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:Egyptian Scribe - Louvre January 2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 19:45:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Vista de Tiflis, Georgia, 2016-09-29, DD 52-55 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 17:33:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Phalacrocorax carbo, Hérault River cf01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 16:57:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Allegory Treaty of the Pyrenees Louvre.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 09:28:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:First NASA ISINGLASS rocket launch.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 02:18:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Ice formations 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 23:37:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Ice
  •   Info Icicles and ice formations on a granite cliff in Gåseberg, Lysekil Municipality, Sweden. The "growth rings" or banding on the icicles occurs as the water in the soil above the cliff thaws during the day and freezes during the night. All my me -- cart-Talk 23:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 23:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like this series a lot and respect you for preferring this photo, though I prefer the other ones that feel to me like they show flow more and look more waterfally, especially File:Ice formations 4.jpg and File:Ice formations 5.jpg, and specifically in terms of this photo, I prefer File:Ice formations 3.jpg, which because it shows more height shows the flow of the ice more. But every photo in this series is quite interesting. Perhaps more than one could be featured, eventually? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The textures in the icicles are rather mesmerizing at full resolution. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 03:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Flood under the Old Route 49 bridge crossing over the South Yuba River in Nevada City, California.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 23:04:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info created by Kelly M. Grow/ California Department of Water Resources, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support There is a bit of CA left, I wasn't able to remove it completely. Seeing the size, and that it cannot be retaken, it should be OK. -- Yann (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportJuliancolton | Talk 02:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 03:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive composition, sharperning fallen water is always difficult --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Pont-canal de l'Orb cf07.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 22:12:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Henk Fortuin, het Lage Licht foto5 2017-02-01 15.44.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 20:14:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sognefjorden sett frå Skjersnes.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 20:00:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Norway
  •   Info created by bep - uploaded by bep - nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Seen on QIC. Nice! --Basotxerri (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support great mood! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Martin. Very interesting light. Good photographer; I've been enjoying his pictures and sensibility. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very pleasant composition. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Mmmm.... --cart-Talk 23:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support As I'm probably off for some days I will support it in advance -   Comment trusting that the CAs (lower border of the rope and the cliffs on the right bank) will be fixed. --PtrQs (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@Bep: As you surely work with the RAW, could you try to fix this? Thanks in advance! --Basotxerri (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support What a wonderful scene! --Schnobby (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I love its smokiness ... I can practically taste salmon in my mouth as I look at it, feel the cold breeze against my cheek, and a slight sense of dread at the prospect of the cold depths below. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 19:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jardín Botánico Olarizu - Bellota de encina 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 19:47:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Ice
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support great esp. at full screen! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Brilliant. -- King of ♠ 21:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - There may be something that I'm missing, because while I like the acorn, the frosty leaves that are clear and the light, the composition isn't working for me that much, I think partly because so many of the leaves blend into this resplendent light to such an extent, but maybe more so because of the nature of the arabesque created by the clearer leaves. I think I'd enjoy the composition more if there were more space under the bottom leaves on the left, or at least if they weren't cut off, but of course I don't know what shapes are under them. I'm inclined to respect whatever consensus develops but so far don't feel impelled to vote for this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Perky little acorn perfectly placed in the photo, one of those pics that makes me happy to see. :) --cart-Talk 23:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 03:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the juxtapositions of seasonal images this creates: the hoarfrost on the green leaves (apparently the holm oak is a broadleaf evergreen, just like the mountain laurel so common in the higher-elevation woods I hike in over here) with the plucky little acorn cart noted suggesting fall. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Echt judasoor (Auricularia auricula-judae, synoniem, Hirneola auricula-judae). Locatie, Natuurterrein De Famberhorst 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 19:05:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Fungi # Auricularia auricula-judae # Family: Auriculariaceae.
  •   Info real Auricularia auricula-judae (Auricularia auricula-judae, synonym, Hirneola auricula-judae). Location, Natuurterrein The Famberhorst. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support great but please remove the dust spot. Thanks! --21:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I don't see a dust spot. Clean lines, nice placement of the tree ears within the picture frame, interesting shapes, good light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see it now. Very light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  Done. spot removed. Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not only is the bottom branch somewhat distracting, it is also rather noisy, and the edges of the branches sort of look weird and overprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: The dead narrow branch in dissolution.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:20110421 Tbilisi Georgia Panoramic.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 18:51:52
 

  •   Info Pretty dull, nondescript and shows only a portion of the city. Saw that Poco has 3 panos that are much superior to anything else on Commons. Both this and this are superb (apart from half the image leaning to the right that needx fixing), either would be an excellent replacement. I guess this makes my 2nd active nom so I can do it on Tue, or if someone else wants to do the honors... (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Keep We delist when it clearly falls short of our modern standards, not if we regret our original decision or if there are better pictures around. This is not enwp, we can afford to have multiple similar FPs. -- King of ♠ 21:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Keep - Looks like a very good picture to me. No reason to delist. I think that delisting should take place only when it seems like an obvious step. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Keep Per others. lNeverCry 03:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Keep per others. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination I have learnt this is not enwp. :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Airborne by Christopher Klein, Munich, February 2017 -2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 15:37:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Casa histórica de Abbasi, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 77.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 19:21:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info View of one of the six courtyards of the Abbāsi House, a large traditional historical house located in Kashan, Iran. Built during the late 18th century, it is said to have been the property of a famous cleric. All by me, Poco2 19:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 19:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question I hesitate to ask, but did you wilfully change the crop for showing that blue border on the right? --PtrQs (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    PtrQs: no, that was not on purpose,   fixed Poco2 16:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely symmetry and color. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very picturesque --PtrQs (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Pepe Lopez Peugeot 208 T16 (3).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 17:41:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 11.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 16:06:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Yes, probably a ridiculous thought. And I certainly don't think it's problematic in the least. So nevermind, I'll edit it out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I was afraid we had reverted to a time before the suffragettes when a woman was counted as half a man.  --cart-Talk 21:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp photo, beautiful composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support but I prefer the other one. -- King of ♠ 21:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - Do you think the other composition is different enough to also be an FP? Perhaps it would be a good thing to nominate that one, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think they might be too similar to both feature; how about adding it as an alt? (I think the proper rule for alts is not "are they different edits/crops of the same raw file" but rather "are they similar enough that they cannot both be featured.") -- King of ♠ 23:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
My impression is that alts must actually be different versions of the same shot and that these two photos would definitely be too different for one to be an alt, although the similarity might work against a feature for both. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. I'm delighted by the positive response to this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Helgolandpanorama vom Pinneberg.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 15:43:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I really don't see the point in this photo. Despite the claim it was taken from the highest point on the island, it seems to be the point with the worst view. There are three ugly concrete slabs dominating the photo, along with dirt paths. The distortions of a 360 panorama mean it is very hard to appreciate what the actual scene looks like. The island looks like this and there are high cliffs all round where the photo was taken. Whereas the 360x180 photos have a dedicated viewer that removes the distortion, this sort of image just doesn't work well unless the view is fantastic. I suggest you concentrate on finding the best angle from which to get the best view, and select what you want to photograph. A 360, by its nature, cannot be selective and doesn't really have a composition. -- Colin (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per Colin. Yann (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Draco volans 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 15:02:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Watford Jon (Argy Bargy) IMGP4754 smial wp.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 14:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info all by me -- Smial (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Smial (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I like the "Hey, you!" gesture and expression. What are we looking at that appears to be a narrow diagonal shaft of light? Is that exactly what it is? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Good stage photo, but I would also like to get rid of that part of the stage rig. Right now it is "impaling" the poor guy. ;) Had it ended up anywhere else than in his mouth/head, I don't think it would have been an issue. --cart-Talk 21:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek and cart: That is part of the stage construction. Besides some basic corrections (WB, contrast, exposure, crop, perspective, dust spot removal, if necessary) I avoid any retouching, and I'm really not experienced to do so. I've taken slides for 30+ years, and I try to take digital images as authentic as possible, just like "enhanced" slides. --Smial (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the explanation, Smial. The diagonal is a bit strange, but I   Support, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, on reflection, the strange effect of the diagonal prevents me from considering this one of the very best photos on the site. So I've annulled my support vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jake Kiley (Strung Out) (Ruhrpott Rodeo 2013) IMGP4953 nmz.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 14:29:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Smial - uploaded by Smial - nominated by -- Smial (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Smial (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Regardless of the motion blur, I'm inclined to support because of the expression, but similar question as for the other one: Is that a reflection of him and the guitar in the upper left corner of the frame? If so, fine, and I would support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
No reflection, it's part of the stage construction. --Smial (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The photo is sharp, expressive and has some action but... somehow the wow eludes me. It's cropped rather tight and the light is very flat for a stage photo. Making a face and waiving a guitar is not enough to send shivers down my spine, sorry. --cart-Talk 21:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Crop too tight, per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per my remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Carter  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Dome Cappella Chigi, Santa Maria del Popolo (Rome).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 09:55:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Highlight Towers Munich, February 2017 -01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 09:02:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
  •   Info Highlight Towers in Munich is a twin tower office skyscraper complex completed in 2004. It was planned by Murphy/Jahn and - involuntarily - helped foster the strongly developed anti-highrise-stance in Munich's populace. I've taken a little series of pictures showing the colorful LED illumination of its exterior, of which I like -01 best, although that was a tough choice. Btw., I used to work in one of the towers about 10 years ago. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support cool. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I thought to nominate it. --Yann (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Really great! --cart-Talk 10:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong support again. Daniel Case (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info /   Comment cart somehow achieved to turn my simple architectural pics into fancy triptychs, see (1) and (2). Thanks again!   --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   --cart-Talk 11:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 21:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Perspective, Komposition, technische Ausführung – alles große Klasse! Glückwunsch zu dieser gelungenen Arbeit. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC) 
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Hinckley Daysailor 42 by D Ramey Logan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 06:46:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info created and such by -- Don (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Don (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Works for me. The breakwater adds an unusual element to this photo. But please add a geotag and much better description plus categories. Since you have entered this in the "Sports" FP category instead of "Objects/Vehicles/Sailboats", I guess the pic is from some competition and that plus location should also be explained. --cart-Talk 09:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Thank you, the photo is of a "Yacht Racing" in an annual NHYC Regatta.--Don (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for telling us! Now could you please add that to the file's description and fix the geocode and category too. Much obliged. :) --cart-Talk 22:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, that's great. I've added the rest of the info and improved the categories on the file's page for you. Having all that info there is just as important as the picture itself for an FP. Hope I got it right. --cart-Talk 13:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose 1/500 s not fast enough to freeze motion. Charles (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 03:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Bergwandeltocht van Peio Paese naar Lago Covel (1,839 m) in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italy) 23.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 06:34:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Mountain Walking Tour from Pejo to Lago Covel (1,839 m) in the Stelvio National Park (Italy). Views of the surrounding landscape. All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support beautiful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice color depth and well composed --Don (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice colors and stunning view. It reminds me of those pictures they had on chocolate boxes when I was a kid. --cart-Talk 09:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice pic and beautiful have a lady here --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - This is a pretty spectacular picture, especially the lighted rocky mountainsides, and it's at its best at full size. I see the one tree in the near foreground all the way over to the right as a slight imperfection, but I doubt that cropping it out would make the overall composition better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pugilist (talk)
  •   Support Like a Romantic painting --Llez (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Divine. Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great layers of light. -- King of ♠ 21:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 18:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Salar de Tara, Chile, 2016-02-07, DD 64-67 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2017 at 22:46:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Panoramic view of the Tara Cathedrals (left) and the the Tara salt flat in the Atacama Desert, northern Chile. All by me, Poco2 22:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 22:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Another beautiful picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Spectacular, though there's a slight ca in the clouds (top/left edges green and right magenta). On another note I think just the small portion of the road and the rocks above, with the clouds behind would be enough alone to make this an fp; but this has so much more. KennyOMG (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    KennyOMG: I've reduced the CAs Poco2 22:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    Now where's that thumbs up icon when you need it? :) KennyOMG (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Any color fringing is very very minor and requires you to be actively searching for it. Beautiful pano. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support works very well! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very well --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A lot of wow! in this picture --PtrQs (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great clouds and color. Maybe just a little too dark though. -- King of ♠ 21:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Wat srichum 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 21:30:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Support The new version is fine. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per fixable CA issues noted above. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)  Support now. Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Tomer T: I really like this photo with its unusual perspective and seeing that Khunkay isn't very active at the moment, I have fixed a version with most of the CA removed and a very, very slight noise reduction. Do you want me to upload it on this file? You can always rollback the edit if you don't like it. --cart-Talk 20:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Of course. Tomer T (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I like that picture, so let's have a look. --PtrQs (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, let's see if this is enough or if I botched the job. Remember to purge your cache. --cart-Talk 20:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment In the fileliste I see 4 pictures, wherein #2 and #3 have a more copper-like gold and a violet sky. By the color of the sky I would guess, that the brownish gold is more realistic. Is it possible to combine the original gold-color with the good No-CA work? --PtrQs (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Versions 3 & 4 are exactly (or should be) like ver 2, but with just two minor corrections on the CA of the statue. It is a curse that you always find something you've missed as soon as you upload a file. :-/ The first part of the CA removal was made in Lightroom with additional manual removal in Photoshop. It is possible that LR did something with the hue when it removed the CA. I'll see if I can put back the right hue. Files also "change" when you upload them since the different programs and browsers fiddle with the color. --cart-Talk 21:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Fixed I've nudged the spectrum two steps back towards the original brow-gold as requested. I think this is as far as I want to mess with this. Someone else can take over or revert if necessary. --cart-Talk 22:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support by now - and a special praise for cart --PtrQs (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question BTW: is it possible to describe what we see in real english? --PtrQs (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done --cart-Talk 22:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Also pinging @Uoaei1: and @Daniel Case: to let them know that the pic is cleaned up now. --cart-Talk 10:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting, good quality. --Yann (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ...forgot to support it too! ;) --cart-Talk 21:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow, great shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC) 
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I thought the curvature might be a distortion, but other photos of this Buddha show the same curvature. I would have loved a tad more sky, but I won't decline to support based on something that trivial. Impressive photo of a very impressive statue. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 03:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support WOW -- Wolf im Wald 18:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:PhuSangWTF 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 21:27:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info created & uploaded by Khunkay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bokeh looks somewhat weird but doesn't detract from the overall image. KennyOMG (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Upper left part is somewhat dark, maybe this is improvable. The description says "English" but it obviously isn't. Should be fixed as well. Otherwise an excellent picture which would get my support. --Code (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Dark left part attracts the attention to the right part, and that is most important part. Please don't reduce the left darkness too much --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Something different, thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Picture is fine as it is, but the "English" description should be fixed. --cart-Talk 10:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment description fixed. Tomer T (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 07:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pugilist (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I've decided I like this enough to support a feature. It's best at laptop screen size, not at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support WTF could be changed --The Photographer 14:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support People doing interesting things in interesting environments – wish we had more of that kind of images… --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Piling on. --Yann (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:OSIRIS Mars true color.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 21:30:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I have no idea, the ESA caption doesn't mention it. It's about the right size to be Deimos, but Deimos is in a nearly perfect equatorial orbit, and due to this I can't think of a combination of angles that would make appearing where it does in the image plausible. My guess would be a bright star or planet in the background. It could also be a camera artifact I guess. A2soup (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing. Charles (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Any photograph like this of a planet in our solar system is going to have a high degree of uniqueness, though I'm not blown away by this one. The colors are nice, though the resolution and detail isn't anything special, especially when compared to other similar photos of planets, like this one of Pluto from 2015. Sorry. WClarke 23:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That's because this image was taken in 2007. However, there are no FP or even QI or VI images of the entire planet with details. I would   Support featuring this until we have a better one, and probably even after that, as a historical image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 02:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support agree that resolution leaves quite a bit to be desired, but stunning nonetheless. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Dull lighting, no wow for me. Also per WClarke. Yes, it's special because of the subject, but as a non-expert this is not interesting to look at. I find this falls into the category of the more boring planet photos and I would gladly support the more exciting ones out there. – LucasT 19:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You could do a good service if you can find some higher-quality NASA photos of the entire planet of Mars and upload them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek, I never commented on resolution, but on lighting and overal photographic qualities. I realise that we get what we get here and it certainly is a novelty subject, but I feel this is better suited as VI and comparing it with majority of the space FPs we have I just find it not exciting enough. Looking at the other replies below, there are "better" images of Mars out there. I'm fine with being the only opposer though. – LucasT 09:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Lucas, you've stated before, if my memory isn't playing tricks with me, that you don't have much interest in astronomy. It looks like most of the rest of us do. And novelty is quite an important reason for a feature. It's way too soon to be jaded with sizable full-planet pictures of Mars! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There are several big Mars photos on NASA pages (1 2 3) , but how do we know if they are free? --cart-Talk 00:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • To my knowledge, under U.S. law, all government pictures that are not classified (or in the case of C.I.A. photos and the like, declassified) are freely usable by the public. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a note that all those images are mosaic composites of low-altitude images taken by orbiters, as you can easily see by looking near the edges where the mapping of the images onto a globe breaks down. The level of detail is obviously very high, but the verisimilitude, as you might imagine, is lower. This is, to my knowledge, the highest quality image of the entire planet taken from the perspective depicted.
I would also add that the second image linked above, despite its wide dissemination, is actually highly misleading, as it maps images from a significantly less-than-global portion of the Martian surface onto a globe, distorting the size and location of the features depicted (primarily the Valles Marineris), as can easily be seen when referencing a global map of Mars or either of the other images linked above, which both show Valles Marineris in a true global mosaic. The imagery for that mosaic was obtained by the Viking 1 orbiter (the first US Mars orbiter), which orbited at a 39.5˚ inclination and was therefore unable to image the entire surface - it was the best they could do at the time. A2soup (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A2soup, thanks for the explanation. Nice to get all the ins and outs of these pictures sorted out. It also confirms that I should stay away from uploading space pics, since I don't know enough about it. :) But they are pretty and interesting! --cart-Talk 10:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Râşnov Citadel (Rosenauer Burg) 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 18:59:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment shame about the people. Charles (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. Generally well-done, but as a slightly unsharp (especially the left edge) 7 MP image with no mitigating factors or the feeling of "wow, we have to promote this even if the quality is a bit lower than usual." -- King of ♠ 01:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per KoH. lNeverCry 02:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per KoH --PtrQs (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per King. Seems to me that the image might have had some serious overexposure on the building which was brought under control at the cost of looking overprocessed (something about the blue in the sky doesn't strike me the right way). Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it; the composition is good and the path with people walking up and down reminds me of a picture book -- Thennicke (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support no pseudo sharpness visible. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Pudelek, could you possibly sharpen the citadel a bit? I find absolutely nothing wrong with the composition. The only thing that makes me unlikely to vote for a feature is the noted slight unsharpness. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I like the composition, but the technical part could be better. Overall nice work! -- Wolf im Wald 18:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:HibisGate3Dareios1AmunRaMut.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 15:31:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:PlayaVarese-04920.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info all by me-- Ezarateesteban 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 22:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me, somewhat dull lighting, the clouds are a bit interesting, but the brown water destroys it and I see no clear subject. It looks like a just decent tourist shot to me, sorry. – LucasT 22:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas. lNeverCry 08:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the composition but the blown highlights on the surf and building are too much ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The sky does not really impressed me --Michielverbeek (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  Request What is the standard for sky expected here? Ezarateesteban 14:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7673.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Western Wall of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem - all by -- Ralf Roleček 21:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ralf Roleček 21:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nitpicks like the noisy upper edges aside, I'm sadly not wowed by it enough. It's a decent photo though. I just feel like a different camera position and composition would have emphasized the specialty of the wall better. – LucasT 22:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Even if it lacks the drama associated to this place, it is a pretty good description picture. The details on the wall are interesting, and even the people give a sense of the place, in a more mundane manner. The photo teaches. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Tomas --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I haven't decided how or even whether to vote on this photo, but in some ways, I prefer several of your other photos of the Kotel to this one: File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7689.jpg has a satisfying near-rectilinearity as compared to this one's slant, and I like the motion of the men walking toward the wall; File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7691.jpg, which concentrates on the women's section, shows the pitchers for the blessing on washing, putting the wall in a different context, though there's a dust spot that should be cleaned toward the right above the wall; File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7690.jpg shows men praying and touching the wall from an appealing angle. None of the photos are perfect and all can be critiqued, but all are good and different. However, compared to the others, I can't think of anything that strikes me about this one as special. So that's likely to result in either a non-vote or a mild oppose vote from me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas. lNeverCry 08:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas. --Karelj (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas; a very static image. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment It is not a bad raw material for a great photo. I think that a crop would give it a much more forceful look, the angle and the wide floor makes it a bit touristy. See note. I downloaded it and tried it, it came out very nice. Try it. Anyone else agree? --cart-Talk 20:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Good eye. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, not for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Why not? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:16-11-30 Cimitero Monumentale Milano RR2 7543.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:42:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Cimitero Monumentale in Mailand - all by -- Ralf Roleček 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ralf Roleček 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a well executed photo and a worthy QI, but it misses the wow factor for FP status. You might find the sight interesting and impactful but the photo doesn't bring this out for me I'm afraid. – LucasT 22:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Mild   Support - Could be a bit sharper, but the composition works for me. I like the contrast of the Cimitero Monumentale with the modern buildings to its right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow. It seems the building is cut in half at left. Yann (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems that way because it is. You could let me know if I'm missing something, but the way I see it, the only question is whether the result of that is good. You find that it isn't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow per Lucas. I get the feeling the goal was the contrast between the old and new buildings balanced by the similar form of the old building and the Unicredit Tower (as well as one of the other buildings whose names I know but cannot remember and do not have enough time to look up right now). But there's too much going on to get it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I only mildly support this photo, and there's no argument with "no wow", but what do you find overly complex about this photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: If you imagine the flower bed and empty driveway/whatever space at the bottom cropped out, along with some of the left (maybe I'll have to make it in a note), you get an image with a lot more harmonious vertical forms, and the similarity I noted is more evident. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. See what I mean? Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Arguably less interesting, but yes, also simpler, and I do see what you mean. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:RPM abstract at night.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:07:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles (maybe there is a better category)
  •   Info All by WClarke -- WClarke 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I've been back at it trying more abstract photography, and have been evolving more in the previous weeks, including off of what I nominated last week. I this photograph I tried to make my subject more recognizable, while still bringing abstract elements into the photograph through the blur and distortion. As with my other photograph I nominated, this may see opposition, though thought it was worth sharing. Thanks. -- WClarke 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It works for me. It looks like a still from a time travelling movie. Exciting, ratteling, blurred. (And I feel bad opposing abstracts, I feel some have a place as FP) – LucasT 21:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question sorry but to me its only a unsharp picture? --Ralf Roleček 21:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ralf Roleček: Maybe it's not for everyone; it is experimental. The blur and distortion is for artistic and aesthetic effect, and I still think at the very least it is interesting to look at. I'm trying to explore something beyond what I've done before, and personally think I'm starting to get some interesting results. And though I respect your opinion, similar arguments ("it's only..." or "it's just a...") have been made for a long time against more abstract and conceptual art. Thanks. WClarke 22:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  Support ok, why not? --Ralf Roleček 07:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It becomes an abstract art photo if it somehow stimulates your fantasy. This is clearly telling me: "Houston, we have a problem." --cart-Talk 22:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Cart! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry, like Ralf, I just find this a blurred figurative photo, not something I really consider an abstraction. Also, the feelings that it gives me are eye strain and wanting to yell "Get out of the car! You're drunk!" Perhaps for a movie, this could be a useful blurring for a drunk driving scene, but for abstract photography, I want to see non-figurative shapes and lines. [shrug] That could be my assumptions and limitations speaking, but you could also call it something else: My personal taste. So I salute the fact of experimentation, but not this result. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That is kind of the two places I've been stuck between: making it appear abstract enough to pass off a as abstract photography, while at the same time making sure it doesn't appear random or boring. Thanks. WClarke 15:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan. The drunk driving thing was one of my first thoughts... I've never done such a horrible thing myself of course...   lNeverCry 08:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not for me. Charles (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support This might not be a good sharp image (don't think it was even planned as one) but it is giving an old sci-fi film feel. I personally liked it. --SumantaJoarder (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose might be a good photo, but not a FP for me. -- -donald- (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A good photo for what it's trying to do, but I don't see it as being in scope. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. --Karelj (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Gibraltar Barbary Macaques BW 2015-10-26 14-07-28.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 18:34:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info all by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Stunning image and I feel it has FP potential. I have two problems: 1. It looks a bit soft, I would sharpen it more, there is detail to be revealed in the fur. 2. the powerlines cable car cables are distracting, sadly. I saw that they are easy to remove, and I did it for fun. Feel free to nominate this as an alternative if you like it, or if you allow I can nominate it myself:
     LucasT 19:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - To me, this is an FP as is. The power lines don't disturb me at all; they're part of the deliberately somewhat unsharp but sufficiently clear urban background. The slight softness of the monkeys is just that - slight softness. I wouldn't object to judicious sharpening, but I think they're quite clear enough, as this is not a species-identification photo but a touching urban scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The cables are probably a cable car, not power lines, but it is better without them. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, right, the slanted support structure barely visible is a telltale sign, lighter power lines don't require that. – LucasT 22:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The cables don't bother me since they follow the composition of the monkeys but there is room for a bit more light in the photo. The name of the file should also be fixed since it doesn't mention the main motif, the macaques. --cart-Talk 22:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I'll   Support it, hoping that it might turn out a bit brighter. ;) It is such great image otherwise. --cart-Talk 17:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Love it! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The face of the left hand animal is blurred and I don't like the cables, nor the lighting. Charles (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support We can discuss the technical and compositional issues all we want, but the fact for me is that I can't get past that pose. I think we already know what the 2017 PotY will be, based on how the public votes. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per others. --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:River Narmada from Maheshwar Fort.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 18:45:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Oppose Too dark Ezarateesteban 18:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)   Neutral let´s wait Ezarateesteban 19:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment I think the chosen composition and lighting work perfectly here. There are "precedents" btw., cf. this great image, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - This is great, and to me the whole point is that we're viewing a river and the opposite bank from a dark place, through its beautiful decorations. This is one case in which reducing the darkness would also reduce the magic (or if you prefer, the effect). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - The windows make a beautiful frame to let you look out - and I think to lighten this darkness would spoil this frame. --PtrQs (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support to me the Darkness is nice, better than HDR. --Ralf Roleček 21:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A very poetic triptych, HDR would totally ruin it. --cart-Talk 22:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would have included the shadows more. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The concept of framing is a nice idea, but the scene through the frame is too mundane, and not interesting. Foreground shadows should not look this dark, and should have a little detail -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Without the dark foreground the lights falling on the ground won't look that beautiful IMHO. The contrast here is helping create a mood. --SumantaJoarder (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Sumanta. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I wouldn't necessarily object to a little more shadow detail, but full tone mapped HDR? No way. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Pena Palace Sintra.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 11:27:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info Pena National Palace. Sintra, Portugal. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Great shot - unfortunately it's not up to the technical standards expected here, sorry. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, but the things that actually bother me somewhat about this photo are, in order, the unsharp evergreens that take up most of the foreground and the hazy grayish background. Yes, the palace could be clearer, too, but if it were 100% sharp, I still would be unlikely to support a feature if the foreground and background were identical to what's there now. I'd encourage you to take more photos in better light without unsharp foreground trees (or at least fewer of them) if you make another trip to Sintra. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Shimla night.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 17:59:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info -- Perched on a hillside Shimla is the current capital and largest city of the northern Indian state of Himachal Pradesh. Previously it was capital of the Indian state of Punjab and, before independence, the summer capital of British India. Shimla is a major tourist destination owing to the large number of colonial buildings, temples, churches in the city, the UNESCO World Heritage Kalka-Shimla Railway, and the mild subtropical highland climate. All by me. -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great photo! So this is where the shot the backdrop for Blade Runner. --cart-Talk 18:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, that's this. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support After some days of waiting for the next wow - this is it! --PtrQs (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Impressive night photography. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ezarateesteban 00:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Even though all the details are visible, the overall impression is too dark. -- King of ♠ 02:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That's actually a conscious choice as I don't believe HDR should be about flattening out the tones, rather about pulling the highlights and pushing the shadows while trying to keep the original tonal balance of the picture. But that's just me. KennyOMG (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that overly aggressive HDR would not have helped here; I just think that the source material you worked with was too dark, and regardless of whether you tried to "fix" it in post or not, the lighting is still not featurable in my opinion. -- King of ♠ 05:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean, KoH, but I have long contended that magic hour pictures are not the only way to shoot night pictures and, depending on the scene, might not even be the best. I guess we agree to disagree on this point. :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great picture for such a dark and humid night. How long was the exposure? WClarke 03:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 1s + 4s + 15s, iso 200, f/8. Overall it's pretty close to the 4 sec exposures. KennyOMG (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely colors and texture. Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Totally loved it. Great execution. --SumantaJoarder (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Santa Maria Maddalena de' Pazzi (Florence) - Dome of Cappella Maggiore.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 17:28:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Iridescent clouds during snowfall 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 11:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Clouds
  •   Info Rainbow-colored/iridescent clouds during a snowfall over Lysekil, Sweden. The fringes of the clouds are so thin the water droplets in them produce rainbows. The photo is taken during some interesting weather in the afternoon so it is the sun you see and the dots are snowflakes. All by me -- cart-Talk 11:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 11:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment My first thought was that maybe that's what happened last night in Sweden but then I saw the timestamp so we will have to do some more research. Regarding the picture I find it very good compositionally so   Support from my side. --Code (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Thanks Code. Well what really happened in Sweden Friday night was that my cold got worse. Didn't think the White House would find out!! So sorry for causing this international incident... --cart-Talk 17:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Moody and interesting. I like how the blotchy clouds over the disc of the sun sort of imitate the lunar maria. Or maybe that's just me, who knows? –Juliancolton | Talk 19:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - This is certainly a good photo, though I haven't decided yet whether to support a feature for it, but I prefer File:Crepuscular rays and iridescent clouds during snowfall.jpg, which has more snow and the dark trees as a dramatic contrast with the sky. Just sky is not quite as striking to me and gives me less grounding, literally. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I like that pic very much too. Unfortunately, I think the cut sun in that will make it a no-go for the folks here at FPC. --cart-Talk 10:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Really? I didn't realize there were objections to that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It was one of the reasons it was decline at first at QIC where I took it to CR. Looking at past discussions people are generally opposed to things cut at the border of an image when it could have been avoided. The weather that day was very chaotic, clouds moving very fast in the strong wind and it was pure luck that the sun was even in that picture since I was mostly focusing on the rays. I thought the sun was totally hidden behind the cloud, but it broke through just as I pressed the button. --cart-Talk 12:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • By the way, I'm sorry you're sick. I hope you can stay out of the cold for a while. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 07:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 21:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special, just moon with clouds. --Karelj (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • So sorry, but it is the sun. :) --cart-Talk 23:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, it is a sun. Sorry, but in such a case it is even more "common" image. --Karelj (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Then you are very lucky to live in a place where such scenery is common and you can go out and take photos like this of iridescent clouds around the sun any day. How I envy you, it must be beautiful. It is not so common here. --cart-Talk 14:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: This image is far from common. He's just trying to save face and clearly failing to do so. We men often feel the need to defend our egos in this way...   lNeverCry 21:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Larnaca 01-2017 img37 LCA Airport.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 03:30:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:A.Savin - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like the long depth of field and the decorations (structural elements?) on the ceiling, and the light is pretty good for an airport. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting motive, well balanced and implemented. The contrasts of warm and cold give the image a special touch. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 06:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support An excellent perspective --Michielverbeek (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 11:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose Sharpness overall just ok, nice ceiling, the rest nothing wild, too dark overall Poco2 12:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks Ikan Kekek for the nomination. I for myself hesitated to suggest it, as I know airports with much more interesting iteriors. On the other hand, the picture is QI and it is almost impossible to create *perfect* photos of airport interiors, because, unlike Diliff's and Code's churches, they are never empty of people ;) -A.Savin 14:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Our churches are often busy, we just twist the truth by being highly selective about when to click the shutter. ;-) Diliff (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too boring for me. No wow. — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Draceane – LucasT 09:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Having taken a similar picture that is one of the QI examples now used for "depth of field", I salute this image as exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to achieve. Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Бандери 2015.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2017 at 19:23:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Done The tilt has been fixed so that the first tower is now centred.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No, the tilt is not fixed. It is titled about 2.15° CCW. The clouds at the horizon should be horizontal. And as the power line poles are most probably vertical, there is also perspective distortion. I made a tentative correction, but it should preferably be down from RAW: File:Бандери 2015 (edit).jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:128 Balconies of 1390 Market Street, San Francisco.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 07:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:Dllu - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very good Alvesgaspar/The Photographer-style work by Dllu. A tad soft at full size, but full size is about as big as you could get without severely violating residents' privacy, and I really enjoy looking around the form of the photograph and its many differences within a theoretically uniformly boxy structure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportLucasT 08:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 09:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It look like a voyeur picture performed by myself --The Photographer 10:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see this as an unwarranted Peeping Tom intrusion into people's private property and surely must be against Wikipedia guidelines on privacy, especially since the address is given. We should not be promoting voyeur pictures. Charles (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Interesting. Have you made such comments before when similar photos were up for discussion at FPC? If not, what's different this time? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have commented on privacy issues several times before (and see current FPC). Charles (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
IMHO It's inevitable, with the time, cameras censors are larger and photographs became very detailed. At some point it will be possible to observe the whole interior of any building. --The Photographer 11:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course intrusions become easier, and with increased detail comes new responsibilities. Why should we encourage this type of intrusion. If this was your flat would you want a community like Commons promoting an image of who is in your flat, what they are doing and what goodies you might have waiting to be stolen? Not me. Charles (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Ambivalent While this is a good photo, I too get an uneasy feeling about this one. I have no problem with office buildings and I have supported a photo like this before (but commented that I felt like a perv peeping in on people's private life) where you could see people's living rooms and not many people, but this strikes me as having mostly the bedrooms facing this view and it is much, much more detailed and that feels like a step too far. If I'm at home relaxing in my bed, I would not want a photo of that as an FP. --cart-Talk 11:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that's a valid point, and I'll think about it, but all but one person seems questionably recognizable unless you already know them, and the most recognizable person is on his porch at the lowest floor depicted. I don't like the "it's inevitable" argument, though. Is this an unwarranted and objectionable invasion of privacy? Let's have a discussion about that. I just might withdraw this nomination if there's enough objection or the arguments really convince me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination - To everyone who supported this photo, I'm sorry. I think the critics are right. If anyone wants to take over this nomination, feel free, but in that case, I think I must abstain, as I've concluded that my appreciation for this photograph as a work of art is a bit callous toward people with expectations of at least a greater degree of privacy within their own homes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for nominate this picture, however, I understand this point for pictures where "A private place is somewhere the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy"[1] , however, it's a very subjetive factor in this particular case --The Photographer 13:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for nominating this picture! I was a bit hesitant to upload it (even though it was taken two months ago) because of privacy concerns also, but my photography friends assured me it was okay. This was taken with a 50mm lens on full frame, and I think it should be fine. There is little reasonable expectation of privacy at a large window facing a busy city, especially when viewed by a lens whose field of view is similar to that of the human eye. But to focus on an individual one of these with a 300mm lens, or to crop the picture, however, may be a breach of privacy (though that sort of project has been attempted before, with great controversy: [2]). In any case, like Ikan, I was also drawn by the geometry of the somewhat brutalist building contrasting against the randomness of the windows, and indeed, I was inspired by Featured works by The Photographer. dllu (t,c) 17:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
If it’s in public view and you’re on public property, then you’re allowed to take a picture of it and upload it in commons because it's legal in your country. There are permutations. If you’re standing on a public sidewalk and you’re taking a picture with a 50-millimeter lens, and it’s a wide shot of the city street, that’s fine. If you now put on an 800-millimeter lens and take a picture through somebody’s window, you’ve now invaded their privacy and that could be a civil tort, however, it's only a subjective moral issue and not a legal rule. --The Photographer 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks everyone for the mature discussion. Charles (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • dllu, what do you mean about the field of view being similar to that of the human eye? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A 50mm lens is considered a normal lens. It is a common adage to say that a normal lens has a similar field of view as the human eye (though in actuality the human eye's field of view is very wide but blurry outside of the fovea region). dllu (t,c) 04:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Where could you get this clear a view of bedrooms with a naked eye? Is the view this clear from across the street? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This was taken from 100 Van Ness Ave, a high rise residential building right across the street. dllu (t,c) 11:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • And is the view just as clear from there with the naked eye? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, the buildings are fairly close. Here's a screenshot from Google Maps: [3]. Here's the approx field of view superimposed on Google maps: [4]. The two red lines are 40 degrees apart. The horizontal field of view of a 50mm lens is around 39 degrees, as per an online calculator [5]. There was a small amount of cropping in this photo. dllu (t,c) 12:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
But I don't know the rules or legislation of the area of the picture--Lmbuga (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Minor cyan CAs--Lmbuga (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  Comment (poor English) Sorry, this photo is IMO one of the best photos I have seen lately. If there is something personal or personal in the photo, it is not the purpose of presenting it. The photo does not care (it does not focus) for presenting any details. The important thing is the global vision.

It can not be considered intrusive when names and surnames are not used. Who is there recognizable?

You do not see it, but we're talking about freedom of expression. We speak of the freedom of expression of journalists; Of the right to information.--Lmbuga (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment I think that the freedom of speech and to express yourself can be used in much better ways than to point a lens into unsuspecting people's bedrooms. --cart-Talk 16:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment very nice picture. Tus hijos de cinco años pueden saber lo que hacen sus amigos y ganarles millones de dólares en la bolsa" Que cabrones soir todos!!!

I want to continue with the nomination of this photoEdit

I want to continue with the nomination of this photo. Now I'm the nominator. Thanks.--Lmbuga (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I will duly   Abstain now. Lmbuga: Not nominating or supporting this picture for a feature in no way denies dllu freedom of expression. You'd have a stronger case if the photo were nominated for deletion and deleted, but even then, it would be a matter of policy rather than a way to prevent him from taking the photo and posting it elsewhere. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support as creator. dllu (t,c) 19:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)