Open main menu

Commons:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder

(Redirected from Commons:KEB)

FormalienEdit

NominierungEdit

Leitsätze für die NominierungEdit

Bitte lies alle Leitsätze (Englisch) vor der Nominierung.

Dies ist eine Zusammenfassung von Kriterien, auf die du bei der Einreichung und Bewertung von Exzellenz-Kandidaten achten solltest:

  • AuflösungFotografien mit einer Auflösung unter 2 Millionen Pixel werden in der Regel abgelehnt, außer unter „stark mildernden Umständen“. Beachte, dass ein 1600 x 1200 großes Foto 1,92 Megapixel hat und damit weniger als 2 Millionen.
Grafiken auf Commons können auch in anderen Weisen als zur Anzeige auf einen herkömmlichen Computerbildschirm verwendet werden. Sie können auch als Ausdruck oder zur Anzeige auf hochauflösenden Bildschirmen verwendet werden. Man kann nicht vorhersagen, welche Geräte in Zukunft Anwendung finden, deshalb ist es wichtig, dass die nominierten Bilder die höchstmögliche Auflösung haben.
  • Eingescannte Bilder – solange es keine offizielle Richtlinie gibt, findet man unter Help:Scannen für verschiedene Typen von Bildern Hinweise für die Vorbereitung, die hilfreich sein können.
  • Fokus – jedes wichtige Objekt im Bild sollte normalerweise scharf sein.
  • Vordergrund und Hintergrund – Objekte im Vorder- und Hintergrund können stören. Kontrolliere, ob etwas vor dem Motiv des Bildes wichtige Elemente verdeckt. Auch soll nichts im Hintergrund die Komposition verderben, zum Beispiel eine Straßenlampe, die über dem Kopf einer abgebildeten Person „steht“.
  • Allgemeine Qualität – nominierte Bilder sollten von hoher technischer Qualität sein.
  • Digitale Manipulationen betrügen nicht in jedem Fall den Betrachter. Digitale Nachbearbeitungen, um Fehler von Fotografien zu korrigieren, sind allgemein akzeptiert, vorausgesetzt, sie sind begrenzt und gut gemacht, ohne dabei betrügen zu wollen. Akzeptiert werden normalerweise Beschneiden, perspektivische Korrekturen, Schärfen und Verwischen sowie Farb- und Belichtungskorrekturen. Umfangreichere Korrekturen wie das Entfernen von störenden Hintergrundobjekten sollten in der Bildbeschreibung mit Hilfe der Vorlage {{Retouched picture}} klar beschrieben werden. Nicht oder falsch beschriebenen Manipulationen, die dazu führen, dass das Hauptmotiv falsch dargestellt wird, sind unter keinen Umständen akzeptabel.
  • Wertunser Hauptziel ist das Hervorheben der wertvollsten Bilder von allen anderen. Bilder sollten irgendwie etwas Besonderes sein. Darum sei dir bewusst, dass:
    • nahezu jeder Sonnenuntergang ästhetisch ansprechend ist und die meisten keinen wesentlichen Unterschied aufweisen zu anderen,
    • Nachtaufnahmen hübsch sind, aber dass man normalerweise mit Aufnahmen bei Tag mehr Details zeigen kann,
    • schön nicht immer wertvoll bedeuten muss.

Auf der fachlichen Seite gibt es die Belichtung, die Komposition, die Bewegungskontrolle und die Fokustiefe zu beachten.

  • Belichtung bezieht sich auf die Verschluss-Blende-Kombination, die ein Bild mit einer Tonkurve wiedergibt. Idealerweise bildet diese Tonkurve in akzeptabler Genauigkeit Schatten- und Spitzlichtbereiche im Bild ab. Dies nennt man „Belichtungsspielraum“. Bilder können im niedrigen Teil der Tonkurve (unterer Bereich), im mittleren (mittlerer Bereich) oder hohen Teil (oberer Bereich) liegen. Digitale Kameras (oder Bilder) haben einen engeren Belichtungsspielraum als Fotofilme. Fehlende Genauigkeit im Schattenbereich ist nicht unbedingt ein Nachteil. Tatsächlich kann dies ein gewünschter Effekt sein. Eingebrannte Spitzenlichter sind dagegen ein störendes Element.
  • Komposition bezieht sich auf die Anordnung der Elemente im Bild selbst. Die „Drittel-Regel“ ist ein guter Grundsatz für die Komposition und ein Erbe der Gemäldemalerei. Die Idee ist, das Bild mit jeweils zwei horizontalen und zwei vertikalen Linien zu teilen. Dadurch wird das Bild in horizontale und vertikale Drittel geteilt. Das Motiv im Zentrum des Bildes zu platzieren, ist oft weniger interessant, als es auf einem der vier Schnittpunkte der horizontalen und vertikalen Schnittlinien zu platzieren. Der Horizont sollte eigentlich niemals in der Mitte des Bildes liegen, wo er das Bild in zwei Hälften „teilt“. Die obere oder untere horizontale Linie ist oft eine gute Wahl. Der Hauptgedanke ist, den Raum zu nutzen, um ein dynamisches Bild zu schaffen.
  • Bewegungskontrolle bezieht sich auf die Weise, wie die Bewegung im Bild abgebildet wird. Die Bewegung kann stillstehend oder verschwommen sein. Weder das eine noch das andere ist besser; es kommt auf den Zweck der Aufnahme an. Bewegung ist relativ innerhalb der Objekte des Bildes. Zum Beispiel vermittelt uns das Fotografieren eines relativ zum Hintergrund stillstehenden Rennwagens kein Gefühl für das Tempo oder die Bewegung. Also zwingt uns die Fototechnik, das Motiv stillstehend vor verschwommenem Hintergrund abzubilden, wodurch ein Gefühl für die Bewegung entsteht. Dies nennt man „Schwenken“. Andererseits kann eine Aufnahme eines im Vergleich zur Umgebung stillstehenden Basketballspielers während eines hohen Sprunges das „Unnatürliche“ der Natur dieser Pose sichtbar machen.
  • Fokustiefe (DOF – Depth Of Field) bezieht sich auf den Fokusbereich vor und hinter dem Hauptmotiv. Die Fokustiefe wird abhängig von den spezifischen Erfordernissen jedes Bildes gewählt. Große oder kleine Fokustiefe kann auf die eine oder andere Weise die Qualität der Aufnahme vergrößern oder schmälern. Geringe Fokustiefe kann die Aufmerksamkeit auf das Hauptmotiv des Bildes lenken, das Hauptmotiv erscheint dadurch von seiner Umgebung gelöst. Hohe Fokustiefe bringt Abstände zwischen Motiven zur Geltung. Objektive mit kurzer Brennweite (Weitwinkel) ergeben eine hohe Fokustiefe, umgekehrt haben Objektive mit langer Brennweite (Teleobjektive) eine flache Fokustiefe. Kleine Blendenöffnungen bringen große Fokustiefe, und umgekehrt große Blendenöffnungen bringen flache Fokustiefen.

Bei den grafischen Elementen gibt es Form, Volumen, Farbe, Struktur, Perspektive, Balance, Proportion, usw.

  • Form bezieht sich auf den Umriss des Hauptmotivs.
  • Volumen bezieht sich die dreidimensionale Qualität des Motivs. Diese wird durch Seitenlicht herausgebildet. Im Gegenteil zum allgemeinen Glauben ist Frontbeleuchtung nicht die beste Wahl. Frontbeleuchtung lässt das Motiv abflachen. Das beste Tageslicht hat man am frühen Morgen oder nachmittags.
  • Farbe ist wichtig. Übersättigte Farben sind nicht gut.
  • Struktur bezieht sich auf die Oberflächenqualität des Motivs. Diese wird durch Seitenbeleuchtung verbessert.
  • Perspektive bezieht sich auf den „Grad“ zusammen mit Linien, die in einen Fluchtpunkt innerhalb oder außerhalb des Bildes enden.
  • Balance bezieht sich auf die Anordnung der Motive innerhalb des Bildes, die entweder das scheinbar gleiche Gewicht haben oder schwerer auf einer Seite erscheinen.
  • Proportion bezieht sich auf die Größenunterschiede der Objekte im Bild. Normalerweise tendieren wir dazu, kleine Gegenstände klein im Vergleich zu anderen darzustellen. Eine gute Methode kann aber sein, kleine Objekte groß im Gegensatz zu wirklichen Größenverhältnissen abzubilden. Zum Beispiel: Eine kleine Blume überwiegt gegenüber einem großen Berg. Dies nennt man Maßstabsinversion.
Nicht alle Elemente müssen berücksichtigt werden. Einige Fotografien können anhand individueller Eigenschaften beurteilt werden. Für ein Bild kann die Farbe oder die Struktur wichtig sein, oder Farbe und Strukur, usw.
  • Symbolische Aussage oder Relevanz…. Der Meinungskrieg kann hier beginnen…. Ein schlechtes Bild von einem sehr schwierigen Motiv ist ein besseres Bild als ein gutes Bild von einem gewöhnlichen Motiv. Ein gutes Bild von einem schwierigen Motiv ist ein außergewöhnliches Foto.
Bilder können kulturell beeinflusst sein durch den Fotografen und/oder den Betrachter. Die Bedeutung des Bildes sollte vor dem kulturellen Hintergrund des Bildes beurteilt werden, nicht durch den kulturellen Hintergrund des Betrachters. Ein Bild „spricht“ zu Menschen und hat die Möglichkeit, Emotionen auszulösen, wie zum Beispiel Zärtlichkeit, Zorn, Ablehnung, Heiterkeit, Traurigkeit usw. Gute Fotografen sind nicht darauf beschränkt, gefällige Emotionen zu provozieren.

Um die Chancen für einen Erfolg deiner Nominierung zu erhöhen, lies vor der Nominierung alle Leitsätze.

Eine neue Nominierung aufstellenEdit

Wenn du glaubst, ein Bild mit passender Bildbeschreibung und Lizenz gefunden oder geschaffen zu haben, das als wertvoll erachtet werden könnte, folge der anschließenden Anleitung.

Schritt 1: Kopiere den Bildnamen in dieses Textfeld (einschließlich des Zusatzes Image:), hinter den schon im Feld stehenden Text, zum Beispiel „Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:DEIN-BILD-DATEINAME.JPG“. Danach klicke auf die Schaltfäche mit der Aufschrift „neue Nominierung aufstellen“.


Schritt 2: Folge den Anweisungen der geöffneten Seite, und sichere sie.

Schritt 3: Füge manuell einen Link zu der erstellten Seite oben auf der Seite mit der Kandidatenliste ein: Hier klicken, und füge folgende Zeile OBEN bei der Nominierungslist ein:

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:DEIN-BILD-DATEINAME.JPG}}

AbstimmungEdit

Du kannst folgende Vorlagen benutzen:

  • {{Support}} (  Support) (Stimme zur Unterstützung des Exzellenz-Status'),
  • {{Oppose}} (  Oppose) (Stimme gegen den Exzellenz-Status),
  • {{Neutral}} (  Neutral) (neutrale Meinung, keine Stimme),
  • {{Comment}} (  Comment) (es folgt ein Kommentar, keine Stimme),
  • {{Info}} (  Info) (es folgen Informationen, keine Stimme),
  • {{Question}} (  Question) (es folgt eine Frage, keine Stimme)

Du kannst angeben, dass das Bild keine Chance für eine erfogreiche Kandidatur hat. Benutze die Vorlage {{FPX|reason}}, wobei reason angibt, warum das nominierte Bild klar unakzeptabel für die exzellenten Bilder ist.

Weitere Vorlagen gibt es hier.

Bitte füge ein paar Worte an, warum dir das Bild gefällt oder nicht gefällt, insbesondere wenn du dagegen stimmst. Bitte denke auch daran, zu unterschreiben (~~~~). Anonyme Stimmen sind nicht zugelassen.

Abwahlkandidaten der exzellenten Bilder aufstellenEdit

Mit der Zeit ändern sich die Standards für die Exzellenten Bilder. Es kann entschieden werden, dass Bilder, die vorher „gut genug“ für die Exzellenten waren, es nicht mehr sind. Dies ist zum Aufstellen eines Bildes, welches deiner Meinung nach es nicht mehr verdient, exzellent zu sein. Dazu wähle mit

  • {{Keep}}   Keep (das Bild verdient es immer noch, als exzellent zu gelten) oder mit
  • {{Delist}}   Delist (das Bild verdient es nicht mehr, als exzellent zu gelten).

Wenn du denkst, dass ein Bild nicht mehr den Exzellenz-Kriterien entspricht, kannst du es für die Abwahl nominieren, indem du den Bildnamen in dieses Textfeld (einschließlich des Zusatzes Image:) hinter den bereits stehenden Text im Feld kopierst:


In der eben erstellten neuen Seite für die Nomination des Abwahlkandidaten solltest du einfügen:

  • Informationen über den Ursprung des Bildes (Ersteller, Uploader),
  • Einen Link zur originalen Exzellenz-Kandidatur-Seite (es erscheint unter „Links“ auf der Beschreibungsseite),
  • Deine Begründung für die Nominierung und dein Benutzername.

Danach musst du einen Link zu der erstellten Seite oben auf der Seite mit der Liste der Abwahlkandidaten manuell einfügen.

Richtlinien für Exzellenz-KandidatenEdit

Allgemeine RegelnEdit

  1. Nach dem Ende des Abstimmungs-Zeitraumes wird das Ergebnis am Tag 10 nach der Nominierung festgestellt (im Zeitplan weiter unten gezeigt). Also dauert der Abstimmungs-Zeitraum 9 Tage, plus die Stunden bis zum Ende von Tag 9. Stimmen, die an Tag 10 oder danach abgeben wurden, werden nicht gezählt.
  2. Nominierungen von anonymen Mitwirkenden sind erwünscht.
  3. Mitwirken bei Diskussionen von anonymen Mitwirkenden sind erwünscht.
  4. Nur Nutzer mit einem commons-account, der mindestens 10 Tage alt ist und 50 Beiträge hat, können wählen. Ausnahme: Die eigene Nominierung kann gewählt werden, unabhängig von Alter und Beiträge.
  5. Die Nominierung zählt nicht als Stimme. Unterstützung muss explizit angegeben werden.
  6. Nominierungen können vom Einsteller jederzeit zurückgezogen werden. Dies geschieht einfach durch das Schreiben von „I withdraw my nomination“ (eng. Ich ziehe meine Nominierung zurück)
    oder durch Hinzufügen von {{withdraw}} ~~~~.
  7. Denke daran, das Ziel von Wikimedia Commons ist es, einen zentralen Speicher für freie Bilder, genutzt von allen Wikimedia-Projekten, bereitzustellen, einschließlich für mögliche zukünftige Projekte. Dies ist nicht einfach ein Speicher für Wikipedia-Bilder, deshalb sollten hier die Bilder nicht danach beurteilt werden, ob sie zu diesem Projekt passen.
  8. Bilder können vorzeitig am Tag 5 (fünfter Tag nach der Nominierung) von der Abstimmungsliste genommen werden („Regel des 5. Tages“):
    1. Wenn sie keine Unterstützung erhalten, die Einsteller nicht mitgezählt.
    2. Wenn sie 10 oder mehr Pro und kein Kontra erhalten haben.
  9. Bilder, welche durch die Vorlage {{FPX}} markiert wurden, können 48 Stunden, nachdem die Vorlage gesetzt wurde, von der Liste entfernt werden, vorausgesetzt, das Bild hat außer von den Einstellern keine positiven Stimmen (Unterstützung) erhalten.
  10. Bilder, welche durch die Vorlage {{FPD}} (FP denied) markiert wurden, können 48 Stunden, nachdem die Vorlage gesetzt wurde, von der Liste entfernt werden.
  11. Es dürfen von einem Benutzer maximal 2 Nominierungen gleichzeitig platziert werden.

Regeln zur Wahl und AbwahlEdit

Ein Kandidat wird in die Galerie der exzellenten Bilder aufgenommen, wenn folgende Bedingungen erfüllt sind:

  1. Passende Lizenz (selbstverständlich)
  2. Mindestens 7 positive Stimmen (Pro-Stimmen)
  3. Das Verhältnis von unterstützenden zu ablehnenden Stimmen ist mindestens 2/1 (eine Zwei-Drittel-Mehrheit)
  4. Zwei verschiedene Versionen desselben Bildes können nicht beide exzellent werden, sondern nur das mit der höheren Zahl an Stimmen.

Die Abwahl-Regeln sind dieselben wie zur Wahl der exzellenten Bilder bei gleichbleibenden Abstimmungs-Zeitraum. Die Regel des 5. Tages gilt für Abwahlkandidaten, die keine Stimme für die Aberkennung des Exzellenz-Status' bis zum Tag 5 erhalten haben, außer die des Antragstellers.

Ein erfahrener Nutzer kann die Anfrage beenden. Wie man eine Anfrage beendet, siehe unter Commons:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder/Was tun, wenn der Abstimmungszeitraum zu Ende ist.

Vor allem sei freundlichEdit

Bitte bedenke, dass das Bild, das du beurteilst, das wohlüberlegte Werk von jemandem ist. Vermeide Phrasen wie „it looks terrible“ (eng. sieht schrecklich aus) oder „I hate it“ (eng. Ich hasse es). Wenn du dagegen Stellung nehmen musst, tu dies bitte mit Rücksichtnahme. Bedenke außerdem, dass deine Englischkenntnisse nicht die gleichen sein müssen wie die eines anderen. Wähle deine Worte sorgfältig.

Viel Spaß beim Bewerten …, und denke daran: Alle Regeln können gebrochen werden.

Siehe auchEdit


InhaltsübersichtEdit

Contents

Exzellenz-KandidatenEdit

Seite erneut laden für neue Nominierungen: purge this page's cache

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Kokerei Zollverein Essen - kühltürme - by db3em.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2019 at 18:17:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Henri C. R. Presseq - Camille Erlanger - Le juif polonais.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2019 at 15:37:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:De Groene Verbinding.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2019 at 13:44:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Netherlands
  •   Info created by Robert Hertel - uploaded by Eatcha - nominated by Eatcha -- Eatcha (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Has wow -- Eatcha (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great combinaison of forms and colors. --Yann (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Sadly there are two cranes in the background that could have easily been cloned out. They are quite symmetrical but don't fit thematically for me. – Lucas 14:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I rather feel that the accidental (or if you prefer, found) symmetry of the cranes make the photo better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Indeed, wow (and I don't know this bridge) --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Farul vechi din Sulina.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2019 at 04:33:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I agree. Once a day has passed after the other one was FPXed, this nomination should be reactivated. And this photo is interesting and IMO deserves consideration. I'd prefer if it were de-noised just a bit, but it's a good photo. I would contest the FPD, but I'm not sure how to do that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.

File:F18 aboard USS Carl Vinson.jpg,Edit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 06:16:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Military jet aircraft
  •   Info created by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Rebecca Sunderland - uploaded by User:Cogaidh - nominated by Gbawden -- Gbawden (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Gbawden (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry only adding now, didn't read the instructions Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't like how part of the plane and another worker is obstructed by the worker in the front. Colors look overprocessed. – Lucas 07:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral because the wow factor is very high... but I really think the image should have a higher resolution.--Peulle (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info I've commented out the the Bot closing since this has not been visible here until now. The nominator altered the timestamp on the nom, but the Bot keeps track of it anyway. If anyone has a better idea of doing this, please do so. --Cart (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Has WOW -- Eatcha (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Lake. Light. Lovers. (27717526099).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 06:16:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info created by Flickr User Godfried - uploaded by - nominated by Gbawden -- Gbawden (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Gbawden (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Even disregarding resolution/quality (FPX below), the composition leaves much to be desired with the arch being cut on both sides. Very distracting smartphone display visible on the bottom right. – Lucas 07:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because with 1.5 MPx far below the minimum required 2 MPx with no apparent or explained "strong mitigating reasons". Metadata suggests this is a screenshot. – Lucas 07:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:St. Wolfgang kath. Pfarrkirche Pacher-Altar Sonntagsseite 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2019 at 04:33:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
  •   Info St. Wolfgang Altarpiece at the catholic parish- and pilgrimage church St. Wolfgang im Salzkammergut, Upper Austria. View for weekdays with closed wings. Michael Pacher, 1471–79, set up in 1481. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Michael Pacher is a fantastic painter I wasn't aware of. The richness and depth of field in these paintings is wonderful! You captured them really well. You could add even more value to the photo if you can identify what scene each panel depicts. I could recognize some of them, but not all, and some people won't recognize any. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Ikan Kekek: Thanks for your suggestion. Indeed, this is work in progress, as I have some more images of this altar piece, which show the individual panels. But these still await final processing and upload. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The window frames in the background suggest either the whole setup in the room was not right or the camera was off-center. IMHO in either case you should have seen this and corrected the camera position to make it look centered. The bottom crop is too tight for me, it barely clears the bottom of the wood structure. There are magenta CAs on the windows. – Lucas 07:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I was standing right in the middle of the nave. These old buildings are usually not completely straight and rectangular. CAs are fixed. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good! --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Michael Pacher, wow, he lets us forget some offset pixels! --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not easy to make but very well implemented--Ermell (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Oriental garden lizard eats robber fly.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2019 at 02:51:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
  •   Info All by AntanO -- AntanO 02:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- AntanO 02:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not enough resolution/detail, not enough DoF, too much is blurred. Colors look severely overprocessed to me. Slight chromatic abberations as well. – Lucas 07:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks awesome as a thumbnail, but there are severe quality issues (see ↑) --El Grafo (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.07.10.-02-Wendisch Rietz--Kaisermantel-Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2019 at 18:32:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
  •   Info Let us make it clear from the start: If you like the background or not, I love the colour contrast of the butterfly to it. And there is no more room below so I had to crop it above in about the same distance. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I love that you have the guts to nominate a photo with such a "non-Commons" crop; filling the frame like that feels fresh. The total color experience is great, soft, warm and lovely. This could be a print on something in a high-end store. --Cart (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Really beautiful butterfly and very impressive resolution and sharpness! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 03:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart and I like the background very much – Lucas 07:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cart is right, it feels fresh. Not because you filled the frame (that can look quite static and boring) but because of how you did it. The diagonal flower. The butterfly making its own diagonal that is not quite aligned with the flower but does provide some symmetry due to how the wing tips are positioned relative to the left and right edge. The composition is clearly structured, but still feels very dynamic. --El Grafo (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Crop not how I like it, but artistic impression and technical quality overcome this weakness. Charles (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Albert Einstein Head.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2019 at 18:16:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Yellow mite (Tydeidae), Lorryia formosa.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2019 at 07:08:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida
  •   Info created by United States Department of Agriculture / Eric Erbe; digital colorization by Chris Pooley, edited and uploaded by Lycaon, nominated by Yann (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Electron microscopy picture of a Lorryia formosa mite. Magnified about 200×. -- Yann (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fairly old image, but still holds up.--Peulle (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 10:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Amazing! And I don't know if electron microscopy has advanced greatly in the last 11 years. Has it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 18:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive quality, great work! --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 03:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Charles (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:View from Mirador El Time - La Palma.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2019 at 07:01:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info View from the Mirador El Time on the southwestern part of La Palma with the Caldera de Taburiente (left), the cities Los Llanos de Aridane, El Paso and Tazacorte, the Cumbre Nueva with the cloudfall, the Cumbre Vieja and the banana plantations along the coast; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - This looks really great at full-page size on my 13-inch laptop, but when I look at the file at larger sizes, I see what looks like one or more bad frames. I've marked their approximate location. It's striking because the buildings in the town look good but the greenhouses or areas of farm with tarpaulins over them to the right of the town look intensely blurry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    •   Done You are right, some frames were not sharp. Fortunately I had made another Panorama from the same place which is sharp. I replaced the unsharp version by this second panorama --Llez (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Much better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit unfortunate as I preferred the look of the other one, but nonetheless this one is deserving of FP. -- King of ♠ 03:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the weather conditions were not ideal, there is too much haze in the distance. Overall the colors and landscape aren't wowing for me. – Lucas 07:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    •   Info But only under these weather conditions you have the typical (and impressive) cloudfall at the Cumbre Nueva. --Llez (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:San Francisco Columbarium Interior.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 22:27:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#United_States
  •   Info This is a view of the interior (upper floors) of the San Francisco Columbarium. Since 1898, the building serves as a repository for human ashes, stored in niches along the walls. I first visited the building seven years ago, after stumbling upon a newspaper article describing Meet your neighbors-for-eternity parties. As I only had an iPhone at hand in 2012, I felt it was worth the time and effort to reshoot this place with my current gear. c/u/n by Frank Schulenburg.
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 23:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 02:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent picture of an interesting place. Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Really good photo. This is so weird to me since we don't have anything like this where I live, but it is the beauty of Commons to learn about other customs. --Cart (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. --Aristeas (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A different piece of architecture --Poco2 17:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Quite a beautiful interior. Unusual subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Saint Martin church in Naucelle 10.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 21:54:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 17:51:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Poco, your oppose is just as invalid as one without any reason as you are not critiquing the photo itself. An {{Abstain}} is the better option for you and anyone with a similar view. – Lucas 18:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok, not problem, in that case: the facial expression is unpleasant --Poco2 19:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The picture frame is encroaching on him too closely and the decorative multi-color string on the flag is too distracting. Also something feels weird about how his chest gets more in shadow/darker further down. Size is quite small and noise levels too high for a studio shot. – Lucas 18:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Distorted perspective, as indicated by the picture frame to the right of the photographer. Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 18:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Sharp and overall a good portrait, but the resolution isn't great. I think it clears the bar overall, but it might do better at FP on Wikipedia where encyclopaedic value is prized somewhat more than on Commons. Cmao20 (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As presidential portraits go, this is rather bleak and uninteresting. Ok, we were spoiled with good photos during the Obama administration, but still... It lacks depth and the background is distracting (he is standing too close to the wall), including a cord that makes him look like a jumping jack. --Cart (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose He looks strange - this is not his face as we usually see it. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agreed with Uoaei1, this is probably how Trump wants to be seen (ie encclopedic value at most), not how he is most of the time. -- KennyOMG (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Distracting background with the picture frame and the ugly wall paper. The overall image seems to be a bit underexposed and oversharpened which brings the noise to a visible and disturbing level. --Granada (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose At first sight it's just a pretty boring portrait that just doesn't manage to stick out among the gazillions of pictures of US-government people in front of US flags we have here at commons. That alone would be reason to oppose. If you actually start to analyze it … well, when it was released PetaPixel and Jared "Fro" Polin (among others) already did that job so let's just say they did not think it was a "good" portrait. --El Grafo (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Neither a great quality nor representative. Sorry --A.Savin 10:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Granada and El Grafo. The photographer, Shealah Craighead, is a professional, so I assume she knows how to do a high-quality portrait. This one gives the impression he just said, "Look, I'll just stand here. You can take this dumb "official portrait" you keep going on about right now... I don't care if you don't have any of your "lighting kit" with you. My guys take great photos with just their cell phones. Your camera must be really dumb if it needs lighting kit to take a good photo." -- Colin (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmm... I'm not so sure, although I could well imagine him saying something like that. She may be working as a photographer, but professional (I mean as in "highly skilled")?? Have you looked at her other work? It's all bad angles, strange crops and photos in existing light. Looks like the best US photographers are democrats. ;-) --Cart (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • „working as a photographer, but professional?“: isn't that the definition of professional? – Lucas 17:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • To my knowledge there can be a difference in the English language between "working as" and "being a pro" in everyday parlance. It is similar to the ranking system we have here on Commons. On your user page you have the userbox stating "This user is able to take professional quality photographs." In that sense the word "professional" is used for quality level rather than occupation. "Being a pro" can simply mean that s(he) knows what s(he) is doing. --Cart (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes there are many meanings to "professional", though with photography I think it is mainly used to distinguish from "amateur" in the sense of making money, earning a living at it. I would expect a professional to be able to reliably deliver acceptable quality to time/budget, and that the more you pay the higher the expectations. Another mark of a professional is to take and absorb a whole lot of grief from the client, and to deliver what the client wants, rather than to their own taste. Given the number of "great, highly talented" people he's hired and then fired, she must be doing something right to still have a job. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I have amended my comment to clarify what I mean. I think most people got it but precise meaning is obviously imperative here in such an important discussion. --Cart (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Someone once said "Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process." I got your point and the word-play. -- Colin (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination -- Eatcha (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Yukon mirror.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 16:20:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Yukon
  •   Info Nameless lake in the woods of Yukon. Captured, uploaded & nominated by me, Jakub Fryš (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 19:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Serene composition. Cmao20 (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Too much sky IMO --Llez (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Category? Reflection? -- Eatcha (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose The compo is a little bit too simple. That much almost white(blank) sky and its reflection doesn't work for the photo. It's probably one of those times when the real life experience was awesome but it doesn't translate to the photo. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I think part of the air needs to be cut off. To balance the photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose It clearly needs a perspective correction and although the lighting is good there is too much sky on the top, it would definitively benefit from a crop to achieve better symmetry with the lower portion. If both issues adressed I would reconsider to change this opposing vote Poco2 17:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree that there's too much sky for my taste, but I also think there's too much water. This is indeed a peaceful scene, but to my eyes, the image more or less just sits there, with the exception of the obvious broadening from left to right. The piece of driftwood helps a little, and there's one cloud that subtly points to the right, but it's not enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan, it just feels too empty as a whole. – Lucas 09:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Solitary sandpiper in swamps.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 16:15:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes
  •   Info Solitary sandpiper relaxing by the water in a warm afternoon. Taken somewhere in the swamps of Yukon. Captured, uploaded and nominated by me, Jakub Fryš (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A lovely capture, nice and sharp, and with relatively little noise. Some might complain that the bird is too small in the frame, but I think it can be seen as an image of the bird in its natural habitat and so the background is valuable to have. Cmao20 (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Cmao20: Thanks. This is the original size, uncropped. I have one more cropped so the bird is like 40 % of the frame but I decided to use this one on Wiki precisely because of the habitat/environment around and keep the informative value. Otherwise, I like the crop better, esthetically. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great capture of a bird in its natural environment. The sandpiper is quite small but the resolution and the quality are very good. I'd probably prefer to crop a bit from the bottom and even more from the top to place the bird in the middle - but it's good as it is anyway :) --Podzemnik (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Podzemnik: Thanks, as per above. Btw you can check the crop version on my profile at F***** to compare (don't wanna publish the link for the service here). -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The vertical composition helps emphasize the shallow depth of field and the various features of the habitat. -- King of ♠ 21:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per King --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Too much background for a small bird. I would have cropped the image more tight to the bird in a landscape aspect ratio and with the eye right in the vertical center of the image. --Granada (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Podzemnik. --Aristeas (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support See Granada note.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Granada Poco2 17:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Granada – Lucas 17:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not good enough quality to crop. Charles (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:African Cape Daisy (Osteospermum barberiae).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 13:36:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info all by AntanO -- AntanO 13:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- AntanO 13:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice and simple. -- King of ♠ 15:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per KoH Poco2 17:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Sorry but this doesn't seem completely sharp to me, at least not as sharp as some other flower pictures I've seen round here. Cmao20 (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - It would be nice to know what the diameter of the flower is (AntanO, you might add that information to the file description if you have it), but it's sharp enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely and simple. --Gnosis (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Cladophora glomerata in a wave at Govik 4.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 11:45:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Other lifeforms#Algae
  •   Info This algae is usually one of the slimiest and ickiest ones in Swedish waters, but like this when it's new and the sun is shining on it as it is moving within a lapping wave, I think it is rather beautiful. -- Cart (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I have an urge to put this up on a wall—despite my hate of these ... plants? ;) – Lucas 11:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A lovely abstract. Cmao20 (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support outstanding in so many ways! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 14:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wonderful abstraction. -- King of ♠ 14:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support nice! --El Grafo (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support So awkward but so good. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per nom and others. Cart, once again, you have a really good eye to have noticed that this composition was available to you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 10:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Martin. --Aristeas (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support An artwork from mother nature. But you have to see it.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Oberbaumbrücke November 2013 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 11:24:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Support though the sky could be cropped a little bit --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Not balanced IMO; too much sky making the composition bottom-heavy, and also right-heavy as well. -- King of ♠ 14:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I will support both versions when a suitable crop is made to the foreground, to eliminate the little bits of something (boats?) toward the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco below. – Lucas 07:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Alt: cropEdit

 

  •   Info crop by me. Tomer T (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Also fine. Cmao20 (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Gnosis (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer this version --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thank you for nomination and votes. 6 years later, I'm still very happy with my photos from Berlin.--ArildV (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good quality but the shadow on the left is not helping and the crane in the middle is just spoiling the image. The Oberbaum bridge does definitely have FP potential but I'd really enjoy seeing it here free of cranes and with a more interesting light, sorry. Poco2 17:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - For what it's worth, the crane is just another perpendicular to me and doesn't damage the composition. To each his/her own. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco – Lucas 07:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose more or less per Poco. The shadow spoils it for me. -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Helgoland - Blick vom Lummenfelsen zur Langen Anna.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 09:31:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
  •   Info View from the "Lummenfelsen" called rock on the island of Heligoland to the Lange Anna. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment maybe a bit underexposed? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it, interesting scene and good composition. Cmao20 (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The midsummer 2PM lighting causes shadows to appear where you don't want them to appear, and the lit portions to be less vibrant than ideal. Also plenty of blown whites at the bottom. -- King of ♠ 14:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine shot . --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good, interesting composition, and extremely well-executed as usual. I have no problem with the shadows. Blown whites (bird excrement, I believe), if indeed blown, are minimal in context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good quality but the lighting could have been more pleasant, sorry --A.Savin 23:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - You have a good point. Your photo is better. Why don't you nominate it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Because it´s oversaturated. --Milseburg (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I for myself have a rather low tolerance for overdone saturation, normally I take the green of the grass and/or the blue of the sky as reference and reduce the level. But whereas it is easy to reduce the whole saturation or chosen channels at any time afterwards, you cannot add much more light to your picture when you have taken it in weak light, and the beauty of Heligoland cliffs (including the colours) is only seen entirely when it is sufficiently lit. Anyone who juxtapose both picture see the difference immediately. Your picture may be correctly saturated, but the colours that I would like to see are definitely lost there. --A.Savin 13:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad light. -- -donald- (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per KoH and A.Savin – Lucas 12:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I can spend more light to the shadows if wanted, but I think in general shadows give more vividness to the relief as everywhere the same lighting. --Milseburg (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    Shadows of course add dimensionality - if they are in the right direction. Here the shadows go straight down unfortunately, making the scene look flat to me. -- King of ♠ 14:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Iglesia de La Compañía, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 125-127 HDR.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 07:21:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info Main altar of the Church of the Society of Jesus (La Iglesia de la Compañía de Jesús), a Jesuit church in Quito, Ecuador. The exterior doesn't give an idea of the beauty of the interior, with a large central nave, which is profusely decorated with gold leaf, gilded plaster and wood carvings, making of it the most ornate church in Quito. The temple is one of the most significant works of Spanish Baroque architecture in America and considered the most beautiful church in Ecuador. c/u/n by me, Poco2 07:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 07:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Taken in 2015, but still holds up as an FP today. I'd reduce the highlights a bit, and there is something - some kind of light streak - down in the centre by the altar that could be looked at.--Peulle (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Peulle: I've reduced the highlights and corrected a slight tilt. Regarding the light streak I'm not 100% sure what you mean. Could you please add a note? Poco2 19:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Note added. Not sure what it is. The image is still good enough, though.--Peulle (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Peulle: I've removed the light streak (and the note) Poco2 16:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit too ornately baroque for my taste, but clearly FP and beautiful on its own terms. Cmao20 (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support though this specific variant of baroque is a bit too much even for me - and I'm really into baroque generally --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 14:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Magnificent. -- King of ♠ 14:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Resplendent and a fine photo! You have one or two other FPs of this cathedral's interior, don't you? I recall they were of different views, but it would be good of you to link them in this thread. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp and detailed --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Boothsift 04:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Lake Mary Mammoth September 2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 02:40:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Lake Benmore, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 01:31:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Driftwood on the beach north of Kaikoura, Canterbury, New Zealand 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 01:37:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Domaine de Maizerets park, Québec city, Canadá 09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2019 at 17:15:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Canada
  •   Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Was ready to oppose at first, but the detail at full resolution is excellent. I still think it's a bit low on wow, but overall worth a feature. Cmao20 (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow mainly due to the overcast day, the random people and big empty lawn in the foreground. The right crop is unsatisfying, the brown gravel field should have been included fully. – Lucas 10:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Lucas. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas, disturbing trees on the left/portion of the maze missing, uninteresting lighting, cluttered compo (what is the main element?) Poco2 17:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
No todas las composiciones necesitan tener un sujeto principal, sin embargo, en este caso es el laberinto. Muchas gracias por tu pregunta --Wilfredor (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can see why the photographer might have taken the image, but it doesn't work. There are just too many things here trying to be the subject, helped by the dull light. Perhaps the maze by itself from this angle might have worked. Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Yuri Gagarin (1961).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2019 at 14:37:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Perhaps he's calling attention to some clichéd aspect of the photograph  . Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart--Boothsift 17:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Yeah, I like his happy, youthful appearance, though I agree with Cart, especially on the composition. But how historically important is this particular portrait? It seems to be the best one we've got on Commons, and he's obviously an exceedingly important historical figure. We do have this reproduction of a painting, too, but it's below the normal minimum size for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I would say it is unique and unmatched in EV. Gagarin's face was scarred when he fell jumping off a balcony while escaping from his wife who had caught him cheating in September 1961. In case you are not aware, he became the first human in space in April 1961. So this is the only photo likely to be available of how he looked pre-incident and best representation of his appearance while he was on his historic first mission to space. It may also be the best/only clear portrait of him we have in general because he died in 1968. I do not know how to clean up the scratches around his chin. If any one is good at that I would welcome it. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course I'm very much aware of Gagarin's pioneering voyage in space, which is why I wrote that "he's obviously an exceedingly important historical figure". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The italics was not intended for you. The dates are more important to answering your question. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, and it did help to answer my question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart as the lamp shade and chin shadow are serious photographical flaws and Commons FP are centered around photographic excellence. IMHO this fits far better with the goal of Wikipedia FP. – Lucas 21:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucasbosch, as this particular image doesn't appear to be that significant (he was the subject of lots of pictures, and this one doesn't stand out), and it's got the problems mentioned above. And I agree on en:WP:FP: "unmatched in EV" doesn't matter here as much as there. We can promote images passing COM:SCOPE even if they're not currently in use anywhere, while great educational value can't salvage a not-so-good photo. Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - Do you have any thoughts about another photo of him that would be a better FP candidate? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Tentative   Support, pending a satisfactory answer to this question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above, but quite sure it is a Wikipedia FP. Cmao20 (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart and the pose. The side glance and the weird smile undermine the dignity of his uniform and make the picture an unresolvable contradiction (Perhaps, per my remark to Cart, that's what's being lampshaded! Bah-DUMP-ump ... crasssssshhhhh! Daniel Case (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:BNSF GE Dash-9 C44-9W Kennewick - Wishram WA.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2019 at 14:09:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •  I'm not an expert on trains, but train tracks do have some banking in curves (some more than others) and some trains are also able to mechanically lean to the side. This photo at least shows the track banking for sure. – Lucas 20:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per that explanation, etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Baikal ice on sunset.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 16:32:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Siberian_Federal_District
  •   Info Lake Baikal in winter. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Please don't pixel-peep this to death. At that latitude in January you need high ISO at sunset since the ice is probably moving a bit with the waves. The big size of the file makes up for it. I wouldn't mind an English description though. --Cart (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks Cart for the explanation on the circumstances. Often reviewers don't know why or even if certain settings were chosen. – LucasT 18:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Rather noisy, but very spectacular --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I agree that this is a very spectacular photo and overall worth a feature, but it is (understandably, as Cart explains) quite noisy, and even downsized to 5000px across some noise is still visible. It's not terrible though, so I still support. Cmao20 (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Noisy but still good enough for FP --Boothsift 23:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - It's spectacular, but I don't understand why we are not asking for it to be de-noised before we support a feature. It's already problematic at 250% and slightly at 200% of my 13-inch laptop screen. And in this case, I don't think the size of the photo is an argument for a feature, because it looks bad at full size and we probably shouldn't be looking at it at that size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ikan, FYI, zoom levels above 100 % usually denote zooming in further than the 1:1 pixel level, so picture pixels would actually get upscaled on your monitor. I'm sure you meant the opposite, being zoomed in a moderate amount, still above pixel level, approx. 50 % zoom or less. – LucasT 07:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Lucas, you didn't read my remark carefully. I'm talking about percentages of the size of my 13-inch laptop screen, not percentages of the huge size of the image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ikan, when you get noise at high ISO levels, de-noising will often ruin the photo. The de-noising programs can only merge and extrapolate the "missing" information so far. The result is often a smooth and plastic-looking photo since you lose all sharp edges and in most places the "noise grains" will bunch together and form artifacts instead. A photo like this will lose some of its crispness. Even a slight noise reduction would make it look over-processed or like taken with a cheap mobile. --Cart (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a pity. Do you think there could have been a way to get a little more sharpness and less noise when the photo was taken? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You could probably have taken it with that time and a lower ISO and added the light in post-processing; that would have made it less noisy but instead you would have lost bright colors and details in the ice. Or you could have sacrificed the DOF and made only the nearest ice sharp; that way you could do a less noisy photo. In some cases, everything is a compromise. --Cart (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I see. Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ikan and others, this is a version of the photo downsized to "normal"/acceptable size with a bit of noise reduction (you can do NR on a high ISO photo if you downsize it first). It is nicer to look at when opening at full size, BUT in the process a lot of information is now lost. It has gone from 19.05 MB to 4.08 MB. Isn't it better to have the full original version? --Cart (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The original is much nicer to look at, the world has plenty of mushy noise-reduced images already. – Lucas 12:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree, I just wanted to show how it would look since not all voters are used to how post-processing works. --Cart (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the demonstration. I agree that the original is superior to the edited version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aasish Shah (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It needs denoising. At least selective denoising. Great lighting and compo but the noise is just too much. Poco2 14:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 17:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 05:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Thanks providing me with my new desktop background!
  •   Neutral Nice photo but somewhat overcooked. (1) Noise is not the issue here. Noise is the most overrated problem here on FPC ever. That said, I think at 38mm focal length an aperture of f/5.6 would have done it, too. Then it would have been possible to lower the ISO to 200 which would have reduced the noise significantly. However, it is always easy to critize such a photo sitting at home in front of your computer. On location you sometimes don't have the time to try different settings or you don't immediately see a flaw that can be seen on a computer screen. Additionally EXIF says that the exposure has been increased somewhat (+0.57) in postprocessing which may explain the amount of noise since the D800 IMO would normally not create so much noise at only ISO 800. (2) EXIF also says that the author increased clarity, vibrance and saturation which was for my taste somewhat too much, that's why I vote neutral here. --Code (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco --Milseburg (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too noisy. --Rbrechko (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose could be mitigated by denoising --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, Too much noise for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, largely per Code; image quality issues unfortunately go beyond what should have been easily tamed ISO noise. It seems that a combination of heavy-handed sharpening and NR have created an unpleasant and artificial-looking grain. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose due to the noise. Daniel Case (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Bloemknoppen van Eryngium giganteum 'Miss Willmott's Ghost' 04-06-2019. (d.j.b). 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 15:23:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Apiaceae.
  •   Info Flower buds in development of Eryngium giganteum 'Miss Willmott's Ghost'.
    All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great compo and good quality Poco2 16:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! --Cart (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Coloring that one green blur on the top right brown would turn this to perfect. – LucasT 18:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great quality as usual for your close-up photos. Cmao20 (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Miss Willmott's Ghost is an interesting name...--Boothsift 23:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aasish Shah (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 17:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support refreshingly different! --El Grafo (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Pretty amazing composition. It'd be nice to add a geo reference and clone out that green spot in the upper right corner. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Especially the background is really well done --A.Savin 00:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Petra Jordan BW 2009-11-10 12-33-49.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 12:45:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Jordan
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Boring centered composition, distracting tree covering up a large part of the subject, bad depth perception due to the light direction, distracting tourists. Low pixel detail and humongous CAs in the lower right. – LucasT 15:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a good photo on the whole, but the tree is a bit distracting, and I agree about the CAs. I think we can probably do a bit better for such a commonly photographed monument. Cmao20 (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Boring centered composition as Lucas notes, the tree is also fairly distracting IMO. --Boothsift 23:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - What other direction would be better for this motif than straight-on and centered? I'm confused by that criticism. I think that there are other factors at issue but not that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The tree in front sort of spoils it for me.--Peulle (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 17:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not boring! I would not have expected trees in the dry area. It does not bother me at all to see this documented. The motive is worth seeing and the quality is very good. --Milseburg (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A fine shot. I don't mind the tree, it adds some colour to the rather monochrome main motif. --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Because of the severe CAs in the lower right --Llez (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, the tree ruins it for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Having been to Ad-Dair myself, it's really hard to say what the best possible angle is (I like this one if we're going to go with the frontal angle). But I do think that as appealing as it is to shoot from that Bedouin café which is never in any images of the place, you probably should not have the tree. Daniel Case (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Riga Cathedral Nave, Riga, Latvia - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 10:51:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Quedlinburg CastleEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 10:13:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany
  •   Info Quedlinburg Castle and Collegiate Church at early evening and the same view at dusk after sunset ----- all by me, --A.Savin 10:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 10:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose These are lovely but for FP of such a set there should have been at least a good attempt made to align the two images to each other, right know too much is changing position most noticeable on the sides. Sadly the focal lengths and dimensions are not uniform and the camera position was shifted vertically between the shots by a significant distance. These last two points are of lesser importance though. – LucasT 10:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Overall, absolutely brilliant. Lucas is right that they could be aligned to each other a little bit better, but not enough to stop me supporting. Lovely, sharp, high-resolution photos of the castle from an excellent angle, and good to have a night and a day view. You could choose to denoise the sky a bit in the night photo, but again it's not a very serious issue for me. Cmao20 (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't mind the small difference. The human eye perceives things differently at day vs evening/night too. --Cart (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 23:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aasish Shah (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 17:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It'd be cool to have the photos aligned better but still great :) --Podzemnik (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support The noise on top of the blue hour image could be cleaned up a little more, as well as the CA in the same area of the daylight image, though. Daniel Case (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:עץ על אי מלח באמצע ים המלח.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 09:18:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created & uploaded by Eranrez - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Quite an unusual image, but I'd feel happier if the sky were de-noised. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Interesting image but there are question-marks over the quality, especially the sky as Ikan points out but more generally there's a bit of colour noise. It also looks to me like there's a bit of barrel distortion, with the horizon visibly curving up at one end and down at the other. Cmao20 (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A very nice composition but the quality is not enough for such a small photo. A GoPro camera is not ideal for FPs. And as the description says, it's a tourist destination so not that hard to get to for someone with a fairly good camera. (I've been there myself but that was pre the tree.) --Cart (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart--Boothsift 23:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Moving to   Support now after I had a better look--Boothsift 04:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan and Cmao20 – LucasT 07:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I seldom see images as particular as this one here in FPC. Denoising would be good but the wow effect is compensating that. To be honest, I don't understand why this picture is not getting more support. Poco2 14:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info Ok, I gave the file some TLC and removed some of the color noise and corrected the barrel distortion a bit, not all the way though since the shore curves slightly. Please revert this if you don't like it. 'Pinging' voters about the change: Ikan Kekek, Cmao20, Boothsift, Lucasbosch and Poco. Myself I'm changing to   Neutral after this. I hope Eranrez and Tomer T are ok with this, otherwise I apologize. --Cart (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    Cart: Now that we're in the process to improve the image, don't you think that we should reduce the vignetting on the top left? I can give it a try if you like. Poco2 18:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Poco, I already did some vignetting adjustment in my edit, I think the gradient is due to natural light since it stayed after the correction and it follows the way the shadow of the tree points. I see such phenomena a lot in my photos taken on clear days over water. Let's leave it as it is now, I think it is acceptable. We should be as respectful as possible to the author. The dark sky matches the darker water on that side well. --Cart (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 17:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I don't know. I see the improvement, but the tree was sharper and bigger in the original, and the photo is still fairly noisy. I like the composition, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Like I said in the ice photo, you will always lose some sharpness with NR. That's the downside of it. --Cart (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok, second and final edit from me. I reverted only the tree since it didn't go well with the NR as Ikan pointed out. Cart out. --Cart (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Thank you, Cart. I wish it were less noisy, but I like it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rbrechko (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not perfect but it's definitely got the wow. Daniel Case (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Célestin Nanteuil - Jules Massenet - Don César de Bazan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 00:55:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Rhönschaf-Weidberg bei Kaltenwestheim HBP-2019-04-28.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 21:15:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

How do you do define the direction from where the light is coming, Ikan? I actually had the sun, for what was shining through some clouds, behind me. So I'd expect that the head is as lit as possible... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, the brightest thing in the picture is the sky, and the sheep's head is very dark indeed, and I don't mean just that it's black. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A good, well-composed QI but I think it doesn't have the extra something special for FP. The light is all a little bit dull. Cmao20 (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan.--Vulphere 11:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan --Boothsift 23:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cmao20 – LucasT 07:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support the head of the animal is black and we cant change it --Wilfredor (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Wilfredor --Llez (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Wilfredor -- Eatcha (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, not outstanding enough --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per CMao20
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Praporec (v zime) 001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 19:21:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Milan Bališin - uploaded by Milan Bališin - nominated by Milan Bališin -- Milan Bališin (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milan Bališin (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Interesting composition, maybe a bit too much in shadow, but on balance I think it works. Cmao20 (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too many trees and branches in the foreground --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above--Boothsift 23:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - the foreground in shadow contrasts nicely with the direct light on the mountain, making for a dynamic scene. I have no problem with the composition, which manages the chaotic forest environment quite well – see for example how the group of evergreens on the right balances out the cluster of tall trees on the left. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Being a slightly cluttered composition and with too many distractions it doesn't work for me. – LucasT 07:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 17:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Juliancolton -- Eatcha (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow; the kind of view hiking guidebooks describe as limited. Daniel Case (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Paisaje en Sutton, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-22, DD 98-106 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 17:53:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Mary Magdalene church in Gramond 08.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 15:03:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects#Stained glass

File:Hohenmirsberg P7171141-Pano.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 06:42:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info A panorama of Hohenmirsberg, a district of the town of Pottenstein in northern Bavaria. Created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks all right, but since many of the houses are obscured due to the angle and the light is a bit boring, I don't see the big wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle, 对不起--Boothsift 01:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for the nomination.--Ermell (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It nicely captures the village nestled into the surrounding countryside and the layers of fields, houses, forests and sky. -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The uninteresting yellow strip in the foreground ruins it. -- King of ♠ 01:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the yellow strip. It gives a stroger feeling of rural scene --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per B2Belgium. I find it nice to look at. Interesting layering compositon. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I appreciate the work that clearly went into making this, but it just doesn't wow me, perhaps because not only as Peulle points out the light is unremarkable, but also because the WB is too much on the warm side. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, sorry --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support First I thought that the light was boring, but looking again at the photo I consider it a good example what to make from such lighting. I second B2Belgium’s remarks. --Aristeas (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Paracanthurus-hepatus-paletten-doktorfisch.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 06:05:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
  •   Info created and uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 06:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Boothsift 06:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not the highest resolution, but all the resolution we have is sharp and crisp. Very good overall. Cmao20 (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Nice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very attractive.--Vulphere 11:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The crop is very close, can this be changed? --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support As the camera has 4.752 × 3.168 Pixel, a lesser close crop should be possible --Llez (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Great quality but tight crop, strong shadows and aquarium picture Poco2 14:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 14:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose tight crop and unsightly shadow behind the fish. – Lucas 21:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Jharkot Village-Upper Mustang Trek-1281.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2019 at 09:09:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose per below. – Lucas 21:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks harmonious and well-composed to me. Cmao20 (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Brown jagged shapes offset the blue smooth shapes very nicely. In most human habitations it is hard not to cut something and you will have to go with "the lesser of two evils", but please remove the red CA mostly at the bottom. --Cart (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 12:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Please have a look at the red borders of the white flags (CAs and artefacts), especially at the house in the left lower corner and the unsharpness in the same region. --Llez (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. --Aristeas (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose To me it's interesting, but not necessarily good. You have a lot of layers (brown, dark brown, blue, blue-brown) but they just don't come together as a whole and present a cohesive message to me. Sorry. -- King of ♠ 02:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Llez and King of Hearts. -- B2Belgium (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aasish Shah (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Cart has the best support argument IMO but the opposers are also right; I'd like to see the red CA removed as well before I can make up my mind. Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Baden Königshöhe 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2019 at 04:01:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Lower_Austria
  •   Info Königshöhle (King's Cave) near Baden bei Wien, Lower Austria. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 07:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It's very well-composed and good quality, but it just doesn't inspire me somehow. But I won't oppose seeing everyone else seems to like it. Cmao20 (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rbrechko (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as I share Cmao20's sentiment. The camera position is pretty ordinary and I'm missing more clear compositional clues so it looks like casual mid-day tourist shot to me. It's a pity the sunlight landing on the ground is obscured by that rock, another angle would have shown that better. – LucasT 21:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 17:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Tarian Gandrung sewu 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2019 at 21:40:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Candra Firmansyah - uploaded by Candra Firmansyah - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Another good one of these, but I can't shake the feeling that it would be a better picture if there wasn't that sign in the top-right corner (I know the sign is related to the event, but even so). Cmao20 (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose That sign is very problematic, it looks like a very blurry watermark. Otherwise, this image is good enough for FP. --Boothsift 00:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support nice image but per Cmao20 the sign in the top-right is distracting.--Vulphere 03:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Boothsift --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Boothsift --Cart (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Boothsift sorry ---Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose but not just the sign, pretty much all the background elements are going haiwire in all directions so distract from the main subjects. One of them is visually growing out of the woman in front. The bottom crop on her and the one cut in half face further behind aren't very satisfying either. – LucasT 21:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Boothsift. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Boothsift. --Gnosis (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Boothsift. --Eatcha (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Ëures Resciesa Mont de dora Crist Gherdëina.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2019 at 17:24:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
  •   Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Another beautiful one, and with the immense resolution typical of your work. Cmao20 (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Technically it's great, the weather is nice and the nature is wonderful. But I'm missing a clear subject or compositional idea. --El Grafo (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
      Comment The subject are the porphyr cliffs as written in the description --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per El Grafo and I find the mid-day light too boring. Also the focus was set too far the far mountains are rendered much sharper than the slightly blurry foreground with the tourists. – LucasT 08:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment What you say, pardon me, does not make sense. How can the tourists, several hundred meters away, be out of focus and the background be in focus with an aperture of f/11? --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, right, this shouldn't be the cause but still there is a clear difference in sharpness. My oppose doesn't hinge on that, the other points are more important to me. – LucasT 18:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't think Lucas is imagining this, I can see it too. I think you have a heat haze area hanging over the nearer sunlit rocks on the left. It will do very strange things with your photos. Take a look at how distorted/blurry the houses on the right side in this photo are, while this photo taken from the same point of a location over four times as far away, but over the cooler sea, is not very affected. That day, the photos taken towards the sea were acceptable but I had to throw away all the photos taken inland of the town. I had gone there to make a panorama of the old town in Lysekil (to the right of the houses in the first photo and further inland), but they turned out beyond bad. --Cart (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, no, I was commenting on this photo (providing link for clarity). Perhaps you somehow misunderstood what I wrote. Lucas mentioned a "slightly blurry foreground with the tourists" and I provided a possible explanation for it using my own photos/experience as examples. Nature can play tricks on us even if we have extraordinary cameras. Anyway, I will not be offended by you striking my comment since it is your nomination. --Cart (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I lacks wow, sorry Poco2 17:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Área Recreativa de Arenas Negras 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2019 at 10:14:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Other_objects_in_landscapes
  •   Info all by me -- El Grafo (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- El Grafo (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support – LucasT 10:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I love seeing such an ordinary object depicted as if it was an ancient monument. --Cart (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - This is a case in which I demur on the basis that I don't see much there. I mean, yeah, I get that there's somewhat of an idea there, but it's not a very interesting subject to me, and there are large dark areas that do very little for the composition. The areas of light make it something, but not something great to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 14:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Mostly per Cart. If it wasn't for the fact that we know what it really is (and also the small bit of tree trunk in the background to provide some degree of context), this could be some sort of giant, ancient Stonehenge-type monolith. Cmao20 (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 23:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support works astonishingly well... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. --Aristeas (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice light for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan.--Tournasol7 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Llez (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The mundane made transcendent, per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry just a boring subject and dark too Gbawden (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Beijing New Airport.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2019 at 05:56:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Ikan Kekek: It is processed by original author in order to give highlight to the subject (airport terminal building) itself. The photo was taken in real color, and then processed into grey-scale in most area except the terminal building. David290 (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
OK. I get the point but find it quite odd and will think about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There are blue borders, dots and areas which are caused by processing, especially in the part I marked by a note, but also elsewhere --Llez (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Obvious signs of the processing per Llez, also the orange was not masked properly at a lot of places. The file page needs the Template:Retouched_picture that explains in detail the manipulations made to it. – LucasT 08:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's very dramatic, but I am not personally a fan of this kind of heavy manipulation. Cmao20 (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose It's a really cool image, looks like it's influenced by some dystopian online game. I don't mind a few photos with selective color IF the processing is well done. That is not the case here per Llez, plus the BW part is rendered way too uniformly dark. --Cart (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per other opponets. -- Karelj (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per others. But I like the idea. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others above--Boothsift 23:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --SH6188 (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart - too dark and dystopic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cmao20 and Cart. It looks to me like the w:Cingular fleet is attacking. Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


Zeitplan (Tag 5 nach der Nominierung)Edit

Fri 14 Jun → Wed 19 Jun
Sat 15 Jun → Thu 20 Jun
Sun 16 Jun → Fri 21 Jun
Mon 17 Jun → Sat 22 Jun
Tue 18 Jun → Sun 23 Jun
Wed 19 Jun → Mon 24 Jun

Zeitplan (Tag 10 nach der Nominierung)Edit

Sun 09 Jun → Wed 19 Jun
Mon 10 Jun → Thu 20 Jun
Tue 11 Jun → Fri 21 Jun
Wed 12 Jun → Sat 22 Jun
Thu 13 Jun → Sun 23 Jun
Fri 14 Jun → Mon 24 Jun
Sat 15 Jun → Tue 25 Jun
Sun 16 Jun → Wed 26 Jun
Mon 17 Jun → Thu 27 Jun
Tue 18 Jun → Fri 28 Jun
Wed 19 Jun → Sat 29 Jun