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:Pronghorn Yellowstone.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2017 at 00:46:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Yellowjacket on a bougainvillea.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2017 at 00:43:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
  •   Info created by Thcipriani - uploaded by Thcipriani - nominated by Thcipriani -- Thcipriani (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thcipriani (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - not what you want to see in the flower on your lapel. Great shot, Thciprian! Atsme 📞 01:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment No FP gallery specified; no proper categories in file page. Jee 03:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Turret Arch through North Window.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2017 at 00:04:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alternative versionEdit

 

  •   Info This is a cropped version of the image above. -- Wolf im Wald 01:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Thanks to Wolf im Wald for making this wonderful photo and offering it as an alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

File:San Gennaro's chapel - Dome (Naples).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2017 at 21:38:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info Domenichino completed the majority of the frescoes in the chapel. He painted the four pinnacles: Pledge made by the Neapolitans in 1527,Meeting of Saint Gennaro with Christ in the Heavenly Glory, Virgin intercedes for Naples and Patronage of Saints Gennaro, Agrippina and Agnello Abate. He also painted the story of the life of San Gennaro in the three lunettes (1633) and in the arches. The four large altarpieces painted with oil on copper by Domenichino represent: the Beheading of Saint Januarius, the Miracle of the infirm healed by the oil lamp, the Infirm at the tomb of the Saint and Resurrection of a dead man. Domenichino died suddenly on April 6, 1641. A few months later, he was replaced by another follower of Carracci who was then in Rome, the Emilian, Giovanni Lanfranco. All by LivioAndronico (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 22:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Παναγιά Σκοπιανή 1957.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2017 at 21:09:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info created by C messier - uploaded by C messier - nominated by C messier -- C messier (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is my favorite photograph of mine from Serifos. The whitewashed chapel with the characteristic blue dome with a sandy beach at the background, is IMHO what could summarise the islands of Cyclades the best. I hope that you find it beautifull enough to overcome the unsharpness caused by the (inevitable) heat haze (it was more than 30°C hot, with the camera pointing downhill).
  •   Support -- C messier (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I understand the heat haze, but I think that's a bit overexposed, and the water is noisy Ezarateesteban 22:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I find this too noisy for an FP landscape photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Καινούργιο Χωριό Κρήτης 2216.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2017 at 21:01:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by C messier - uploaded by C messier - nominated by C messier -- C messier (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I find something irresistible with this otherwise ordinary abandoned house lying in mainland Crete, which features of an exterior oven. It also feels like it can tell a short history of the Greek countryside, which was largely abandoned after the first post war decades and only recently there has been a try to return, which fell on to the economic crisis (depicted here by the unfinished renovation work).
  •   Support -- C messier (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support very nice ruin Ezarateesteban 22:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Orisol - Ermita de Santikurutz 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2017 at 18:19:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Nørre Vorupør beach, 2017-04-14 4.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2017 at 12:29:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:61-220-5012 Dzhuryn Waterfall 1 RB.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2017 at 11:26:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by rbrechko - uploaded by rbrechko - nominated by Rbrechko -- Rbrechko (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Rbrechko (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 13:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   mild oppose I don't know. The image appears overly dark/underexposed, the WB is too cold, and colors are too saturated. Maybe you can rework the file from your raw? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support - it's a beautiful image - the long exposure works really well on the cascading waterfalls, but at a nominal cost of the foreground. Atsme 📞 15:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Beautiful waterfall, but the light in much of the rest of the photo feels diffuse to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Giant tiger land snail (Achatina achatina).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2017 at 09:02:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
  •   Info These land snails are huge (see the photo with a hand for scale) and have to be protected as my guide said they are very tasty.
    All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - escar-GO!! Atsme 📞 13:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting animal but the flat illumination by direct flashlight ruins every mood--Ermell (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell. --C messier (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Victor Hugo buste marbre Musée Rodin S.00464 Paris.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2017 at 08:49:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by w:Auguste Rodin - the rest by me -- Jebulon (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A not so big, but stunning work of art. This is a marble head of Victor Hugo, sculpted by Auguste Rodin, 1889. As it is very detailed, one ca n see how the artist worked. On display at the Musée Rodin in Paris, France. Original and transparent background versions available in file page, where one can find a complete description as well.-- Jebulon (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm not particularly fond of neither Rodin nor Hugo - but this picture is great. And yes, a limited DOF is a feature, not a bug... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support- Price Zero|talk 16:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The quality is very good but I'm not sure about "wow" factor. Should be interesting to see if anybody opposes because of that.--Peulle (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I thank you for support, but I'm not sure I appreciate the comment. Maybe you should not ask for oppose votes this way... It is just the bust of one of the most famous writers in the world by one of the most famous sculptor in the world. I find it excellent, very powerful and dynamic. That's my own wow factor. We don't have many FP of sculptures here in Commons, and I don't want to nominate my "Thinker" you can judge in QIC...--Jebulon (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per nom. I find it odd to see a certain lack of appreciation for Rodin in this thread; my father considered him one of the greatest sculptors of all time. For whatever it's worth, so do I, and the Musee Rodin would appear in a group of museums just under the greatest multiple-artist museums (the Louvre and the Orsay) if a friend were asking me for recommendations of art museums to visit while in Paris. A photo that clearly shows these kinds of details is valuable and fully comparable to photos of great paintings that we've featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Eskibel - Carretera A-4101 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2017 at 20:03:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
  •   Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 20:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm not seeing anything exceptional here, I'm afraid. A road is a very common motif. -- Colin (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Technically okay at a glance, but.... it's just a road. -- KTC (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - A very good picture with some poetic possibilities (imagining what's down the road where we can't see it), but not an FP IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination --Basotxerri (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Oak in 20 metre per second wind.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2017 at 18:01:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Fagaceae
  •   Info It's been a while since we had some outrageous abstract photo here, so here goes. :) When the wind is strong, water is not the only thing that moves in a forest. All by me, -- cart-Talk 18:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 18:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see all moved, motion blur, what is the subject of the picture? Ezarateesteban 22:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - The subject is the motion-blurred leaves, and I like the resulting composition enough to support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ah, an interesting idea - that could definitely work. Here it doesn't, unfortunately. What this picture's lacking is some kind of firm, stable element, like well visible trunks. But for some reason all trunks and bigger branches are really blurred as well... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • At 20 M/s the whole tree, trunk and all, sways and moves (at 30-35 it snaps). :) I was watching the movement of the branches and wondered what it would look like if the whole motion was caught in a long exposure shot, the same way we do with water. I would have liked an even longer exposure, but it was rather sunny and I have no ND filter. The motion was different in all the 10-some shots I made, I liked this best because of the circular motion in it. At least you cant say I'm not testing things. ;) --cart-Talk 08:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for elaborating on your approach. Interesting! And please, do test things as much and widely as possible! :-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Per Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermell (talk • contribs) 06:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per the well-argued vote of Martin Falbisoner. --Peulle (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:HVB-Tower Munich, June 2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2017 at 17:25:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support ----Ermell (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 10:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - impressive geometry Atsme 📞 13:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Big wow factor here. :) I'm not super happy with the detail on the right side tower, but I'm following the guidelines: "Given sufficient "wow factor" and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality.". --Peulle (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Desierto de Lut, Irán, 2016-09-22, DD 44-49 HDR PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2017 at 14:20:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Panoramic view during sunset of Dasht-e Loot, in English "Emptiness desert", located in the provinces of Kerman and Sistan-Baluchistan, Iran. This place is pretty special for being the spot on the Earth where the highest temperature was ever measured (70 °C or 159 °F) and since July 2016 a UNESCO World Heritage Site. All by me, Poco2 14:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 14:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 16:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 17:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit creepy but wow-y. --cart-Talk 18:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Excellent panorama, best at full size. I really like the ripply dunes and the interesting rock outcroppings. The pastel colors of dusk complete the package. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 10:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Atsme 📞 13:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Théâtre (façade) de La Roche-sur-Yon.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2017 at 13:05:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Golden Gate Bridge as seen from Battery East.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 22:00:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Maroon Bells at sunrise, Aspen Colorado.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 18:40:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
  •   Info created by Lorie Shaull on Flickr (Lashaull) - uploaded by MB298 - nominated by MB298 -- MB298 (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MB298 (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The foreground needs some more brightness, otherwise a good photo. The description is completely missing and a geotag is needed, too. --Code (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Code. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Code. Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I love the way the shadows work to frame the reflection in the water. It's a difficult enough shot to not blowout the sky while still capturing the reflection. Kudos. Atsme 📞 13:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I don't get this attitude towards shadows. Shadows are dark, that's what they are. Sometimes I question whether people look at images full size ot just say "too dark" based on thumbnails (which are always much darker than the image itself). Anyway Neutral because quality is not the best. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info Thanks so very much for the nomination MB298 Info about the shot, it was sunrise, with much of the landscape in shadows so in post-processing, I kept it that way. When I looked up other photos of Maroon Bells shots there were a lot that were over processed. I was going for a lighter touch for what it looked like at the time. I do take mild exception to the "quality not that great" comment though KennyOMG.The quality of your comment is not that great, not helpful & not productive. None-the-less appreciate all the comments & taking the time to take a look and comment! (Lashaull Lashaull (talk)

File:Half geopende bloem van Rhododendron ponticum.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 17:54:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Common brimstone (Gonepteryx rhamni) female underside.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 16:12:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Carretera al monasterio Noravank, Armenia, 2016-10-01, DD 55-59 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 13:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Panoramic view of the vanishing road through the Amaghu valley near the 13th-century monastery of Noravank, Armenia. The narrow gorge, located near Yeghegnadzor and 122 km from the capital, Yerevan, was eroded by the Amaghu River. All by me, Poco2 13:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 13:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lots of artefacts in the sky, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
    Peulle: if the reason why you opposed were the artifacts, they are gone. That's an easy fix. Thanks for the hint, I didn't see them. Poco2 17:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, everything else about the photo is wonderful, but for FP I feel the sky should not have these. Sadly, I still see them scattered in bands across the sky, although it's not as bad as the first version. I'm not sure what caused them or how it can be fixed completely.--Peulle (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
      Comment - I see them, too, but they're so subtle is such a large photo that I think it's OK. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry, there is still banding in the sky (I had the same problem in some of my panoramas and I didn't succeed in removing it, even with new stiching. At the moment I have no solution to propose, perhaps someone other can help you). --Llez (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
    Llez: I've uploaded a new version to address the banding. Please, let me know what you think. I applied 2 filters on the sky, a scatter (could have been a noise filter too) and a gaussian blur filter. Poco2 11:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

*  Comment I see it too. much better now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK now --Llez (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Makes me want to know what's beyond the end of the road. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
    Daniel, that is easy to tell, here it is. Poco2 18:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Atsme 📞 15:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Wat Mae Chon ruins 2 -Sukhothai.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 11:31:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Thailand
  •   Info created by PumpkinSky - uploaded by PumpkinSky - nominated by User:PumpkinSky, note some insect removals were done by User:Michielverbeek back on 16 April 2017. -- PumpkinSky talk 11:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Full disclosure: This image was previously nominated at FPC back in late April 2017. I did not have Lightroom back then and have now learned to use it. The first nomination can be seen here, but it's pulling up the current photo version, not the April version. Prior photo versions can, of course, be viewed in the file history. PumpkinSky talk 11:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but to me it looks overprocessed and not quite sharp. Could be a VI, though, since it's better than the other images in the category.--Peulle (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lack of detail in the bricks, color noise in the sky, and what's with that weird little square up near the top center? I think Peulle is on to something. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment @Daniel Case: I've fixed the box--don't know where that came from--probably a stray click; and worked on the sky and bricks. If you think it is salvaageable from this point, please let me know what to work on; if you think it's not salvegable please let me know that too. I wish I knew about RAW back then. PumpkinSky talk 19:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Over processed. The original suffered from poor lighting. That's not easily fixable for colour images as the results tend to look artificial. The sky is starting to show some colour posterisation in the grey clouds from being pushed. The brickwork and leaves are too contrasty. I see some odd adjustments in the EXIF. For example, this is an ISO 100 image, so I wouldn't expect much if any NR yet we have strong luminance and colour NR. With a Sony sensor there's usually very little reason to touch the colour NR slider unless one has extreme ISO values. Some colour saturation/hue adjustments seem quite extreme too. Best to keep those adjustments modest -- were you trying to make an overcast sky blue? -- Colin (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment @Colin: Yes, I was trying to get the sky blue. It sounds like this isn't fixable so I'll withdraw it. PumpkinSky talk 23:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination PumpkinSky talk 23:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

File:360° vom Schesaplana-Massiv.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 11:27:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info Panoramic view over the Rätikon mountain range, taken on the trail from the Schesaplana to the Mannheim Hut. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 11:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very impressive view and excellent quality regarding exposure and detail. Surely one of our finest. --Code (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I was wowed when I saw it on QIC some days ago and it's still wowing! --Basotxerri (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I tried finding something wrong with this but failed. The depth is amazing, the sharpness good all across the range, no errors that I can see. You can even see the villages deep in the valleys below. Truly it lives up to the designation: "one of the best images on Commons".--Peulle (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Exemplary.--Ermell (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 05:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 09:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Super! --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'll pine   for more like this. Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Yep. --cart-Talk 18:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong   Support per others. So many great details! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - ...and the hiker gives it magnanimous perspective! Atsme 📞 15:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Detail of Wasserglockenbrunnen, Munich, June 2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 08:30:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Fountains
  •   Info Detail of Wasserglockenbrunnen, also known as Wasserpilzbrunnen on Frauenplatz, Munich, at night. It was designed by Bernhard Winkler in 1972. I'm absolutely sure pretty much nobody in Munich could identify this fountain as it's neither important nor spectacular - though situated very prominently. I also had to google its name(s). What I like about the picture is its abstract, almost graphic concentration on details, accentuated by its selective focus range and tight crop. Note that although the image may appear deliberately desaturated, it is in fact not. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Special. --XRay talk 10:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose due to light management (the brighter areas are gone), the subject is original, but the composition not stricking (I know that spot) and only one item is in focus Poco2 11:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, of course the lights are "gone". I mean we're talking about illuminating, bright spotlights. In the night. There wouldn't be anything left to rescue in post at all, not even by applying HDR techniques. I guess it's, as always, a matter of taste. I like both the chiaroscuro as well as the limited DOF. I'd also like to defend the composition that concentrates on one element, the sharp one in the front, but also presents its "natural habitat" in the background. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting! Jee 08:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I am not convinced by the composition, the crop is too tight. Furthermore, most areas are out of focus --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Poco and Uoaei1. There is a featurable image possible of this subject, but it is not this one. Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support - agree with Jee in that it's interesting! ++ for creativity and level of difficulty in capturing a technically challenging image. Atsme 📞 15:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Philharmonie, Berlin, 170518, ako.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 06:01:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Blue hour shot of the south west facade of Berliner Philharmonie (concert hall). The architecture of the concert hall was always a little bit controversial here in Berlin but I somehow like it, especially when we have such a perfect blue hour as it was when I took this photograph. This is a multirow HDR panorama made of 63 single exposures. Before I decided to take a photograph of this view I was walking around the building several times. It was a little bit challenging to find the right perspective because it was very crowdy that evening and there were cars all around the building and I had to search quite a while until I found a place to avoid both the cars and the people to appear in the picture. The east side of the building is even more interesting to photograph but there are construction works going on and as usual in Berlin you never know when they will end or even if they will be finished at all. --Code (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'm impressed. The noise in the sky is not worth mentioning, but are the dark spots in the sky in some cases dust spots? I don't know. But I'm willing to feature the photo as is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Ikan Kekek. I don't think there are any dust spots left. In my workflow I remove the dust spots first in each RAW file and then stitch them together (it's even harder to remove them in the final picture). In larger cities there appear differences in the brightness of the sky which are caused by different light sources all around. They can look like dust or clouds, I think. --Code (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very good work.--Ermell (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support fine picture! I know the building's illuminated with yellow light but could it be that the WB here is just a tiny bit too yellowish? Not a dealbreaker anyway. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Martin. I was playing around with the WB for a while and in the end I think this version was the most true. Cooling the WB down any more would make it look very blueish and the sky would change to a cyanic tone. --Code (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support :-) --XRay talk 11:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- I love the overall ambiance. PumpkinSky talk 11:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment A nice one. I have though the impression that it would benefit from an adjustment of the aspect ratio. It looks a bit squeezed everywhere (not only the cars on the left, that's obvious). Poco2 11:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Poco a poco: Thank you, Poco. I think you don't mean I should change the crop, do you? The picture is equivalent to a ~5mm lens in a rectilinear projection, that makes each sides look somewhat stretched of course. I could change the projection but then the proportions wouldn't be true any more. Any other idea? --Code (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not talking about the crop or the type of panorama projection, but rather about the aspect ration (relationship between height and width) of the whole picture. If, let's say, 70% of the picture is squeezed in the vertical axle then an overall aspect ratio could help, I guess. It's is just an idea. The picture is anyhow really nice. Poco2 13:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I wish some more normal color tones... seems like HDR plastique. --Mile (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I love the colours! -- Wolf im Wald 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Gorgeous. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Atsme 📞 15:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Berlin Hauptbahnhof, Ostseite, 170430, ako.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 05:50:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Berlin main station in the early morning light as seen from east. I went there each sunday morning again and again hoping for a perfect reflection. I tried different lenses and techniques (long exposure, different views, HDR and so on) until I finally got this capture, which is a multirow panorama made of 15 single exposures. It was very tricky and took me a long time to get them stitched properly as there are almost no control points in the water. Some might complain about the dark foreground: This is caused by the shadow of another building (HumboldtHafenEins, I think we don't have any pictures of it on Commons, yet) I was standing in front of (the sun came from behind me). All by me. --Code (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Code (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Superb! - --Ermell (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 08:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support :-) --XRay talk 11:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 11:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good light and good compo, though it's a pity the water at bottom is a bit dark. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 08:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Breathtaking. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kasir (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Großartig! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - nice!! Sharp focus brings the smaller details to life. Atsme 📞 15:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Leptosia nina-Kadavoor-2017-05-04-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 03:40:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •   Info Leptosia nina, Psyche, Wandering Snowflake, is a small butterfly of the family Pieridae found in Asia. All by Jkadavoor -- Jee 03:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jee 03:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 04:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Really striking as a thumbnail, and just as good at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 12:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Quality is perfect for FP, Jee, but you already have an FP of this species taken on the same day File:Leptosia nina-Kadavoor-2017-05-04-003.jpg - is there a significant difference? If not, why nominate another? Charles (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
    Hi Charles, I expected this question while preparing this nom, and this is my thoughts: I see not much similarity in these two pictures other than same species. The previous FP is a classic profile photo for the Wikipedia; this is an artistic composition without giving emphasize to subject details. Here the light is also special; the butterfly is warming up by posing against the morning sun. The diffused flash ensure no details hidden under shadows even though shooting against the sun. I will not nominate this photo as the composition is very much similar to existing FP. (Sorry for the late reply; electricity and Internet went down in the huge Monsoon rain while I was typing a reply yesterday. Still no electricity though Internet and telephone came back.) Jee 04:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support As it seems that FP voters are happy with more than one nomination, that's OK with me. Charles (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Tokyo Metro and JR East at Ochanomizu, Tokyo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 19:48:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Something a bit different, for a change: Tokyo Metro meets JR East at Ochanomizu, Tokyo.
  •   Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support urban chaos wonderfully captured --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support There's a lot going on and normally this is not my kind of photography but somehow it works for me. Don't really know why, but I could look at it for hours. The shadow in the foreground is a pity but I suppose it's not possible to avoid it? --Code (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment The shadow sure isn't optimal and generally I would prefer the scene to be lit better, but due to the orientation of the scene you'd unfortunately need midnight sun. I don't think it gets much better than this (possibly a bit better in June instead of beginning of May) --Kabelleger (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The photo looks very restless but very interesting at the same time. I would crop the sky with the uninteresting windows of the right house above because then the scene you want to show would be more in the focus of the viewer. Otherwise great. --Hockei (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment I don't consider the windows uninteresting because they reflect several other buildings. --Kabelleger (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Above is no reflection in the windows. But it's your decision if you keep it or not. I only said my opinion. BTW, The photo looks very restless ... wasn't meant negative. --Hockei (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Doesn't have anything striking from a purely aesthetic point of view but boy does it work in giving you the feeling of a city constantly active. Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support has EV - put a copy in a time capsule. Atsme 📞 16:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Guanajuato pano1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 18:43:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   InfoGuanajuato is a city and the capital of the state of the same name. Situated in a narrow valley, most of its narrow and winding streets are alleys that cars cannot pass through, and some are long sets of stairs up the mountainsides. Many of the city’s thoroughfares are partially or fully underground. The historic center has numerous small plazas and colonial-era mansions, churches and civil constructions built using pink or green sandstone. Historically Guanajuato was an influential mining city that, in the 18th century, accounted for two-thirds of the world’s silver production. All by KennyOMG -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The shadow in the bottom is distractiong and the image needs a better stitching, in some areas it is tilted in one direction and in some other in the other direction. Quality, on the other side is very good. Poco2 18:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Can you mark/tag some zig-zag tilting areas please? -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Nevermind, Poco, I saw. Restitched from scratch, seems ok'ish now. Please mark if you see any errors still. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
      • I added 3 notes, if you fix those areas, then you are good. Still, as mentioned, I find the areas in shadow too prominent, I'd probably crop the left side, as you couldn't anyhow capture the whole city from that spot and there is not much detail there to enjoy. What software do you use for the stitching? A template like {{Panorama}} would be pretty informative. Finally, I find the file size too big, going down from 30 to 12 MB wouldn't mean a lost of quality that you can perceive IMO (My camera delivers in a frame the same resolution like this panorama and I have played around with this variables often). Poco2 09:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
        • I recommend using 11/12 for Photoshop quality == 90% for Lightroom quality (Lightroom only has 13 steps like Photoshop -- the 0..100 levels are misleading). There really is little point in using 12 or 100% as the extra bytes aren't winning anything visible. -- Colin (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Great job, but the shadow in front is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Guildfordia yoka delicata 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 18:18:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Capivara(Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 17:33:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info created and uploaded by Clodomiro Esteves Junior - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very good composition but too noisy IMO--Ermell (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Noise is acceptable and the image is really good. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • weak   Support a bit noisy and top crop could be improved --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent capture. Noise is not a big thing here and I think this is the perfect example of mitigating reasons. --Code (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per others - the capybaras aren't too noisy. I admit to a bit of bias, in that I had pet guinea pigs as a child, so I like rodents, especially cute ones. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Really a very nice composition and HEV. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 08:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak oppose Per Ermell. --Hockei (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree, it's a bit noisy, but you cannot find such an scene in your garden posing for you. Great composition and acceptable quality for a 500 mm shot. Poco2 12:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ermell.--Peulle (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sharpness and noise. Charles (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose due to noise. Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The scene compensates the noise for me - but some denoising would be good --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Huge wow / cute factor. Noise doesn't detract at all IMO. - Benh (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. Not sure it is reasonable to expect a sharper image at 500mm with consumer gear. -- Colin (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support How frigging cute is that?!! It's one of those shots us wildlife photogs dream about!! Atsme 📞 16:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Arara Azul no Pantanal.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 17:26:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created and uploaded by Leonardo Ramos - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support New category: macro-bird-photography! (Focal plane seems to be a bit closer than the eyes but because of that most of the body feathers are in perfect focus and show wonderful detail so it's not a prob I think.) -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good, but please fix the categories, unless I'm mistaken, this is a photo of a bird not a park. --cart-Talk 20:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is a kind of halo along the left border of the wing on the right side --Llez (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Conditional support per fixing halo noted by Llez. Daniel Case (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Ditto to what Daniel said above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support that would become full support if the image is lighten up, it's a bit too dark. Poco2 12:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 23:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Cute! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 11:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Regretfully since it is a great photo. But it has been saved with ProPhotoRGB colourspace, which is totally unsuitable for JPG or internet use (see User:Colin/BrowserTest for why the majority of our users -- mobile -- will see extremely bad colours). The halo noted seems I guess to be a crudely applied mask perhaps to reduce sharpening-noise or to apply NR or increase exposure, and which is overlapping the edge. I think we would expect our regulars to do that more carefully. -- Colin (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

File:EstatuaFliaAlzaga-jun2017edited.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 12:13:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Highlights fixed, thanks @Llez: --Ezarateesteban 01:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunately, they now look posterized. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Reprocessed Ezarateesteban 03:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Heiliggrabkapelle -- 2017 -- 0015-21.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 07:03:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • There were lights behind the wall and the paintings are pale. --XRay talk 14:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Ah, so they've faded. I'll go ahead and support. Nice job given the conditions.PumpkinSky talk 14:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Nevertheless I'll check for improvements. Thanks for your advice. --XRay talk 15:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Abtei, Dachgeschoss -- 2017 -- 9918-24 (bw).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 04:52:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
  •   Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 04:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info There is a colored version of this image too. IMO the black-and-white one is the better one. It emphasizes the structure and the room. --XRay talk 04:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 04:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I am currently reading "Black & White Photography: The timeless art of monochrome in the post-digital age" by Michael Freeman (only £5.99 in the Kindle edition which looks great on my phone/PC). Freeman extensively discusses "why b&w", and this image is a great example. -- Colin (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Colin: didn't notice he had a new one out: thanks for the info → paperback pre-ordered. --El Grafo (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support An irresistible storage of angles and lines. --cart-Talk 09:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agree, the b&w version is better. Lovely. Nice job. PumpkinSky talk 11:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support excellent bw conversion --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral blacks are too harsh for the mood I think. -- KennyOMG (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --El Grafo (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support There are a lot of textures and contrasts everywhere, this picture is ideal for B&W. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The emptiness of the room comes through more clearly in black and white. Daniel Case (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice :) - Benh (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support This is really good - Price Zero|talk 16:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Oh, yes! Atsme 📞 01:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Tugboats Boss and Svitzer Hymer leaving Lahälla 4.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 19:39:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info Tugboats Svitzer Hymer and Boss in Brofjorden setting out to assist a tanker entering the fjord and the oil port at Preemraff oil refinery. The fjord is so deep that the tankers have no problem going right up to the berths and cliffs along the shore, but when the wind is strong (as it was this day), an empty tanker lying high in the water can drift when it's going at a low speed. That's where the tugboats come in. The tugboats are stationed at Lahälla, across the fjord from the oil port. I was there to photograph Ryxö island for sv-wiki, so I had a front row seat and camera ready when the boats set out. I got a whole series of shots and I like this one best because of the relatively clean background and also because the distance from the camera makes the two boats appear in more similar size in the photo. There is something very wow-y seeing such powerful boats making good speed across the water, even if you can't hear the sound in the photos. All by me, -- cart-Talk 19:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 19:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I can almost hear them. Atsme 📞 20:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good arrangement, with uncluttered background. -- Colin (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Love it, especially all the rich vibrant blues. PumpkinSky talk 20:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 02:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Sorry, but the focus is a bit too soft for me, especially on the top half of the left boat.--Peulle (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Please don't use the {{weak oppose}} or similar templates as the Bot can't count these. Use the piped version of {{o}} and {{s}} instead. I have fixed that for you now. :) As for the focus, well, in this case it was either sharper boats when they were closer but with a cluttered background, or boats further away with better background but softer focus. See the series on the file page. I chose the better compo. --cart-Talk 12:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know that about the bot. Thanks.--Peulle (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Photographers don't often take a stern view of boats (I guess they like them too much  ). Good for you for making this one work so well. And how helpful that one of them has its IMO painted on its stern! Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks! The stern is sort of the "business end" of a tugboat so more interesting than the bow. I also like the "going away on a mission" feeling you get from a stern view. --cart-Talk 20:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Winter Landscape with Brabrand Church.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 19:24:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Landscape
  •   Info In this sunny June weather, here's a lovely winter landscape painting to cool you down. Painting by Christian David Gebauer. Photo all by me. -- Colin (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- of course -- --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - what Christmas cards are made of...Atsme 📞 20:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks like Currier and Ives PumpkinSky talk 20:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Love those old days! Jee 03:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • edges are seen on left and right side. --Mile (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • None of the frame is visible. There is nothing more to trim without losing painting. -- Colin (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
      • It could be some shadow from the frame, that is often a problem at museums. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
        • I don't see a way to avoid this without removing the painting from the frame. It isn't imo intrusive as the painting is quite dark. If our artwork experts think it is fine to trim a pixel off the left and right, then I can do that, otherwise I'd prefer to show as much of the painting as possible. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice cooling motif. It is captured very well so that you can see the brush strokes but they are not lighted in a way that disturbs the painting. Knowing how meticulous you are, I have no doubt the WB and color correspond with the original even, if they are a bit different from the other photos of this painting. --cart-Talk 09:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good work, you can even see the cracks in the paint.--Peulle (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Elvis Presley, Delbert Sonny West, and Jerry Schilling meeting Richard Nixon.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 15:35:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info created by Ollie Atkins, chief White House photographer, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Grainy, but cannot be retaken... I think this one is the best picture of the meeting. I did very little restoration. Please tell me if you think more is needed. -- Yann (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 15:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - the picture made me a little weak-kneed....(seeing Elvis of course)...Atsme 📞 20:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It has a certain wow factor, but the grain is disturbing. I know it was 1970, but the technology back then wasn't good enough to get a decent shot inside the White House? It just looks like the guy grabbed any old camera and took a snapshot rather than preparing with a proper camera and a flash. I'm not opposing because of said wow factor, but I just can't bring myself to support it either.--Peulle (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the Oval was as ell lit during the everyday business as you'd think it was, meaning for simple hand held shots they had to use fast films -> grain. Also if you compare it to the Elvis-Nixon pic this clearly is a significantly better scan as well. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Aciagrion occidentale-Kadavoor-2017-05-08-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 14:09:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
  •   Info Aciagrion occidentale, Green striped slender dartlet, is a species of damselfly in the family Coenagrionidae found in India, Sri Lanka. This is a small and slender damselfly. They are extremely slim compared to the length 22-24mm; that's why this genus is called "Slims". But, in spite of their delicate build, they enjoy migration by rising high in the air and takes advantage of its lightweight in air currents. All by Jkadavoor -- Jee 14:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jee 14:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the angle of the plant and the insect --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 15:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but it is too dark. Additionally the black background above the head and thorax is very disturbing me. The dragonfly almost merges with it. --Hockei (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Wow! That dartlet is like the Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner of the insect world. Atsme 📞 20:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak Support because of the dark background -- Wolf im Wald 20:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. Charles (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Uoaei1. Very good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Vettisfossenvideo.webmEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 12:00:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info created, uploaded & nominated by Kallerna. Not sure about the criteria for videos, but I guess this one has a lot of "wow". kallerna 12:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support kallerna 12:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Its too short, and could be in 16:9, not 9:16. Strange to see. Also quality is not great, like not in HD. --Mile (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Mile ... I really don't think this phone-style video works for this. When it comes back up I want to see more of the landscape. If it had just been a static image of the waterfall, without any attempt to show the surroundings, I think it could have worked. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I also agree with Mile. It is too hasty, like a video you do when you don't want a too large file to send to friends on the phone. The rollercoaster panning of the shot does not make for a pleasant experience either. --cart-Talk 09:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. It has a bit of wow, but that's all it has.--Peulle (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Монашките испоснички пештери во Зрзе.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 10:16:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:EstatuaTumbaFliaAlzaga-jun2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 22:23:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info all by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 22:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 22:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Looks good at full screen on my laptop, but at full size, highlights are blown. Could you fix that? I'm not guaranteed to support if you do (I like the statue, so I may support, but I'm less sure about the other things at the bottom, so I might not vote), but if not, I will probably oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, per Ikan, there's a couple of technical issues --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others wrt blown highlights but the composition at the bottom is cluttered. Not even a QI I'm afraid. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Highlights fixed @Ikan Kekek: --Ezarateesteban 15:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
    The image no longer appears to have any shadow or black tones at all. I think you need to learn to use RawTherapee better or else find a better tool. You could try "Capture One Express (for Sony) 10.0 Windows", which is what Jee uses. -- Colin (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for making the highlights less bright. I'm still not feeling wowed, though. The bottom and top of the statue are noticeably unsharp and the sky is a bit blotchy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    Yes; CaptureOne is free for Sony raw files. It has wonderful ability to keep the black as black even if we lift the shadows a lot. Jee 02:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noise, CA and cluttered bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination thanks to all Ezarateesteban 12:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Lagartija de lava de San Cristóbal (Microlophus bivittatus), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 46.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 22:01:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
  •   Info Male exemplar of a San Cristóbal lava lizard (Microlophus bivittatus), a species of lava lizard endemic to San Cristóbal Island (where the image was taken) in the Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. Poco2 22:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 22:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 04:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition is out here. --Mile (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Background is too much of a distraction. Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow. Looks like a standard lizard pic. Composition looks haphazard. Daphne Lantier 18:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    Daphne: Standard? Please, show me a second lizzard with this sharpness and resolution Poco2 18:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    When I said standard, I was referring more to the composition. The sharpness and resolution might make it a viable VIC, but there's nothing wowing overall. The lizard is sitting on a rock (part of which is cropped out) with a busy background. I also wonder about the lens focal length. I would think you could get closer to a sitting lizard than 200mm. In the end, I'm just saying the image doesn't wow me; I'm not saying it isn't a quality image. Daphne Lantier 19:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Impressive, but the tail of the lizard lacks of definition. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Poco2 14:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Матка 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 21:41:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose The white balance does look really off to me. Also, there's quite a lot of noise.--Peulle (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - the ripple effect in the water's reflection, the scene, the composition, the light refraction that makes it all seem unrealistic - love it. Atsme 📞 20:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle and Uoaei1. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now The noise is unavoidable when shooting fog (I know!) but the "fluorescent lamp" WB is not doing this photo any favors. I did a version taking the WB from the paint on one of the boats (it's in my dropbox) and this revealed a lot more detail in the mountains. It also gave the pic more depth since it shows that there is sunshine beyond the mists in the gorge. I could support such a version. --cart-Talk 10:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Portrait of Henry VIII of England (Holbein).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 20:25:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info Henry VIII (28 June 1491 – 28 January 1547) was King of England from 21 April 1509 until his death. Henry was the second Tudor monarch, succeeding his father, Henry VII. Henry is best known for his six marriages and, in particular, his efforts to have his first marriage, to Catherine of Aragon, annulled. His disagreement with the Pope on the question of such an annulment led Henry to initiate the English Reformation, separating the Church of England from papal authority and appointing himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England. Despite his resulting excommunication, Henry remained a believer in core Catholic theological teachings.Hans Holbein the Younger (German: Hans Holbein der Jüngere) (c. 1497 – between 7 October and 29 November 1543) was a German and Swiss artist and printmaker who worked in a Northern Renaissance style. He is best known as one of the greatest portraitists of the 16th century.He also produced religious art, satire and Reformation propaganda, and made a significant contribution to the history of book design. He is called "the Younger" to distinguish him from his father, Hans Holbein the Elder, an accomplished painter of the Late Gothic school. All by LivioAndronico (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose out of focus or motion blur --The Photographer 00:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very fine image, should try again - on higher ISO, some 1000 shouldnt hurt. --Mile (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others; not up to the exceedingly high standard set by painting photos by institutions like the Getty Museum. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose Per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Well below our standards for digitizations. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Half Dome from near Glacier Point.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 18:57:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#California
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 18:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 18:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Spectacular like the other one but is there a need for 2 almost identical FPs? -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment I don't see them as almost identical. There are significant composition differences IMHO. Even if there weren't, I'd still support. PumpkinSky talk 19:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
      •   Info Hello Kenny, this image was taken in 2016, the other one in 2015 during another trip. Moreover the images were taken from two different locations (see geodata) and I think they show different aspects (flora in the foreground vs. view into the valley). Regards, -- Wolf im Wald 20:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
        •   Comment Not much below the exact same discussion was going on about two bird pictures and what constitutes "different enough". -- KennyOMG (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
          •   Comment I've read the discussion, but between these bird images was a time difference of only a few minutes and the subject was the same (excluding the birds head pose). The Yosemite images show different perspectives and they have a time difference of about 11 months. Therefore the sky is very different becaus they were not taken at the same day. Besides the camera locations are about 500 meters apart (see geodata). So I don't think, that the situation is comparable with the bird. Regards -- Wolf im Wald 23:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
            •   Support People have spoketh. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 19:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - When I was comparing the two pictures, I felt the other one had a better composition, but this is such a big, sharp (with the exception of the near right corner) photo, with so many wonderful details that it deserves the star, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 04:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Quite a different viewpoint and composition with the foreground trees. Great resolution. -- Colin (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support but probably I would play a bit with exposure and WB - maybe this is not optimal yet. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Anyhow per Uoaei1. --Hockei (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Feels like I could walk right into it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'll bite on both these versions since they are so well done. Can't help but thinking that the Half Dome looks like a hooded version of the Grim Reaper looking out over his realm. --cart-Talk 10:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Colin. --Code (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 22:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural/United States#California

File:Eberstein Hochfeistritz Pfarr-und Wallfahrtskirche Unsere Liebe Frau 19062017 9688.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 16:52:29 (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) 16:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 19:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the diagonal line crossing the image. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support nice Ezarateesteban 23:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but I'm just not wowed. For me it's an average composition in average light. -- King of ♠ 04:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Compositionally very nice. --Code (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It's not the most "wow"-like image, but one thing that is usually difficult when shooting churches is to get the whole building from wall to spire sharp without distortions. That's done well here. Composition is good, depth is good - the only real issue with it is that the light is a bit boring. Next time, tell God to line up a sunset perfectly for you exactly when you need it. ;) --Peulle (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Your comments about the lighting conditions comply one hundred percent with my thoughts about the situation of the image. Hopefully it will occur one day that I will be there shooting at sunup or sundown. I started my prayers to God asking Him for compliancy. ;) -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the interplay of lines and forms. Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 11:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Pink anemonefish BWP.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 16:20:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Fish
  •   Info Pink anemonefish (Amphiprion perideraion) shot underwater (Pacific) at dark thirty, approx. 40 ft. deep with noticeable current/surge as indicated by the anemone. Location was Manta Ray Bay, Federated States of Micronesia where the giant mantas fly in for cleaning. All by -- Atsme 📞 16:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Atsme 📞 16:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 16:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support good shot, if there would be higher pixelage i would crop to enfocus the fish. --Mile (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice fish expresion and hight EV --The Photographer 17:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Atsme, based on your superb track record of ocean pics, I assume this is real color, including the blue parts of the anemone tentacles (though is there posterization?), and I will   Support like everyone else. I think the most logical place for the annotation in the file would be where the fish is; do you agree? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
All natural color, Ikan, and thank you for the kind words. The tips are iridescent so it's not surprising that with the refraction of light in the water and bounced light of the flash against the anemone tips, glints of different shades and colors would reflect off the tips. I do know the anemone will glow where the host fish touch it. I did clean up bits & pieces of backscatter in the background which is customary practice with u/w images. I also wouldn't doubt that when an anemone feels threatened, or it's host fish is fluttering about nervously that the reaction may cause some color changes but I'd have to do more research to be for certain. Apologies, but I'm not quite sure about your annotation reference?Forgot I added the annotation, and yes, I agree so I changed it.19:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC) I encourage you to do whatever you feel is necessary. Atsme 📞 18:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 18:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support a few small but ok --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 04:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportBruce1eetalk 06:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The tiny amount of motion blur on the anemones doesn't detract from the fact that this is a stellar FP. Outstanding work. --Peulle (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Finding Atsme! :) It looks almost like a painting. --cart-Talk 10:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support super. Charles (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 22:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Fish

File:Після грози ).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 16:12:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Swift11 -- Swift11 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Swift11 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beeee-u-teee-ful....Atsme 📞 16:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It seems to be a spectacular picture but this is ps gone too far for me. Will absolutely support a more "modest" (and hopefully larger) version. -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Sorry, summer thunderstorms in the mountains, in "regime time" they are so... -- Swift11
  •   Comment Swift11 please can you upload this image without downsizing. -- Colin (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done Please, the size increased -- Swift11
  •   Support Thanks for the size upgrade. There's little EXIF info but I assume this was shot with your D80 which explains why this cropped photo is still only 5MP. I'm a bit skeptical that some of the scene owes to processing rather than reality, but assuming not, then it really is too fantastic a view to oppose over minor technical issues. Could you please add an English description to the file page? -- Colin (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done English description added -- Swift11
  •   Oppose It's beautiful and all, but the technical issues stand in the way of an FP for me; there seems to be some chromatic aberrations by the top of the trees, then there's the compression issues/grain in the grass near the camera as well as in the fog on the near left.--Peulle (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Fixed Fixed some technical flaws... Peulle thank you! -- Swift11 13:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Colin. Jee 12:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per other opposers --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Colin; I don't see anything that bothers me enough to oppose. Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very well done landscape Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Per User:Colin and now some tech issues have been fixed. PumpkinSky talk 12:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I've been unsure for a while, but I've decided this photo is striking enough to merit a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Golden Gate Bridge as seen from Fort Point.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2017 at 19:52:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

After looking for a better one I give up opposing. There insn´t one convincing me 100%. Never been there, I didnt´t know, that it seems to be very difficult to find an optimal shooting location. Maybe Baker Beach is a bit better.
  Support Finally I think now, this image belongs to the Category:Featured pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge. Also the slight haze is ok and typical for this motif. --Milseburg (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others: Good, but doesn't really stand out among the masses. --El Grafo (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Clear FP for me.I cannot find masses of FPs of that bridge and especially from that point of view.--Ermell (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I took this picture when I realized that we don't have any decent pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge from that side of the Bay. If you browse throught the category Golden Gate Bridge from Fort Point you'll see what I mean. Now, there are many different ways you can photograph an iconic building like this. I chose to take a picture that shows it in a realistic and documentary style. Not one of those HDR / fake sky / etc. images. I tried to show the bridge the way I see it every morning. Ideally with some fog that slowly dissolves in the sun. I thought it was important to include Fort Point because it was almost demolished (the 1930s plan called for its removal), and I also tried to capture the enormous scale of the building. I acknowledge that other pictures might have more of a "wow factor" than this one. However, I'd just like to point out that I consciously captured the scene "as is", because I'd like us to have at least one featured picture of the bridge done without special effects. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC) P.S. I got actually even more puzzled today when I looked at the Category:Featured pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge. Seems like we had no success in over a decade with creating a picture that shows the bridge as it is ;-)
  •   Support For Ermell!--LivioAndronico (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. 16 MP in reasonably good early morning light is quite sufficient for a normal featured picture, but for something so heavily photographed with multiple FPs already, I'd expect more, either on resolution or "wow" factor. The bar is simply set quite high for the Golden Gate Bridge, even if this exact view has no FPs. -- King of ♠ 04:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Carefully considered oppose, now that King, who has a lot of SF FPs himself, has !voted. I fully endorse Frank's initiative in trying to take an FP-level image of the bridge from this angle, but as good as it is the bar is still higher. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I'd like to comment on something else: there are a couple of white spots that I'm not sure about (see annotations), perhaps they're pixel flaws or perhaps it's nothing. But please take a look.--Peulle (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Peulle, it's birds. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment KennyOMG, Milseburg, El Grafo, King of hearts, Daniel Case: thanks a lot for your feedback. I really appreciate it. Over the past couple of years, feedback here on Commons has been essential for me to improve my photography skills. – Would you mind pointing me to photos on the web (Flickr, 500px, etc.) that come closer to what you're looking for? I'm really at a loss. Once I get a better idea of what you'd consider a superior picture, I'll go back and try to take a better image for Commons. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support it is a classical subject, nevertheless I like the picture.--Christof46 (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King. --Karelj (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Alternative versionEdit

 

  •   Comment I went back to the Presidio this morning and took a different picture. Do you like this version better? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like this one better, but it is not an alternative. You should make another nomination. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ok. Will do. Thanks! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.09.09.-07-Anglersee Bruehl--Grosse Heidelibelle-Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2017 at 10:58:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Skimmers)
  •   Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I love it although DOF is pretty low. -- Wolf im Wald 13:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support - only the head and top left wing is in focus which gives me pause but overall it's quite catchy. Atsme 📞 16:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info I used F13. This is according to my experience the best compromise between sharpness and DOF. F14, the next step, brings not much more worthwhile DOF in a picture like this and then F16 is hardly usable in most cases. -- Hockei (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Macros of tiny fluttery critters are near impossible to capture in full focus. Totally understand. Detail in the head, legs & anterior carapace are great!! Atsme 📞 03:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Trithemis pallidinervis 1725.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 18:19:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
  •   Info created and uploaded by Vengolis - nominated by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Peulle (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support - support everything except the soft focus. Atsme 📞 16:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The eyes should be sharp and they obviously are not in this case. Apparently was well concealed here.--Ermell (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Atsme and Ermell -- Wolf im Wald 15:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose - Dull light and good but not exceptional sharpness, so though quite good, this photo doesn't seem to me to be quite up to the level of really outstanding odonata FPs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice dragonfly. But the quality is not good enough. Low Sharpness and too much noise. Also the crop could be better. Right and left is too much empty room. --Hockei (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose quite surprised it got QI. Charles (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Guépier d'Europe ichkeul 112.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 15:20:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Support --Hockei (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Bottom crop is too tight on the tail feathers. Daphne Lantier 16:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent capture. Good and sharp rendition of the plumage.--Peulle (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 20:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 20:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good; but just turning the head in a few minutes difference will not make another FP. Jee 03:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Jee. @Yann, Hockei, Daphne Lantier, Peulle, Der Wolf im Wald:@PumpkinSky: -- you can support both if you like but just making you aware we promoted the other side of his head only three weeks ago, and this frame wasn't uploaded at the time. I think El Golli Mohamed has uploaded many fine bird photos, and I'd prefer so see a nomination of a different one. -- Colin (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Machts nichts. It's the same species, maybe even the same bird, but it's not the same picture nor another version of the same picture. According to the EXIF data the two pics were shot at different times on the same day. It's in a different position and in a different pose. Oppose if you like though, @Colin:. PumpkinSky talk 09:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
      •   Comment Being new at FPC, I'm still a bit confused. Last time I asked, the answers seemed to conclude that it would be OK with several FPs of the same species of bird, but it was not really clear just how similar pictures have to be in order for them to overlap to the point that only one of them can be FP. Thinking about it now, I think I'll make my own decision instead of looking for a consensus: the way I read the rules, they want to avoid having several FP images that are very similar. Otherwise users would just upload dozens of images from the same set in order to get more FPs. I think this case hits that criterion - the only difference is the direction of the bird's head, everything else is the same IMO: position, location, time (only 4 min between). Personally, I think this capture is slightly better, so I would prefer to have the other image delisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peulle (talk • contribs) 10:49, 20 June 2017‎ (UTC)
        • Most of the photographers here will have many photos of each subject taken at essentially the same moment. For example, in the three minutes between these two photos, the camera EXIF claims 44 shots were taken. We choose the best one, rather than nominating every variation of subject movement, and I think most of us here would not like FP to become a forum where multiple frames from the same moment were routinely featured. That's what "finest" is about. Like El Grafo, I would support a "delist and replace" if El Golli Mohamed thinks this one is superior. I think they are much the same. -- Colin (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
          • @Peulle, Colin: Your posts explain your positions better. The crux of this issue is shown by "but it was not really clear just how similar pictures have to be in order for them to overlap to the point that only one of them can be FP", if 44 shots in 4 minutes is too similar, is 50 in 5 minutes ok? Just how much of the body position needs to change? "upload dozens of images from the same set in order to get more FPs" and "a forum where multiple frames from the same moment were routinely featured" suggest we want to avoid "FP count-itis", which I agree with. So the question becomes, where exactly do you draw the line? People aren't going to agree on this. I'll ponder this issue more. PumpkinSky talk 12:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
            • I don't think anyone would support trying to regulate this with something official, so there is no need to "draw the line". Why reduce the argument down to one that a machine could judge? Generally, this has not been a problem: most nominators quickly get the message that they should nominate a variety of dissimilar images. Mostly this sort of thing happens by accident because people are unaware of the nomination of a similar image. Part of the review process is examining similar images and similar FPs, and sometimes nominators forget to do this. FP is not just a method for choosing "our finest" work, but a forum where people enjoy reviewing great photos. If folk started nominating a series of similar images they took at the same time, perhaps with the argument "this one is just as good, therefore should be featured too" then we'd all get really bored really quickly. And there would also be a feeling that games were being played simply to get more FPs (not saying this is the case here). -- Colin (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
              • By drawing the line I meant we each have to decide where that line is ourselves. People will never agree what is too similar or not. PumpkinSky talk 14:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
                • Agree not everyone will agree on each image, which is why we vote/discuss, but the "line" doesn't have to be determined by some personal algorithm like you seem to imply with the 44 vs 50 frames question. It is more of a gut feeling and judgment call. -- Colin (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above. FP is about images that stand out against others, so featuring basically the same motif twice doesn't make much sense to me. I like the composition of this on a bit better, so I'd probably support a "delist and replace" nomination, though. --El Grafo (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Jee. --Hockei (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Though an analogous photograph, of the same author and about the same subject, was featured some weeks ago, it does not diminish the quality of this photo or its usefulness. --Harlock81 (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Harlock81, QI is the project where useful/high-quality is judged without reference to previous works. FP is for the "best" or "finest". -- Colin (talk)
      • Colin, IMHO if "the best" was been meant in a so absolute way, probably none picture presented in the last weeks could be considered appropriate for FP. --Harlock81 (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
      • I think you are misinterpreting what "the best" means. -- Colin (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
        • The problem is that "the best" and "the finest" aren't clearly defined in the rules. It seems to me that Colin interprets that to mean "the finest within a group of photos that are highly similar" (akin to VI rules). Even that begs the question "what exactly does highly similar mean?". As I said before, people simply aren't going to agree on this topic...it's too nebulous to precisely pin down. PumpkinSky talk 10:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
          • You are seeing problems where there aren't. Of course these cannot be "clearly defined". It is our job as "the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons". It seems pretty clear to me the community is capable of determining this without rules, an generally it does not require this much navel gazing as to whether we need rules or not. -- Colin (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose delist and replace. Charles (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree with Charlesjsharp and others above. Atsme 📞 15:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

File:A mountain seen while going Dhumba lake.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 11:46:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Iceshra - uploaded by Iceshra - nominated by Biplab Anand -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 11:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 11:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. --Yann (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Are those halos on the left, where the brown mountain in the foreground meets the white background?--Peulle (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support-- KennyOMG (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment And which mountains are those? Categories are missing, and the image title should also say so. I'd guess Nilgiri North and Tilicho left in the background (under the white cloud), but I don't know for sure. Lupo 13:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Reasonably well-done from a technical standpoint, but compositionally it doesn't stand out from so many of our other mountain landscapes. It feels, actually, like the right half of a possibly featurable panorama. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Further information about the motif are lacking. I´m not conviced with the composition. IMHO there ist too much empty blue sky. --Milseburg (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel Case. --Karelj (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.10.04.-04-Mannheim Vogelstang--Haussperling-Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 10:49:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Just a   Comment. I don't think that the nature wants to expose eyes of (this kind of) birds to the sun. Also the area around the eyes is black so it has a reinforcing effect. --Hockei (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that's true about birds' eyes. 16:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info New version with changed crop. --Hockei (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Lošmi (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - lovely! Atsme 📞 16:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The softness and delicacy may be an inadvertent result of uncertain processing, or they may be deliberate, but the end result is the same different take on this very common sort of image here. This way, it almost looks like what you see printed on the side of that cup your grandmother serves you tea in when you go to her house. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Silesian Beskids - hiking trial to Barania Góra peak 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 08:35:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

After reading other people point of view including agreement with Ikan I change my vote to   Neutral. --Hockei (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The contrasts between the sky, forest and crystaline snow gives sufficient wow factor for me. The depth of the image is enough to see the frost fog in the valleys far below.--Peulle (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Puelle PumpkinSky talk 20:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 21:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Something that never happen in South India; so I may be biased. Jee 03:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose - The technical quality of this photo is really high and it has a nice winter mood. I especially like the frosty trees and the pastel colors in the background. However, the crop on the upper right bugs me enough to mildly oppose a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - love the layered background on the left, the colors and sparkle of the snow. The crop could have started at the gap just past the first few trees on right as the overall beauty of the picture is more to the left. Atsme 📞 16:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Martin; it was the nominator's good fortune that I first saw this on a particularly warm and humid day, in my own home, which by choice does not have air conditioning. Makes me want to go down to the basement, get skis or snowshoes, and enter it. I can practically feel the crispness of the air. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 11:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Gevlekte orchis. Orchis (Dactylorhiza maculata subsp. Maculata) 05.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 04:26:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alternative, another versionEdit

 

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Orchidaceae .
  •   Info Spotted Orchid (Dactylorhiza maculata subsp. Maculata). Spotted Orchid is on the red list in the Netherlands. The blurred background is the natural habitat of the orchid.
  •   Support Atsme 📞 19:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Pinging opposers to see if they like this version better: Hockei, Daphne Lantier, Ikan Kekek Atsme 📞 19:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Better, yes, but undecided on whether to support or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support this too. Jee 12:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Río Ibar, Ribarice, Serbia, 2014-04-15, DD 02.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2017 at 05:32:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created & uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think this is a great photo, and I'd like to argue preemptively against any suggestion of cropping or retouching the photo so as to eliminate the garbage from the near left corner. I think it serves as both a contrast to the beautiful natural scene and a visual lesson to people to stop littering. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 06:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Thank you Ikan! Poco2 08:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not seeing what is special here. Perhaps I am used to damp weather in Scotland. Bare trees, and not especially sharp image, with the lighting so diffused there is little contrast. -- Colin (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - To me, the mist is a feature, not a bug, but I also really like the the form, with its topography. But it's inescapable that scenes that are usual for any of us tend not to produce a feeling of wow, so I understand your reaction completely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The earthtones are lovely. Imagine traveling the road on the left. I've actually had similar adventures in the Andes, and several busses now have new button holes in the seats where this gal sat. Atsme 📞 18:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Calming and subtle. -- King of ♠ 03:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. I don't find the composition striking, it seems almost random, and the litter at the left front is distracting and discordant. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Colin. --Milseburg (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel, "random" is the first (and only) word that pops in my head. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Colin. Daphne Lantier 21:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your comments. I continue not to understand why anyone would find this composition random, but I do understand the criticism about the garbage. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Garaio - Puente de Azúa 01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2017 at 20:33:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
  •   Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 20:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Atsme 📞 21:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - The straight shadows help the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good composition --LivioAndronico (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Livio. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice enough composition, though quite a common one for a bridge. The vanishing point isn't even close to being centred, which is quite important for this kind of composition. So I don't think this reaches the FP bar. -- Colin (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hi Colin, thank you for your comment. In fact, I see that there is potential for improvement. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Colin. I trust, however, that the irregularity of the railing lines is as is and not an effect of the photography? Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin, the lack of symmetry is distracting. -- King of ♠ 03:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin. --Karelj (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 22:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Bridges

File:Arch of Constantine at Night (Rome).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2017 at 18:38:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Monuments and memorials
  •   Info The Arch of Constantine (Italian: Arco di Costantino) is a triumphal arch in Rome, situated between the Colosseum and the Palatine Hill. It was erected by the Roman Senate to commemorate Constantine I's victory over Maxentius at the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312. Dedicated in 315, it is the largest Roman triumphal arch. The arch spans the Via triumphalis, the way taken by the emperors when they entered the city in triumph. All by -- LivioAndronico (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 20:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent Atsme 📞 21:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose First I wanted to support this nomination, but after looking closer at it I'm not really convinced any more. When looking at the fence you can see that the whole picture is leaning backwards (and/or to the right) a little bit. The fence should be rectilinear. Also, there is a part at the right side missing which spoils the symmetry. Another thing is that I can see a strange halo (looks like banding) around the arch when looking at it at 100% size although I have to admit that I'm not sure whether it's a problem with my display. Maybe someone with a calibrated display can have a closer look at it? Generally I would prefer a blue hour shot. The darkness of the night makes the trees merge with the sky. They would contrast better if the sky was a little bit brighter. Then we have the usual problem that the file description is not sufficient and a geotag is missing. --Code (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Code -- Wolf im Wald 00:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Atsme. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I love this arch, but the strong white light and particularly the shadows are unfortunately very distracting to me. I realize that there may be no way to avoid these shadows in a night photo, which could mean that I don't think an FP night photo of this arch is possible, though of course I take everything case by case. But I think the main point is to get a great photo of the arch in which all of one side is optimally visible, and that probably requires more even light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. I suggest trying from this angle which will make the fence less dominant and is a better angle for showing the 3D form. I agree that blue hour is better, though Ikan may be right that the artificial lighting isn't great and you are stuck with it. We're not seeing much detail of the artwork on the arch, and our FPs often do show more detail than this. So a stitched image may be the way for you to get more detail from your camera. -- Colin (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 22:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)