Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Kandidatët për fotografi të shkëlqyeshme

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




Në këtë faqe gjeni fotografit të cilat përdoruesit e projektit i vlerësojnë si të shkëlqyeshme dhe për këtë arsye i kanë propozuar që ato të futen në Galerinë Fotografi të Shkëlqyeshme.


VOTO!

Vini Re!: Votimi nuk është për Figurën e ditës!

RrjedhaEdit

Fotografit e propozuaraEdit

Nëse ke hasur në jë fotografi që ty të pëlqen përdore këtë stampë për ta regjistruar atë! Për një gjë të tillë nuk nevojitet të kesh konto në Commons, propozimet nga kalimtarët janë të mirëseardhura.

Në rast suksesi, sigurohu që ajo fotografi ka edhe një përshkrim të shkëlqyeshëm dhe disponon Licencë


VotimiEdit

Rregullat e votimit:

- Kohë zgjatja e votimit është 9 ditë. Ditën e 10 vendoset për rezultatin
- Nëse një fotografi nuk merr asnjë votë "PRO" brenda 5 ditëve mund të tërhiqet brenda afatit 
- Propozimet nga Adresat IP janë të mirëseardhura
- Diskutimet dhe vërejtjet nga Adresat IP janë të mirëseardhura
- Votat e Adresat IP nuk numërohen
- Propozimi nuk numërohet si votë por propozuesi ka drejtë votimi
- Propozuesi mund të tërheq nga votimi fotografin e propozuar nga ai

Fotografia e propozuar mund të futet në Galerinë Fotografi të Shkëlqyeshme nëse plotëson këto kushte:

- Licencë të pa diskutueshme 
- Së paku 5 vota "PËR" ("Support") 
- Proporcioni PËR/KUNDËR i votave duhet të jetë së paku 2/1 (d.m.th së paku 67% apo 2/3 e votuesve të jen PËR)

KandidatëtEdit

Votimi bëhet me "{{Pro}}" ose "{{Kontra}}", abstenimi "{{Neutral}}". Këtu vendosë një kandidatë

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Fabrication Briques Madagascar.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2017 at 06:40:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Pakri tuletornid.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2017 at 15:22:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bhavani island sunset.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2017 at 15:17:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info created by Saisumanth532 - uploaded by Saisumanth532 - nominated by Saisumanth532 -- Saisumanth532 (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Saisumanth532 (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No, I'm sorry, but just ... no. Like the other photo you nominated, the technical quality falls far short of the FP criteria. You should also make sure the image page is complete with categories. Please read the Guidelines; FPs are not just good pictures, they're among the best images on Commons - "the top fraction of a percent", one of thousands. Take a good look at the guidelines page for suggestions as to what makes a good photo. I suggest you try to nominate your images for Quality Image status - if they pass there, then perhaps they have a chance here as well. Good luck.--Peulle (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because low technical quality 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:Auguste Renoir - A Girl with a Watering Can - Google Art Project.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2017 at 11:26:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2016.06.18.-12-Bonadieshafen Friesenheimer Insel Mannheim--Beilfleck-Rotwidderchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2017 at 10:46:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bonn, Post-Tower -- 2017 -- 2128 (bw).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2017 at 09:02:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
  •   Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 09:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info The image is a black-and-white photograph to improve the structures. --XRay talk 09:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 09:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good and works very well in B&W. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very dynamic capture of the building. Can't help thinking about the Star Trek emblem though. :) --cart-Talk 16:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Impressive! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - A great B&W shot! Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support wirklich toll --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Zoysia matrella (siglap grass).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2017 at 05:56:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because This is far below the technical quality expected from an FP. Please take a look at the Guidelines for more information.--Peulle (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2017 (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:Church Door São Luiz Gonzaga, Avenida Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2017 at 01:02:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Pinacoteca de São Paulo, Brazil.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2017 at 00:52:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Air-to-air with a German Air Force Airbus A400M.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2017 at 00:48:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Small red damselfly (Ceriagrion tenellum) female form melanogastrum.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2017 at 13:49:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Done lightened up version uploaded. Charles (talk)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 23:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - Would you consider smoothing out the background a little? It feels noisy to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question per anonymous questioner above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • That was me. I have no idea why my sig didn't work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done denoised version uploaded. Charles (talk)

File:Mallnitz Hagener Hütte Panorama NW 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2017 at 09:13:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Wright of Derby, The Orrery.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2017 at 08:43:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Thurnau-Schloss-P2077226.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2017 at 08:01:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Palacio Aali Qapu, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 60.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2017 at 08:01:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Aali Qapu ("Great Gate") Palace, Isfahan, Iran. The name Great Gate was given to this place as it was right at the entrance to the Safavid palaces which stretched from the Naqsh e Jahan Square to the Chahar Baq Boulevard. The building, another wonderful Safavid edifice, was built by decree of Shah Abbas I in the early seventeenth century and is forty-eight meters high with six floors, each accessible by a difficult spiral staircase. It was here that the great monarch used to entertain noble visitors, and foreign ambassadors. All by me, Poco2 08:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 08:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - As you say, a great building, and I love the long perspective to the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Good, but imho perspective correction is necessary.--Berthold Werner (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
      Done, I applied a tilt also, Poco2 15:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Ideally this would be taken after the scaffolding is removed, but good enough for now. -- King of ♠ 23:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Nikhil (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--cart-Talk 08:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kasir (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ~Moheen (keep talking) 20:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Ópera, Ereván, Armenia, 2016-10-03, DD 13.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2017 at 07:43:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Atc osaka03s3200.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2017 at 06:58:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2nd Air Refueling Squadron refuels B-2's 161110-F-GV347-141.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2017 at 07:08:17 (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 Senior Airman Keith James - uploaded by - nominated by Base -- Base (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Base (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Quite a lot of dust spots or whatever it is --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent composition (the timing must be spot on since the aircraft move around constantly), the symmetry is awesome. Huge wow factor as a result. Sharpness is good, as is exposure. There are rain/water drops flying around, creating "dust spots" that I wish were removed, but on the other hand such spray is part of the environment setting, adding to the realism of the photo. All in all, great work and definitely meets the FP criterion in my book.--Peulle (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Peulle: excellent composition. --Harlock81 (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Peulle --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support very good.--Ermell (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't know how possible it would be to photograph a view such as this without water (or fuel) droplets floating around during operations, there's always condensation from surface temperature differences and also air pressure/boundary layer issues. I think it adds to the realism of the image. Nick (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dust spots. Yann (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yann: I think those are not dust spots, water drops or something like that. --Laitche (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • A bot disturbing for me, but OK. Yann (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great shot and the droplets are part of this situation. Dissing this because of them and calling them 'dust spots' would be like opposing a photo of a water feature because of splashing droplets. --cart-Talk 08:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Albury railway station platform.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2017 at 06:54:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info created & uploaded by Thennicke & nominated by Nikhil
  •   Support -- Another picture of Albury Railway Station, this time it is the picture of the platform. Sharpness is debatable, but the picture is striking in composition Nikhil (talk) 06:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm a bit bothered by what look like some random bits of a red-painted post on the left margin, so I suggested a crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment This looks quite unbalanced to me - too much floor. I propose a crop - see my annotation --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I think your suggested crop is better than mine (which I annotated the file page with, I guess the wrong place to do that). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Frauenstein Nussberg 146 Filialkirche hl Oswald und Bauernhaus WNW-Ansicht 21082017 0491.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2017 at 04:49:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  I withdraw my nomination The motive is not attractive enough. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

  • @Johann Jaritz: Why did you withdraw it? The composition, clouds, and colors are amazing. The crop on the right could be better (to avoid cutting the tree halfway), but this is all-around a great photo. -- King of ♠ 23:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I withdrew because of the hidden belltower and there was no reaction by anyone. So I assumed that it wouldn`t be enough for a FPC. But I`m gonna give it a second chance as a consequence of your encouragement. Perhaps there is a tiny chance for this image. The crop on the right side I will try to solve it in a better way. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done The image was "reanimated" and the halfway cut tree on the right side cropped out. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 03:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I find the halos (thin and bright around the left-hand and roof of the house and the right side of the church and the tree to its right, and a little more diffuse around the left roof's various protrusions) to be unpleasant. Possibly caused by very slight misalignment or movement during HDR generation? Other than that, I think the composition and colors are very nice, but the halos are unfortunately dealbreakers for me. Storkk (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done @Storkk: The only way to get rid of those annoying halos was to reduce the blue tone of the sky to the original value. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Villnöß Johanniskapelle mit Geisler.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2017 at 03:21:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Italy
  •   Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think the contrail seeming to slant up from the star on the bell tower is really the cherry on top of this picture. Just one thing, though: I think the highlights on the rock faces on the left are just a little too bright, so I'd encourage you to dial the brightness back just a little, but not much, so that the actual look or at least feel of the bright light is maintained. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support noting the slight overexposure. Unlike Ikan I don't think the rock faces are too bright, but there appears to be detail lost on the white facade (namely, compression of the RGB values within a narrow band around 240) - probably unrecoverable since you took the photo at 1/80s @ f/10, a stop above what I consider the "standard" daytime exposure (1/250s @ f/8). Fortunately, it's a flat surface that didn't have too much detail to begin with, so it's not too distracting. -- King of ♠ 04:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support but I would recommend to reduce the exposure a bit --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support where I'd like to be right now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment @Ikan Kekek: @King of Hearts: @Uoaei1: Thanks a lot for your support. I've rechecked exposure which I corrected by -0.3 and reduced highlights. Now I cannot find one pixel above the histogram, on the other side it was a very bright day ;-)--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   strong support Very good composition -- Thennicke (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per above.--Jebulon (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support but per Ikan and KoH, I think some exposure/highlights tweaking could be beneficial. Storkk (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Pyrus pyrifolia fruit on tree 1-PS LR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2017 at 23:21:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Support. Beautifully balanced and articulate in terms of colour shapes space. Excellent image.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC))

    •   Comment Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." You have only made 7 edits, 3 of them on this nomination. Welcome back later when you have made more edits. :-) --cart-Talk 09:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
      •   Comment Sorry. I wasn't aware of this restriction. I have only been around a few times. I'll be more active in the future.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC))
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The motive is not striking and the visible masking errors are not acceptable.--Ermell (talk) 07:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ermell. Please see notes. And I'm not sure about the focus.--Jebulon (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment The human eye does not see everything in focus. What is on the periphery of vision is always slightly out of focus. This is why this image works so well. The slight out of focus edges allow the eye to focus on the fruit - the subject of the image - without the eye bouncing back and forth on an image as it would when the entire image has the same focus. There is a sense that this image mimics the way the eye actually sees. Representational painters are often very aware of this fact and paint accordingly. The image is masterful in my opinion in part because of the slightly out of focus edges. Note the work of photographers like Imogen Cunningham and Julia Margaret Cameron who used soft focus techniques on images. Both sharp focus and soft focus are legitimate ways of dealing with a subject (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC))
    •   Comment Jebulon, I don't see what you think is strange in the image note. That's a small young leaf coming in from the left and dead dying leaf in the background. PumpkinSky talk 10:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. Lovely work. Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ermell. --Karelj (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Ermell: Ermell, thank you for your suggestions. I've worked on them. I'd appreciate it if you'd look them over. PumpkinSky talk 23:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
      •   Comment You have done well with the fixings. But there are still some mistakes left. See my annotations. It can be quite an effort to merge a few images together.--Ermell (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Great composition, the stem and leaves create a depth to the image and the light is just right. I will support it as soon as all the errors made when stacking the images are fixed. As you have seen by now, the merging programs can be very unreliable and you have to fix the blooper yourself. In a focus stacked pic, all parts in one focus plane must be equally sharp. --cart-Talk 08:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment I will look at this again this evening. Honestly, I'm not sure I can fix it to FP level, but maybe. @Ermell:, and info for User:W.carter, I done understand what is wrong regarding the comment "clone stamp mistake". Can you elaborate? Also in the one where say the leaf goes sharp/unsharp, I'm not sure a source image is consistently sharp. Is it okay if, in order to make it consistent, it's more blurry than it is now? And I assume you're talking about the dead leaf here? PumpkinSky talk 09:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Do what you can to make the photo as ok as possible. There are a few more places (besides the notations) with faults. I think you may have tried to 'run before you can walk here', since this is one of your first focus stackings. You chose a tricky subject and a lot (16!) photos, probably thinking that the software would fix it all. It might have been better here to do this in about 8 photos, leaving some of the background unsharp and less room for the program to <bleep!> up. --cart-Talk 09:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • That thought has occurred to me. If I can't fix it tonight. Maybe I'll restack with only 8 photos (the 8 best that I have). Yes, there are lots of objects and shapes in this. The trickiest parts have been the leaves.PumpkinSky talk 10:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Johann Jaritz, Littleolive oil, Ermell, Andy Mabbett, W.carter, and Uoaei1...Thank you very much for your support and/or constructive comments. After more twiddling with this, it's apparent it's better to withdraw and restack this image with only 9 source images. I'll but putting that up with a separate filename (changing the "1" to a "2") and renominate it. That may be later tonight or sometime tomorrow. PumpkinSky talk 00:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   CommentGood luck for the new attempt of stacking 9 photos. We are all looking forward to the upcoming result. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Zeinis-Kops - Rind 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2017 at 17:13:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla
  •   Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Unusual and nice. Very good. -- Spurzem (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Love the colors and pose of the cow. PumpkinSky talk 21:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support great. One of the motifs that's still on my photographic bucket list. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunately is the calf in the shadow which would be o.k. but the blurry mountains are not o.k.--Ermell (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good sharp shot of a calf. Nice "pose". --Peulle (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose composition, lighting, technical quality. Charles (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Not often you get to capture such an attitude when photographing cows/calves. The 'punk' calf contrasts very well with the 'Sound of Music' landscape. --cart-Talk 09:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Kopenhagen (DK), Innenhafen -- 2017 -- 1515.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2017 at 16:53:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Wieskirche, August 2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2017 at 14:11:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
  •   Info Just a rural, southern German church upon a hill... Well, not exactly: the Wieskirche, an UNESCO World Heritage Site , was designed in the late 1740s and is considered a major example of Bavarian rococo church architecture. Pilgrims have been visiting the shrine for more than 250 years - masses of tourists have been joining them for at least 50 years. So this place tends to be a bit crowded... When composing the image, I hoped to depict the scene the way visitors expect it to look like - not the way it actually looks like most of the time. So in this picture, the Wieskirche is just a peaceful, bucolic, but also serene chapel. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment- Too much grass. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree. I'd suggest trying a crop of a little less than 1/2 of the grass in the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 21:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A beautiful place, but the vertical composition just doesn't work for me. Too much grass per above. -- King of ♠ 04:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but the crop does not work for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info Johann Jaritz, Villy Fink Isaksen, Ikan Kekek, PumpkinSky talk, King of ♠, Uoaei1: cropped as suggested. --06:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Uoaei1.--Ermell (talk) 07:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Mild   Support - For whatever reason, I'm not feeling greatly wowed by this, but I think it works in doing what you want it to do and is a high-quality and fairly relaxing picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Despite the crop, the compo doesn't work for me. For some unfathomable reason the whole scene seems squeezed together towards the middle. Sorry. --cart-Talk 09:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination I guess you're right. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.09.02.-13-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim--Gruenaderweissling.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2017 at 14:02:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Johann mattheson.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2017 at 12:25:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Rettinghaus -- Rettinghaus (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Rettinghaus (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Quite good, but for which reason this should be a FP? Anyway we need more information in the description. Publication, etc.? Regards, Yann (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. Yann, he's a very important musician, among other things. Have a look at w:Johann Mattheson. Also, the French-language description seems pretty clear. We could translate it into English (I might do that later). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Sure, I added the French description. ;) I was talking about the publication history, which would greatly increase the document value. At the very least, we need a translation of what is written on the document in Latin. What does mean the date of December 5th (at the bottom)? The Latin inscription at the bottom right? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Request I'll give it 2 days to remove the chromatic aberrations, after which I shall oppose if not done.--Peulle (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Albury railway station, Australia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2017 at 07:25:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Neuberger Münster Innenraum 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2017 at 06:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Neuhaus Haubentaucher füttert Küken am Nest P5RM1096.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2017 at 21:30:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Subduction-en.svgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2017 at 16:23:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Should be fine since it's an .SVG file, right? The Guidelines say that the "rule exclude images computer generated and constructed using a free licensed source code available in the image description."--Peulle (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with you, and therefore   Support per my comment above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
And I also   Support.--Peulle (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Nautilus diagram-en.svgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2017 at 18:07:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Not when taking the size into consideration.   Support --Peulle (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with you.   Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Aminah Cendrakasih, c. 1959, by Tati Photo Studio.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2017 at 10:46:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Tati Studio, restored and uploaded by Crisco 1492, nominated by Yann (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice portrait of Indonesian actress Aminah Cendrakasih. -- Yann (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Nice portrait, pretty actress. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support As restorer/uploader  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 02:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Reasonable quality considering the age. Has historical value. VI? --Peulle (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Considering I regularly find more images of her in the late 50s/early 60s, I'm somewhat loathe to go VI. Besides, we've got a color (3/4) portrait, the halftoning of which would not be a problem at VI.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very impressing. --Hockei (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with Ikan -- Thennicke (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ~Moheen (keep talking) 20:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Mésange (animal).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2017 at 10:19:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
  •   Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 [discuter] 10:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Gzen92 [discuter] 10:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Common bird, background disturbing. Yann (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The fact, that it is a common bird shall not taken into consideration, as quality matters. The bird has been captured in a good moment, but there are too many issues with this picture: overall sharpness and quality, DoF control, crop and las but not least, I agree with Yann, the background is disturbing. I am very sorry, but this picture is not FP. --Sputniktilt (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Rarity would matter, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I've never experienced FP voters voting for rarity and accepting less-than-usual-FP quality for wiildlife images. Charles (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, rarity is a criteria (at least to me). I could accept a less than optimal picture if the bird is very rare or specially difficult to catch. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Charles, I'm surprised at this comment. A photo of a blue tit, pigeon, or common park pond bird is relatively easy and we would demand the most high quality technically as well as composition (or at least, a photo that made us laugh). We also know that bird-in-flight is technically harder than bird-in-bush. I recall Jee noting the rarity of some insects he has photographed, and this being taken into account. -- Colin (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nice Blue Tit, but not an FP.--Peulle (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle --cart-Talk 09:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Old Paper Factory in Zurich.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2017 at 21:58:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by Shootzurich - uploaded by Shootzurich - nominated by Shootzurich -- Shootzurich (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Shootzurich (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but while I like the scene, I think this is way too dark. HalfGig talk 22:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - It's a pretty good picture, just not one of the very best on the site. I think the bottom left corner is probably too dark. Most of the rest is not too dark for me, and actually, what bothers me more is the soupy sky - a less glary day and/or time of day would look better. This picture is also extremely small for FP, as the absolute lower limit in size is 2,000 megapixels, but usually only an extraordinarily outstanding photo would be featured at that size. I think that if you submit this photo to Quality Images Candidates, it would probably miss being promoted, though possibly by a relatively narrow margin. You might find it useful to submit some of your photos to COM:Photography critiques or COM:QIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Way too dark and the branches of the tree are 'burned out' against the sky, there is also the size - it looks like it might have been downsampled to get it sharp. --cart-Talk 09:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Redoute du Pont-Levis, Sète cf01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2017 at 20:29:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thank you. Yes and no, I remember to have integrated voluntarily the yellow grass, because I liked the colour and the sunlight on it, and I'm a bit refractory to the idea of removing it now. Specially as I had a zoom and I clearly chose this crop... Further more I usually try not to go less wide than 16*10, otherwise I have the impression that something is missing... But you are right that this yellow grass distracts a bit the spectator's attention, however if I don't want to crop this one, I will try to avoid such distractions for my next compositions. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 17:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Reflections are well-handled and I like the slightly desaturated look. Trés bien -- Thennicke (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Cisles da Pieralongia Gherdeina.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2017 at 17:52:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Selaginella selaginoides - Niitvälja bog.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2017 at 17:02:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info Lesser clubmoss (Selaginella selaginoides). All by Ivar (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good. Nice and sharp.--Peulle (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice. HalfGig talk 22:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support great lighting, sharpness, and bokeh! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 11:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, even though I cannot second Martin regarding the sharpness. --A.Savin 16:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Monnaie en bronze, Pont Amisos, 85-65 BCE.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2017 at 16:23:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Hibiscus Rosa-sinensis.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2017 at 12:25:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info created by Vespertunes - uploaded by Vespertunes - nominated by Vespertunes -- Moajjem Hossain 12:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Moajjem Hossain 12:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm sorry but even if I were to accept the fairly shallow DoF and low resolution, that top crop is just too tight for me to accept this as a Featured Picture.--Peulle (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- As per Peulle Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 16:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- F2? Try F8-F11 next time. Crop too tight. PumpkinSky talk 18:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  Comment FYI, while there is no rule against it, it's practically impossible for a photo taken with a smart phone to get FP and even for QI it's very difficult, I only know a few photos taken with a smart phone. PumpkinSky talk 23:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Nice flower but DoF too shallow, tight crop, unfavorable sky/light and not enough detail. --cart-Talk 09:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Lyngør lighthouse, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 22:20:37 (UTC)

  •   Info all by me, including the boat piloting. :) The lighthouse was first built in 1879, and is currently a listed building. Automated in 2004, it was opened as a tourist hut available for rent after refurbishing in 2011. -- Peulle (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Peulle (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The second picture seems a bit overexposed. --A.Savin 22:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Hmmm ... not sure I agree. I do have the .RAW file so small tweaks can be made, but since other images in the series have the same exposure (800), I think perhaps the difference in light is due to the direction of the sun. What do you think?--Peulle (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Some details on the facade are blown. And I would use more contrast on all three photos (perhaps matter of taste). --A.Savin 14:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps the "southwest" one could do with a bit more contrast, although I think the "west" image would look overprocessed if I increase it on that.--Peulle (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - This is a very good effort, and if not FP, very close, IMO. I like the compositions of the first two pictures, find them restful and consider them FPs. The left crop of the 3rd picture feels to me too close to the bridge over the stream (I guess that is). Would it be possible to add more room to the left? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  Comment No, it's already at the maximum, but other sides can be cropped if you think that would improve the compositional balance. Perhaps you could add a note if you have a specific crop in mind?--Peulle (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I think nothing can really compensate for the lack of room to the left, so this is something else you can consider for your next go at photographing this motif. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not seeing an FP in any of these. Also I don't think FP sets are designed so you can gain 3-for-1 FPs by photographing from a few angles. Photos one and three aren't significantly different. I think perhaps the "set" description of FP needs some work, as I can't recall anyone featuring a set like this. It would need to be a pretty amazing building to give "wow" from all facades. Even Diliff didn't nominate sets, vs choosing the best of many photos taken inside or out. -- Colin (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Yes, I agree that each of the images would have to satisfy FP status in order for the set to reach it (i.e. one should not be able to "sneak in" a non-FP amongst other images). As for the different angles, the reason I did it this way is that I noticed A.Savin using this strategy with his stadium photos. Thanks for reviewing. :) --Peulle (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I would like the horizon in the same height in picture and same distance to the lighthouse. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  Comment The "northwest" photo can certainly be cropped a bit at the bottom. Do you think that would improve the image?--Peulle (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes it would, but the best solution is probably a new serie of pictures. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
A project for next year, that. Summer's over. :) --Peulle (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I see this set as a Triptych and that is the reason for my suggestions. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I might be able to get behind #2 as a FP but on # 1 and especially #3 my eye is drawn to the Power Lines too much and that just keeps spoiling it with if you don’t count the uninteresting water on #3. Nominating a set is hard. Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. Not a set, and not individually FPs either. -- King of ♠ 21:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks for all comments; I will keep working on them and try nominating a single one later. :) --Peulle (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 06:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Red-backed shrike.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 19:49:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
  •   Info created by Antonios Tsaknakis - uploaded by Birding around - nominated by Laitche -- Laitche (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Laitche (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very clear, good bird portrait, nice bird, and nice facial expression. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Gorgeous PumpkinSky talk 20:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good image, well-composed and focused all along the range.--Peulle (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - A bit of glare from what looks like a forward facing flash of harsh back light but it's controlled well and I'm won over. Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice, though I'd crop right. Charles (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivar (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support agree with Charles concerning the crop, but this is a great picture. --Sputniktilt (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The same concern about the crop, but it is a minor one. --C messier (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely. Storkk (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 06:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes

File:Skočivir (Скочивир, Македонија).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 15:34:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info Panorama of village Skočivir, Republic of Macedonia. My work. -- Mile (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks overexposed ... that's easily fixed and I'd probably support it for QI after that, but as for FP the light doesn't really wow me.--Peulle (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. (looks slightly tilted too, in some houses) -- Colin (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Nice scene, but not particularly striking to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Munich - Viktualienmarkt.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 14:33:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 06:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Spb 06-2017 img19 Moskovsky railway station.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 13:34:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 06:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture#Russia

File:Looking up the center of the Eiffel Tower 2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 11:01:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A very nice picture with an interesting composition. But Commons FPC is for outstanding pictures. And unfortunately for you, we have a large number of very similar images already (1, 2, 3 to name just a few in 1:1 aspect ratio; another FP). There are some that manage to stand out among the others, such as this night view, this diagonal composition or this zoomed-in VI. I don't see this candidate standing out in any kind of way, apart from some advantages in image quality maybe. Others have done it before, the wow is gone – that's the problem with FPs of major tourist attractions. Sorry, --El Grafo (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support "View to a kill." -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Has in fact better light and more detail than File:Sous la Tour Eiffel 1.jpg, but the symmetry is failed. A pity. --A.Savin 22:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per El Grafo. Also very uneven contrast brightness with some parts of the top half having high contrast and the bottom and centre very low. Almost like lens flare or lifting shadows too much. -- Colin (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the composition (it's a very refreshing original view IMO, and I'm a local). But it's not proper centered, has barrel distorsion and is blurry on the top part. - Benh (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Naturally the barrel distortion there isn't ....--LivioAndronico (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
No you just don't know what barrel distortion is, or you wouldn't write that. - Benh (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Totally invented ..... as your usual--LivioAndronico (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry to Benh, I'm a local too, and this view is not very original, per El Grafo. Nevertheless, I agree with opposers arguments. Not centered. Symmetry and wow has gone.--Jebulon (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose mostly per El Grafo. Storkk (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Ruppell's warbler.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 09:35:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I've had another look. The eye is brilliantly sharp, but I agree that the tail etc. lets the image down. Charles (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too many noise artefacts and low DOF. --Hockei (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry to disagree with the distinguished gentlemen above; I think this looks overprocessed, too noisy and with the tail out of focus. Quality not high enough for FP for me - I'm not even sure I'd support it as a QI.--Peulle (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose mostly per Hockei. Storkk (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose because the standard for bird FPs is quite high. Most of the bird looks sharp to me, but not the legs and especially not the tail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Close wing position of Female Lethe chandica Moore, 1857 – Angled Red Forester.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 05:41:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
  •   InfoClose wing position of Female Lethe chandica chandica (Moore, 1857) – Darjeeling Angled Red Forester created by Atudu - uploaded by Atudu - nominated by Atudu -- Atudu (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Atudu (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice and sharp, but looks a bit underexposed. --Ivar (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment the foreground is a bit of a problem and the red eye. Charles (talk)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 15:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Close wing position of Charaxes solon, Fabricius, 1793 – Black Rajah WLB.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 05:17:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 15:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Speciale voertuigen worden ingezet voor onderhoud in het gebied. (Terra Gator 2104 Track Dumper) Locatie Noarderleech 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 04:19:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects Terra Gator 2104 Track Dumper.
  •   Info Special vehicles are used for maintenance in the area. (Terra Gator 2104 Track Dumper) Location: Noarderleech. Noard Friesland Bûtendyks is a unique nature of It Fryske Gea. It consists of summer polders, drink dobben and salt marshes. For many birds an ideal habitat. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- --fedaro (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support interesting stuff--Mile (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Request Please reduce noise. Also, is that chroma noise I see on the tracks? Could something be done about that?--Peulle (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
      Done. reduced noise reduction. Thank you. for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  Support btw. if these are dumper trucks, does that mean that this is a dumper track? :D--Peulle (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Answer: A track has a drive with a caterpillar. A truck with tires.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. Never seen a track dumper before. —Bruce1eetalk 07:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - A consensus is clearly behind this, so I won't oppose just because I don't see a featurable motif there, but I'd like some remarks on why this is featurable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Answer: In my view, this is a special vehicle for work in special and drastic areas. Each wheel has its own caterpillar. Very special for lovers of special vehicles. --Famberhorst (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Answer: For my part, it's the "wow" (which is hard to quantify, I know); the subject matter plays a big part, and the light and sky are good.--Peulle (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Answer: The "wow" for me is that it is an unusual vehicle; other than that it is a good picture technically. —Bruce1eetalk 07:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, guys. I understand. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support very vivid shot --Rettinghaus (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, but something is bothering me about the contrast... or perhaps the contrast and saturation. I think I prefer the colors on this version, though the composition of this one. Was this tonemapped? Storkk (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Aeronave A-29 Super Tucano em voo sobre a Floresta Amazônica.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 02:13:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - I realize you're trying to address criticism of dark shadows, but it seems a little washed out to me now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I fixed WB and I now look less washedout, let me know what do you think --The Photographer 00:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Much better than the previous version, but I think I like the version that was originally submitted best of these three. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Please, could you explain why?. I want see what problems can you see that are fixed on original version --The Photographer 22:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The color and light look more natural to me in the originally-submitted version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek Thanks, I see, camera sensor change colors and the people see differents colors and it is more subjetive. Thanks for your review. --The Photographer 00:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and I also might react differently to this version if I didn't have the other one to compare it to. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Bensberg Germany Schloss-Bensberg-Panorama-01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2017 at 19:36:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info Bensberg Palace, a historical building in Bensberg near Cologne, Germany. It is a former Hunting Lodge, commissioned by Johann Wilhelm, Elector Palatine for his wife Anna Maria Luisa de' Medici. It was converted to a 5-Star Hotel in 1997. Cylindrical panorama from 11 single images, taken from a normal tripod.
All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Couldn't the viewpoint be much higher? We seem to be looking upwards. Charles (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
How? The tripod was extended to 1,80 m. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess the ground slopes up to the building. Charles (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - With the question of the slope apparently resolved, I focused on the photo, which looks like a great panorama to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm not sure about the projection: the outer wings of the building appear as if they were curving outward. --El Grafo (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I think that this is the normal effect when taking such huge building with a wide angle lense and forming it to a cylindrical panorama. It covers a view of 180° degrees and the distance of the left and right wing is perhaps 50 m while the main entrance in the far is 100 m from the tripod. I am not an expert on 180° or 360 ° panorama photos but some colleagues here are and probably can give a suitable explanation, why this has to be as it is. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm supporting this image because I like it. No other reason. :) --Peulle (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think if you use the "spherical Panini projection" in Hughin, you will get straight lines instead of the bent lines, which would look more natural in my opinion --Llez (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • There's always tradeoff. Either u curve the verticals or the horizontals (there's more than that, but I make it short). From my experience, the best compromise would be to use a panini general (maybe that's what u meant), which allows to fine tune the amount of distorsion. - Benh (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support although some day I'd like to see it done without the distortion. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question Verry good, but what means "max resolution available: 17891 x 4494 px" Where is it available? --Milseburg (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
It's just a reminder for me and also where this photo in my archive is located. On request, I can provide interested individuals with the higher resolution (as stated in the section "Permission"). However 13.000 px width with 21 MB appeared to be more than sufficient for the majority of users. The max res is about 47 MB. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
So it's downscaled. You've been the first indicating me to the relevant guideline. I´ve no problem with that, but maybe it´s a bit problematic to offer a higher resolution by advertising with a downscaled image. --Milseburg (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral and not a support because I'm per El Grafo. But I am fairly sure this can be improved with a Panini general projection. - Benh (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I installed Hughin and tried it yesterday evening. But surprisingly - though I took the photos in 20° interval steps with huge overlap - the program complaints, that it does not find enough stitching points. Probably, I am lacking experience to use this program after that short time of testing it. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
On reading again the technical informations of Benh (thanks for that!); I gathered, that a 180° panorama can never have rectilinear verticals and straight horizontals. This seems logical to me, as the image is not just a wide angle representation, but a flat projection of a cylindrical representation. So, for my personal taste, the curved buildings are more suitable than curved/inclined verticals, especially as I was standing in a distance of the building where it is desirable to have rectilinear verticals. If someone does not share that view, it is ok, but it seems not justified to perform a post processing, that can technically not give the requested result. —CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Over the past couple days, I've really tried to like this. I'm sorry, though, I can't: it makes me feel like I've had one too many drinks. I think it may not be possible to photograph the whole building from this close up and obtain a panorama that I would like. Storkk (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral although it's a very good photo, something totally bothers me about it. I can't even say what it is. --Rettinghaus (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The picture is technically impressive, but the projection somehow gives the impression that all the verticals are wonky even though they're perfectly vertical. This optical illusion rather distracts from the building. --bjh21 (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm afraid it isn't working for me. I appreciate that the very wide view cannot be rectilinear, though the "Panini General" (aka vedutismo on PtGui) has the advantage of ensuring any diagonals radiating from a central vanishing point will be straight, as well as straight verticals. The verticals here aren't all quite perfect, with a few wonky ones. The "looking up" complaint may be solved by adjusting where the vertical centre of the projection is, and this may also minimise the degree of horizontal curvature a small amount. Alternatively go for a crop of the central portion and use a rectilinear projection. -- Colin (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Sankt Georgen am Laengsee Sankt Sebastian Pfarrkirche hl Sebastian 02122015 9333.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2017 at 03:54:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 05:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support wonderful lighting and sky --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition and lighting. Charles (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 18:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Serene HalfGig talk 23:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Mild   Oppose. I'm going to give you what I hope comes across as a high-level criticism, because the thing is, as others have said, this is indeed a beautiful picture, and the light is beautiful. However, the fields and sky are pretty inert (sure, the sky gradually gets darker going up, but that's not enough for a great composition in this case, in my opinion), so I think this photo lacks something that could make it better than merely quite good, but truly outstanding. It looks like I'm far outnumbered on this, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Your helpful in-depth reviews are highly appreciated as usual, even if they end up in a mild oppose like in this case. I will think about all items you wrote at the next opportunity when I will be out there taking open-air photos. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Same feeling as Ikan Kekek. Furthermore I find the light a bit harsh. All is nice, good, clear, very well composed, but I miss "something". Empty sky ? Enpty grass ? I don't know, this is just subjective and I'm sorry for that. And I've found one dust spot (at least), please see annotation. --Jebulon (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
*   Comment De gustibus non disputandum. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support But tight blue sky is a little bit for me.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A truly timeless building  . Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Maria Gail Kirche Flügelaltar 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2017 at 23:25:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - You're most welcome! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Disturbing surroundings. --Karelj (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - I'm surprised. What are you finding disturbing? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Something white (electric light, reproductor?,...) on the right side, electric socket on the left side. Rest of some painting (probably) on the wall behind... --Karelj (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, part of a Medieval fresco. I like that a lot, but I get your points and understand them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Well I think I get his point. It's pretty cluttered and unbalanced because of the right pilar. - Benh (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks for explaining your point of view. Of course we disagree about whether this is an FP photo of this altarpiece, but do you think it would be possible to take an FP of this altarpiece? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Cameras have gotten so good that today anyone can take a sharp picture of that with basic knowledge of photography. But maybe with a crop... - Benh (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • mild   Support When you see this as a thumbnail I agree that it’s too cluttered but when you really look at it I see what Ikan sees. The whole photo is very complex and is excellently photographed. DoF is right on, it’s just that the other elements in the photo (except for the red rope and plant) subtract a bit. Lack of symmetry isn't a dealbreaker here for me. -- Sixflashphoto 20:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The main subject is more than excellent, The picture and the work are very good with a lot of details. But yes, there are many surrounding disturbing elements. I've suggested a crop, which could make me support.--Jebulon (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I appreciate your detailed review. The result of your crop would be a very different picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question Did you think of a black mask, in order to emphasize the altarpiece, which is a pure marvel ?--Jebulon (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info I guess the proposed crop will work fine, but not with a black mask. Unfortunately I do not have the RAW files with me, so I cannot provide a cropped version at the moment. Probably I will come up with this by next week. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • By next week, this will either be an FP or be declined at FPC. If it passes and you'd like to offer the proposed crop, I suppose you could suggest a delist and replace, or you could propose that version as another FP, but I don't know how that would be received. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This is what I planned to do, but I am also not sure about reactions. Maybe better to wait a bit. But in no case I want to work on JPG. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I wish that yellow section of wall on the right wasn't there, but otherwise it qualifies. Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'd also wished a different crop but it is still most appealing--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per W. Moroder --Llez (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Santa Maria del Popolo (Rome) - Cappella Cybo.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2017 at 19:19:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info The Cybo or Saint Lawrence Chapel (Italian: Cappella Cybo or Cappella di San Lorenzo) is the second side chapel in the right-hand aisle of the Basilica of Santa Maria del Popolo in Rome. For the beauty of its paintings, the preciousness of marble revetments covering its walls and the importance of the artists involved in its construction the chapel is regarded one of the most significant sacral monuments erected in Rome in the last quarter of the 17th century. All by LivioAndronico (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The furthest back row of chairs is really distorted - the one furthest to the right looks so tilted it should fall over. If you cropped out the closest row of chairs, I think that would greatly improve the picture, and I'd probably vote to support it at that point, though I'd have to see to be positive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Better if centered IMO. Please look at annotation: too many useless and dark parts, to be cropped out.--Jebulon (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
      Done thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition for me. The left window is a little disturbing.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'm still a little bothered by the remaining distortion to the appearance of the chairs, but I think I'm just looking for that too much now. The motif is beautiful, and I like how the speckled surfaces are captured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Moderate support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the marbles, real and false. The new version is better. IMO you should remove the reflection on the left part of the painting, by cloning or so.--Jebulon (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Filo gèn' (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 06:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

File:Bielerhöhe - Silvrettastausee - Wasserleitung 07.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2017 at 16:01:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is the wide-angle version of this image. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 20:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Much better than the narrow-angle version, in my opinion. In that photo, the mountains in the background looked sort of artificial, not natural. Here, they look real, with resulting great improvement to the composition, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry to spoil the party, but I'm not seeing the "wow" factor. In general, on a cloudy day it makes for a better composition to exclude the sky altogether (which you did in the other version, which I supported). Here the sky is brighter than the ground, and exposing the whole scene properly (as you have done) makes the subject look grey and boring. While the sky is not completely featureless, the clouds are too soft to have a dramatic effect. -- King of ♠ 02:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   strong oppose Inferior to the other one (even though I'd have liked more mountain in the other one). But really I think this is an abuse of FPC to nominate the same scene just with zooming out a bit. This is about selecting the "finest" not just accumulating gold stars, and the word I'd like to emphasise is "selecting". If you prefer this, offer this nom as a delist-replace, but please don't just nominate what are essentially alternative crops / brightness -- that's why we have alts. -- Colin (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Moon Bridge and Fountain, Friendship Pond 4 NBG LR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2017 at 18:57:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Glad you like this one. I had to stand in the mud just several cm from the water to get this shot. The entire left side of the stream is useless as a spot to take a good photo of the bridge. PumpkinSky talk 21:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is a better view of the bridge but the fountain is still ruining the composition IMO. Sorry. Light also a bit washed out in the upper part of the photo. Standing in a bit of mud still doesn't beat Jee who had leeches crawling on him during one shoot.   --cart-Talk 08:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment As mentioned in the other one, I find the juxtaposition of the fountain and bridge fascinating. As for the leeches, YUCK. I'll probably never top that one. Glad we don't have them where I live. I've uploaded a version where I tried to work on the upper light part you mention. PumpkinSky talk 10:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • We'll just have to agree to disagree on this then. :) Upper part looks ok though now. --cart-Talk 10:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks washed out compared to the alt. -- King of ♠ 02:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per KoH. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Alternative versionEdit

Johann Jaritz has done an alternative processing. Right now I can't decide which one I like better. PumpkinSky talk 11:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Your's is too little processing and his is too much IMO. Some 50/50 version might be better. Please try too do as much of this editing before you make a nom. This is not the place for fixing photos. --cart-Talk 12:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I did my processing. But we don't know what is or may be wrong until we get additional feedback. It's at QIC waiting for the bot and no one made suggestions there. PumpkinSky talk 12:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It was not my intention to bring disconcertment to the FPC. I was simply curious, if the photo could be edited in a way that it possibly meets the taste of W.carter and others. Another version was uploaded. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

 

  •   Support -- With this modified version of his own modification, I'm now really having trouble deciding which is better, so I'm supporting both versions. PumpkinSky talk 13:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - I definitely prefer this version, but is that light really how it looked, or is the other one more true to life? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. So here's my dilemma: I would support this version and oppose the other, but I'm not sure if that makes sense if the other version is the truer one. In that case, maybe it's not justifiable to support this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek I can certainly understand your position. Trying to be neutral, I looked again at the other photos I made of this bridge and the coloring in this alt nom version is consistent with how the bridge can with certain lighting. PumpkinSky talk 15:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per remarks above, with reservations but surely liking this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great colors. -- King of ♠ 02:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with KoH and Mr. Pumpkin. HalfGig talk 23:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm afraid per previous nom I'm not finding wow here to take it to FP. The fountain just looks a bit odd, with not being able to see the base and perhaps exposure is slightly too long this time so water is less clear and more blurred. The leaves/bark also appear quite soft compared to previous nomination, perhaps too much NR or not focused so well or light not so good. -- Colin (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Kathputli (Puppet)-IMG 0335.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2017 at 15:16:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Portnaluchaig beach.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2017 at 14:05:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*   Support -- Pz (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." You have only made 39 edits so far. Welcome back later when you have made more edits. :-) --cart-Talk 08:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry... I think waiting a few minutes (or hours or days) for the lighting to be more favorable on the foreground rocks would make it a more compelling photo. As is, to me they are distracting. The composition is also not compelling... perhaps a longer lens from further away would be better, but I'm not sure. As it is, we have a tiny house on some bright green grass with dark shadows in the foreground and my eye is struggling to find any wow. Storkk (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Storkk. Also, too soft throughout ... was there a reason for using ISO 400? Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Daniel Case, thank's for your comments. The ISO 400 was simply to allow faster exposure (no tripod) and greater dof in the subdued late-evening Scottish daylight (20:29 UTC = 21:29 local time). DeFacto (talk). 09:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, I understand the tradeoff there. Daniel Case (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Montreal from Mount RoyalEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2017 at 13:13:22 (UTC)

  •   Info High resolution panorama of Montreal seen from Mount Royal. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ArildV (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 15:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice...--LivioAndronico (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support very nice. PumpkinSky talk 22:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow, our first FP from this year's Wikimania, already (And I suppose, since I was climbing Lyon Mountain, visible in the background right of center, at the time you took the daytime picture I'm in it in a weird way. The view from Lyon's summit was not clear enough to make out the Montreal skyline, alas, although I think I could see Mount Royal). Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Alexander Leisser (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice! :D --Peulle (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Sputniktilt (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good! --cart-Talk 10:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --KSK (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Especially the night photo is about perfect, hardly any noise. --A.Savin 14:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Btw, some geocodes plus Template:Panorama with some details about how many photos were used would be nice. --cart-Talk 15:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Especially the night shot. The day time is also great , but has some visible stitching artifacts from (I think) two bad seams, that would be nice to correct. One seam is most visible at (8492, 1363) going about 212 pixels horizontally right. The other seam is more minor and looks like it affects (7378, 2147), (7431,2189), (7492, 2625), (7476, 2563). There is also some Moiré on the sides of buildings in the approximate boxes (5700+65, 1170+345), (6210+130, 1795+70), (6700+110,1780+180), (7115+100, 2145+430)... some of these may be more simple to desaturate or fix than others. Also, per W.carter, {{location}} templates would be good. Storkk (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment I have added an image note for the worst seam. Storkk (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Great job on the seam :) added Moiré notes per your request below. Storkk (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
      •   Done Thank you for your help.--ArildV (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
        • I've added one more note. Thanks for your efforts! Storkk (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
          •   Done--ArildV (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Awesome shot in an awesome city. Sportsguy17 21:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. Charles (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I agree that the night shot is more beautiful, but that's partly because I just like the lights more than many of the buildings. Either way, great achievement and great documentation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good!!! --Karelj (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done {{panorama}} and geocode and new version uploaded. Please add images notes for Moiré, I will do it tomorrow. Im going back to Europe tonight and will not have time or opportunity to read and answer here before tomorrow. Thank you for all votes and comments.--ArildV (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Each of two are eligible for FP, but I would have prefered two exactly superposable pictures, exactly symetrical, and exactly taken from the very same point of view. I'm sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KTC (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent composition.--AutomobilePassion (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Herfstwandeling door natuurreservaat It Wikelslân 09.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2017 at 04:16:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects American Windmill
  •   Info Autumn walk through natural reserve It Wikelslân. The blades of this American Windmill stabbing beautifully against the bright cold frosty air. created All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support how un-Nederlands ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 07:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The crop is too tight for my taste. I would prefer something like this, as it gives the main subject more room for breathing and has the frost on the ground as a bonus. This one would be my favourite from this day of shooting, had the windmill been placed more off-centre towards the right (in a golden rule/rule of thirds kind of way). --El Grafo (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition...--LivioAndronico (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support, the composition could be better. The windmill isn't in the centre but it's not enough off-centre and the result is a bit unharmonic to me. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per El Grafo. Yann (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per El Grafo. --Karelj (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support HalfGig talk 23:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per El Grafo. Daniel Case (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Personally the composition works for me. Nice lighting. -- King of ♠ 21:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 06:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects