Open main menu

Commons:Javaslatok kiemelt képekre

Javaslatok kiemelt képekre más nyelveken:

Alemannisch | asturianu | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | English | فارسی | español | suomi | français | galego | हिन्दी | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | молдовеняскэ | norsk bokmål | português | polski | română | русский | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | українська | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | հայերեն | +/−

Ha úgy gondolod, hogy egy Commonson található fotó/kép eléggé vonzó ahhoz, szerepeljen a Commons:Kiemelt képek lapon, akkor tegyél új javaslatot ez a szöveg alján levő listán. Ha kialakult egy általános konszenzus 15 napon belül, a képet feltüntetik: a Commons:Kiemelt képek lapon.

Contents

JavaslatokEdit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Marina di Pescara, December 2014.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 23:55:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bridge over the River Soar, Abbey Park (geograph 4718856).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 17:26:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Fluweelpootje, (Flammulina velutipes), (d.j.b.) 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 16:29:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category:Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi # Flammulina velutipes.
  •   Info Enokitake. (Flammulina velutipes). Wet rained little mushrooms (Enokitake) on the dead wood of an elder (Sambucus nigra).
    All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Nice, but IMO, a little too grainy to be great. Could you do something about that, if others agree? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.06.18.-08-Viernheim--Roter Fingerhut.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 11:57:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2017.06.17.-19-Reinheimer Teich-Reinheim--Roetelmaus.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 11:45:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info As announced, the other version. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per the other one, the flash on the fur is not best, and the "looking down" is not immersive like the best animal photography. -- Colin (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Cute, and a lot bigger than the ~10 cm in length that this vole would have been. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2019 -- 3153-9.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 08:38:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
  •   Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 08:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 08:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Very nice composition and light. I will support when you fix the dust spots. I see one somewhat to the right of and below the upper left corner. There are three more above the trees toward the right, but those could be unsharp birds, and if so and you therefore want to keep them, that's OK with me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Sorry. The dust spot and the blurry birds are removed now. --XRay talk 08:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Yes, Sir, but why don't I see this on the regular FPC page? I saw this only because I looked at the "File usage on Commons" list when seeing this file as a QIC nominee. If others are having the same problem as me in seeing this nomination, that would surely damage its chances. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why. I just added the nomination to the list (again). May be someone removed the nomination accidentally. --XRay talk 10:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Please see [1]. --XRay talk 10:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Convolvulus hawk-moth (Agrius convolvuli) 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 09:19:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •   Info This type of Sphingidae (about 45mm long) has a huge proboscis. The wings beat at around 45 beats/second, so it is not possible to freeze wing motion in the wild. From Bulgaria. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support considering that this was captured in flight: wow! --El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I already liked the photo and considered the motion blur appropriate, but I'm more impressed, considering that it beats its wings 45x a second. Technical question, though: Why wouldn't you use a shorter exposure than 1/1,600 of a second? Granted that I was only using an Android and mostly photographing butterflies that had alighted for a fraction of a second or more, but I was having much better luck last summer in getting sharp pictures of butterflies with rapidly beating wings when I shortened my exposure to 1/4,090 of a second. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm already at maximum aperture (F5.6) and would have gone to 1/2000 and ISO 800 if I had time. I find that although sharpness would be better at 1/4000, overall quality (for print or FP pixel-peeping) really deteriorates above ISO 800. With this sort of photography I use a preset of 1/1600 or 1/2000 sec. If I leave it up to the camera's brain (SCN Sports), it can get confused: if it sees the insect's body as pretty still it reduces shutter speed. If it sees the wings it might select 1/8000 and a very high ISO. On my Canon 80D I have two presets (C1 and C2). I program one at 1/1600 (TV = shutter priority: S on Nikon I think) and one at 1/2000. I then get better depth of field if the light happens to be really good. Not this time. Charles (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support IMHO there's no discussion necessary ;-) --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong support I thought it was a twig, but no, it really is the trunk ! Impressive -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Brown hairstreak (Thecla betulae) Bulgaria.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 09:23:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Newport Jersey City June 2015 panorama.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 06:52:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Julia Shaw 2018-03-10.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 05:19:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Boris Breuer, uploaded by Guestwires, nominated by Yann (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice professional quality portrait, high resolution. -- Yann (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per nom. It feels slightly unusual that there's so much room to her right, but somehow, it works. Very sharp, beautiful subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - That's part of the viewer's experience. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very sharp and focused. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 05:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The bright and contrasty lighting helps accentuate the subject. Could use perhaps a little bit more headroom, but otherwise great portrait. -- King of ♠ 06:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The strange background makes this special. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality, useful -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Forte de Copacabana 10-crop.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 03:08:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info created by Halleypo - uploaded and nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A nice scene with a lot going on in it, but at 7.3 MP I'd like to see better sharpness. -- King of ♠ 03:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support per King. I agree with everything he says, but the photo is so beautiful. No possibility of a larger resolution, I take it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm not finding much more here than a holiday snap, I'm afraid. Technical issues per KoH. -- Colin (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Moscow VDNKh Space Pavilion asv2018-08 img5.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 21:20:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
  •   Info Dome interior of the 32th Pavilion of VDNKh Park Moscow ("Space Exploration" Pavilion, built in 1954) All by A.Savin --A.Savin 21:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 21:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm disappointed you weren't able to get the entire dome in the picture. I feel like even if it's partly blocked by other objects, it might be more satisfying for the entire area of the dome to be in the picture, not cropped. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Arcade du Cinquantenaire (DSCF7405).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 15:05:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Vasco da Gama Bridge B&W (crop).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 09:32:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Hi Colin, I know that f/16 probably was chosen for maximising the exposure time but you can do that by using a second ND filter two. The problem is that on Micro Four Thirds, you'll suffer quality loss up from smaller apertures than f/8. f/16 on MFT is the equivalent of f/32 on Full Frame. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think a 16:9 crop would be better: there's too much grey sea. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree, your suggestion is a better crop. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral on technical reasons (regardless of the crop, but I do agree it will be an improvement). Note that B&W does tend to hide flaws such as grain and unsharpness compared to the color image. -- King of ♠ 03:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support, a bit noisy :\ ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 05:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

 

  •   Info 16:9 crop as suggested. —Bruce1eetalk 06:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportBruce1eetalk 06:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support - I think what Gerifalte is seeing as noise, I'm seeing as grain. Anyway, I like the photo, but it's a close case on whether it should be featured or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support impressive composition, not too happy about the noise --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   strong support I don't care about the noise. I could print this at A3 size and given an appropriate viewing distance it would not be apparent. What I do find a bit irritating is the sharpening halo along the bottom of the bridge. And maybe I'd try taking the edge off the highlights in the sky a bit more; I find those almost-white patches a bit distracting. Otherwise: just plain awesome. --El Grafo (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This is a good example of long-exposure to blur the sky and sea, providing contrast between soft and hard, formless and form. It is a picture to be enjoyed as a whole, not under a magnifying glass. The white cables against dark sky are a good catch. Even with this 16:9 crop it is still 15MP so pixel level sharpness or noise is not important for this kind of image, and would be irrelevant if printed. -- Colin (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Schloss-Broich-Eingang-Vorderfront-2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 08:59:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Carved portal at Haw Phra Kaew temple in Vientiane Laos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 04:25:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Wandelen over de Planken Wambuis vanuit Mossel 058.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 16:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Fog
  •   Info Walking the Planken Wambuis from Mossel. Morning mist hangs over the Planken Wambuis.
    All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice atmosphere. -- King of ♠ 22:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 08:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Seven Pandas (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Another path with nobody in it. I'm not really convinced by the composition. The weather isn't quite misty enough to be an interesting feature. -- Colin (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reluctant   Oppose per Colin. Yes, beautiful atmosphere, but the composition falls a bit flat to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong support. Very nice atmosphere. And landscape with nobody on this abandoned place is very fine me. -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition, per Colin. -- B2Belgium (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. Might work if the path divided at this point. Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

File:You need only one soap, Ivory soap - Strobridge & Co. Lith. - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 14:33:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Duna en Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 002.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 12:53:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2019 -- 3216-22.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 07:53:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2017.06.17.-21-Reinheimer Teich-Reinheim--Roetelmaus.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 07:19:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I was thinking about to nominate both of them because they have very different compositions. But it was or rather is not possible until the current voting period of my other nomination is over. So I had to make a decision and this picture was my first choice. Thanks. --Hockei (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I like that one. Fully elongated vole, seems more active. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I prefer this to the other ones (nicer pose and has straw in mouth). But the flash reflecting off the fir is not the best light. -- Colin (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Fir? What fir?   Daniel Case (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unfortunately, per Colin. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 05:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The top-down view does not work for me, neither the flash light --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Hockei (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Plexippus petersi (jumping spider) on a human finger at golden hour.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 00:41:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Yes, I think you're right :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! Yann (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support In general I don't like animals on or with humans (even I made such pictures too ;-) ). But the spider is really good. --Hockei (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support In general I don't like animals on or with humans (even I made such pictures too ;-) ). But the spider is really good. --Charles (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Fortunately no, or if it did I didn't feel anything :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:В потчётном карауле.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 21:24:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by ВладимирФото - uploaded by ВладимирФото - nominated by AKA MBG -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - Is that a huge lens flare in the tree? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good focus to the girls, but what happened with the clouds? IMO also relative small photo to be a FP. I would support this photo for Q1, but it's techincally not good enough for a FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting picture, but the light is too harsh. As a result, the luminous parts seem overexposed. Lens flare in the trees. Beside, the passerby in front of the building spoils a bit the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Per others, quality issues -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Frightening and funny at the same time, these three gunwomen. Apart from technical issues, the guy in the background spoils it completely. It's a shame, it could have been a very special motif. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like the composition, but unfortunately the technical issues spoil it. —Bruce1eetalk 09:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Complicated composition and harsh light. Daniel Case (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Hamburg Notgeld 1 Mark 1921.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 21:07:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Saint Gerald abbey church of Aurillac 06.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 15:15:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#France
  •   Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A couple of days have gone by without votes, so I think maybe more people feel like I do - I'll be the first to say it: The standard for church ceilings is very high, so this doesn't quite float my boat. It has some cool patterns, but that's about it; it's not quite up there with the other photos in the category.--Peulle (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC).
  •   Moderate support It's not perfect, yes, but I like it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. There are lots more "wow" ceilings on Commons, so can't be "among the finest". -- Colin (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Beskid Mały Mountains (PL).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 11:26:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose On any other photo site, this image would have people (or animals) in it. A movie director would be shouting "Action!". The scene is a great one, but it needs something in it. -- Colin (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   conditional support It's nice, real nice, but the categories need improving.--Peulle (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Agreed on categories. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    • what is wrong with the categories? English version of the park? --Pudelek (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The categories are fine, but I think you need to add one for crepuscular rays. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Yeah, I immediately thought of Ermell's picture that you linked first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  Comment The light and shadow play of the sun's rays should be more contrastful IMO. --Hockei (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  •   Very weak oppose Having done something similar once, I really wanted to be able to support this. But ... per Colin, there should be something to draw us to the center of the frame, or per Hockei the crepuscular rays should have more contrast. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Viru Bog at winter.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2019 at 16:12:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Actually, it's not ... look closely and you can see the color on the tree trunks. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
You're right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
And I'd prefer if it were really black & white. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Seven Pandas (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel--Ermell (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharpness is not impressive, but still acceptable. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 05:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel, sorry --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Spitzkoppe, Namibia, 2018-08-04, DD 14-22 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2019 at 21:17:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Panoramic view of Spitzkoppe, a group of bald granite peaks located between Usakos and Swakopmund in the Namib desert of Namibia. All by me, Poco2 21:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 21:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks like Mercury after being terraformed. Makes me thirsty just scrolling through it—the very definition of "arid". Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The central frame suffers from camera shake, I guess. Or whatever, the image is unsharp in the center. Very sorry, as it is really impressive. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't find it unsharp. The landscape is very impressive and I really enjoyed exploring the panorama, including the village close to the mountain in the center. However, I think the panorama is tilted. The right side is lower than the left side and the telecommunication tower on the hill on the right side is leaning right. So I think it needs ACW rotation. Could you have a look at that? Maybe it's just a coincidence. --Podzemnik (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Podzemnik: I've applied a slight tilt and some perspective correction, also some extra sharpening, FYI Uoaei1 Poco2 12:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. --Gnosis (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Alfred Stieglitz - The Steerage - Google Art Project.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2019 at 11:33:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info created by Alfred Stieglitz (scan by Google Art Project), uploaded by DcoetzeeBot, nominated by Yann (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It has been hailed as one of the greatest photographs of all time because it captures in a single image both a formative document of its time and one of the first works of artistic modernism. cf. Wikipedia. -- Yann (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would eventually propose File:The Steerage MET DP232922, grayscale.jpg as an alternative: smaller, but less noise. Yann (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - You're the nominator, so which one do you prefer? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Personally, I prefer the grayscale version, but I know some people will object. Ultimately, I don't care which one is featured. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm finding the sepia version below better. But which was original? Did he originally print it in sepia tones or grayscale? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I take it, no-one has an answer for this question? Then how are we supposed to vote, and what criteria are you all using to decide which one to vote for? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: This was recorded as a black and white negative. That's why I prefer a grayscale version. Beside, the color versions vary with time, so we can't really know which tone was the original print in 1907. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand. Though I do think the sepia version is better, maybe it would be more faithful to the original to do a black & white version of that file... Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree that it's better for the reasons you state. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

 

  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support While this one seems slightly tilted compared to the grayscale one, that's fixable, and this one captures more detail. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    Daniel Case the left, bottom and right edges are all straight in this one; only the top is curved. The other image has more tilts, though the top is more symmetrically curved. I suspect they come from different prints. I would be opposed to "fixing" this -- it's a faithful scan by professionals. In the end, the print is what it is. -- Colin (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Трифонов Андрей (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. --Gnosis (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--KlauRau (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Blue rock thrush (male) at Gamla Nature Reserve.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2019 at 19:48:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
  •   Info created & uploaded by Artemy Voikhansky - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Why this small size for a 30mpx camera? --Photographer 01:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit small, but fine details. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes it's small and a better crop would make it smaller still. Not too much definition in the feathers. Charles (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Nice face and eye, but oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit small for sure. But the details are good enough for me and it looks very nice. --Hockei (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support --Aristeas (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Untitled by Mansour Qandriz (2).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2019 at 06:31:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Not good enough, I'm afraid. For a file on Commons, I expect there to be a proper file desription.--Peulle (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Interesting and nice colors. I would support with an English description. --Yann (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
+1 Daniel Case (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. --Gnosis (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support now that an English-language description was added. Interesting painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Castle of Montpoupon 19.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 22:02:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Category added, Tournasol7 (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed --Photographer 02:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Those tones in the sky don't like realistic to me and the compo of a nice middle-age castle and the modern asphalt road doesn't work for me either. Indeed I'd have avoided the road and looked for a different angle. Otherwise a nice one Poco2 10:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Loch Lubnaig from the path to Ben Ledi, Scotland.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 18:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#United_Kingdom
  •   Info All by me. I quite enjoy a play of the sun and the fog together with different coloured areas of moss and heather. -- Podzemnik (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Lovely and making my homesick. I wonder if the bottom right is a bit over cooked? If you are using dehaze, for example, perhaps use a mask or gradient to not apply it to near foreground. It just looks a bit crunchy and too contrasty there. -- Colin (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Colin! I'm using only a bit of dehaze (+5) and clarity (+5) for the whole picture. I think the bottom right looks too contrasty because it's a north facing slope without much light. I applied a mask there to make it look more natural. I hope it's better. Greetings, --Podzemnik (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the foreground looks strange and a bit unnatural. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
You think so? Even now after I applied the mask? It's looking OK to me now. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I find that this photo looks good at 40% of its size, which is bigger than 50% of the previous version's size that that one looks good at. At those sizes, I really don't perceive a difference. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support wonderful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Gorgeous, expansive scene. Pixel-level sharpness could be better but fine given the resolution. -- King of ♠ 00:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Splendid view.--Ermell (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm not a friend of panoramics. But this looks great for me. --Hockei (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Imho the quality of the image does not reach FP bar. The right and left edges are very unsharp (neither the closer nor the farer parts are sharp) - with a multi-image shot this can be easily avoided. Especially the darker parts of the image look imho noisy and partly overprocessed - I guess too much clarity and too much shadow brightening. It looks if the focus is on the foreground (the stony path in the foreground) with the result that the background could be sharper. Motive, composition and light have FP potential, but imho not the technical execution --Tuxyso (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Tuxyso, I agree at pixel level it is soft in places and some of the processing has perhaps contributed to noise. However it is 105MP so if I reduce it 50% you get this 24MP image, which is very sharp, with no noise. So I wonder if the 24MP image had been nominated, would you have opposed? -- Colin (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
      • That's an everlasting discussion... I have to assess the image which is nominated here. The nominee has some technical issues which are avoidable - no unattainable requirements - especillay the sharpness at the very left and very right side and the the editing of darker parts. My very personal opinion: An FP should be a pleasure to view in a scaled version and also in full res version. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I wish you the funds to buy a high DPI monitor so that "full res" has pixels too small for you to peep. Your vote is nothing less than a request to downsize and an insult to those generous enough to donate images full size. This image is 5.3 metres across when viewed "full res" on a standard monitor. The nomination is for a JPG in the repository, not a specific-sized rendering in your browser. Commons is not a publisher. How you choose to view the image is your choice, though made somewhat awkward by the MediaWiki interface. If you choose to view magnified so large it doesn't fit in your room, and view it from 50cm, then the flaws you see are purely down to your bad viewing choices. This kind of vote is harmful to the project. Please consider that while you may choose to downsize your images so they look pixel-perfect at 100%, others do not and should not be punished for that. -- Colin (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I have been absent from COM a few years and must observe that the verbal tonality in discussions changed negatively. In the past the discussions here were very constructive and also valueing. In the current disussion I made an argument with in-detail explanatory statement and Colin repeatedly shortens it to: "Looks bad in 100%, please downscale". Again, and also for [[Ikan Kekek: I do NOT postulate to downscale the image to look better. I only argue that the technical issues which could be avoided by a better shooting technique (more precise focus point, more overapping especially at the edges) and a better post-processing. Please sustain also a deviating (my very own) opinion. There is not only one truth. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that's a reasonable point of view and thank you for clarifying. Note that I haven't voted on this nomination, but have only made some comments above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Tuxyso, the fact remains that if this image had been downsized and uploaded at 24 or 36MP you would not have noticed any sharpness or noise issues. You may have complained about other processing issues, but not those. So, some of your oppose rationale is only present because you are pixel peeping a gigantic 105MP image. You insist that "I have to assess the image which is nominated here" but the image that is nominated here can be viewed by you at any resolution you wish. Just because it is uploaded at 105MP does not mean you have to view it or review it at that size. That is your choice, and one I think that is unfair on the nominator. You also insist it must be "a pleasure...in full res version". So, while you can claim you haven't requested it be downsized, your vote is an implicit message that nominators will be punished with an oppose if they dare to nominate any image that is not perfect at 100%. The consequence of pixel peeping is that some nominators downsize to avoid these kinds of votes. And so we end up getting 6MP natural landscape images at FPC in 2019 when we should be getting 24MP+ images. Commons is poorer as a result.
I feel strongly that pixel peeping reviews harm Commons FP. See User:Colin/PixelPeeping where I noted "a 24MP image is not twice as bad as a 6MP image. It is superior in every way, except to a pixel peeper.". Sure, with better technique and better equipment and better processing, we might have a super sharp and noiseless 105MP image. But we do also have a this image that is the same one nominated here, just rendered in your browser at 24MP. That is the nominated image too, but you choose to find fault when you choose to view it magnified 2x on your monitor. -- Colin (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Livraria Cultura, Avenida Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 02:48:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Brazil
  •   Info All by -- Photographer 02:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose I appreciate the effort, but the sides are a bit too tight all over; I don't think 18mm DX (27mm FX) is sufficiently wide for this kind of shot. -- King of ♠ 04:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Chaotic scene.--Peulle (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The "chaos" is what is interesting here. ;o) Regards, Yann (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Yann. --MB-one (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the chaos and the subject. Looks like a lovely place. I don't particularly like the composition (on the right: lots of empty carpet, but on the left the man and bookshelf are cut; the floating dragon is cut; the ceiling in the upper left corner is disturbing). The customers in the foreground could be more in focus. There are issues with the banister in several places, looks like stitching errors. -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment It seems like the columns are not really straight. Can you fix that please? Otherwise it's a great scene and I'm happy to support it. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Podzemnik   Done --Photographer 20:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Now it seems to me like the customers on the 1st floor are going downwards towards the left side. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It might have worked if it was just the customers on the floor. Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Puelle. -- Karelj (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Großvenediger vom Kröndlhorn.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 21:03:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info I gave a bit more contrast. --Milseburg (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the juxtaposition between the snow-capped mountains in the back and the green mountain in the front. -- King of ♠ 05:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I feel like it's nice, but not as nice as some of the other mountain shots that I've seen.--Peulle (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle, not anything special --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I understand the opposition, but to me, this is beautiful, well labeled and worth a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not striking enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It's good quality anyway, and I appreciate the notes giving information about the different peaks. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not bad, but one of the best on Commons? I don't think so. Basically, too much haze. Yann (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)