search the Internet for other images of the ventral side of this butterfly. Charles (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment How about this one: --Ivar (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
        •  Comment I rest my case. The colours on mine, including the 'red', are stronger. Charles (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Red channel blown; I think. White to on the extreme end. Jee 17:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
            •  Comment I concur, perhaps too much contrast was added in postprocessing? In that case it should be easy to fix. --Ivar (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Unsharp foreground is distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Lovely bokeh, and great work on the butterfly, but the flower in front is just complex enough to be too much of a distraction from it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Kalahari lion (Panthera leo) male 6y.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 09:55:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •  Info created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Charles (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question Can you add some more exposure? --Ivar (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment I don't understand your request. You want it darker or lighter? Charles (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment Add exposure compensation. --Ivar (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Very mild  Support - I like the head and body of the lion. I also like the composition, except that I don't love the crop on the right side or the unsharp foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as it is. The lion's head is absolutely beautiful at full size, but the photo is a bit too dark and the right crop is not good. As it is now it's distracting since I keep wondering what has been cut off; is it a tail, another lion, leftover from the dinner gasell or... cart-Talk 09:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per cart. (a minor issue, possibly fixable is the sky is rather noisy especially chroma noise and a bit of posterisation). -- Colin (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per cart, who as she often does says everything I was going to. Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Kloster St. Trudpert - Gesamtsicht1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 05:59:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Germany
  •  Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I detected some dust spots in the sky. For sure I'll erase them this evening. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    Erased now. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support First class. -- -donald- (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Beautiful landscape and excellent quality, but there is a rather noticeable halo between running the entire length of the border between the sky and the top of the mountain; did you make any unusual local contrast adjustments? --King of ♠ 07:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    No. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    Weak  Support despite the slightly strange sky. --King of ♠ 23:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 08:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support a bit centered... otherwise just great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice landscape! --Ivar (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Would be better to remove the "UFO's" in the sky :-) --Laitche (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question Color space in EXIF says: 'Uncalibrated'. Why? -- Slaunger (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Karelj (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Very nice composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Schön! Another landscape I want to walk in. Would be nice to have a geotag, though. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Gastdozentenhaus Universität Stuttgart 2015 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 02:34:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •  Info created by Julian Herzog - uploaded by Julian Herzog - nominated by Nikhil -- Nikhil (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Nikhil (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Very lovely, but a bit dark for me. @Julian Herzog: Do you think you could make it a bit brighter? For me +0.5 EV (with 10 highlight recovery to prevent blowing out) would be ideal. --King of ♠ 03:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I'll have to trust you on this one, I'm currently without a monitor that I would trust. I brightened it by about 0.4 EV, hopefully that's fine. Thanks Nikhil for the nomination. — Julian H. 03:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Code (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 08:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --cart-Talk 09:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ximonic (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Beautiful composition. It's great that pond is so clear that we can see the bottom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Royal Albert Hall - Gallery View.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 22:36:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •  Info A 225 megapixel panorama of the Royal Albert Hall from the gallery. Taken when the hall is open to visitors on the weekend of Open House London 2016. The large purple mushrooms / flying saucers are fibreglass acoustic diffusing discs, installed in 1969 to solve an echo problem. They are lit by an array of LED stage lights. The stage is empty and strangely grey compared to the colour surrounding it. If you have problems viewing this image in your browser, use the interactive large-image viewer, or one of the smaller downsized versions, all of which are linked from the file-description page. It's a 16:9 aspect ratio, so viewing fullscreen is best (Press F11 on Firefox). All by me. -- Colin (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Colin (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support New size standard and excellent sharpening. Colors a bit purple aura, however, it look like reals colors. Maybe my favorite picture this month on FPC. The composition look also excellent, however, I would like to see more in the bottom, what happend?. Anyway, congratulations for this contribution --The Photographer 22:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. The purple colour is the result of the fairly monochromatic stage lights, which are a pain to photograph. Coloured stage lights are always artificial in their effect, but these LED ones seem especially unnatural. As for the bottom, well that's the lowest I've got. The balcony handrail prevents being able to see much more below and I wasn't prepared to dangle my camera over the edge to get a better view. -- Colin (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your explain --The Photographer 11:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 22:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support very nice, but who need this size of an image??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The other day Slaunger told me he was proud to see one of his large panoramas on display as a huge poster. The interactive viewer makes it possible to explore the scene, rather than just look at it at 1980x1024. I think this is a rich enough scene to reward exploring in detail. It also looks great on a 5K monitor ;-) -- Colin (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Absolutely flawless. --King of ♠ 23:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Great achievement! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent. --Code (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --cart-Talk 09:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support stunning --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice. I guess a lot of effort has been put into this picture. --Ximonic (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Size, sharpness and colors are impressive. But that's not all. Cut and composition are unbalanced und suboptimal. A full spheric projektion from a more central shooting location would have been the better choice here. --Milseburg (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I have another panorama taken (but not yet processed) taken from a central box, lower down. I suspect it will have symmetry that is pleasing, but also contain a lot of the empty stage, which is less photogenic at this time. I felt this view showed more of the audience as well as the stage. While I won't argue about your opinion on the composition, I disagree that there is necessarily one best view -- a venue like this merits photographs from many locations A 360 projection like here would be wonderful but note that we were only given access on Open House day to a few boxes and to part of the gallery, neither of which are great for 360 views, and would be cluttered with fellow Open House visitors. Diliff told me has been trying for a long time to get photo access to the Albert Hall, and was not successful -- they are always busy setting up for performances and couldn't find a slot for him to be free to take photos. Category:Interior of the Royal Albert Hall shows this is not a frequently photographed venue, and most other photos are snapshots during a concert. -- Colin (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Laitche (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Technically excellent, but the colours are not typical of the Albert Hall in normal lighting. Charles (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Charles, as a concert venue, lit by whatever lighting the team wish to put on, I'm not sure what one would regard as "typical". See View from your seat and virtual tour for various examples (though since the JPGs on that site do not embed a colour profile, they appear way too saturated on my wide-gamut monitor with most browsers). Here's an example from Open House 2014 that has the discs coloured red. Here's one that is blue. Here's a single-shot photo take from a similar position with similar colours, though this time there's a red light on the roof and their saturation is higher. Do you have an example image that shows typical colours, or "normal lighting"? -- Colin (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment No I'm afraid not Colin, but I've been there 20+ times, hence my comment. The acoustic discs are off-white. Charles (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Charles, Ha! Yes I know what the colour of the discs are when there are no stage lights on ... because halfway through taking photos for this stitch, they turned off all the lights. Thinking my stitch was ruined, I held my breath for 90 seconds before they turned them all back on again. Whew! The unlit discs are like this photo. Not pretty, and probably would work better in a photo taken from lower down where the discs are not so prominent. I too have been to a classical concert, many many years ago, where the discs were not lit. But all the photos on the Albert Hall official site show them lit colourfully. This older classical concert photo shows the neutral lighting one might expect (though it doesn't include the discs, there's not purple in the gallery or on the organ), yet this recent classical concert photo shows the purple stage lights in the gallery and a purple organ, so I suspect would also have purple discs. A Google Image search for "Albert Hall Interior" has coloured discs vastly outnumbering unlit discs. So I disagree that there is "normal" lighting for the Albert Hall, which hosts many concerts and events with differing requirements for light, and suspect that un-coloured discs are now actually the minority situation, rather than "normal". -- Colin (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Wow! A very hard to get to subject. Well done, excellent technique, very pleasing composition, very high detail level. Valuable. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I love the colors ... slightly surreal, perhaps, but they add interest. And they make those accoustic discs look like what I thought them to be at first ... some way of trying to figure out how many holes it takes to fill the building (Sorry; you knoew someone was going to try that one ). Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Karelj (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Kolvitsa river.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 21:16:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Langkofelhütte Gherdeina.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 19:42:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •  Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor lighting; the sun seems to be right above the subject. Unfortunately this leads to dull colors. --King of ♠ 19:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd like you to pay a visit here. I'd be more than happy and honoured to give you hospitality--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per KoH. INeverCry 20:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose no FP because the mountains are unsharp = false focus point!?! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree both with KoH and Alchemist-hp. I find the place very beautiful, the composition good, and the picture more than good in general.--Jebulon (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per Jebulon. It seems excessive to require mountains to be totally sharp when they're in the background or at least middleground. I think they're sufficiently clear to make sense in this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Regretful  Oppose - beautiful scenery, but not sharp enough --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry. Very striking perspective to the mountains but at first I though the lighting is somewhat bland. I think there has happened a little focus error. --Ximonic (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Has an embedded AdobeRGB color profile. Some popular web browsers ignore embedded color profiles, meaning users of those browsers see the wrong colors for this image. For web use the recommended color space is sRGB. An AdobeRGB version is OK as an alternative as it may be slight better suited for making prints. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) Deeply regretful oppose As much as I love Wolfgang's images of the Italian Alps, and really thought he had nailed it in entirely new ways with this one, the opposes are right: the summits are far too unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, California LCCN2013633353.tifEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 17:41:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •  Info created by Carol M. Highsmith - uploaded by - nominated by -- (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support This photograph is part of a batch upload project from the Highsmith collection at the Library of Congress. Motivated by the lawsuit against Getty Images, see Village Pump archive. As the TIFF is a large download, over 100 MB, the Commons full size jpeg version is a useful alternative to view. -- (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 20:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --cart-Talk 09:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --The Photographer 11:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Good composition (but disturbing lower left corner), poor choice of aperture and lens. Yes I know, its a professional photographer but f/5.6 and a zoom lens is obviously not optimal. The quality (photo and camera from 2012) and depth of field s not impressive, not very high wow imo. --ArildV (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Cabo de Gata, Andalusia, Spain.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 17:26:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •  Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Cabo de Gata, a natural mediterranean site near Almería, Andalusia, Spain.-- Jebulon (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No wow, rather dull light and boring "mediterranean" architecture, sorry--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Paw. aaaargh. I'm dead. Please call an ambulance (or the coroner, better).🤕🔫--Jebulon (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Is it really necessary to make fun of a serious comment? Wladyslaw (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Nothing is really necessary. Nor participating, Neither useless comments, neither lessons. Sadly. Only fun is necessary. Always.--Jebulon (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
        •  Comment I know, this is the way to kill candidates ;-) but, it's unfortunately (for you) the way I feel about your picture. Salue --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
        •  Comment Salut ! Happy to see you understand what I mean. It is not the case for everyone here, as I can see... Well nothing "unfortunate for me", just a nomination of a picture in FPC. Nothing serious, then. Thanks for comment and vote, caro amico.--Jebulon (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I'd like to see some clouds, but otherwise I like how the shapes work together. Any other composition would've thrown it out of balance. INeverCry 08:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Moroder --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild  Support - The interesting landforms are really what make the difference for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Wakefield Cathedral Choir, West Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 13:29:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Kasir (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Nice image, good composition. Looks like perspective problems at the top. Lights at the windows (and background) may be a bit overexposed.--XRay talk 15:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Laitche (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --King of ♠ 19:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 20:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Moderate  Support per XRay. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Is there somewhere I (and probably the many others who might like to do this) could just go and say "our signatures on this page constitute a support !vote for all of David Iliff's tonemapped images of church interiors; should we want to !vote otherwise we will make that clear on the FPC page"? But then again I often leave comments with those support !votes. Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 08:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ximonic (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Boeing 737 ES-ENH Madeira Funchal airport 2016 3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 10:53:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Karelj (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Small resolution, empty space at the bottom. The background is disturbing. I would expect more panning, may be better with 1/100 s instead of 1/200 s. --XRay talk 15:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per XRay, Nice photo but not an FP imho. --Laitche (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per XRay. INeverCry 20:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bad crop, distracting background. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Alchemist-hp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  I withdraw my nomination I withdraw my nomination: --Karelj (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:On the balcony, Paris August 2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 09:19:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •  Info created by besopha (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as it is now. The perspective is a bit distorted and a bit at the bottom could be cropped off for a cleaner and more balanced photo. cart-Talk 10:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Done. Thank Carter!--Paris 16 (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Perspective is fine now, thank you :), but I'm still bothered by the 3/4 "main" down left. IMO cropping away that (see note) would also result in a cleaner pic (the pic would depict exactly two floors), but other users may have another opinion. Let's wait and see. cart-Talk 12:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Just as a Parisian, for reviewers: it is really typically parisian. For the rest I agree with cart.--Jebulon (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes I know, I've been there many times and I love it. :D cart-Talk 17:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - This is a nice, pleasant picture and I like it, but I don't find it special enough for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A very Parisian image, as Jebulon says, and one I would expect to see in a decent magazine article or travel guidebook perhaps. But, that said ... per Ikan it doesn't work as a featurable image. There's too much going on. I do think that the photographer is on to something, and that an FP in this vein might yet be produced. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. INeverCry 08:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Westminster London June 2016 panorama 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 06:18:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •  Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♠ 06:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- King of ♠ 06:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 07:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Technically perfect as always and kudos for getting up that early to get this place without any people, I bet it's packed a little while later, but the light is too dull in most of the picture and it does not give me a wow factor. One of those moments where it probably felt magical to be there but it doesn't quite translate to the photo. Sorry. cart-Talk 10:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per cart about the light, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support nice for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - This doesn't quite make it for me because of a combination of the light and its not being as sharp as I'd like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per W.carter; an excellent job getting us there but not much there to get to. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Lifebelt on a small fishing boat.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2016 at 22:31:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Boats
  •  Info So, here is the new tweaked version of this picture. (Hope I did the nom right with all the formal things.) As I've said before at QIC, I sometimes think I'm partially blind when it comes to my own pictures. I miss things that I easily see in other users' pictures. So those second pairs of eyes this site provides are invaluable, this time it was Daniel who gave me a push in the right direction. And since it was he who did it, I got the idea for a square crop instead. :) Don't know if it is perfect, but I think it is far better than before. All by me, -- cart-Talk 22:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- cart-Talk 22:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - This doesn't quite work for me as a FP. The vertical vs. diagonal is interesting but makes me feel a little off balance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support since it's pretty much what I suggested. Daniel Case (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In the original, the railing looks like you could lean on it; now it looks like you might have to climb it. I like the idea, but the proportion of the railing is off now. INeverCry 07:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose random crop and no wow for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Honestly, you really call a crop "random" when several lines end perfectly at the picure's borders in carefully chosen spots? I wouldn't mind if you call it "bad" but I don't think "random" is the right word here. cart-Talk 15:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I wrote: "random crop for me". So it is. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:El Paraíso tunnel main gate of Caracas.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2016 at 19:03:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Yes, however the other one has more merit IMHO, because @Rjcastillo: risked his life (leave the car to take a picture in the most dangerous city in the world[1]) --The Photographer 16:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per Daniel. The quality is very good considering you were on the road. --King of ♠ 02:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 07:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per below. Great colors, they look almost poserized until you open the pic and see that they are actually true. cart-Talk 10:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Kasir (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing new and no change since this 2014 failed nomination under another name.--Jebulon (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I do not think it has been a bad nomination as the result of positive votes was 4 times higher than the negative. On the other hand, your comment on "under another name", makes me feel bad like I was hiding something that is quite public in the description of the image and I can't understand how you are able to see this other nomination but you are not able to view the file history of changes showing a selective noise reduction which was a huge job (it was not an automated tool) recently. --The Photographer 18:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong  Oppose Bad composition and denoise artefacts -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  strong oppose per Jebulon and Dmitry A. Mottl: denoise artefacts! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 Done I rebuild the image, please, let me know if the "denoise artefacts" is gone. Thanks --The Photographer 22:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but not done: this image is still ruined reworked. Take a look to the tree over the red car in your original and the newest version ... I also wrote: per Jebulon! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment and I think that the problem is gone (I uploaded another version). IMHO this last version is considerably better that the originally uploaded.  :) --The Photographer 23:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - That may be, and I'm OK with the changes you made, but I think you should ping everyone who already voted and see what they think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Since we are heading into another one of these confusing edit wars with tweaking a pic during nomination, I'm withdrawing my vote and sit this one out. cart-Talk 09:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I think that it's a valid recomendation and thanks Ikan Kekek for your idea. I'm pinging everybody King of, @INeverCry: , @Johann Jaritz: , @Martin Falbisoner:, @Kasir:, @ArionEstar:, @Jebulon:, @Dmottl:, @Alchemist-hp:. Please, feel free of change your vote if you think that this version is not in line with the version that you voted. --The Photographer 11:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Per W.carter. INeverCry 07:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: and @W.carter:, This is not a completely different picture, is an alteration of the original photo, just noise reduction and performe small fixes pending a nomination is in line with the spirit of this section provide better quality images to commons and improve our quality as photographers and photo editors. If you are stopping someone improves a photo based on a valid criticism you are curtailing the ability of feedback, learning and improvement provided by this section and I'm not here to accumulate awards, I'm in this section primarily because of those negative votes that help me improve and I love that feedback and This is something that has been happening in the past and more drastic changes in the photos. Please do not limit the learning process. --The Photographer 11:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not stopping you in any way, I'm simply choosing not to vote here due to too much confusion about what version I'm voting on. cart-Talk 11:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll switch to neutral, as an oppose is too harsh. Perhaps I should take a break and re-think my participation here if I'm getting in the way. I knew what I was doing with my Minolta XE7 and Mamiya RB67, but digital photography can be a challenge to understand. My votes and comments aren't very technical here, because I'm not that technically knowledgeable. I usually vote support for what impresses me and oppose for what doesn't. I may not be qualified to vote here. I came here for enjoyment of the images, but that doesn't take voting. I can just look but not touch in future. INeverCry 11:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @INeverCry: Please drop a vote now and then if you feel like it, a good healthy gut feeling about a picture is more vital than all the tech talk. I can keep up with the tech stuff, but I don't think those points have the final say in whether a pic should be FP or not. Btw, speaking of what we use to take the photos, I think you will find the 'Equipment' section on my user page of interest. ;) cart-Talk 19:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: Well my camera has 10 years old and it was a gift from a globally locked user. Btw, you don't need have a D800E to became a good photographer, a good photographer need only a insatiable hunger for photographic knowledge and exactly like any wikimaniadict. And more important is be a good person and be polite with others users respect their work and contributions are crucial and I'm not the best example (I am very easy to irritate). --The Photographer 21:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Oversnow heavy tractor Kharkovchanka.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2016 at 18:11:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#Antarctica
  •  Info Oversnow heavy tractor “Kharkovchanka” that was used in Antarctica from 1959 to 2010, a unique historical sample of engineering-technical developments made for exploration of Antarctica. Historic Site or Monument in the Antarctic No. 92. All by Tsy1980 -- Tsy1980 (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Tsy1980 (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The composition is a nice start, but unfortunately the sun is not well handled. Daniel Case (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Daniel. INeverCry 07:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Set design by Philippe Chaperon for Act1 sc2 of Aida by Verdi 1871 Cairo - Gallica - Restored.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2016 at 03:24:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Wooden Window inside Patan Museum-IMG 3651.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2016 at 04:10:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because no more chance of success, and too many flaws for a FP candidate. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Cobeta, Guadalajara, España, 2016-01-05, DD 19.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2016 at 03:03:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •  Info General view of the municipality of Cobeta located in the province of Guadalajara, Castile-La Mancha, Spain. The population of Cobeta is (according to the 2004 census) 108 inhabitants. Note: this picture belongs to the project No municipality in Spain without a photograph. All by me, Poco2 03:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Poco2 03:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Moderate  Support - You mean "No municipality in Spain without a photograph". I like the photo, but I wonder what it would have looked like if you had cropped to the right of the building that's cut off. Did you take any wider-angle photos? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, sorry, Ikan, I meant without photograph, I corrected it. I've uploaded a new version with more image on both sides, but the building on the right is still cropped. I don't know whether I've another version of it. I have only a few RAW files with me. Poco2 17:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support a bit oversaturated?! but enough wow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral pending correction of that leaning tower on the left which has been noted.< Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Support now that that's been done. A landscape that confronts the viewer with what a Spanish winter is and isn't. Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    Daniel Case: True, I've  corrected it. Poco2 17:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Fine technique and light, but the composition is not at all FP level in my opinion. Especially the right hand side appears rather arbitrary with the cropped buildings and the electrical wires coming down in a distracting way. Wires can be OK if they add to the composition of a photo. In this case they do not for me. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Ezarateesteban 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Slaunger. INeverCry 22:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --King of ♠ 03:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too ordinary composition for me, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Laitche, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --XRay talk 15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Wesel, Zitadelle, Haupttor -- 2016 -- 4340-6.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2016 at 15:34:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
  •  Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 15:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- XRay talk 15:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice symmetry! Although you are half a metre of centre :-) --Basotxerri (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice but little wow, sorry, for composition and lighting. I am aware this kind of light has been chosen on purpose yet I don’t like the facade being entirely in shadow, making the foreground (which already covers almost half of the frame) much brighter than the actual subject of the image, making the latter look dull. Then, it’s rather soft considering what’s possible today (due to f/13 diffraction I fancy). A stitched panorama of this static object, for instance, could have easily been taken as well, giving way more detail and crispness. Und eine einzelne Aufnahme ist per definitionem kein HDR-Bild, auch nicht nach Tonemapping. HDR heißt „mehr als eine einzelne Belichtung an Dynamik zu fassen vermag“. --Kreuzschnabel 19:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. INeverCry 22:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Ezarateesteban 22:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral - I like the composition a lot. I like that the cannons are more or less facing toward us, I find that the building being in shadow actually emphasizes it (in somewhat the same way that a listener will really perk up their ears when there is a contrasting soft section in the middle of moderately loud music), and I like the view through the archway in the center of the building. I'm very tempted to support a feature. But what gives me pause is Kreuzschnabel's point about the softness of the focus. To my taste, this is a very good photo in almost every way. In a way, it's like my heart supports a feature but my brain is just not sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Love the golden lighting + dark clouds. The lack of illumination on the facade doesn't bother me that much. --King of ♠ 01:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, a bit soft, but that's no dealbreaker here --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. The lighting may be golden on the grass but that's not really the subject. I think for a photo like this to rise above QI it needs to have great lighting of the building, or the building more amazing, or far higher resolution/sharpness. We have so many greater building FPs. -- Colin (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support nice perspective, light a bit suboptimal, but still ok for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per Alchemist. Gets enough right. Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's nice and sharp but with this light, the lawn actually looks more interesting than the building and it has no wow factor for me, sorry. --cart-Talk 16:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support My impression is exceptional. --Milseburg (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per opposers. There is too many empty grass/lawn IMO, and I miss something "more" regarding the famous "wow" factor. Sorry. Not a bad picture, of course.--Jebulon (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per other opponents. --Karelj (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Duisburg, Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord -- 2016 -- 1253.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2016 at 15:29:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry#Germany
  •  Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 15:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- XRay talk 15:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --cart-Talk 16:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interesting shapes and good work but I don’t see anything outstanding. If only the nearest arc wasn’t cut by the frame on the right. --Kreuzschnabel 19:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. INeverCry 22:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Very interesting and rather unique shape. --King of ♠ 01:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Qualified support So interesting compositionally (it feels like another album cover for some cool Krautrock group that I've never heard of and would want to hear if they used images like this on their album covers) that it offsets the depth of field that I wish was sharper on the bricks. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Interesting and offbeat, and I like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice view, but not enough wow, a bit too boring for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent composition. Like the rough industrial look. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think this kind of photos must need some impressive element or factor, the only nice composition doesn't deserve FP, imho. --Laitche (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The kind of picture I like. Excellent composition and light, but sharpness is not enough IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. --Karelj (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Herbstzeitlose, 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2016 at 13:44:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •  Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert
  •  Support -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - The flower is very clear, but the fuzzy grasses on the left side do nothing good for the picture and look especially bad at full size. I'd recommend cropping out at least the leftmost third of the picture. And while the flower is very nicely photographed and would get my support for a feature if it were photographed that well by itself, since I don't like anything else in the picture (the rest of it feels almost pointless to me), I won't feel wowed even if you take my crop suggestion. I suspect others will be more wowed; we shall see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Regretful oppose The flower itself is sharp and fantastic, but this is one of those times when it could have been best with a little "analogue edited", that is plucking away some of the more intrusive grass straws in front of the flower (and that sturdy cut one on the left that is stealing the attention of the flower). The idea of a sharp flower between blurry/bokeh straws is nice in theory, but it seldom as good in practice. Only time it works is when the straws in front of the flower are so far from it and so close to the camera that the bokeh of the straw becomes almost transparent (example). Sorry. cart-Talk 19:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. INeverCry 22:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ikan (your suspicions will, I suspect, not be borne out). Daniel Case (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The light and colors are very good on the flower and the drops of dew attractive, but I also have to agree with the review of W.carter regarding "analogue editing". -- Slaunger (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice quality! A little bit disappointed framing... --Laitche (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of no more chance of success, and to many reasons for oppose. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Хотинська фортеця в місячну ніч.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2016 at 07:34:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •  Info created and uploaded by User:Ryzhkov Sergey - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I just saw this photo at QIC (it was promoted), and I find it poetic and beautiful. I'm also impressed with the photographer's light control. I guess the moon and a bit of its reflection on the water may be a tad blown and posterized and the very tops of the towers are just a bit soft, but they're good enough for me in context, and for a picture in low light conditions, the fact that the fortress is so clear and the stars visible in the sky aren't traily at all is impressive to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ivar (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Code (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ryzhkov Sergey could you please upload a higher resolution version of this? This appears to be downsized 50% and thus only 9.7MP from 36MP camera. -- Colin (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Where so many attempts like this often fall short, this has succeeded. Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Not sure if I want to see how it looks at 36 MP. It is just excellent as it is. Period. --A.Savin 21:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 22:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --King of ♠ 01:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 02:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Mild oppose. The shadows, or whatever it is at the castle has some very strange greenish and wrong color (see annotation). A postprocessing mishap? Otherwise very nice and atmospheric. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Very nice however it wants a bit more space on the top. --Laitche (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --XRay talk 15:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Karlskirche Vienna, September 2016 -3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2016 at 17:55:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Hmm, the color profile should be fine, cf. extended details in "Metadata". I always embed sRGB by default. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
See this. What software do you use to generate the JPG? -- Colin (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, that's odd... According to this tool, many, if not most of my pictures here lack a proper color profile. Honestly, this can't be correct. I've never detected any problems viewing my files on different systems and never did anybody approach me about that. What's more, some of my images seem to actually possess a correct profile. But my workflow has been the same for many years: I always create jpgs out of raws developed with DPP. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
P.S. And - theoretically - would there be a real problem at all? Let's assume that the affected files just "claim" to have an sRGB profile that is actually missing. What would happen? Every single program, browser, picture viewer would still present the images correctly, either assuming that there's no profile at all and applying sRGB by default as minimum standard, or detecting sRGB as defined profile and treating the images the same way. Since I always use sRGB - and never Adobe RGB - what's the difference for practical purposes? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Another PS: I haven't noticed the ongoing discussion on color profiles until now. Your browser test is very interesting. I'm a bit confused about what to do now regarding my post processing workflow... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Martin Falbisoner, it's getting a bit off topic. People with standard-gamut monitors (most) viewing images that are sRGB whether they embed a profile or not, will not see any issues. But anyone with a wide-gamut monitor will see very much the wrong colours (super-saturated) for most browsers. And some software will complain about a lack of profile. Obviously, posting an AdobeRGB image without a profile will cause most such people to see a really dull image. Its the sort of issue you won't be aware of if you don't have the equipment to see it. Ping me on your talk page or email me and we can try to figure out how to get your software to embed the profile. Failing that, there is a tool (EXIFTOOL) that can insert one into a JPG, but I would really like to know how, for each professional image program, to set them up to export JPGs correctly. -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - This is better, but Colin is right. I'm not feeling impelled to support this photo but haven't decided whether to oppose, because it's very pretty at full-page size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Colin and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. INeverCry 07:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  I withdraw my nomination --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Papilio dravidarum-Kadavoor-2016-07-30-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2016 at 05:49:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Here too, I didn't understand. The wings of this butterfly is not even in shades; dark in some area and light in other places. As I mentioned in file description "it (a rare and endemic butterfly) prefers shady patches. The males drink at wet patches especially in the hot dry pre-monsoon days." Here he is drinking from the water collected on leaves; a perfect behavioral documentation. Jee 06:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think we can really see the drinking taking place, as the butterfly's head is facing away from us. If the butterfly is truly rare, that could be a strong encyclopedic argument for a feature, but I would have thought "endemic" and "rare" were contradictions in terms. Anyway, I don't want you to think I don't appreciate the great and really impressive work you do - it's in large part due to your outstanding work that the bar on featuring closeups of butterflies, moths and the like has been raised! Meanwhile, let's see what other people think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No worries. I'm just trying to explain things I learned as part of my hobby in chasing them as AWeith did on his polar bear nom. Thanks for your nice words. Jee 06:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: A contradiction in terms? Would you like him to say it in Malayalam? But maybe you'd be at a slight disadvantage... INeverCry 06:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

[unindent] This isn't about someone having an advantage over another person; it's about having clear communication, which was ultimately achieved. Thanks for "helping". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

According to Threatened swallowtail butterflies of the world, it is "uncommon; but not known to be threatened". It will not come out of the shades; I saw it only once. Jee 07:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If it's that rare, I  Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ikan Kekek. We've two difficulties to find the exact status. 1. It loves shades and will not come out. 2. It mimics Euploea core. So we can't distinguish them without seeing those two white spots on upper-wings. Jee 07:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Understood. But even if there are a lot of them, if they're almost always in shade, that presents a major challenge in photographing them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Ikan the word "endemic" when referring to animals and plants, means "native to or confined to a certain region". So not contradictory with "rare". When referring to a disease, it does mean "common within a population", which is probably where the confusion comes. -- Colin (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Exactly. I never knew there was a difference between the usage of endemic in talking about endemic diseases vs. endemic animals. Thanks for explaining that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 06:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --cart-Talk 08:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per understanding gained from long discussion above. Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Harsh, unfortunate lighting. --Smial (talk) 09:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Vengolis (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Junonia iphita-Kadavoor-2016-08-08-002.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2016 at 13:19:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •  Info Junonia iphita. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- Jee 13:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jee 13:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Another one of your well trained little buddies sitting on leaves of matching color and shape, keeping its antennae in the same position as the "chop sticks" in the background. Beautiful and great detail. I could live with said sticks toned down a bit though, they are stealing some of the show. --cart-Talk 13:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Why names in file name !? There is line "author" for that. Some quick reader will name it as Junonia iphita-Kadavoor butterfly. --Mile (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Kadavoor is the place of record; not my name. :) Jee 16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Mile, see all the fantastic pictures from this place at Category:Nature of Kadavoor, Kerala. cart-Talk 19:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Ouu, place. Not sure if dash is good option, i put into brackets filename etc (place).jpg --Mile (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 22:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild  Oppose - I'm going to be a pain on this, because I feel strongly that you can do better: This butterfly is beautiful, but compared to the best work by you and people like Charles Sharp, I'm not overwhelmed with either the focus or resolution. The composition is good, but my preference would be for you to take another photo that's greater than this one and nominate it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This is a widely distributed butterfly and I can try again though it is not very friendly to pose for me. I didn't understand the resolution part though. Here more than 17MP from my 24MP camera; I just cropped to make it center. I think I'm stretching out of my/my camera's limits. Jee 06:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I guess I really mean just the focus. If you could get that level of resolution a good deal clearer, I'd be really wowed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Now I got it. Yes; the left wing tip is not sharp compared to the right as I got here. Jee 06:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Along those lines, yes. What I really want is for pretty much the entire butterfly to have crisp sharpness, within this quality of composition. It's a tall order, but you've done it before with other insects. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice detail, nice earth tones, and the light isn't as harsh as might first be thought. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Karelj (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Image:Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) with its prey.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2016 at 17:00:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •  Comment - I just want to say, on a lot of photos, your standards are a lot more exacting than mine, and I'm glad you're here. This is FPC, so it's important for there to be some very tough critics to help serve as gatekeepers and maintain the focus on what's truly, strikingly outstanding. To use an American expression, stick to your guns! (In other words, keep on standing for your principles.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I appreciate the valued comment of Kreuzschnabel. When comparing the FP bear with the black tongue with my happy feeding bear the differences become obvious: whilst the candidate bear shows a clearly natural behavior in his (indeed it is a "he" owing to his massive head) natural habitat, the FP bear (who obviously is a female) shows clear signs of fear (tongue stuck out) which she would normally not display if there were no aliens (i.e. the photographer in his/her boat). When approaching arctic wildlife we always stick to the AECO (Association of Arctic Cruise Operators) rules and stay at a respectful distance unless the animal is nosy enough to come close by itself. The FP bear with its tongue obviously was very close to the observing vessel (for whatever reason) and could thus be photographed at much higher resolution. However, you will never experience a polar bear over its meal at a closer distance as it will designate you a food competitor and thus will either disappear with its prey or attack. Both would not be natural in case the food competitor is a photographer (and the latter may become dangerous prohibiting you forever from showing your polar bear fotos). I think both fotos are valuable as FPs, that's why I proposed mine. I'll be happy to remove CAs if there are any; however I guess its more prismatic glare in the snow that can't be removed. If you could indicate the area on the photo with the CA I'll be glad to try my best. --AWeith (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @AWeith: this isn't prismatic glare, this is typical CA. Please try to remove it (visible on the left), so I'd like to stike my oppose. Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kreuzschnabel, very pity.--Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC) now  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Bloody hell! (to use another American colorful expression in regards to the pic) If we are looking for polar bears posing or doing special things, I'd say this is rather typical polar bear behavior and not something you are likely to get a picture of in a zoo. Pending the removal of the CA in the snow I'm inclined to support this despite its size. cart-Talk 08:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment "Bloody [whatever]" is really more a British than an American expression. We tend to be more apt to use the f-word as an emphatic adjective. :-) Anyway, I definitely agree with you that this is a good enough and valuable enough picture to feature (minus the chromatic aberration, except that I'm not expert in seeing non-glaring chromatic aberration); however, I'm still glad Kreuz is here to be a stickler for his high standards. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Apparently I watch the more polite American TV series. ;) --cart-Talk 08:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Try HBO or Showtime... INeverCry 09:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I feel like being beemed back to the era when I had a British boss who always blamed me for having a Portsmouth accent (I am German) despite still not being able to use english curses correctly... Well, this is just to tell you all that I removed the CA using LR5. I apologize for the slightly bigger size - I previously cropped another format using the RAW file; now the image ist approx. 80-100 pixels bigger either side. Hope you don't mind.--AWeith (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Looks ok to me and here we like things big. Still, for future references, try have your picture up to snuff and ready when you nominate it here. A good idea is to first nominate it for Quality Image, that way you'll get it checked by other editors in advance. - I hear you on the accent issue , when I (Swedish) open my mouth I have been taken for a Bostonian, Irish or even Singaporean... --cart-Talk 13:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
a British guy though I was American, French people assumed I was Spanish and Germans belived I came from Hungary, a German Swiss though I was a French Swiss, some Israelians asked if I were some second generation sepharditic immigrants living in Israel... so far only Flemish Belgian got right, when I speak French, that I am Italian. Damned Belgians, I almost fooled everyone!--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --cart-Talk 13:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Rare shot here, i get small size, but panorama crop isnt so necessary here. Good anyway. --Mile (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ...I'm just getting hungry... :-) --Basotxerri (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Not perfect (I think it could be cropped in a little tighter) but what needs to be in focus is in focus, and given the subject of the image you don't need to be too creative. Daniel Case (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Simply amazing, excellent and nice moment --The Photographer 23:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality comes from a balance of factors: the rarity of the shot compensates some minor imperfection, IMHO--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Kreta - Potamon-Stausee2.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2016 at 18:30:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Greece
  •  Info all by Wladyslaw. The Potamon barrier lake is the biggest (artificial) fresh-water lake in Crete -- Wladyslaw (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm all for warm sunlight in pictures, but here the WB seems a little off, making the lake look pasty and strange. I did a test using the grey road as ref and it cleaned up rather nicely. cart-Talk 19:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't follow. The WB is correct IMO. It was warm weather (35°C) so we have warm sunlight, nearly without clouds on this day. And how can you know what type of grey the streets was? --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I can't know what kind of grey the road was only that to my eyes the colors looked better after an adjustment. But since many editors here are discouraging tweaks and alterations during a nomination, there is nothing that can be done about it unless more editors than me find the colors slightly off. Anyway, it was only a comment about how I saw the picture, not a vote of any kind. cart-Talk 20:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support. I'd like to see W.carter's version, but this is nice enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok Ikan, here it is. I had to crop and resize is slightly or the system would not accept it as a new file, but since it is only an example it doesn't matter. I took the WB not from the road itself but from the painted white lines on the road, right between the red an green CA on either side of the line. cart-Talk 21:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I really can't tell which one would be a better reflection of actual conditions, and tend to defer to Wladyslaw. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • W.carter: Your version looks good and nice but has definitely too cold colours for the conditions on this day. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree with the review of W.carter. I get the same results when using the white/grey stripes of the road as a WB reference. It also appears the tint is a bit off. I have sent a screen shot from Lightroom showing how it works by mail to Wladyslaw. Such a WB correction is better made when developing from raw. I could also upload a derivative with a slightly colder color temperature and a tweaked tint for reference, but it is not optimal using a jpg as source. The color space is marked as "sRGB" in the EXIF (good), but there is no embedded color profile. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Agree with others, and, yes, still no colour profile. The temperature of the air (35°C) has absolutely nothing to do with the "colour temperature" which perversely is more blue (which we associate with cold) with the very hot sun and more yellow (which we think of as warm) with the significantly less hot tungsten light bulb. -- Colin (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Slaunger Sorry, but I disagree. To take the white of the road stripes is a nice idea but not very helpful. The new tarred road was very bleached by sun and the asphalt street had yet strongly broken parts. The version of W.carter is too cold. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    • That's OK. Do fix the embedded color profile though; we have been through the issue of incomplete EXIF data regarding color profiles on numerous occasions. Until that is fixed I will  oppose conditionally. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful landscape, rich colors. The WB is a bit warmer than typical, yes, but within the acceptable range of artistic license for me. --King of ♠ 23:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No color profile embedded (should be a requirement). And I find the light harsh, rendering the landscape flat - Benh (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Benh: shame on you: how could you support this candidate? --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Because I liked the light on that one. I don't always check the color profile issue, so some of your pics can slip through sometimes. Thank god we have careful people like Colin. I'm really puzzled that you're recognising your pictures has issues, and you don't care fixing them. - Benh (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Dear Benh: please keep polite and calm, even if this should be hard for you. I have tried several times to obey your's or other hints concerning this topic. The colour management information is in fact now part of the EXIF. I'm not an expert on EXIF-data and that here is missing else (even you didn't detected this at first) was outside my idea. I have tried to manage this "embadding problem" here. But Code has no idea how to handle this because I make exactly this what is written in the instruction. So, please have appreciation that my day has only 24 hours and my tasks in real life are fully enough so that I have no time any more to chase after this EXIF-stuff, in particular this is your own rule and not a official FPC rule. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Wladyslaw I don't see what's wrong with what I wrote (unlike someone else who think I should feel "ashamed"). If you have time to submit this many candidates, you have time to fix the issue. Otherwise, you can just Google, and many sources will explain this clearly. And even if you didn't have the time, I'm fairly certain I did provide you the fix myself. All you had to do is checking, and if you were OK, to overwrite the file (I didn't overwrite myself to be courteous. Edit : and also because the colours might have not been what you wanted to show). Maybe if you hadn't spent your valuable time to answer me, then you could have tried. You're welcome by the way. - Benh (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Dear Behn: starting two candidates means 5 minutes of time. My investigations and experiments over all for this EXIF-stuff took me 2-3 hours in the last week: without any result. I've had it. Set your oppose-voting on my images altough it is not a FPC rules but don't expect any further action for this topic. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roleček 18:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm not bothered by the colors at all in the original version as they, IMO, reflect the reality of a landscape that, typical for that part of the world, is undeniably arid yet far from lifeless, even when it surrounds a lake. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Schloss Werneck, 5.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2016 at 17:42:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •  Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert
  •  Support -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent. --King of ♠ 17:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Code (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Too much sharpening applied IMHO (Da sind schon unschöne Säume an Kontrastkanten zu sehen) but still outstanding enough for me. --Kreuzschnabel 18:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --cart-Talk 19:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support And 7. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support And 8. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Conditional oppose The building is highly symmetric from left to right and the vantage point is right in the middle from left to right - good, but there is also a reflection plane in the water and it bothers me that this is a little off-centered in the vertical direction such that more sky is seen than reflection. It is sufficiently close to be centered that as an observer you would expect it was the compositional choice, but it is quite far from being so, making the composition a bit unbalanced. Another compositional choice could be to crop significantly more off the reflection, such that in the vertical direction the composition followed better a rule of thirds (sky - building - reflection). Since the water has ripples, the reflection and symmetry is not perfect anyway. With a different crop in the vertical direction, I am happy to reconsider.-- Slaunger (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Rainer Can you please be more patient with your nominations. I had to FPD some recently and you still have two other active nominations. I won't FPD this one because one of them is waiting on the bot to speedy promote -- but it is technically still active and always possible that someone might vote oppose as the nomination would normally have four days more to go. Wait till the FPC page has removed previous nominations so you only have two active at most at any time. Also remember that you need at least seven reviewers to get an FP, so please do your bit by reviewing other images too -- we need both positive and negative reviews. -- Colin (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Colin for clearing this up. I actually looked to see if one of the other nominations had been closed before I voted. I only assumed that since it had the automatic grey bot message, it was ok. Now I know that the result needs to be confirmed by someone (or voting period over). cart-Talk 21:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hallo, das man hier nur zwei Bilder gleichzeitig Nominieren darf, wusste ich nicht. Ich habe jetzt gewartet, bis eine von den ersten beiden Bilder den Hinweis bekommen hat, dass die Kandidatur beendet ist. Aber das war wohl noch zu früh. Beim nächsten Bild warte ich etwas länger. Ich bin hier bei FPD noch unerfahren, sorry. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Auf der Seite, auf der du deine Nominationen erstellt hast, steht oben „Please read the complete guidelines before nominating“ und weiter unten, unter „Featured picture candidate policy – General rules“, Punkt 11, steht das mit den maximal zwei Nominationen. In den FPD-Hinweisen, die deine überzähligen Kandidaten eingesackt haben, stand es auch. FPC ist mit manchmal 70 aktiven Kandidaten schon grenzwertig voll, deshalb ist das auch eine Rücksichtnahme auf die Voter, immerhin nimmt man sich hier mehr Zeit zum Beurteilen als auf QIC und formuliert Begründungen für Ablehnung (ich zumindest tue das) :-) --Kreuzschnabel 05:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Problem bei dem ganzen ist nur, dass das überall in Englisch steht und ich nur Deutsch kann. Und wie die von mir zu viel begonennen Kandidaturen abgebrochen worden sind, wusste ich das dann, durch Google-Translate. Aber wie dann eines von den ersten beiden als beendet markiert worden ist, dachte ich, dass diese Kandidatur auch tatsächlich zu Ende ist. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, vielen Dank. Ich habe immer ganz oben auf Deutsch geklickt, aber da tut sich nichts. Jetzt habe ich es gefunden. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please add english description, not everybody here can read german language. --Ivar (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Iifar:: While I think an English description adds value and is helpful, I do not think it is a responsibility of the nominator to provide one. The nominator states clearly above in German regarding his confusion about the guidelines that Problem bei dem ganzen ist nur, dass ... ich nur Deutsch kann. indicating the nominator is not capable of providing an English description. I do not think that it should be a requirement to write well in English to nominate a picture for FPC, it would be an unreasonable requirement for our non-English speaking users. I would encourage though, that some of our many many German-speaking reviewers, who are also proficient in written English will help draft an English description. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment There is always a possibility to ask someone and I'm sure somebody is willing to help with the translation. --Ivar (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 Done with the usual help from Google. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
So you did that With a Little Help from Your Friend. ;) cart-Talk 19:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roleček 18:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support This is, however, about as sharpened as it can be without being oversharpened. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC) 
  •  Support It's a quite typical FP :) --Laitche (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)