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.


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


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


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 ( së paku 67% apo 2/3 e votuesve të jen PËR)


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

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Nebulosa de Trífida o M20 y Nebulosa de la Laguna o M8.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2017 at 21:51:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Angelo su una tomba del CImitero Monumentale di Milano, Italia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2017 at 20:13:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info An angel spreads his wings on a tomb at Cimitero Monumentale in MIlan, Italy. Backlight, dark look, cemeterial feeling, created by Paolobon140 - uploaded by Paolobon140 - nominated by Paolobon140 -- Paolobon140 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paolobon140 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The high level of chroma noise and lacking detail makes the quality below what's expected from an FP, IMO. I recommend first nominating your images at QIC to see if they are described as good.--Peulle (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Dear Paulle, as i already did, i suggest you to calibrate your professional Apple monitor better so that you will be able to appreciate your traffic lights pics even more. A good techincian costs little money.Paolobon140 (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle -- Prismo345 (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition --Cvmontuy (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I do like the light on the face and arm. But Peulle is right: the chroma noise is awful and the shadow parts of the picture quite posterised and lacking tonal detail. These both indicate to me the image was under exposed and recovered in post, which you might have got away with on a new Sony or Nikon but the older Canon cameras are poor for that. Unlike luminance noise, chroma noise doesn't disappear much even if I downsize the image a bit, and unlike film grain, chroma noise has no appealing aspects. As an aside, wrt "over sharpening" discussion elsewhere, I do see some oversharpening here, which a clear white pixel halo to the high-contrast edge with the sky. -- Colin (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Scheideggseeli (1).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2017 at 18:03:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Зрзе, Манастир.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2017 at 08:59:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Гарска Река.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2017 at 08:52:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Washermen, Varanasi.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2017 at 17:35:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Dey.sandip - uploaded by Dey.sandip - nominated by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Abstain -- Dey.sandip (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see what you tried to do here, and I quite like the framing of the one man in the centre, but simultaneously I feel that the second (left) person who is only partly visible sort of ruins it, along with the fact that too much of the image consists of the clothing around. To me it's like having a very small painting framed by a huge frame. Good effort but it hasn't quite worked, IMO.--Peulle (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too many clothes, people are too small--one of whom is partly visible and the other is in dark shadow. PumpkinSky talk 23:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment see note --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. I've also left a note. The man washing is a little hard to see,with his face in shadow. Don't know if your processing can lighten his front a bit. -- Colin (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others -- Prismo345 (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Trees and trail, Mèze cf01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2017 at 17:00:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Question - Why do you think it's OK for you to write "there is no composition"? You can say what you think is lacking in the composition, but that kind of remark is pretty objectionable, considering that some of us think this is a great composition and I actually posted that very phrase verbatim. So what that means is that we either are seeing something different from you or have a different concept of what "composition" is. It's also a rude remark. I try to be careful to post "The composition seems random to me", rather than "There is no composition". I hope you can see the difference between the tones of those two statements. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan, I know the distinction you are getting at, but per COM:MELLOW we can appreciate that foreign-language writers may not always express with the nuance of a native English writer [though we both know of other users for whom language difficulties haven't hindered their ability to throw obvious insults]. All our comments here are "in my opinion" and "I think that..." sort of comments. I do sometimes wonder at the "great composition" support votes because that can seem rather vague to those that really aren't seeing a great composition. It's one of those things like "beautiful" that doesn't really explain your rationale, just expresses your satisfaction. We have here a country path. There are lots of such photos so a path disappearing into the distance isn't automatically a great composition, even if a widely used motif. And there are trees arching overhead, but they don't quite form any interesting pattern. So... what is great about the composition? If you think about the most famous woodland avenue: search Google images for "The Dark Hedges" (of Game of Thrones fame) you will see the best photos have great light or great weather or make use of a person in the frame. Here, I just see that the photographer was out for a walk on a sunny day along a pleasant path and raised the camera to their eye to take a photo. There's just a bit too much chaos for me to identify a "composition" and the light is harsh. -- Colin (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thanks you Ikan but it's ok, no problems. There is no need to argue for my images, if it is so successful then the votes will be justices, otherwise it is that the critics must be true. I should not had grumble the last time... Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not really arguing for your image in this case but discussing the language used to oppose it.
However, Colin, to elaborate on why I find the form very good, it's because of how I feel the arabesque when I look around the picture frame, and also the way the dark and light alternate. If you either don't see that or it affects you differently, that would be why we differ. I do agree that "The Dark Hedges" is a more obviously striking scene, but I think the shapes and lines in a composition like this one can be just as valid a reason to support a picture for a feature as a scene that's immediately striking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I too am not finding the scene to be special enough for FP. Also the path disappears in a haze (either heat haze or out-of-focus). Paths/trails are a common motif and this not quite exceptional. -- Colin (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with Colin Poco2 18:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

File:ADAC-Zentrale, Munich, March 2017-05.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2017 at 14:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Maria Elend Kirche Nothelferaltar 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2017 at 14:10:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Ruine Neideck PA300138-PSD.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2017 at 11:40:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Paolobon140, I'm not sure I understand your oppose here. I see a very high contrast scene, and possibly that is enhanced (+ Clarity, say) but hard to tell here as the light should be high contrast already. But I don't see the artefacts one would expect from over-sharpening -- there's no noise in the sky nor halo round high-contrast edges. The lens used here (7mm, equivalent to 14mm on a full frame) is an ultra-wide so I'd expect large depth-of-field giving near-to-far sharpness, excellent centre sharpness but less good towards the edges. -- Colin (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Der Colin, the pic iss absolutely overshaped, nothing in real looks so sharp, even the sky. Its not a matter of lenses, cameras, mm, focus, apreture. This pic is so sharpened with Photosho that looks more like a cartoon, in my opinion. ANd, more, there must have been something interesting around the ruins to show, as the ruins themselves arae not an interesting subject, at least for me. Paolobon140 (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Paolobon140, I can only think we are talking about different things. When I think of sharpening I'm thinking of (sub)pixel contrast enhancement. I suspect what you are complaining of is local (a region of several pixels) contrast enhancement which with Adobe Lightroom and ACR is achieved using the Clarity control. This can indeed make textures look hyper-real and artificial and perhaps that has happened here. Would Ermell tell us if the image has been boosted in that way, or with some sharpening tool? The EXIF data doesn't indicate any clear adjustment because it has been through four programs (Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.12, Adobe Photoshop CC 2017, Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 9.12, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7) and the last one didn't apply any adjustments that are recorded. -- Colin (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Side light brings out the detail in the wood and stones. -- Colin (talk)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 17:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 19:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Qualified support I wish more could have been done to tamp down the highlight on the clouds at upper right, but realistically I don't think you could go much further than this without making other compromises. Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Bergtocht van Sapün (1600 meter) via Medergen (2000 meter) naar brug over Sapüner bach (1400 meter) 021.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2017 at 05:58:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural # Switserland Natural phenomena.
  •   Info Narrowed bend in the Sapüner stream causes a rapid acceleration. This photo fascinates me. The wildly flowing cold water splashes almost from the screen. All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I thought of this picture as a possible FP when I saw it in QIC. I find it a compelling capture of the speed and power of a mountain stream, as you do. Thanks for taking the photo and nominating it here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think it is not a special picture, especially with that green-yellowish vegetation visible.Paolobon140 (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but I'm not wowed either, seeing as it's a close-up shot which makes it "just another shot of a stream", and the light doesn't really help.--Peulle (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- per Ikan. PumpkinSky talk 12:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful scenario. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle, not convinced about the crop on the right/bottom Poco2 19:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too common subject and I don't like the time lapse of exposure (too low if a movement effect was desired, or too high if the water should be sharp) -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Colin (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't mind the whitewater, but that rock on the left just ruins it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Albeck Seebachern Fahrweg zum Weissen Kreuz 22112017 2052.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2017 at 03:38:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
  •   Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- I saw this at QIC a little bit ago and instantly loved it, and flagged it as a FPC possibility. I love the way the gently winding road makes a leading line toward the center (from the side) and into the point at top center where the mountains drop off into the valley. I also love the colors and sharpness. The unpainted wooden rail fence adds a nice rustic, rural motif too. PumpkinSky talk 03:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I salute PumpkinSky for providing an eloquent argument for this picture. That's great and worth emulating. However, I don't happen to agree that this is a great composition. Maybe if there were something striking in the upper right corner of the sky, I might feel differently. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Roof of St, Mark's Church, Zagreb.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2017 at 22:07:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Cañón de Añisclo - Río Bellós 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2017 at 21:31:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Palacio de Comunicaciones, Plaza de Cibeles, Madrid, España, 2017-05-18, DD 32-34 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2017 at 21:00:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Fishing in El Manglillo Bay, Margarita Island 15.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2017 at 19:00:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
  •   Info This picture was in my last year in Venezuela and I take this picture on the end of a long fishing day with my family, it not was a market or whatever, the fish was alive in this picture. All by -- The Photographer 19:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Neptuul (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The crop at the top is too tight IMO.--Ermell (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The crop doesn't bother me here because the main subject seems to be the central fish, the one with a visible head and beautiful colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree the top crop is a bit unfortunate with only two fish, and one facing away too. The top left corner is a little distracting and I'd like to see a proportion with more room in front of the fish than behind. You could try cropping off some of the left and bottom. -- Colin (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Dish of blueberries.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2017 at 17:14:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Fruits and raw vegetables
  •   Info Dish of blueberries. My work. --Mile (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Pretty good, but I have a question: if this is focus stacked, why is the bottom left berry out of focus?--Peulle (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I usually don't like when food is presented on a paper background, and prefer a natural kitchen/dining arrangement. However, these blue fruits suit this arrangement. The colours and composition are pleasing. However, I would say that if you are going to go to the trouble to focus-stack, then you really need to get everything front-to-back. Instead here we have the bottom two fruits significantly out-of-focus and a rather abrupt transition to perfectly sharp fruit for the rest of the bowl, which just look weird. It would have been nice to get everything sharp including the white bowl border all the way round. -- Colin (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, stacking - you can see Category bellow: Focus stacking images of food. I even try more to be out, not so sure, but sometime, when shooting one type of food you dont need to focus on all. Here neither i want to. Problem is those 4 were so close, and on macro all is so close. It's not paper, see the bottom in one of those 4, its white background - textile. So, i even wanted back of it a bit out of focus. Food shots arent panorama, unfocused stuff in very often presented. White bowl, white backgoround → bowl doesn't need to be sharp, if black back and white bowl then borders should be more sharp. Some poeple even join (blurr) white bowl with white back. --Mile (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem with a partly-done focus stack, as we see here, is the rather abrupt change from sharp fruit/bowl throughout most of the image, and the front portion. This is not how one's eye sees it nor how a typical photograph works. We normally get a visual clue about distance in a 2D image like this, by the way the focus slowly changes, but here that clue is disrupted and the effect is a bit artificial. To be honest, I don't see the need to focus stack food photos, and doing so gives the impression that FPC or good food photography somehow needs front-to-back sharpness. -- Colin (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually my intention was to focusstack just piece of it (and more wider than single shot would do), so not all. Since i put 4 down on right, i wanted them sharp, thats why blueberry on left (in bowl) seems out. Different stuff is in this shot, different fruits and i wanted them sharp, so stacking needed. And one more is above now, cake, not stacked, i like it as it is. And i dont know how much now people want it to be sharp, what portion... So best, do as you consider best. One will vote not sharp, one will say dont stack. So best is up to my taste. --Mile (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  Support--Peulle (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • 25 images on ƒ/5.0 --Mile (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Impressive. Focus stacking often leaves stacking errors in the merged photo. Either you got lucky with the initial merge or you spent a lot of time fixing stacking errors. Only one of my stacks has got to FP. PumpkinSky talk 13:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Sometime can be very problematic, from 2 days of work, to none (like here; 1st time). --Mile (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Mile, PumpkinSky and anyone interested. If you have trouble with stacking a lot of photos, you can reduce the chance of stacking errors by stacking the pics a few at the time and then combine those. Say you have 18 pics, taken in a sequence of say back to front and you want to process those in Photoshop. Combine three photos at a time: 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12, 13-16 and 17-18. After that you combine the first resulting three and the last resulting three. Finally you combine those two photos. That way your software don't have so many parameters to check against each other and you get cleaner pics with less post-stacking to process. --cart-Talk 21:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Cart, Mile, and all others: Thanks Cart! A wise photographer also taught me that even though for a particular single shot you may want f10-11, if you are taking multiple shots for a focus stack, to cut that to say F5-7 or so. PumpkinSky talk 23:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Might be some on it, but i am used to correct it manually, doing stack you need to learn. PumpkinSky thats because software is taking sharp part, my m4/3 and APS-C is more on 5-7 than 10-11, that is for FF probably. But FF isnt good for macro. --Mile (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 19:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm going to differ from all the support and praise by saying that I don't understand why you focus-stacked, when the result was for part of the picture to be unsharp. I'm not going to bother opposing because that incongruity bothers me, but I really don't get it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek one of those 4 out should be sharp, if not stacked nothing is fully sharp. Doing single shot is option, but probably something like this. There was cake yesterday, nice looking cake. They minus it i couldnt even vote. Because was "not sharp". One more reason, i couldnt make one for English Wiki and one for Commons. Since i know there might be problem. --Mile (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Gilded Vectors of Disease - Horizontal.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2017 at 15:37:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
  •   Info The front of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine is decorated by 18 "Gilded Vectors of Disease". These are the Bed bug, Housefly, Rat, Flea, Anopheles mosquito, Tseste fly, Indian cobra, Aedes mosquito, Body louse, and Tick. Some are repeated and some are not strictly speaking disease vectors but I captured the complete set regardless. I guess each is about 30cm tall. The building dates from around 1929 but the artist of these creatures is unknown. You can see two of them in-situ in this photo. They are quite high up the building, so I photographed them with a telephoto lens from across the road. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment While I might be able to overlook the slightly abrupt transitions between the images, the middle one on the far right (no. 12, I believe) is out of focus and it just annoys me too much to support it at this stage.--Peulle (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Peulle, that flea was a bit out of focus and both photos I took of that one are the same. I have sharpened him selectively now and uploaded a new version (you may need to use Ctrl-F5 to bypass your browser's cache) -- Colin (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Still a bit unsharp in this version, but the overall effect of the picture is great, IMO, so I   Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak suppport per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Cobra could be out. --Mile (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Mile I don't know what you mean? It seems acceptably sharp. Or do you mean he's not a "vector of disease", which I agree. Please remember the image is 18MP and offered as a whole poster, rather than 18 FP-quality images. -- Colin (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I was menaning for topic, snake is clean animal, so i was wondering why snake is with insects and rats. More question for them, who made this front. --Mile (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Mile yes. I wonder if the brief for the artist wasn't "vectors of disease" but just animals associated with public health issues. Snake bite is a public health issue in some countries. Bed bugs apparently haven't been shown to be vectors of disease but are a public health problem. Rats carry fleas which carry plauge. And housefly transmits bacteria but not classic parasites. But today the work is known as the "gilded vectors of disease". -- Colin (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Urheilupuisto metro station (Nov 2017, 1).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2017 at 17:16:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Msaynevirta --Msaynevirta (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice composition, but for me not sharp enough for FP. Btw: it is a good Q1-photo. --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Prismo345 (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - It's a large file. I think it's sharp enough, and I really like the long sight line. -- Ikan Kekek (talk)
  •   Oppose - Nice compo but plenty of CA on the lamps and unfortunately not very sharp.--Ermell (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak support see note, I'd suggest a tighter crop that helps get rid of unecessary elements and strengthen the compo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment I made a minor crop to the image and removed the unnecessary elements on the right. --Msaynevirta (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I find it an excellent picture with a smart composition divided in thee vertical parts: colours are bright and the presence of few people gives more warmth to the photo. All the right part is interesting with its colours and decorations, the left part shows that this is actually a metro station. Well done.Paolobon140 (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't think it is quite at the level of most of our other similar metro FPs. There are others that are no sharper than this, but it would have been a plus if it was sharper. However, I think the station either needs to be empty of people or else they are helping the picture. Here the eye is led towards a random clump of people facing away from the camera wearing dark clothes. It would have really made this photo if we had a larger couple walking towards us (or the train) and colourfully attired. -- Colin (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment This matter of sharpness starts being annoying. Even the Last supper by Da Vinci is not sharp. I ask you all to reconsider your ways of judging a photograph Paolobon140 (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Paolobon140, I kind of agree that sharpness shouldn't be a reason to oppose this. If we look at the many other metro photos we have, most of them are no better. Often this is because tripod photography is not permitted, or longer exposures mean people aren't sharp. I share your despair about pixel peeping and have written about it here. If you note my review carefully says that if this was sharper that would have been a plus. We are drawn to the people in the image, both because we are drawn to people anyway and because the lines lead us there, and they are disappointing -- soft dark shapes walking away from the camera, overlapping with more distant people. Interior photography at FP level does I think require some patience and perseverance to capture the scene when quiet or when the other people are cooperating. -- Colin (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Colin, i understand your point of view but i think we should start talking about this catchphrase about sharpness. A picture talks by itself, and sometimes sharpness is not a plus or its even a minus. Ok, i will take a close portrait of an aged woman, lets say about 60 years old: what kind of lens will you use? I would use a 100 mm softfocus lens, which is intended to reduce sharpness, in order to avoid to show the old lady how old she is in her photograph. The result will be a good possibly unsharp portrait where an aged lady doesnt show all the wrinkles etc. I might even use a red filter in addition if im shooting black and white, which is reducing sharpness even more. Then i will post that photo here. What will i get? A number of "oppose" becasue the photo is not as sharp as the people here like? Colin, i find you a very good counterpart here in discussing about photography, so can you please answer this question of mine? And whou will tell the impressionists that their paints were nt good becasue not sharp enough? Paolobon140 (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
        • In my essay on pixel peeping I tried to separate "bold subjects" from "detailed subjects" to consider what level of perfection we might need/expect in an image at pixel level. And of course there are other groupings such as impressionistic or portrait photography. When I mention a "plus" for sharpness (detail), I'm thinking of the sort of image that could well be blown up huge and enjoyed in great detail and I've taken a few of them myself. But for many pictures I'd be happy if it prints in high quality at A4, say. In my experience, portrait photographs get a rather hard time at FPC and very few of us reviewers have ever tried to take any such photos for FP. So you can work out for yourself that review comments for those are likely not based on personal experience, unlike the dozens of photos of architecture for example. I'm afraid your 100mm soft focus photography has gone out of fashion and we are expected to pay $1500 for this or this super sharp lenses, and the Photoshop the result. So yes, your soft focus grandma may well be killed at FPC. But sometimes not: FPC is a roulette wheel. I think if your old lady was an interesting enough subject and you displayed great skill with lighting, then you'd have people going wow before they click the magnify button on their browser. -- Colin (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Paolobon140, if you want to get acquainted with what sort of photos get promoted to FP without having perfect sharpness, you should take a look at the work of Tomascastelazo. His photos often have such intensity and wow that sharpness comes a distant second. Examples: 1, 2. Or the work of Ggia with photos like these: 1, 2. Sharpness in photos is only a factor when it is possible, expected or vital for the composition. It is not always demanded for FPs (examples: 1, 2). --cart-Talk 22:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • While I'm most certainly no stickler for petty pixel peeping, I don't think we should deliberately disregard all technical qualifications when assessing an image. I do agree that overall sharpness tends to be an overrated category though. That being said, I (personally) would not use a soft focus lens (or "secretaries' prettifier" as my organization's old photographer used to quip). Ever. But that may be a matter of taste. Paolobon140, please do go ahead and nominate bold images. But please don't be too disappointed if the roulette wheel turns against you. Been there myself, done that myself, experienced that myself. So did Colin and many others... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Paolobon140: I agree with most of what Colin, W.carter and Martin Falbisoner wrote above. Commons FPC already sets itself apart from similar places at the Wikipedias by requiring some kind of wow-factor. That's a pretty subjective thing and people are used to see the "wow" in a beautiful landscape, a well-reproduced painting or even in technical perfection (focus-stacked HDR extreme macro). But the Wikimedia projects have always been more about content than about form, so it is difficult for some people (including myself, I guess) to get away from that and see the "wow" in the photograph itself. I think the appreciation for those "bold" nominations has been growing considerably lately, though. Heck, I almost managed to get the star for a massively grainy film shot taken on a semi-functioning SLR from the sixties ;-) I, for one, would very much welcome more photographic "wow", so please keep 'em coming! --El Grafo (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Short of focus stacking, which would have been very impractical in this situation, you weren't going to get perfect sharpness all the way through. Not with a narrower f/stop; that would have required compromising on the exposure. Daniel Case (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think sharpness is not great but acceptable for this kind of image. But we've seen a bunch of pretty astonishing shots of metro stations at FPC (scattered across the"Interiors" gallery), and in my opinion this one is a bit behind the others in terms of "wow". --El Grafo (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak oppose It's a nice picture but with visible distorsions on the right column and other little problems (CA, sharpness) -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not up to sharpnes, but composition isnt good here. --Mile (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose Like Mile, but vice versa. Composition OK, but sharpness too low. --A.Savin 20:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Iglesia de San Francisco, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 168-170 HDR.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2017 at 11:06:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Uugh that scene. How could anyone concentrate to be in that room? I'm going to have to go for a lie down and rest my eyeballs. -- Colin (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Detail of the San Francisco Federal Building.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2017 at 09:28:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info The facade is slightly curved. It bulges out towards you. As such, the vertical lines bend outwards on both sides. This lens has little or no distortion, and perspectve correction was applied to remove any perspective distortion. Perhaps this angle makes it more obvious. dllu (t,c) 10:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The technical quality is fine, but I'm not seeing anything special here. The light is ordinary, the building features seem completely mundane ... No wow at all.--Peulle (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Prismo345 (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I could see this in a modern art museum. -- King of ♠ 01:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per King. Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Yes, we could see it in a museum of contemporary art, but a lot of what's on exhibit in museums of contemporary art that emphasize works starting in the 50s or 60s is there for reasons other than good composition, such as that it's monetarily valuable or the best-known critics like it (which essentially amounts to the same thing, nowadays). I think this is a lot better than a lot of that, but though it does have one or two interesting diagonal lines, it doesn't fully work for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Pretty confusing when you look at it for longer.--Ermell (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment It gives the idea to be tilted or distotrted (actually you can see in the low right corner that lines are a bit distorted); maybe its not actually tilted but thats the feeling. I also find the compsition quite claustrophobic. I have the feeling you might have found some better composition for this subject:-)Paolobon140 (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition isnt favourable here. --Mile (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I have to say I agree with Ikan that a contemporary art gallery/museum really isn't a good standard to aim for -- plenty crap on display there. There are parts of this that would make an interesting geometric photograph but it isn't working for me as a whole. The right grey part in particular is really not that interesting. -- Colin (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle Poco2 19:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination, thanks everyone for the comments! dllu (t,c) 21:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Seiser Alm 10.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2017 at 06:06:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info All you expect from the Alps: Alpine pastures, mountains, barns, cows, alphorns...  ;-) --Llez (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Awesome ! -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Basile. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 11:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice - a genuinely cool scene. :) BTW, that guy on the left looks like he's about to blow the horn with his nose ... :D --Peulle (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support All older guys. Do young folks do this these days? Women? PumpkinSky talk 12:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support An excellent composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Prismo345 (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Charming. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support With some editing it could be add for Milka or Lindt. --Mile (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support wow Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Albeck Seebachern Grosser Speikkofel 22112017 2089.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2017 at 05:45:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment I understand your point of view very well, Basotxerri. Once they were there, I tried to imply them into the composition of the image. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Prismo345 (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It's an early winter scene with shallow snow, so the tracks are less egregious than they might have been otherwise. Daniel Case (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry, the tracks ruin the composition for me, and not because they're tracks but because their shape doesn't work for me in this context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan Kekek, sorry! --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not getting the composition choice here. And the tracks are just distracting. -- Colin (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Jupiter Blues.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2017 at 02:17:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Planets
  •   Info created by NASA - uploaded and nominated by Prismo345 -- Prismo (talk. | contr.) 02:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Prismo (talk. | contr.) 02:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I wish more of it were in light, but the shapes of the storms produce a great arabesque. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Galactic art. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks like the skies Vincent van Gogh saw ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Loxox (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment While I like this a lot more than the previous FP, this is a fresh-out-of-the-camera image. Makes me wonder if we are going to keep seeing random marble photos of Jupiter streaming in. So I wonder if we'd be better off giving Juno a chance to organise his portfolio rather than just going "oooh" every time a new space photo arrives. -- Colin (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Colin:, I understand your point of view, but are you going to vote? :) {{s}}, {{neutral}} or {{o}}? --  Prismo (talk. | contr. | recs.) 19:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • You forgot {{abstain}}. ;) Voting isn't mandatory, comments can be made without voting. --cart-Talk 09:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Hadeldorfstraße 5 Meiningen, Interior 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2017 at 15:32:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Everyone seems to like this photo. Please explain to me, at least for my information, how it was taken. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek There are several pictures taken with a tripod. Then they were put together with a panorama software (PTGui). --Böhringer (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. Are the curves in every room original or just the product of this combination of photos with different vanishing points? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Five children on a motorycle.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2017 at 13:25:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Fishing boy in Laos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2017 at 13:04:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Sitting_people
  •   Info created by Basile Morin - uploaded by Basile Morin - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Quality and light are good, but the composition is not optimal. It would be better to have the whole bots, and that the boy is not exactly in the middle. See en:rule of thirds. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think this is a great photo and I don't care at all about the cutoff of the boat the boy isn't in - painters do that kind of thing constantly, and IMO it does no damage whatsoever to this composition. I also don't care about a rule of thirds, only whether when I look at the picture, it works for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Painterly. If you don't see how, look at it at full size for a while. Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great clouds and atmosphere. -- King of ♠ 01:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support This is really a very powerful image that says much about the everyday life in the rural areas of Laos. The quality is also decent.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Edificio Metrópolis, calle de Alcalá, Madrid, España, 2017-05-18, DD 08.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2017 at 08:10:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info View of the Metropolis Building, an office building located at the corner of Calle de Alcalá and Gran Vía, center of Madrid, Spain. The building, of Beaux-Arts style, which was quite unusual at the time, was designed by Jules and Raymond Février for the insurance company La Unión y el Fénix and was inaugurated in 1911. The ground level is topped by ornate colonnaded upper floors. The columns support 4 statues representing Mining, Agriculture, Industry and Commerce and the rounded cupola is covered with 30,000 leaves of 24 carat gold. All by me, Poco2 08:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 08:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support HalfGig talk 13:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The main subject is in the shadow, while the building at right is not. --Yann (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Harsh light and strange choice of composition (tree on the left, and not sure what to look at, really) - Benh (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose So much that went right with this, so much attention to detail (literally and figuratively), but Yann and Benh are right about the light. Daniel Case (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Poco2 11:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Ujscie Warty PN 09-2017 img10.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2017 at 23:26:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Alberi nella nebbia con sole nella campagna pavese.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2017 at 20:49:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Two trees and the sun in a foggy day in Pavia, Italy, created by Paolobon140 - uploaded by Paolobon140 - nominated by Paolobon140 -- Paolobon140 (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paolobon140 (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Well done, but no Wow to me. -- Jiel (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment you should get your sensor cleaned...! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lots and lots of dust spots, per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Unfortunately at f/22 on a grey uniform background having no spots is very hard: more than the sensot seems like the lens is dirty. But, beyond the spots (that you wouldnt notice if you print the photograph) i find it a good photo:-)Paolobon140 (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Interesting idea, but I don't like the dark spots and   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Wandelen over de Planken Wambuis vanuit Mossel 22.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2017 at 18:12:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kissingen Oberlicht Brunnenhaus 0417RM0686.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2017 at 13:55:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment I was thinking about limiting myself to the square, but the mixture of daylight and artificial light points is interesting. Therefore it is better that the area around the window is not too bright.--Ermell (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Elvillar - Chabola de la Hechicera 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2017 at 21:25:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Of course I did, it's my home  . --Basotxerri (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. I love the contrasts. :)--Peulle (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support impressive (though maybe oversharpened) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ehm...signos of (bad) editing are clearly visible near the stones....Paolobon140 (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - No vote from me, but could you please add some information in the file description about how big these rocks are, because we have no way to know that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Please add that to the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not wow for me, just stones -- Jiel (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The rocks are oversharpened. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  Support Better now. Daniel Case (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 06:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Per Daniel, it is definitely (also in the last version) oversharpened, specially in the two openings inside the dolmen. Poco2 11:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks better now Poco2 19:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It still doesnt work for me. It look more like a cartoon that a photograph, with dimensions of stones which is not understandable. The picture looks overworked in photoshop and the result is something i find quite fake. Paolobon140 (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Camp Creek State Park - Campbell Falls WV 4bw LR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2017 at 03:27:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Glad you like it! I think it has a fugacious sensation to it. PumpkinSky talk 03:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Smile! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've uploaded a cropped version that I think is much better. PumpkinSky talk 21:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Even better now. The professional crop improved the photo. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wouldn't have thought this would work, but it does. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special to me in this composition, sorry Jiel (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is a technical issue, visible at 100%, especially on the rocks in the foreground: the horizontal contours seem to be doubled. Maybe the camera was moved during the exposure? (See image notes.) --Till (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Has an Ansel Adams vibe. -- King of ♠ 01:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Vista del Skyline de Chicago desde el Planetario, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 15.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2017 at 20:58:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info Chicago skyline, Illinois, USA. Created and uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by Triplecaña (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Triplecaña (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Thank you very much for the nom Triplecaña! Poco2 21:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Diego, you are a shiny star in the sky of photographers. I bow my head. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image is a bit too dark/underexposed for my taste. Late blue hour might have been a better choice (if possible, I wasn't there...) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Martin Falbisoner and before he suggested the blue hour, I was thinking to a full moon, in order to reveal the shapes of the buildings, especially those on the right. Here my regret is that the picture shows like small lights only in a full dark, since the walls have nearly the same color than the sky. "Too dark" was my first impression, too. Though I can imagine that better lighting conditions were difficult (or maybe impossible) to obtain, depending on the situation, I tend to believe that the image in this state lacks of something. The time of exposure seems also a bit short, with a f/3,5 diaphragm, which leads to blurring buildings on the right side. Displayed on the central windows, the message "light the night" is certainly interesting and valuable, but the global aspect is not attractive enough, I'm afraid. -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. The tone, a dark mucky brown, just isn't appealing. There are better times to capture the evening/night. -- Colin (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very dark (and ordinary nightscape anyways). - Benh (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support LOVE IT!!!!! -- Prismo345 (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Moderate support I suppose it could be better (I could see cropping in from the right), but this works for me. Do we have any other FPs of the Chicago skyline at night to compare? Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel Case Jiel (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Image is too dark and is not as good as our existing FPs of nighttime skylines. dllu (t,c) 11:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Neptuul (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

File:One World Trade Center through the Oculus (91538).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2017 at 06:48:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info all by me — Rhododendrites talk |  06:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Viewing the rebuilt One World Trade Center through the top of the Oculus, part of a new transportation hub adjacent to the World Trade Center site. For context, the design of the Oculus is directly connected to the September 11th attacks, with its axis following the angle of the sun that morning, at the time the second tower fell. Nominating after a suggestion at QIC. — Rhododendrites talk |  06:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment This would work if blue line was on diagonal, rotated is better, but pixels are missing. I would reshoot. --Mile (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It is a very well composed photograph, where the slighty diagonal adds dinamicity to the whole sublject; those ights on the left are placed perfectly. The general grey tones looks very fine. In some way it looks like a palm tree leave. Excellent job!Paolobon140 (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great photo. I'm not sure the OWTC would fit in (and be upright) the opening if this was done diagonally. The juxtaposition of that significant building adds a layer to the compo. --cart-Talk 11:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 12:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The horizontal aspect doesn't work for me. A vertical aspect crop (e.g. 3:4) strengthens and enlarges the central arc/building and has less of the rather grey walls. However, I'd prefer if this were done with a camera held that way, than further cropping this image -- it's already not particularly high resolution/detail. See File:WTC Transporation Hub interior 2017b.jpg -- not a great photo but shows the same subject in a vertical orientation. Looking at the category, I'm sure we can expect several FPs from this spectacular building, and several other attempts at this particular view (see [1], [2], [3], [4]). An HDR approach may also handle better the contrast between sky and interior which surely doesn't look that dark to the eye. -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • So now we are opposing to photos on the grounds that there might some day be better photos here? Sounds strange to me, to be honest. Also this crop shows the "palm tree leaves" better. --cart-Talk 13:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • cart It's a generous suggestion. Don't underestimate hobby photographers what they can do to get great shot. Much more than reshoot. I did try that on Adobe, before I wrote. --Mile (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Cart, no, that's not the main reason for my oppose, which is the frame-orientation and the lighting. However, although this view was new to me, and is an interesting combination of the two elements, I'd like to support a photo at FPC because it is a great photo, not just because someone pointed a camera at a great subject. And also I do try to ensure the image is among the "finest" by checking out the category. Hence I shared my opinion that this building was spectacular and worthy of several FPs.
If you search on Google Images for "st paul's from one new change" you will see many photos where the photographer has framed St Pauls cathedral with the glass sides of "One New Change" shopping centre. Or search for "st paul's millennium bridge" where St Pauls is framed with the leading lines of the Millenium Bridge. Both views of St Pauls are "wow" views, captured innumerable times by millions of tourists, but that doesn't necessarily make any photo of it a "wow" photo. So, I think this here is a wow view, in a building with lots of potential, but I don't think the photo here is a wow photo for me. And I'm happy to wait for one. -- Colin (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks for explaning. You had me worried there for a while. --cart-Talk 14:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Camp Creek State Park - Campbell Falls WV 2 LR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2017 at 03:28:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#United_States_of_America
  • Campbell Waterfall at Camp Creek State Park, West Virginia. All by me. -- PumpkinSky talk 03:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 03:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Like in the days of old when trail blazers discovered the New World. Quiet, peaceful, untouched. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment it is well composed, nothing to say, with its thirds and everything, but i dont see a rel wow feeling here. Looks more like an honest picture similar to other thousands. The dry vegetation gives a sense of sadness. Paolobon140 (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hmmm. The pool and the small waterfalls are exquisite but Paolobon has a point. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to concentrate on the pool with a radical crop (see note or something like it) The photo is large enough to stand such. --cart-Talk 11:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment @W.carter: The crop has been made. I agree it is better. PumpkinSky talk 11:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great! Now we have a wow-factor. I would gladly use this for my desktop. Very nice. --cart-Talk 11:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Glad you like it so much! PumpkinSky talk 12:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Uhm, there is something I must be missing. When a photographer is taking a photograph, we are assuming that he hes already in his mind and eyes how the picture will be. By composing in his viewfinder, he alredy has very clear in his eyes a preview of the printed photo. If a photographer is taking a picture and then reach a result by cropping and reviewing what he has shot, hes not a photographer, he is a graphic, maybe good for the web. Am i wrong? Or am i missing the final scope of photography? Paolobon140 (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • That may be true if you are a seasoned professional photographer. Here most of us are hobby/amateur photogaphers and we often discuss improvements in each other's photos. That way we learn from each other and can take better photos in the future. The Wikiproject is not only about gathering knowledge and images, it is also about learning. --cart-Talk 15:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Well said, Cart. Paolo, we often crop images here to improve them. On any given day, you can probably find 1-2 current FPCs that were cropped. It's quite common. PumpkinSky talk 15:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Like this photo, Paolobon140 !? ;-) Besides, a lot of motifs simply can't be properly taken without doing some necessary work in post - like cropping. Example: architecture shots without TS lenses. You keep your ultra wide angle lense straight (=perpendicular) and cut of any unwanted foreground later. Besides, as a media archivist: Historically, many important/iconic/famous images were actually cropped to some extent. I kid you not. ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes dear Martin, exaclty like taht photo! That photo is part of a larger series (about 36 photos) which was a kind of travel documentary between Vietnam and Thailand. All the 36 pics were taken to be cropped and printed with the ratio you see in the file which has been adapted to 1000x444 pixels. All the 36 pics have been worked to obtain the same acid colour, similar to some cross-processing. In that way the whole set of photos has the same printing size and the same colour look. When i was shooting in the streets or on trains, markets etc, i was already imagining that the final pic would have been cropped to that ratio and i kept some air on top or on the bottom part. It is quite diffcult to do, but we can get used:-) Unfortunately this particular pic is a bit blurred on the right woman's face and has been discared. But notice when the photograph is printed at 25 cm width you cannot notice the blurred area (thats why i think pictures should only judged when printed) But i can upload the full size originaal pic so you can judge. I understand your point of view: my way of photographing is "no crop" so that every pic can keep the same lens width: if you shoot with a 28mm the picture must look like if it is taken with a 28 mm, not a crop of the pic. That is the reason why i only use fixed lenses, so that the photographer will have to move to search for the good scene, and not the lens. Its a suggestion i always give: use fixed lenses so that you will have to move to search frr the best scene-) Paolobon140 (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Paolobon140, I think I got you now re: "cropping despite a no-crop policy." Besides, please do keep in mind that there's a couple of very experienced photographers here on FPC. I'm sure you just hope to give valuable hints and input (which you actually do for many beginners) - but be careful not to sound overly condescending when doing so. Just a (truly friendly) advice. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Dear Martin, yes i understand everyone has his own way of seeing photography and when i comment on a photo here, I never look at the name of the photographer and i never look at his portfolio on Commons, just to avoid being influenced from other pictures of the same photographer. I find it a good idea for myself, as it gives me the possibility to concentrate on the picture only. I have seen really good pictures here and i like many of them, and when i see a picture i like, i get enthusiastic! For the crop-no crop policy: I always try to compose a picture trying to preview how the pic will look without cropping it; its a god exercise (for me, of course) becasue it forces me in finding the best composition and keeping the characteristics of the lens intact. I usually shoot with 28 and 35mm lenses; i abandoned 20mm becasue they are too wide for my taste. I recognize the very experienced photographers here and i feel a bit shy to comment on their pictures cause i feel they dont need comments:-) By the way, for the crop-no crop matter, here is the original format of my picture taken on a train: I keep liking the non cropped one more and may i ask your point of view?.
  • Interesting pic, crop or no crop. There's a couple of technical issues that might give a potential nom here a hard time - but from a purely pictorial point of view a keenly spotted example of travel photography. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • And here comes my question: where does the reason of uploading full size pictures come? When you print a picture most of the flaws disappear:-)Paolobon140 (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Paolobon140, you come on very strong in your opinion about photography. I'm sure no one will ever dare to suggest a crop of any of your photos after this explanation, but please keep in mind that there are as many ways of photographing as there are photographers. I hope you will allow us to continue our suggestions and discussions here between us on other nominations than yours. --cart-Talk 18:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • LOL Cart, if this is a kind way of saying you will not comment of any pic of mine anymore, well, I am a bit sad for that. I like to comment on pictures and i like to share the ones I find sharable here:-)Paolobon140 (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course not. You will have my two cents in spades. :) I will only think twice before suggesting a crop. I will see your photos as something I can support or not, but I'll not suggest any alterations since I understand that you are uncomfortable with such. Oh, and you might want to re-think the "look at his portfolio", there are women here too, strange as it may seem. ;) --cart-Talk 20:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good! The crop was essential, though. That's the advantage of these high MP cameras, you can crop whatever you want! --Basotxerri (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Baso, glad you like it so much and I agree about the crop. PumpkinSky talk 18:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, I forgot: Congratulations on your new camera! :) You've come a long way since this. --cart-Talk 19:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Cart! I've had some great mentors ;-) PumpkinSky talk 19:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Maybe a closer crop on the cascades would work, but as it is this image is doing too much for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - The composition doesn't really work for me. I think if you cropped about 1/3 of the remaining pool and to the edge of the waterfall on the left, it would work for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as above - Jiel (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Has a peaceful and tranquil Zen feel to it. HalfGig talk 13:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan Poco2 11:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Hunza Valley, view from Eagle's Nest.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2017 at 23:27:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Could you indicate a few examples? Couldn't find any (but it's a huge file) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Added notes above. --A.Savin 12:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose Foreground way too unsharp for this sort of picture, looks like there was diffraction but without any aperture setting in the metadata I can't tell. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jiel (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Alexander and Daniel. PumpkinSky talk 00:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)