Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

Featured picture candidatesEdit


Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2016 at 00:45:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Júlio Prestes Station in São Paulo, Brazil.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2016 at 11:52:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
  •   Info All by -- The Photographer 11:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The sky could be denoised a bit more, and there are also some dust spots you didn't fix, for example on either side of the flag, to the right of the top floor of the tower below the clock and at least four to the extreme right of and a bit higher than the clock. The focus on the building is a bit soft, maybe because of the pollution haze that you've mentioned (if I remember correctly) is always in the air in Sao Paulo. I won't pass judgment on the photo now because I'd like to see the results of whatever revisions you may make. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Excellent review. This picture was taken using tripod, I can't underestand why the focus is soft (maybe the pollution problem). I will fix each of your nice recomendations, thanks ! --The Photographer 16:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The light is good, it is framed well. I trust the dust spots will be fixed, so I will disregard this for a moment. I think it is sufficiently sharp. Exposure control is good. However, it does not wow me at all, I am afraid. To be frank I find the composition boring. The cropped statue on the LHS does not help.Sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, I uploaded another version trying fix the problems commented by you. Slaunger and Ikan Kekek. Please, let me know what do you think and Slaunger, I underestand, you don't need change your vote --The Photographer 21:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Bullfight in Maracaibo Monumental Toros Square, Venezuela.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2016 at 10:19:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Support --Joalpe (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

  •   Comment - No vote by me right now, but I just want to mention that there are currently two FPs of bullfights: 1, 2. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Three FPs, if you add this. (I hope the bull/fighter is not fake this time :-). However, similar issues to Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Plaza de Toros de Maracaibo Monumental 3.jpg. Soft, oversaturated and overprocessed. -- Colin (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Your comment is very important for me, the bull is not a fake, however, it is the composition of two photographs in the same minute of time, using two different lenses (18-55 and 70-300 mm). I think this image is too poor quality as to be FP. That day was cloudy and it was getting dark, I could not do a better job because they are moving pictures. Thanks hacker --The Photographer 11:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:2009K6998 - Гніздичів (Львівський).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2016 at 08:10:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2016 at 06:51:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • LOL! I didn't say it actually could be! I said it looks like it could be. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I love her braids. lNeverCry 09:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Slaunger (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support A little bit of lateral motion blur, so not perfect, but contrast is nice and has great HV as a document of how women dressed at that place in that time. Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Temple aux six colonnes 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 22:14:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - I'll add that I wouldn't want you to withdraw your nomination right away because I'm mildly opposing. Let's see what other people think; INC has already voted to support the nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment dear Ikan Kekek it is more lightened now an more sharp have look please --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think you've gone too far with your white balance adjustments (see history) and generally a bit overprocessed. (I recommend you use Lightrooms CA removal tool rather than try to knock out the purple and magental colours). The scene is ok for QI but not enough for FP. -- Colin (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment dear Colin (talk) I corrected the WB and i used the CA removal tool ... this is featurable beacause the clouds are drawing North Africa map with Tunisia where Dougga is ... it is rare to have a similar scene --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition does not work for me - low wow, and I think the WB is too warm. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment dear Slaunger (talk) the wow come from the fact that the clouds are drawing North Africa map with Tunisia where Dougga is ... it is rare to have a similar scene ... and made the WB more natural --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Slaunger. -- Zcebeci (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment dear Zcebeci (talk) the wow come from the fact that the clouds are drawing North Africa map with Tunisia where Dougga is ... it is rare to have a similar scene ... and made the WB more natural --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin, who saved me time by saying everything I was going to say. Daniel Case (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment dear Daniel Case (talk) I corrected the WB and i used the CA removal tool ... this is featurable beacause the clouds are drawing North Africa map with Tunisia where Dougga is ... it is rare to have a similar scene --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Novosibirsk KrasnyPr Opera Theatre 07-2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 14:36:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

It is just a flagstaff (no architectural part) and there was no flag. I don't have any other crop. --A.Savin 20:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support - The cut-off flag pole is still bugging me, but I don't ask people to clone out things that are there, and the photo is otherwise beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support per Ikan. Two remarks: please embedd a correct color profile (as Colin would happily point out ;-) ); maybe the image is a tad oversaturated --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Maybe the greens in the foreground are a bit oversaturated. --King of ♠ 06:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    • King of Hearts It is weird, I have the same impression by just looking at it. I tried downloading, and technically, there are absolutely no blown areas in the green channel. Actually, the histogram is very "nice". Well, still, I agree the foreground vegetation looks extraordinarily colorful. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support as say King --Verde78 (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per the Photographer. -- Zcebeci (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak support At first I found it puzzling that the crop around the benches had not the same space at the left and right hand sides. However, from looking at the geolocation, I realize the bench/flower arrangement appears to be not perfectly symmetrically aligned with the opera house, which gives a natural explanation. Very nice light and colors. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Who says all the cool Russian cultural buildings have to be in St. Petersburg? Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Apis mellifera - Melilotus albus - Keila.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 13:15:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
  •   Info Italian bee (Apis mellifera ligustica) on the white sweet clover (Melilotus albus). All by Ivar (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very nice picture. This is the first time I've seen a bee with wax all over its leg. Is that unusual, in your experience? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • While I'm not a bee expert, I have seen pollen sacs before. I don't think there is any wax in them, but pollen sacs are very common. cart-Talk 20:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh I see. I've never noticed bees carrying those before. I'll look for them more now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: All worker and queen honeybees/bumblebees (except drones and cuckoo bumblebees) have pollen baskets. Foraging bees bring pollen back to the hive, where it's the primary source of protein for the young bees. --Ivar (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice shot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support When we were kids we called the debated structure "Sammlerhosen"-collectors' trousers. We thought this is the nectar out of the blooms that is going to become the honey in the beehive. --AWeith (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support From the same series; but think the composition is unique enough to feature separately. Jee 07:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 08:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question Could you geocode it please? It adds value. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Sweeet! Daniel Case (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Centro histórico, Baku, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-26, DD 221-223 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 12:58:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info Blue hour view of the pagan temple in the Bazaar square, Old city (İçəri Şəhər), Baku, Azerbaijan. The Old City of Baku, that dates at least from the 12th century, became the first UNESCO World Heritage Site in the country in 2000. Poco2 12:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 12:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support unusual perspective - that works --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 18:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like this picture and I'm supporting it, but if it would improve the picture overall if you would denoise the sky and sharpen the further reaches of the loggia (or whatever I should call it) just a touch, do it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
    Ikan:   Done --Poco2 21:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support This looks like one of those images that you find only by looking around. Most photographers would have just played it safe with the portico ... you made the courtyard work with it. There are some other minor technical issues but I chalk them up to the exposure required. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral mainly over composition. The bottom crop is a bit too tight on the near pillar, and dividing it in half is not as effective as rule of thirds IMO. --King of ♠ 06:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral too yellow --Verde78 (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    Verde78, that should be fixed now --Poco2 20:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Arc monumental.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 13:03:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is really nice! You have certainly improved your photos since you started out here. :) You don't happen to have a version with a little extra space over the arc? The top crop is kind of close to it. cart-Talk 18:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment dear cart-Talk I make it wider on the top --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Composition-wise it improved the pic, but unfortunately it also increased that overexposed area Christian is talking about. Had the additional area been more normal, it would have been a different thing to consider. Sorry, but overall this will be an   Oppose from me. cart-Talk 21:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The sky have been overexposed, this is not fixable Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment dear Christian Ferrer (talk) yes this is true because the sky is there and without that we can not have this colour inside the arch --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

  Comment ok i will take care with light next time thank you Christian Ferrer (talk) and thank you cart-Talk --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)   I withdraw my nomination --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

File:A look inside an iceberg (2), Liefdefjord, Svalbard.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 12:37:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Ice
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Yes, Sir! This really covers all the bases, as a great photo that's of supreme encyclopedic and educational value. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 21:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support How yonic. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. A bit low on wow factor at preview size, but it really comes to life at 100%. --King of ♠ 06:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 06:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Northern fulmars chasing Kittywakes away from their fishing ground.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 10:15:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Fights between birds
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info I know this image does not obey to many photographic rules. I nominate it anyway because I think it features two topics: i) This behavior has - to the best of my knowledge - not been documented before; ii) This - IMO - is one of my most fancy contre-jour photos of wildlife as the scenario with those thousands of water droplets really reveals the dynamics of this moment. Judge yourself. I was courageous; now you be spirited ; -). -- AWeith (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 10:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support More Angry Birds! :) Have I understood this action shot correctly that fulmars are coming in from the left in the pic and the kittywakes are fleeing front and right? I like that the water spray creates a sort of backdrop (no pun intended) to the fight. cart-Talk 11:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  Info Yes, (almost) correctly observed (you are a very good observer!). The fulmars swam directly atop the shoal of fish and the kittywakes flew in the air above them. The Kittywakes kept diving down from a height and into the water. Then the fulmars all - in the image from the left and from the back - darted for the diving Kittywakes who - succesful or not - fled from the site towards us or to the right. The whole battle lasted at least for an hour and I shot more than two hundred photos of that scene. I deemed the contr-jour ones the most dramatic and exiting ones. Also: see my photo of a succesful Kittywake which unfortunately has a cut left wing. :( --AWeith (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! :) You could add some of this explanation to the description on the file's page. It will add to the value of the pic if viewers have a little help in understanding it and figuring out which bird is doing what. cart-Talk 13:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Neorthacris simulans-Kadavoor-2016-09-13-002.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 09:56:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thanks AWeith. I had studied about them a lot. A twin or ring flash seems not suitable for the long focal length I use. This may good; but the lack of availability for such systems in India is a stopping block. (Anyway artificial lighting is a must as this is found in late evening under the plants.) Jee 10:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:2009K4393 - Почаїв (Тернопільський).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 08:29:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 34-36 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 07:06:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • You're welcome. Thanks for taking it! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Photographer 11:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Another lovely abstract Iranian ceiling (Not sure from the window above if it's tilted or it's the window, though ... seems to be the latter). Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question The sky is gray or brightness was artificially lowered? --The Photographer 10:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, The Photographer, that grey due was due to a too strong highlights reduction, I have moderated it. --Poco2 20:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer, I will keep my suppor vote --The Photographer 20:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Got some questions on pic, see notes. Also think is very gray inside, and maybe right side could be enlightened a bit more if RAW is available. --Mile (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    Mile: What does RAW stand for? never heard of that. :) Those openings are not showing directly the sky, I think that there was a kind of cover. I have brightened the right dome and reduce the highlight compensation --Poco2 20:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Lyon city, 8 November 2009.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2016 at 06:19:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by Clément Chéné (Flickr) - uploaded & nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. I'm a big fan of photographing buildings at an angle where the rising/setting sun is coming at an opposite angle (about 90 to 150 degrees from where you're standing). Sometimes it works beautifully, like File:Musee d'Orsay and Pont Royal, North-West view 140402 1.jpg, but here I think the buildings and especially the tree on the right are too dark relative to the sky/clouds to make it work. --King of ♠ 06:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too many overexposed parts in the clouds and at the reflections on the cars and where is the "wow" effect? --Ermell (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 08:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per overexposure noted by Ermell and generally unexciting composition. I can see what you were thinking here but unfortunately it didn't come through the lens. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Chicago September 2016-14.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 21:41:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thank you for the nomination, W.carter. I was not sure myself owing to the strong distortion. But I agree the view is striking! Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support nice mood. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Challenging photo to take, and I think the results are good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nicely done. Having some shadow is probably unavoidable at any time of day. --King of ♠ 01:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question No complains because of the dust spots and the noisy sky?--Ermell (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I missed the dust spots, those few are now corrected, thanks for pointing them out. I hope Alvesgaspar don't mind. Unfortunately I wrote "left" in the Comments when it was "right". Is that correctable, or do I live with the shame of having mixed up left and right? As for the sky, I don't find it too noisy. It's a large file and denoising with such thin clouds can have strange effects. I think it is up to Alvesgaspar to make that decision. cart-Talk 09:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I make that mistake all the time - I'm one of those guys that often still has to feel my hands to remember which side is which, and that's not even fail-safe. And I do correct such mistakes in my comments when I catch them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good picture --Ermell (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Now this works! Icy in its beauty and juxtaposition of old and new. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment For sure an impressive motive and challenging shot. Nonetheless I would suggest some optimizations:
  • Slight CAs at the top right building (CA note), I would definitely denoise the sky, the foreground is too tightly cropped for my personal taste, have you got more space left there? Judging from the EXIFs of the photo is is a stitching, probably you can add information about the stitching with {{Photo}} and/or {{Panorma}} template. I have no problem with the distortion - inevitably for such an extreme view, but I am wondering why the top of the building is relatively unsharp although you've used stitching technique. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm 'pinging' Alvesgaspar on your behalf. Such decisions and answers needs to be from the photographer and not the nominator in this case. cart-Talk 18:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks,W.carter. My questions / suggestions were indeed directed to the photographer. Because Alvesgaspar already reacted to your nomination I was sure he has this page on the watchlist :) --Tuxyso (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 20:50:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 20:53:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Moderate   Support. This kind of mood is very characteristic of your photos. The composition is a little bit busy for my tastes, but only slightly. --King of ♠ 02:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the reflection as well as the framing. --WPPilot (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the interplay of the diagonals. Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:St. Michael ob Rauchenödt Flügelaltar 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 18:49:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
  •   Info Winged altar in late gothic style at the filial church St. Michael ob Rauchenödt, Upper Austria. Anonymous master, around 1517. All by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'm sorry to oppose - I like the motif a lot, but I feel like more of this is in shadow or half light than optimal, and the figures on the top could be more focused. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Perfect solution with that window behind the altar.--Ermell (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 09:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Skul of crocodile (Crocodylidae).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 18:46:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
  •   Info Specimen of crocodile skull prepared by the bone maceration technique and on display at the Museum of Veterinary Anatomy, FMVZ USP, created by Museum of Veterinary Anatomy FMVZ USP / Wagner Souza e Silva - uploaded by Lucas.Belo - nominated by Joalpe -- Joalpe (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Joalpe (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Well lit, excellent details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- --WPPilot (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Measured support Almost a little too bright in some areas, though. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Brockhampton Estate - gatehouse and manor house.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 18:24:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Weak   Oppose. A very nice scene, but our technical standards for photos taken in broad daylight with no mitigating circumstances have become better than this (a slightly unsharp 7.5 MP image). --King of ♠ 02:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per KoH. It's a beautiful, peaceful scene, but it should be sharper for FP, in my opinion. I'm also a little unsure about the way the top and right crops cut into trees. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan and King. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Alternative versionEdit


  •   Info, @King of Hearts, Ikan Kekek, Daniel Case:: here's another version with less cropping - more tree, more sky, and more pixels. DeFacto (talk). 06:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support DeFacto DeFacto (talk). 06:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Not just more pixels, but compositionally better. Even when comparing apples to apples, the white house on the far left is sharper. --King of ♠ 06:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support this version's much better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment CAs at the edges of the left house --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support This version I can support, pending fixing of the CA. --cart-Talk 09:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Almost done, you missed two spots, see notes. Sorry for being picky. ;) cart-Talk 18:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: I had another go at the green ones you noted - they were quite stubborn, but hopefully reduced sufficiently now. Thanks for persevering. :) DeFacto (talk). 19:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Perseverance is the only way to excellence. ;) --cart-Talk 19:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Much improved. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - Yes, it's better, but for me, it's missing something for FP, which might be additional sharpness, a bit more light or something else. I won't and don't want to stand in the way of a consensus to feature, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Water lily on a lake.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 16:17:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order : Nymphaeales
  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by Bharel -- Bharel (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bharel (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Pretty picture, but it needs much better categories such as what species of Nymphaeaceae and where the photo is taken, that should also be in the description. This should have been sorted out at QIC, but unfortunately too many reviewers miss that. A geocode would also be nice, please. --cart-Talk 21:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too busy for me, and the blurred background doesn't help. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree with Daniel. The flower is very nice, though. Assuming the issues cart discussed above are taken care of, a tight rectangular crop just beyond the flower and to its right would be a photo that I could probably support, with the point being to get rid of most of the blur and most of the leaves. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel. lNeverCry 08:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Cerkev sv. Marka, Vrba.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 14:48:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Smihael -- Miha (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment This one is in a rare late-autumn light. I also have a version without powerlines (from a slightly different perspective), but I thought maybe they are interesting part of the composition -- Miha (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No, I guess they are not. I feel disturbed by them. Moreover, the scenery dosen't wow me. --AWeith (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ok, I will upload a different version. Probably it still won't have the wow effect for you as it is nothing you wouldn't have seen before , as both arhitecture and landscape of Baden-Württemberg are quite similar to Gorenjska/Krain, where the picture was taken, but it might be different for someone, coming from Mediterrans. --Miha (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dark areas are too dark = too much contrast. --King of ♠ 02:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I feel a tighter crop on the church would work (it feels like it's getting lost amid all the scenery) but it's probably better to try again, as it seems rather soft on the church. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Jaz bi uporabil rano jutranjo uro za tole, zlate sončne tukaj ne pašejo. Rano, ko sonca še ni, ko je še rosa povsod, tisto bi bil kandidat. Takrat sonca niti ne rabiš oziroma bi celo motil posnetek. Cerkev daš na tretjino, in po višini, in po širini. Sredinske kompozicije se neposrečene. --Mile (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild   Support - I actually like this composition a lot, and apparently more than anyone else who's voted on this nomination. The shadows really work to me as shapes. To me, this is a very good landscape composition, with the layers of the shadows, the lighted grass, the church and colorful trees, the mountains and the sky. The focus is a little soft on the upper reaches of the church, but I don't see this as a photo of a church but as a landscape including a church, and I don't think I agree with suggestions of a crop. The only real question in my mind is whether this photo is outstanding compared to all similar photos, and since I don't have the time to look through every potentially similar photo, I simply give this photo a mild support vote for its own artistic quality, as I see it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Vineyard snail on a stem.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 13:53:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class : Gastropoda
  •   Info created by Bharel - uploaded by Bharel - nominated by Bharel -- Bharel (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bharel (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment The white areas on the shell are blown and should be corrected. In addition, the subject is somewhat small... --AWeith (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Main subject is not only small, but imho also not sharp enough (f/4 was not the best choice). --Ivar (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)



  •   Info as the source image is in high technical quality, I allowed myself to crop it a little (while attempting to maintain the composition) and play with highlights and sharpness. Didn't want to retouch it too much in order not to hurt it. Bharel (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can understand the shell not being all in focus, but even where it is the edges are sort of soft and, more to the point, there is a visible dark halo around it. Daniel Case (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel. We need crisp photos for this kind of subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:MOB GDe 4-4 6004 Gstaad - Gruben with Golden Pass Classic.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 13:56:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Catedral II.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 12:12:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Others
  •   Info created and uploaded by Jose Humberto Matias de Paula - nominated by Ivar (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support wow, a great image! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Much better than the previous FPC from this cave. I love her Super Hero pose! :) What is that dark blue strange spot (see note)? Is it just shadows playing a trick on us or something else? --cart-Talk 15:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment I'm not sure, maybe a shadow caused by the backlight. --Ivar (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Love the detail in this light. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very fine detail. The color saturation is not too much to my taste, but it is not exactly disturbing. --AWeith (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 22:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm willing to excuse the technical deficiencies (the slightly out-of-focus stalactites and only 5.4 MP resolution) due to the huge wow factor. --King of ♠ 02:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support wow --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressing!--Ermell (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - At this point, there isn't much incentive for anyone to pay any attention to my suggestion, but for what it's worth, I would cut some of the unsharp foreground from the top. I think that would improve the photo, but seeing as this is going to be a Featured Picture as is, I don't think anyone will do it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien 2016 Antikensammlung römische Büsten a.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 09:20:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tsui (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tsui (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support An interesting take on what could have been just another row of busts where it is hard to get everything sharp anyway. Could also be a nice vignette for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women; a sharp woman up front. ;) Wouldn't mind if that single visible spotlight was cloned out though. --cart-Talk 11:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per cart. Low DoF makes sense artistically to me in this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Wish it wasn't so noisy, but it does convey the reflective nature of this scene. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • If you find this reflective, you should love this one. ;) Pity that doesn't have the quality for a nom or I would have done that a long time ago. cart-Talk 21:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose 90% out of focus does not work for me--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Wolfgang Moroder. lNeverCry 22:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but this composition doesn't work with me. Focused part is almost on the border and it's not crisp sharp (even slightly noisy). --Ivar (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Verde78 (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Wolfgang Moroder. Interesting approach, but it does not work for me in this case. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I do find in rather interesting. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Bowsprit of the Vieux Crabe (ship, 1951) cf01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 09:05:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info All by -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too busy for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunately, I have to agree with Daniel. The line with the cables to the bowsprit that continue in the boom of the sailboat is really nice, but it gets lost in the buildings behind it. There are also the flags that are very difficult to see where they belong, boat, other boat, building? Sorry. --cart-Talk 21:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 22:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. An interesting idea that is good but not completely successful in my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

File:The underwater surface structures of an iceberg in Svalbard.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 05:17:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Fort Pierce Inlet Fort Pierce Florida photo D Ramey Logan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 23:34:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • It is probably some different kind of marine vegetation that thrives in that sheltered part of the inlet, or humus from the trees (mangroves??) next to it. cart-Talk 11:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poké95 12:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 22:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:North Laguna Aerial photo by D Ramey Logan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 22:33:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#United_States
  •   Info created uploaded & nominated by-- WPPilot (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- WPPilot (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please correct the CA. --King of ♠ 22:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Conditional support This is one of those aerials that work; however I second King's point about the CA. It should be easy to do. Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 22:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment As per request. --WPPilot (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
    alt w CA adjustment for Camera & Lens profile (collapsed to avoid confusion)
    It seems there's no change in the amount of CA. If you don't mind, I've uploaded a corrected version over your original image. By the way, for uncontroversial changes, you typically upload over the original image instead of presenting the corrected version as an alt. Alts are usually for crops, significant exposure/color changes, etc. where someone might prefer the original. --King of ♠ 03:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Great capture of the curves of the shoreline. --King of ♠ 03:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'm not really seeing the difference between the original version and the corrected version. Where should I look for the difference? I think I've just gotten used to this photo, and what I see is that quite reasonably, the closer portions are more in focus and naturally, as the distance becomes greater, there is more blurring. I like the cliffs and I like the colors in the water. I'm guessing the dark color may be from kelp forests - is that right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Solvay conference 1927.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 21:40:56

  •   Info Although the second photo has lower nominal resolution, it is clearly sharper than the first when compared at the same size. The second photo also preserves the shadows better, which are lost in the first. Additionally, the first photo is cropped a bit too tight on the left. (Original nomination)
  •   Delist and replace -- King of ♠ 21:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace lNeverCry 21:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Clearly improved. The only thing I am missing is embedded color-space metadata, but they were also not available in the original, and we have no clear guidance regarding color-space metadata for B&W photographs. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace per nom and Slaunger. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace per everyone else. Improvement evident even in thumbnail view. Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Though this is not exactly the same photo, it was taken a few seconds before or after (see position of some persons, e.g. Paul Dirac) Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Mile (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Cayambe (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:30th Street Station Philadelphia July 2016 002.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 18:20:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts
  •   Info With the US presidential election coming up, here's something timely: 30th Street Station specially lit up during the DNC in Philadelphia. -- King of ♠ 18:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 18:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --WPPilot (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC) I enjoy the framing as well as the centering of the street. Nice night photo..
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I quite like this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per WPPilot. That crack in the street looks a bit ominous, like the beginning of some disaster movie! ;) --cart-Talk 20:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 05:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support, although I think the bottom could be cropped in to reinforce the horizontality of the building. Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Too much foreground. A crop of the bottom would improve a lot, I guess. --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)



  •   Info @WPPilot, INeverCry, Ikan Kekek, W.carter, XRay: @Daniel Case, Martin Falbisoner, Uoaei1, ArionEstar: I have made a cropped version at the request of multiple users. King of ♠ 01:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I support either version. lNeverCry 01:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I too support either version. I noticed the building at first and IMHO think that it provides a unique balance of framing. --WPPilot (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Same here. They seem pretty much equally good to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per comment above. Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support This one is good too, but I would prefer the other one. --XRay talk 04:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support either one's fine - this one is better though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Prague September 2016-2a.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 13:52:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support lNeverCry 20:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Please fix the dust spots in the sky. Thanks, Alvesgaspar. It's very good to see you nominating photos here again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done And thanks for the welcome! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you! And   Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support since I presume you will fix that spot Ikan mentions. cart-Talk 20:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support May be WB could be a little bit warmer. --XRay talk 05:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Chicago September 2016-4.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 13:55:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose In my opinion, if there is going to be any perspective distortion, it must be very clear and striking (e.g. File:TransAmerica Pyramid.jpg), not "sort-of distorted" as it is here. I also disagree with the placement of the Tribune Tower in front of the Trump Tower, which makes the composition look flat. --King of ♠ 17:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I totally get the old vs new tower idea here. Such comparative photos are often tricky to execute, side by side is often better than superimposing. I think this would have worked better if the central lines of the towers, represented by their spires, had been aligned instead of the bulk of the buildings. A small difference in light could also have helped separate the towers from each other, like a darker new Trump Tower looming over the old traditional. And going for vertical lines, it is generally better to go all in and include all verticals in the pic, here the (also vertical) flag pole is unfortunately cropped leaving the flag to its own devices. cart-Talk 18:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question - Alvesgaspar, would you consider straightening the buildings? I agree that it would have been nice for at least the whole flag to be visible, but I really like the old/new idea cart mentions, and I will support if the buildings are straightened. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I have given a try but it doesn't work. The camera was too close! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh well. I hope you have a chance to give this composition another shot, because I really like it. But as it is, I am   Neutral because of the slant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart. It just seems off to me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like because you didnt go to "correct distortion" and you left it as it, which is in this case good. I would more like third-third-third compo (church-skycraper-air). And also agree with flag. Think people should know when to correct it and when not. King of mentioned good case where that is more clear, true, but in this kind of shot he cant go so close, since he have to capture one more building behind. --Mile (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Palacio Hasht Behesht, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 78-80 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 10:04:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info Ceiling in one of the rooms of Hasht Behesht, Isfahan, Iran. The palace, built in 1669, and which name means "Eight Heavens" is the only one left today out of forty mansions that existed during the rule of Safavids. All by me, Poco2 10:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 10:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Lovely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Great to see beautiful works like this from Iran. lNeverCry 10:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Spectacular! Iranian mosques are certainly the most beautiful in the world. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --King of ♠ 17:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support This actually reminds me of the artwork by Janice Lourie. I worked on the article about her some time ago. :) cart-Talk 18:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 05:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 02:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Verde78 (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Vitra factory loading docks 3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 09:13:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by Till Niermann - uploaded by Till Niermann - nominated by Till Niermann -- Till (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Till (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting shapes and composition, and an unorthodox subject. lNeverCry 09:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per INC. I like this much better than the version that includes sky in it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Till.niermann: sorry, but this image was not developoed by consider the freedom of panorama. This image was cleary made from the private property of the Vitra factory. Maybe you have a special permession by Vitra. If so please mail this to the support team and I'll remove my contra, otherwise we have to put a deletion request on this image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment No, I don't have a special permission. As a matter of fact I didn't think I needed one, but I must admit I didn't do any research on this subject. There are about 250 files in Category:Vitra in Weil am Rhein, and as I see it, all of them will have to be deleted if there are legal issues. --Till (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
      • As I live near to Weil am Rhein I know the terrain rather well. Part of the terrain is public opened, not with a fence but nevertheless private property. Other parts are public ways, third parts are generally not public but accessible within the scope of guidance. As far as I know the factory loading docks are within fences and not generally opened to public. Here we have the problem that nearly all buildings of Vitra was made by well known architects and all buildings are unique and have threshold of originality. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I wrote to Vitra asking for permission. This is all I can do for now. --Till (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support In the meanwhile I'll just add my support for this pic and hope that the permit will sort things out. --cart-Talk 18:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Conditional support Per my comment on the previous nom. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question I guess the real question re German FoP is, is the place from which the photo was taken accessible to the public? Or does it have to be public property, not just private property anyone can wander on to? (And if German warehouse parking lots are like their American counterparts, you could easily expected to be discouraged from walking onto them just to take pictures like this). Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
    • No, the question is: for FoP is the fact decision making of it is privat property or not. This is not a question of accessibility. But this picture is for sure made from privat property that is not public accessible, it's one possible to get there by a guidance. The geo location of this object is (47.600345437049285/7.617194652557373). --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support The DR will happen when it happens, for now let's judge the merits of the image. --King of ♠ 22:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Conditional support too I like the composition. Sharpness could be better, but this is no problem. Please add geo location. And I guess it isn't FoP, is it? Please add information about FoP. --XRay talk 05:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment Concerning the question of FoP please see the discussion above. --Till (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment Added geo location. --Till (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Oxyopes javanus-Kadavoor-2016-06-20-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 05:23:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida
  •   Info Oxyopes javanus male. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- Jee 05:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- This is the male of the female recently featured. The leaf is more reflective here; so I'm not sure about the result. Let me see some opinions. ;) Jee 05:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - The leaf is a bit glary at full size, but the main thing is that this is an excellent photo of the spider. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 07:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 07:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - excellent photo of the spider --WPPilot (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support creepy but excellent --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Martin Falbisoner: Jkadavoor and Hockei find some freaky-looking spiders. If I went on a walk with them, it would be flowers and butterflies only...   lNeverCry 09:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
    They are cute and adorable like cats. These spider's agility and speed when pouncing on its prey is often compared to the hunting methods of the Lynx. :) Jee 10:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
    Ehhmm... "agility and speed when pouncing on its prey" sounds really "cute and adorable"...   lNeverCry 10:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
    Why not? ;) Jee 10:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Love it. --AWeith (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Love that sheen on the leaf—where did that come from? Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It seems a peculiarity of the leaf surface type. I don't know much; hope an expert can explain. Jee 03:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:View of Delft, by Johannes Vermeer.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 23:39:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  •   Info created by Johannes Vermeer - uploaded by Jan Arkesteijn - nominated by Jan Arkesteijn -- Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Since it's a Vermeer, the only question we should concern ourselves with is: is it well-digitized? It's enough for me ... I really like that we can see the craquelure, and ponder the artist's brushing technique in his fine details (@Ikan Kekek: I'm interested in your thoughts on this). Daniel Case (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Well, what I'm seeing is that the apparent source file (go to this link and then click "View of Delft" and enlarge the image as far as it will go) is smaller but finer than this version. It looks to me like the image was enlarged here to focus more on the cracks in the paint, but what's sacrificed is the ease of seeing a view that's zoomed but still focuses more on the light and shade of the painting (not the lighting on the painting) and its overall composition. In other words, it's not that I want to argue, exactly, that this version is too detailed, but rather, that the degrees of zoom available in the original, including full size, show the painting to better advantage as an artwork. Now if we had one of those humongous Getty images, where many degrees of zoom were available and the lighting was perfect, that would be a different story. But do you all see how the glare in the cracks is highly visible at full size in this version, whereas the full sized version of the original still looks pretty smooth, even though the cracks are visible? This is a high-level criticism, but I'm tempted to vote against a feature for this, unless my deduction of what was done to edit the original can be effectively debunked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm going to   Oppose, partly per my comments above and partly so that a tenth vote doesn't automatically stop discussion. Perhaps no-one will agree with my points, and if so, so be it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 07:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support What i met at pictures is; you will never see same colors of same image. Go to Google, check images, and suddenly there will be in many color options - white balance problem. Some museums have doors, windowds. A guest from 12h will have diffferent color than guest from 15h - even with same camera and camera setting. Also preservation is here. When done, picture before and picture after have some difference. Or you might try to put white-balance cards, white-gray-black, and then to set it in program, to get some "serious" colors. Vermeer is fine anyway. --Mile (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 07:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   SupportPugilist (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Verde78 (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Підгорянський монастир.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 20:27:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info created by SvartKat - uploaded by SvartKat - nominated by Ahonc -- Anatoliy (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Anatoliy (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a nice dramatic pic but a little too centered. It would have been better to turn the camera a bit to the left to get more of the graveyard and the church plus ruin less centered. There is also some processing done by some software (external or in-camera), especially in the sky making the clouds look like whipped cream with halos floating on a oversaturated blue sky. Maybe a reversal of this and a crop could save it... --cart-Talk 23:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit dark but very nice lighting and composition. --King of ♠ 00:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support For me the clouds break up the staticness the centered building with otherwise create. Not perfect but close enough. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the spectacular view; processing isn't perfect but good enough for me. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Frank and KoH. I love the fact that the most prominent buildings are in the center of the photo and, as usual, I disagree with the notion that that's bad. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think 'centered' is bad just because it's centered, it's just that here I would have liked to see a bit more of the graveyard to the left (with the autumn trees) and less of the shadowy hill to right. cart-Talk 07:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 07:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Well balanced compo and exposure--Ermell (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - pre Ermell, Well balanced, really nice work. --WPPilot (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per all supporters. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivar (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 05:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Verde78 (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Euploea core-Kadavoor-2016-09-08-002.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 17:52:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Жаба прудка (Rana Dalmatina).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 15:57:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Temple aux six colonnes 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 13:19:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  weak per Cart below --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose See below. Composition-wise this is the best you have shown us so far and I like it. The light and colors are also good. You are learning. :) Unfortunately it is very heavily processed, making it appear almost painted. I suspect you used the 'smart blur' or some similar function. You could try another version with just a little noise reduction. We all know that most night pics are a bit grainy so that would not necessarily be a problem. If that, plus a much better description of the photo, was fixed, I could consider changing to 'Support'. cart-Talk 17:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment dear Martin Falbisoner really I admit that I used only the noise reduction and that becuase there is no loss of details with that but I reduced it now have a look please --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment dear cart-Talk really I admit that I used only the noise reduction and that because there is no loss of details with that but I reduced it now have a look please --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak support The description is good now and the pic is starting to look real so I'll actually give you my weak support. I would be even happier if you brought it back from that processing even a little, little bit more so that the temple looks just as real as the stones in front of it. :) cart-Talk 23:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for quality reasons. I'm willing to accept lower quality on night photography than usual if it is the best that can be done under the circumstances. Here, you could have gone up to 15 seconds without star trails, which would allow you to reduce the aperture or ISO by some combination of four stops. --King of ♠ 00:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support It is like I am watching a flim. -- Poké95 03:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the composition and colours a lot; in this case, for me that overrides the technical shortcomings -- Thennicke (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - This is a terrific composition, and I love the untraily stars. If you reduce the noise sufficiently, I will support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ikan, the first version of this pic was denoised and it made the sky look nice but unfortunately it made the temple look unnatural. Take a look. The noise of the sky is normal/acceptable now for a night shot (example). cart-Talk 07:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Thanks for filling me in on the history. I disagree with you and prefer the denoised version, even though it does look a bit artificial. I'd like to think there could be a more convincing way to denoise, though. Perhaps something toward the previous version but not all the way there? I don't consider this much noise to be OK in a Featured Picture, even one taken at night. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment dear Ikan Kekek and dear cart-Talk and dear King of and dear Daniel Case and dear Martin Falbisoner I added in QI right now the first picture taken in the site lot of detail and a realistic scene but there was not lot of stars so i chnged the place and the setting to have this one ... really I appreciate the conversation here and I wish that both of the photos please all the friends here ... If you accept let me revert the unrealistic one here and if the other one take the label QI I will nominate It too ... thank you again --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm concerned, I think you should leave this as it is. The mood, light, colors and crop is better in this pic and people seem to like it, so why complicate things. :) --cart-Talk 13:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • IssamBarhoumi, I agree with cart that you shouldn't edit the photo now, because as it stands, it is currently on track for a feature. Gaining my support and losing current supporters wouldn't be a good tradeoff. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 10:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Fantastic mood. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Fuel gauge (Toyota Corolla).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 08:26:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Automobiles
  •   Info CA correction done. There is a reflextion from plastic cover, which one might think its huge CA. All by me. --Mile (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry, I'm not feeling this one. I'd probably like the photo better if you showed the entire circle of the fuel gauge. Right now, it feels cut off, with empty space doing nothing for me on the right side. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek It not full circle, at left in a cm begins clock speed. Right side, black, makes with left white side nice combination. There is no other interesting option, just puting white option isnt so interesting to me. --Mile (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Noted. I'm not wowed by this picture, but we'll see whether enough other people are. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Superb artistic composition and excellent quality. Had it been a full view of the round meter, it would have been just another good pic of an instrument panel. This makes it an out-of-the-corner-of-your-eye angle as if you were anxiously glancing at the meter while being chased by bad guys in a car movie. cart-Talk 10:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • cart i have full cockpit also, but i wanted to make this for some time, just gasoline gauge. But i found this much more interesting. Good words, they did like it on Flickr also. --Mile (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can't say for sure why this doesn't work for me. Maybe the shapes aren't simple enough. Maybe it's just too ordinary. Maybe it needs to have been a more colorful gauge. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Daniel, think "Tron". ;) --cart-Talk 23:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I did like that glowy look, but it wasn't dramatic enough, I guess. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Excellent quality, but I don't have enough wow on this. Maybe good for QI instead? -- Poké95 02:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the simplicity of this shot; the off-centered composition works for me. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - A little small, but it should not be an issue considering the simplicity of the composition. I like the simplicity and the crop. --Pugilist (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Verde78 (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Захід сонця на вершині скелі Соколине око.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2016 at 13:13:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Ryzhkov Sergey - uploaded by Ryzhkov Sergey - nominated by Ermell -- Ermell (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As it is. An awesome scene (not oversaturated) but it actullay needs some perspective adjustment since all the trees are leaning out from the center plus the blown out and posterized clouds are a bother. Please nominate for QI first to get such errors corrected before nominating it here. cart-Talk 17:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Acceptable as it is, especially without visible building. I tend to disagree with my colleague above for the perspective corrections that will likely lead to an unacceptable crop IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks a bit over-processed to my eyes. The light is good but there's a weak centre of the composition that doesn't really work. The left tree would be a good subject, and the right half would be a good subject. Also 6MP from a 36MP camera is heavily downsized (40% size) yet not biting sharp one might expect, suggesting the full size image is soft. Please Ryzhkov Sergey can you upload fullsized (or at least much less downsized) images. -- 21:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --King of ♠ 00:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - To me, this is beautiful and vivid, and I quite like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose over-saturated and per other opposes.--Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. --Hockei (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral for now as I am having problems viewing the file in full-res. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support IMHO Wow there is! Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 08:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Verde78 (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

St Mary-le-Bow, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2016 at 12:42:37 (UTC)

  • Do we nominate more than 1 image at one? Sorry, but where is the rule thatfor? --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Verde78 (talk) 10:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Category is missing kasir. --Mile (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Yixian Hongcun 2016.09.09 18-21-34.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2016 at 11:24:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#China
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Zhangzhugang -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is too much noise. I could only consider it when the noise is dramatically reduced. --AWeith (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I agree with AWeith that there is not much to say about the pic until the noise is gone. cart-Talk 17:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Regardless of the noise, the left part is just too unsharp for FP, I'm afraid. --King of ♠ 00:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per KoH. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per AWeith and the noise. Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

File: Dublin Stephen's Green-44.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2016 at 00:26:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This is NOT the case Daniel, (no pun intended) many drones now carry DSLR's. Fact is this shot was done with a Phantom, those have small chips (same size as a go pro) yet the Inspire 1 Drone I fly for Television Production runs a fantastic Micro 4/3rds camera that DJI refers to as a X5 and its Large Platform Drone, carries DSLR cameras. The dif is cost, you can Phantom for under a thousand yet my production Inspire Pro rig is well over 10k, it goes up only when I am getting paid :). Is that going to be the standard of entry for Aerial Photos on commons "if you don't have the 10k to play, go away" seems a bit over the top to me..... --WPPilot (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel Case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support yes, there are certain quality issues... but: this is one of the best pictures taken using a drone that I've seen so far. So don't pixelpeep, simply enjoy the view! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Martin. Very cool and interesting. Think of this as the drone equivalent of a 2000 FP taken with a Nikon D1X (I know Daniel Case and Ikan Kekek remember that 5 megapixel, 5,000$ dinosaur...  ). lNeverCry 08:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support It looks quite sharp to me and is 12MP. If downsized to 6MP it is fully sharp except right in the corners, and 6MP is fine for printing in a magazine spread, for example. The colourful green is well framed by the buildings and this is has very high EV. -- Colin (talk) 08:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As it is. Great idea and maybe we have to set another standard for drone photos, but normal post-processing can still be applied to these photos, such as denoising and removing CA. There is red/green CA or purple fringes on almost every white area along the edges. cart-Talk 10:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose chromatic aberration --The Photographer 11:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Widely in our finest. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support We can accept lower technical quality for drone photography just as we already do for underwater photography. --King of ♠ 00:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Yes, we could choose to do so, but why? Aerial photography from helicopters already exists as an alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I do believe it will not be long until drones can carry DSLR cameras and/or same will be designed to be usable on drones. We can wait ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I think if the uploader had given us the 6MP version and told you it was taken by a DSLR, nobody would be surprised. At 6MP the CA at the top and left edge is minor. Compare this current FPC candidate which is a soft 6MP image taken with a 36MP D800, and doing well at FPC -- because we punish those who upload full sized image and fall for those who downsize to 40% to escape pixel criticism! Wrt aerial photography, I'd be interested in User:WPPilot's professional views. Compare this failed nomination. Having a DSLR is absolutely no guarantee against the critics and pixel peeping at FPC :-) You need luck with the light, weather, foliage/season, stability and careful framing of a subject like this. Can anyone point to a better aerial photo of a city garden square, anywhere, never mind just on Commons? My guess is this sort of imagery is technically challenging, with a low success rate, and that none of us reviewers really know from personal experience what quality to expect. Most images I found online were thumbnails, whereas this is 12MP -- Colin (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with the pic per se, but I expect the same basic CA removal and noise reduction when possible as we do of any FPC. If these very fixable issues are fixed, I will happily change my vote to 'Support'. Hence the "as it is". cart-Talk 11:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per other opposers. --Ivar (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Dronepicr its seems very unsharp, like lens was dirty or something. Actually this image quality isnt so high even for drone, but compo and idea is good. I am sure its more Valuable photo. --Mile (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support We don't have many drone photos (tell me if I'm wrong), and this is one of the greatest drone photos I've seen. -- Poké95 10:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)--Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --WPPilot (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC) I agree with Pokéfan95, as the single largest contributor of aerial photos to this site, I think this is a wonderful and well framed shot. Many of you are IMHO being too critical... What is the barrier to entry here? According to ECIF on this shot it was done with the DJI FC300X, (Phantom 3 pro) that is a 1500 dollar investment when you fly (I have one myself) and one would think that this SHOULD be able to establish a aerial photo FP, using the DJI Phantom pro as its chipset is the same size as a "Go Pro" and we have a number of FP's that were created using the Go Pro camera... Another thing to consider BTW is the cost of Insurance too. A phantom is about 600 a year, while a pro level drone running a DSLR is about 3500, a year and that is my rate as a 30 year multi engine licensed pilot with no accident history......
  •   Comment - The test here is whether a candidate photo is one of the very best on the site. That calls for having very high standards, or if you like, being very critical. And I don't see what the cost of insurance has to do with that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   CommentIt is about "Cost of Entry" originally the FP designation was designed to allow people with a simple Cel Phone to be able to take a have a photo that was worthy of FP, it would seem that is no longer the case. It was mentioned above that Aerial Drone "do not" fly DSLR's. Almost ALL of my aerial photos were done from my planes, while flying them @ 100 to 300mph give or take. The critical assessments you previously offered was that we can do better, my retort is who is going to pay? I have suggested a Drone "Group" to help this process move along but, just as Colin said above this is a wonderful photo and we are going to have to give some leeway, or simply exclude drone photos unless the photographer has the 10 to 20 thousand dollars required to meet your overly high standards such as my production rig that ONLY flies, when I am being paid to fly it as the risk of loss it too great that is why I have the other drones.. Do you have a example of a GOOD aerial photo that YOU have taken so the rest of us can see what it is you think is FP quality, and please do tell what the system was that you used to take it with. A DJI Phantom line should be able to do this, its chipset is the same on on Go Pro's, my concern is that we "price" just about every contributor out of this field due to the quality standards that you are implying. Featured Picture is about more then just the technical quality, educational value as well as difficulty should be considered and weighed in upon before a conclusion is made simply based upon a technical imperfection. Thanks.....--WPPilot (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I don't submit my own photos to FPC because they're nowhere remotely close to featurable. If anyone would like to argue that means I should refrain from participating here, I'd have no problem with having that argument somewhere else, such as on Commons talk:Featured picture candidates, where we could discuss revisions in the qualifications of FPC voters and anything else related to that. We have featured a couple of cellphone pics. Those were cases in which enough of us considered the composition to be great enough and the quality good enough, despite inevitable limitations. But I think I remember from previous discussions that cellphone pics generally, as of yet, aren't considered by a consensus at FPC to be of good enough quality to be featured, and I believe the couple that passed were regarded by all "support" voters as exceptions that prove the rule (whereas the opposers still didn't consider the photos technically good enough). I definitely agree with you that technical quality is not the only consideration at FPC. Composition is a very strong consideration, and educational/encyclopedic/historical (etc.) value also can figure in voting decisions. It's understandable that different people rate these criteria as more or less important, in context. The upshot in this particular case is that I definitely understand your point of view and respect it, but while I don't exclude supporting drone pics at all and would look forward to doing so, I don't feel the novelty of the technology overrides my desire for more focus. If the result of attitudes like mine is that drone pictures currently can't be featured, I agree that that's regrettable, and I would be willing to allow some leeway in quality, but not this much. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --SI 16:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support High educational value. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is not FP quality. It might take some time until drone photography reaches an acceptable standard. I agree relating the educational value.--Ermell (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)



  •   Info @Dronepicr, Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, Martin Falbisoner, INeverCry: @Colin, W.carter, The Photographer, Christian Ferrer, Iifar: @PetarM, Pokéfan95, Uoaei1, Alchemist-hp, WPPilot: @Schmarrnintelligenz, Lošmi, Frank Schulenburg, Ermell: I made an effort to correct the CA and add just a hair more sharpening. -- King of ♠ 05:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support It isn't even that unsharp, in my opinion. We have one standard for easily photographed subjects like skylines, buildings with lots of breathing room, and landscape panoramas, and a lower standard which is merely "normal" here at FPC and encompasses everything from birds to regular buildings to difficult landscapes, and finally a case-by-case standard for historical images and low-light action. I think the sharpness of this image compares favorably with some of the lower-quality images that have been promoted in the second category. --King of ♠ 05:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Both are great, anyway. -- Poké95 06:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support better ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I appreciate your work here, but this photo is still not sharp enough for me. Of the arguments you're making, the only one that's somewhat persuasive to me is the one about historical photos. The way the analogy could be made is that 100 years ago, it wasn't possible to get the degree of clarity and detail that can be attained with very good digital equipment today, and similarly, the argument would go, it's not now possible to get really crisp digital images from a drone (or at least not possible without spending tens of thousands of dollars). However, in the case of historical photography, there was no alternative at the time for any photography, whereas now, drone photography is only one particular type of photography. This is a very good composition, but are we voting on this (a) as a photograph or (b) as a representative of drone photography? Or are we voting on this (c) as a photograph and giving a big handicap to our judging because it's a drone photograph, but without considering this specifically as an exemplar of drone photography (in the nature of a Valued Image nomination)? I'm not clear on that, but I think I've laid out three different possible standards. And I think my standard would be to vote on this as a photograph and give somewhat of a handicap to it - but not a huge one - because it's a drone photograph. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Ikan, I could list the many less sharp and smaller resolution photos you have happily supported. Take this one where many others noticed her face was completely unsharp and the nominator explains the difficulty in capturing a moving dancer. Or this one where (i assume very strong NR) has created a smooth image but with no sharpness on the ice -- who cares. One doesn't have to go to the extreme of historical photos to justify unsharp images at 100%. Plenty situations compromise photography: having to use high ISO greatly reduces sharpness, moving subjects, moving cameras (think aeroplane), atmospheric conditions. Extreme wide-angle lenses and projections will have soft corners and that's just the laws of optics. We are spoiled by the sharpness of some of our downsized megapixel stitched churches or from images produced by $3000 cameras with $1000 prime lenses on them. We are also familiar with TV and web images of landscapes and sports that are actually tiny 2MP or thumbnail images and we forget that they probably look crap at 12MP never mind 36MP. Most of the images posted on popular photography sites barely fill an HD monitor (so < 2MP) yet we look at them and think they are wonderfully sharp. The standard at FP isn't that demanding and hasn't been in general. Unlike QI, FP balances wow with technical perfection. We are supposed to rise above the pixel peeping when presented with a great image. This image currently represents state-of-the-art low-height aerial photography -- I cannot find a better or sharper one anywhere. We've never judged FP by what might come in future. Unlike our churches and plants and bugs, we don't have lots of photographers doing this, and if we expect the sharpness of a Diliff interior then we won't have any such photographers participating here because they'll laugh. We are voting on whether this is among our finest images. Look at the image, not the pixels. -- Colin (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
For comparison, no one objected to the sharpness when I nominated this photo for FP, the critique was all about the artistic side. The houses and cars around the church are of about the same quality as this photo. I think the distance may be about the same as well. cart-Talk 11:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Both of you make good points. I'm liking but not loving this photo, but I'll abstain, at least for now, and think about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Cart, you'll need to strike "Phantom 3 Drone" from your letter to Santa this year :-(. -- Colin (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Colin, Rats... But I guess this will be the same as with fireworks here, you have to apply for a permit (and pay for it) for those by law but everyone ignores that and fire them anyway. No-one is ever fined or convicted since the police gave up on that long ago. cart-Talk 12:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Drone become weapon, true weapon. Saw it in action. Lets say if this drone would lost control, at this high this would kill anyone bellow. Here you need permit also. See drone accidents on youtube. We wont see long this kind of shots. --Mile (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Either one is fine with me, but this is an improvement. lNeverCry 09:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per INC --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support of course. -- Colin (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks King of Hearts for taking the time to fix this up. There is still some CA left, but this is acceptable. The quality is about the same as you get in horizontal pics, made by a reasonably priced camera, at this distance. cart-Talk 11:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support CA is almost gone, and yes We can't apply the same standard for all the cameras. Could be nice apply a different standard based on Camera model. --The Photographer 12:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support i created a new version, reduced noise and modify sharpness: File:Dublin aerial unedited new version.jpg -- dronepicr (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
    • dronepicr, I compared your new version with the other two. The colour temperature is slighly different (5,211 vs 5,628) and you have increased the noise reduction and applied a mask to the sharpening. The CA is eliminated (whereas the alt by King of Hearts is only reduced). The noise, particularly on the lake and roads is eliminated, though possibly you didn't need to apply quite as much, in order to retain as much detail as possible. You could try using the brush and some negative noise reduction on the trees and grass to exclude them from the NR and restore some (apparent) detail there. The differences (apart from colour temp) are only visible at 100% and it looks like this alt will pass, so I'm not sure it is worth fiddling more with the image and creating another alt nomination. I think your edit does demonstrate why it is best to fix issues with the raw/source file and by the image creator in preference -- the CA is better removed and adding a sharpening mask is something you can only do on the unsharpened original, not on the already sharpened JPG. -- Colin (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I hesitate to support a photo of such reduced quality merely by the fact that the camera position is so unusual. My apology to the photographer; however, the only thing that impresses me here is the stunning scenario. I see lots of CA around the white structures, the treetops are partly blurred and the figures on the pavements (maybe not only them) are unsharp or blurred. I admit its fun to walk the streets around this park but at least I get dizzy from the unsharpness. Sorry again. --AWeith (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Yeah, the unsharpness of the trees is what bugs me most about this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

File:FDR Four Freedoms Park New York October 2016 panorama.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2016 at 00:46:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Clouds swirl (7401827926).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 10:05:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I'm sorry for the delay. I underestand you and a good practice should be take it from the original picture, however, I can't contact the author and for this raison I applied a desaturation. Let me se what do you think --The Photographer 17:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It was a nice try and the best you could do (I tried it myself and ended up with something similar), but the pic is so damaged by the original processing that it leaves blown areas in the cloud. Pity. cart-Talk 14:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
cart, are you saying the clouds couldn't have actually looked like this? I'm looking at this photo again and find it a pretty amazing image, if it accurately represents what the clouds looked like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Ikan, I was not speaking about the shape of the clouds (that is very accurate) but the color and light on them. I have seen similar pics before (see my comment and link to those a bit further down here where I also link to such pics) as well as the thing pilots refer to as "angel flares". The "damage" I was referring to was the blown parts you get when you crank up the light and contrast too much. Doing so, you loose detail and things can't be reversed unless you have the original file. There are such blown "bands" in the clouds here. cart-Talk 04:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I do see the bands you refer to. Thanks for calling attention to them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Excuse me but I am totally confused. Can you please explain the occurence of the two opposingly spinning cloud vortexes? Also the lighting on the wings and elevator wings of the plane indicate a different position of the sun to me than the clouds do. -- AWeith (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The cloud swirls created in the wake of a plane flying though a cloud are not that uncommon, picture-Google "cloud swirls plane" and you'll see. Pilots sometimes buzz a cloud for fun or for a photo. The sun's position looks plausible, the U.S. Coast Guard who issued this photo are usually reliable, but the colors look processed/saturated. cart-Talk 19:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Joalpe (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per the "heavy-metal light" effect duly noted by cart. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel. lNeverCry 22:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Herbst im Sauerland.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 09:10:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
  •   Info created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Very good resolution and excellent photographic work; but it doesn't wow me at all. It's not because I find the Sauerland boring ( indeed I do); but I think the scenery is so mediocre and does not bring any message across - especially an autumn feeling - that is worth an FP to me. I acknowledge the documentary character, though. --AWeith (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The colors are very nice but the shadows ruin it for me. --King of ♠ 00:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per the neutral folks. I think you might be able to get a featurable photo out of this by focusing on the body of water - especially the bend to the left - and the colorful trees alongside and near it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I was going to oppose based on the shadows, but at full resolution the image is in such fine detail that I couldn't. Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel Case. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Hope Bay-2016-Trinity Peninsula–Arena Glacier 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 04:44:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena#Ice
  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Godot13
  •   Support -- Godot13 (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hm. EXIF says colour space not calibrated but there's AdobeRGB embedded, which is not really suitable for web use. Maybe you can upload another version with sRGB embedded? Additionally I'm not really convinced by the sharpness. --Code (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Code, "Color Space = Uncalibrated" is the expected value for AdobeRGB. The only permitted values in that field are sRGB and Uncalibrated, which should be read as "Not sRGB". The profile is what counts for those web browsers that are colour managed, and I agree that AdobeRGB isn't good for web use as some browsers (including all mobile browsers I'm aware of) are not colour managed and so do not display the colours correctly. AdobeRGB is for printing, not web. -- Colin (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: Thank you, I didn't know that. Strange anyways as AdobeRGB isn't what I'd call "uncalibrated". --Code (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - This is a pretty spectacular scene, but the brightest areas are completely blown. Do you have any similar images that don't have such large blown areas? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Not judging about image quality at this point: I would have found it very dangerous to approach the glacier front to such a small distance! Plus it seems to be an active calving front owing to the many loose chunks. Low EV I am afraid. --AWeith (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Code, Colin, Ikan Kekek, AWeith: - There is nothing I can do to improve the sharpness (and it was shot from a moving zodiac). I can still see some texture in the smooth snow above the edge (if that's the blown area being referred to). I would have thought the EV of this image was the close proximity of people providing an immediate sense of scale (nothing to do with calving). I will see if I have any other raw files I can work up as an ALT, or withdraw and offer something different. Thanks for the comments.--Godot13 (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Regarding the argument of the moving Zodiac, I do not not see any motion blur; also, I guess that at a focal length of 135mm and an exposure time of 1/320 one would not necessarily induce it. I designate this motif very attractive, though; I, therefore, recommend to adjust the white levels and the dynamic range of the image to satisfy the critiques of burnt white areas. - I am still concerned about the innocence with which the guide at the helm was approaching this obviously unstable glacier front. --AWeith (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I don't think the places where I can see texture are the very brightest areas. That said, even if not completely blown (and I maintain that, at least on my browser, some areas do indeed look that way), the brightest areas are certainly very glary. I'm sure they looked glary in person, too, but it seems to me, some details are lost, though others, as you point out, are visible. I'm still considering voting for this, due to the rest of the picture and the pure impressiveness of the view. You might consider cropping out the nearest unsharp foreground areas, though, about half the distance to the boat. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I like the idea of this, but between the flood of comments above and the CA on the people in the raft I will hold off on a !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, AWeith, Code, Colin: I will go back to the raw file and create a separate but nearly identical file to work on. As the original nominated is already featured on English Wikipedia I do not feel I can alter (write over) it. Thanks for everyone's input and I'll ping when the ALT is up.--Godot13 (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer non cropped version. --Lošmi (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT Added - Per suggestions above the following have been addressed to some degree: highlights, crop, and CA. I hope this is better.--Godot13 (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


Forgot to ping @Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, AWeith, Code, Colin:.--Godot13 (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I think this is a significant improvement. I'm not fully convinced, but this is after all an impressive scene, so mild   Support from me for this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Wary   Support per Ikan. However and ever again: can you imagine what would happen to the zodiac crew when the big and unstable chunk of at the very top comes down, releasing quite a number of icy bullets aiming at anything in the near? The weather appeared to promote such a scenario, lots of icicles indicating warm temperatures. --AWeith (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support This version looks ok for me (in regards to picture quality, after reading AWeith's description, I'm even more wary of ice vs sea than before). cart-Talk 17:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Radaja Seto Festival (2016) - 040.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 02:26:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful! lNeverCry 02:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Left crop is slightly frustrating, as it would be nice for it to be just slightly further left, but I won't withhold support because of that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support A very happy pic, but please add some appropriate additional categories. I'm sure people who go looking for dancing girls, summer pics or folk costumes would like to find this excellent pic. cart-Talk 07:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm working on it. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose yes, a nice pick, but overexposed and unsharp. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quite grainy, not really sharp and bad crop on the left --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment She was still dancing and 1/320 was the slowest I could had used there. That crop was intentional and I think it works lot better for the composition (and the part that I ignored when taking that photo really wasn't worth to be on the image; an image to give some idea about surroundings). Kruusamägi (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I understand the constraints you were under and it is a testament to your photographic skill that you were able to get a usable picture of her. And while I love the colors, especially all those shades of green, and the expression on her face, the composition is off enough for me to oppose. Daniel Case (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose disturbing overexposition Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral This image has lots of positive energy, but crop on both sides and unbalanced light on the face are unfortunate. --Ivar (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose shadow/sun on face --Verde78 (talk) 10:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Ainava pie Sventes (autoceļš V698).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2016 at 11:02:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info created by Kikos - uploaded by Kikos - nominated by Kikos -- Kikos (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kikos (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor sharpness and oversaturated --A.Savin 16:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A.Savin --cart-Talk 16:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per A.Savin. lNeverCry 20:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Good picture for the cover of a fantasy novel, but not good for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Any scene shot into the sun with a foreground that's not totally dark will have inevitably have a certain look to it. Saturation of the greens is a bit high for my tastes but acceptable IMO. --King of ♠ 00:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan, who takes the words right out of my mouth. I would thus have to add that this is another example of "What Commons featured pictures look like on Instagram". And the overprocessing is really evident the closer you look to the sun. Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I like the composition a lot, but I must agree that sharpness is lacking. I think that a photo taken from the same location, in the same conditions, but with a better camera, would be a good fit for Commons FP. --Pine 06:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Wandeltocht rond Lago di Pian Palù (1800 m). in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italië). Huis tussen de bomen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2016 at 04:56:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Walking around Lago di Pian Palù (1800 m). in the Parco nazionale dello Stelvio (Italy). House among the trees. All by User:Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • For me this (ordinary) home in this setting very special. *  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild   Support - I like the composition, except for the glary light in the sky, but there isn't that much of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Tilted. --King of ♠ 05:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
      Done. Small correction Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    If you look at the center line in the cabin, it's still not perfectly straight. --King of ♠ 01:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
      Oppose Still not fixed. --King of ♠ 00:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    Note: The line is exactly vertical. See note.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    It is not. Take your fingernail, place it on the lowest visible part of the line, and then scroll up on your monitor. Your fingernail will be to the right of the line by quite a few pixels. --King of ♠ 11:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
      Done. Small correction Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
      Support Perfect, thanks. --King of ♠ 06:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I rather like this "Cabin in the Woods". --cart-Talk 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Pretty. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 08:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral This is definitely an image of high technical quality but, after having stared at it for a while, it seems to lack wow for an FP.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support At first I was going to oppose based on Kirill's !vote, but ... I looked at closely and there's a logic to it. I like the conflict/dynamic between the rectilinearity of the house and the sprawling chaos of the surrounding forest. Sort of like this picture I took a long time ago, but more intense. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose largely due to composition. --Pine 06:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Description has nothing to do with this obviously abandoned house. Zero information value. Mediocre composition.--Ermell (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Open refrigerator with food at night.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2016 at 23:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info One household appliance as requested by Colin. Not quite sure if I should nominate it for category "Objects" or "Food and drink" though. All by me, -- cart-Talk 23:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 23:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'm sorry, but the main thing I find myself saying while looking at this is: "So? It's a refrigerator." Perfectly good photo, but whatever would take it past the mundane for me isn't happening. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Most of us know this view very well, I guess. Nicely executed and something completely different from what we usually see here. --Code (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support modern still life with (implicitly present) best before dates signifying the inevitable memento mori... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. It is surprisingly hard to take a high quality "stock photo" of the "mundane". Particularly when Cart's fridge looked like this the day before! The subject is isolated on black -- we don't have to concern ourselves with Cart's choice of kitchen tiles or postcards or calendars. The fridge is spotless. There's a colourful and carefully arranged set of foods much like one might expect in a manufacturer's brochure. The labels are removed to avoid concerns about brands and to make it international. I query the wisdom of storing a cheese uncovered in the fridge and why there are unopened cans of coconut milk -- surely that keeps just fine in the cupboard? There's a lot of thought gone into arranging this photo, plus the effort involved in stacking to get the front-to-back in focus. I hope we get more like this at FP. -- Colin (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for noticing! First time I've ever "styled" a fridge.   A lot of preparation and some artistic freedom for the sake of the photo. The cheese (and the ham) is normally covered with unappealing plastic. While I confess to selecting nice-looking things in the grocery store, I chose things that I normally eat or drink. I didn't want to let food go to waste. The coconut milk is usually kept in the cupboard to the right of the fridge but they made a guest appearance in the fridge as token cans, with nice reflective interesting surfaces, and I was not about to lie to you about the content. ;) The greatest bother when creating this pic was that the lamp is on a timer so it would go out during a shot from time to time. cart-Talk 08:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It wasn't so much the content of the cans (coconut milk) as the fact that generally canned food doesn't need refrigerated. But it's a minor quibble. I first thought the cheese was a cheesecake, which would explain the midnight raid on your fridge. -- Colin (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Btw, small tip: If you keep canned fruit (like sliced pinapple or fruit cocktail) in the fridge, it makes for excellent cooling things in your drink, adding flavor while not diluting it. (Stirred not shaken.) There are purposes for keeping cans in the fridge. ;) cart-Talk 09:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ahh. Now you've got me googling frozen-fruit ice cubes. -- Colin (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Photographer 10:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 08:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Love your unusal ideas. Or are they more usual than I think? Anyway, I conclude from the image that you are a vegetarian; that would put me into disenchantment. But the green bottles look just like my "Green Veltliner" bottles! Everything onkydory again! --AWeith (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks! :) Nope, not a vegetarian, the top shelf has a small plate of ham (see the description) but it's true that I eat very little red meat but love fish and sea food (these are kept in the freezer below the fridge). Unusual? That might be right though, ask Ikan... ;) cart-Talk 19:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)*  Enthusiastic support Perhaps we should challenge each other more often like this ... this is an excellent result. Yes, it's a refrigerator; but I like the way cart has seen the still-life possibilities here and made the most of them. She could have just shot right into the fridge from the front with the room lit ... proof of concept, alright, but boring! Instead, she darkened the room, using only the refrigerator's internal light, and shot from a three-quarter angle with the door partway open to give it a bowtie symmetry we don't normally associate with a refrigerator (It's there, but duh, why didn't I think of that first? And the raking light, the actual source of which we do not see, with its stark contrast that results creates the kind of mood we see used so effectively in sci-fi or horror movies. As an enhancement, we get the spots of warm color against the cool (in more ways than one) background of the appliance created by the vegetables so artfully arranged.

We wonder what the story is here (well, when we pretend we don't know what it really is). Has someone gone down at night to sneak some food? Because they can't sleep? Or is there something deeper, and darker, going on? Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Daniel, Commons:Photo Challenge. You are welcome to suggest ideas and to go out and take photos for the challenge. There are plenty FPs that were also PC nominations. -- Colin (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: I know PC exists ... however, I think I only have time to either do this or that, and I have chosen this. Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I entirely agree. Praise to Alfred Hitchcock and cart! ... And by the way: the image is all too familiar for me per your remarks on people sneaking for food. --AWeith (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)