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:View of Delft, by Johannes Vermeer.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 23:39:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Підгорянський монастир.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 20:27:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info created by SvartKat - uploaded by SvartKat - nominated by Ahonc -- Anatoliy (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Anatoliy (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a nice dramatic pic but a little too centered. It would have been better to turn the amera a bit to the left to get more of the graveyard and the church plus ruin less centered. There is also some processing done by some software (external or in-camera), especially in the sky making the clouds look like whipped cream with halos floating on a oversaturated blue sky. Maybe a reversal of this and a crop could save it... --cart-Talk 23:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit dark but very nice lighting and composition. --King of ♠ 00:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support For me the clouds break up the staticness the centered building with otherwise create. Not perfect but close enough. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the spectacular view; processing isn't perfect but good enough for me. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Hotel Ritz azulejos Funchal Madeira 2016 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 18:58:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Euploea core-Kadavoor-2016-09-08-002.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 17:52:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Жаба прудка (Rana Dalmatina).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 15:57:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Temple aux six colonnes 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 13:19:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Seems very interesting, like a toy. Interesting light also. --Mile (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose overprocessed - appears unrealistic, even unreal --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose See below. Composition-wise this is the best you have shown us so far and I like it. The light and colors are also good. You are learning. :) Unfortunately it is very heavily processed, making it appear almost painted. I suspect you used the 'smart blur' or some similar function. You could try another version with just a little noise reduction. We all know that most night pics are a bit grainy so that would not necessarily be a problem. If that, plus a much better description of the photo, was fixed, I could consider changing to 'Support'. cart-Talk 17:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment dear Martin Falbisoner really I admit that I used only the noise reduction and that becuase there is no loss of details with that but I reduced it now have a look please --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment dear cart-Talk really I admit that I used only the noise reduction and that because there is no loss of details with that but I reduced it now have a look please --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak support The description is good now and the pic is starting to look real so I'll actually give you my weak support. I would be even happier if you brought it back from that processing even a little, little bit more so that the temple looks just as real as the stones in front of it. :) cart-Talk 23:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for quality reasons. I'm willing to accept lower quality on night photography than usual if it is the best that can be done under the circumstances. Here, you could have gone up to 15 seconds without star trails, which would allow you to reduce the aperture or ISO by some combination of four stops. --King of ♠ 00:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support It is like I am watching a flim. -- Poké95 03:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the composition and colours a lot; in this case, for me that overrides the technical shortcomings -- Thennicke (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Fuel gauge (Toyota Corolla).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 08:26:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Automobiles
  •   Info CA correction done. There is a reflextion from plastic cover, which one might think its huge CA. All by me. --Mile (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry, I'm not feeling this one. I'd probably like the photo better if you showed the entire circle of the fuel gauge. Right now, it feels cut off, with empty space doing nothing for me on the right side. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek It not full circle, at left in a cm begins clock speed. Right side, black, makes with left white side nice combination. There is no other interesting option, just puting white option isnt so interesting to me. --Mile (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Noted. I'm not wowed by this picture, but we'll see whether enough other people are. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Superb artistic composition and excellent quality. Had it been a full view of the round meter, it would have been just another good pic of an instrument panel. This makes it an out-of-the-corner-of-your-eye angle as if you were anxiously glancing at the meter while being chased by bad guys in a car movie. cart-Talk 10:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • cart i have full cockpit also, but i wanted to make this for some time, just gasoline gauge. But i found this much more interesting. Good words, they did like it on Flickr also. --Mile (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can't say for sure why this doesn't work for me. Maybe the shapes aren't simple enough. Maybe it's just too ordinary. Maybe it needs to have been a more colorful gauge. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Daniel, think "Tron". ;) --cart-Talk 23:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I did like that glowy look, but it wasn't dramatic enough, I guess. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Excellent quality, but I don't have enough wow on this. Maybe good for QI instead? -- Poké95 02:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the simplicity of this shot; the off-centered composition works for me. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Euploea core-Kadavoor-2016-09-08-003.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2016 at 07:28:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - That's a better picture by a long shot. I guess, since I've nominated this one, we should see what people think, but that one should definitely be nominated! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Honestly, it is difficult for me to choose the best one from that series. There were a lot on my Crane berry. Now they are pupating! Jee 13:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The other one is more interesting (better composition) for me and the quality is better. --Hockei (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Although I would support the other one too (It's more interesting, but this one shows less signs of the artificial illumination) Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Захід сонця на вершині скелі Соколине око.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2016 at 13:13:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Ryzhkov Sergey - uploaded by Ryzhkov Sergey - nominated by Ermell -- Ermell (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As it is. An awesome scene (not oversaturated) but it actullay needs some perspective adjustment since all the trees are leaning out from the center plus the blown out and posterized clouds are a bother. Please nominate for QI first to get such errors corrected before nominating it here. cart-Talk 17:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Acceptable as it is, especially without visible building. I tend to disagree with my colleague above for the perspective corrections that will likely lead to an unacceptable crop IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks a bit over-processed to my eyes. The light is good but there's a weak centre of the composition that doesn't really work. The left tree would be a good subject, and the right half would be a good subject. Also 6MP from a 36MP camera is heavily downsized (40% size) yet not biting sharp one might expect, suggesting the full size image is soft. Please Ryzhkov Sergey can you upload fullsized (or at least much less downsized) images. -- 21:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --King of ♠ 00:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - To me, this is beautiful and vivid, and I quite like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose over-saturated and per other opposes.--Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. --Hockei (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral for now as I am having problems viewing the file in full-res. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

St Mary-le-BowEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2016 at 12:42:37 (UTC)

File:Yixian Hongcun 2016.09.09 18-21-34.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2016 at 11:24:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#China
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Zhangzhugang -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is too much noise. I could only consider it when the noise is dramatically reduced. --AWeith (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I agree with AWeith that there is not much to say about the pic until the noise is gone. cart-Talk 17:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Regardless of the noise, the left part is just too unsharp for FP, I'm afraid. --King of ♠ 00:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per KoH. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per AWeith and the noise. Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Majdanek Crematorium.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2016 at 23:53:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info created by Bharel - uploaded by Bharel - nominated by Geagea -- -- Geagea (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -- Geagea (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - The rocks in the foreground, the clouds behind the chimney and the birds are all distractions, and the building isn't perspective-corrected. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan. lNeverCry 20:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Potentially great composition offset by perspective problem noted by Ikan, and I also find the clouds a little off near the top ... it looks like a GND was used, which may have been a good idea, but its effects should be cleaned up after a little bit better. Plus that top crop is really rough on one of the clouds. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info GND was not used. Sky and the boulders in front are there for a purpose of course. The sky and green grass are signs of freedom contrary to the fences and crematorium which are prison and death. Boulders as a foreground object symbolizes the memorial. The image was not cropped so I'm unable to restore part of the clouds. I am however, able to remove the birds with spot fixing. Should be quite easy. As for perspective, I liked it but it's all a matter of taste. I might have another picture with a different perspective, I'll check it later today. Bharel (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I got those things with the rock and the foreground, really I did. But that one cloud just looks a little overdone. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I nominate the photo to FPC because of the contrast between the pastoral panorama and a concentration camp.-- Geagea (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

File: Dublin Stephen's Green-44.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2016 at 00:26:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This is NOT the case Daniel, (no pun intended) many drones now carry DSLR's. Fact is this shot was done with a Phantom, those have small chips (same size as a go pro) yet the Inspire 1 Drone I fly for Television Production runs a fantastic Micro 4/3rds camera that DJI refers to as a X5 and its Large Platform Drone, carries DSLR cameras. The dif is cost, you can Phantom for under a thousand yet my production Inspire Pro rig is well over 10k, it goes up only when I am getting paid :). Is that going to be the standard of entry for Aerial Photos on commons "if you don't have the 10k to play, go away" seems a bit over the top to me..... --WPPilot (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel Case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support yes, there are certain quality issues... but: this is one of the best pictures taken using a drone that I've seen so far. So don't pixelpeep, simply enjoy the view! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Martin. Very cool and interesting. Think of this as the drone equivalent of a 2000 FP taken with a Nikon D1X (I know Daniel Case and Ikan Kekek remember that 5 megapixel, 5,000$ dinosaur...  ). lNeverCry 08:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support It looks quite sharp to me and is 12MP. If downsized to 6MP it is fully sharp except right in the corners, and 6MP is fine for printing in a magazine spread, for example. The colourful green is well framed by the buildings and this is has very high EV. -- Colin (talk) 08:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As it is. Great idea and maybe we have to set another standard for drone photos, but normal post-processing can still be applied to these photos, such as denoising and removing CA. There is red/green CA or purple fringes on almost every white area along the edges. cart-Talk 10:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose chromatic aberration --The Photographer 11:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Widely in our finest. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support We can accept lower technical quality for drone photography just as we already do for underwater photography. --King of ♠ 00:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Yes, we could choose to do so, but why? Aerial photography from helicopters already exists as an alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I do believe it will not be long until drones can carry DSLR cameras and/or same will be designed to be usable on drones. We can wait ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I think if the uploader had given us the 6MP version and told you it was taken by a DSLR, nobody would be surprised. At 6MP the CA at the top and left edge is minor. Compare this current FPC candidate which is a soft 6MP image taken with a 36MP D800, and doing well at FPC -- because we punish those who upload full sized image and fall for those who downsize to 40% to escape pixel criticism! Wrt aerial photography, I'd be interested in User:WPPilot's professional views. Compare this failed nomination. Having a DSLR is absolutely no guarantee against the critics and pixel peeping at FPC :-) You need luck with the light, weather, foliage/season, stability and careful framing of a subject like this. Can anyone point to a better aerial photo of a city garden square, anywhere, never mind just on Commons? My guess is this sort of imagery is technically challenging, with a low success rate, and that none of us reviewers really know from personal experience what quality to expect. Most images I found online were thumbnails, whereas this is 12MP -- Colin (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with the pic per se, but I expect the same basic CA removal and noise reduction when possible as we do of any FPC. If these very fixable issues are fixed, I will happily change my vote to 'Support'. Hence the "as it is". cart-Talk 11:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per other opposers. --Ivar (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Dronepicr its seems very unsharp, like lens was dirty or something. Actually this image quality isnt so high even for drone, but compo and idea is good. I am sure its more Valuable photo. --Mile (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support We don't have many drone photos (tell me if I'm wrong), and this is one of the greatest drone photos I've seen. -- Poké95 10:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --WPPilot (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC) I agree with Pokéfan95, as the single largest contributor of aerial photos to this site, I think this is a wonderful and well framed shot. Many of you are IMHO being too critical... What is the barrier to entry here? According to ECIF on this shot it was done with the DJI FC300X, (Phantom 3 pro) that is a 1500 dollar investment when you fly (I have one myself) and one would think that this SHOULD be able to establish a aerial photo FP, using the DJI Phantom pro as its chipset is the same size as a "Go Pro" and we have a number of FP's that were created using the Go Pro camera... Another thing to consider BTW is the cost of Insurance too. A phantom is about 600 a year, while a pro level drone running a DSLR is about 3500, a year and that is my rate as a 30 year multi engine licensed pilot with no accident history......
  •   Support --SI 16:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support High educational value. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Стара обсерваторія Білий слон на горі Піп Іван Чорногорський.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2016 at 11:16:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info created and uploaded by Khoroshkov - nominated by Ivar (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ivar (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I half expect someone to say this is oversaturated, but it looks to me like the colors could be real, and maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not noticing any large posterized areas. Note that the texture of individual trees is evident on the next couple of hills over on the right. I think this photo is pretty spectacular, with what I consider excellent form, and I therefore understand why Ivar likes it. This is a kind of fairy tale castle pic, but it doesn't look like the fantasy front-page photo below, but instead is full of details, except where fog, clouds and distance blur them naturally. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't find it oversaturated at all. In some light, vegetation can take on very strong colors and since this is at an altitude of over 2000 meter, the sky can sometimes be a shade darker than usual. The clouds form a fantastic framing of the old observatory. I would like geocode though, pretty please, both {{Camera location}} and {{Object location}}. cart-Talk 17:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment object location added. Since I'm not an author, I can't help with camera location. --Ivar (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 22:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --King of ♠ 02:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Such fine detail! Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    That, unfortunately, means it was probably downsampled before upload. Still more than enough pixels for FP though given the flawlessness at 100%. --King of ♠ 00:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support amazing --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support. JukoFF (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC) 

File:Fortaleza de Bam, Irán, 2016-09-23, DD 09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2016 at 07:57:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info General view of Arg-e Bam, or, Bam Citadel, the largest adobe building in the world and an UNESCO world heritage site, located in Bam, Kerman Province, southeastern Iran. The origin of this enormous citadel on the Silk Road can be traced back to the Achaemenid Empire (6th-4th centuries BC) and even beyond. The citadel was destroyed by the devastating 2003 Bam earthquake that cost over 26,000 lives and is being reconstructed since then. All by me, Poco2 07:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 07:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support as is, but if you could reduce the glare just a touch without inaccurately representing what the view actually looked like, that could improve the picture further. But what I gather is that the light in Iran is often in fact harsh, and therefore should look harsh. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent detail, almost monochrome. cart-Talk 09:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Joalpe (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Measured support I do wish a more striking angle might have been chosen, but I have not been there and thus I can't say a better angle is possible. Other than, color and detail is nice. Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support flawless --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

File:2014R8336 - Львів.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2016 at 05:42:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:FDR Four Freedoms Park New York October 2016 panorama.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2016 at 00:46:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Palestine 4 GHR 15.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 14:06:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info 50px|link=User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2/Nomination of featured images on Arabic Wikipedia Project Featured picture on Arabic Wikipedia.created by Trocaire - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice portrait but there are dust spots in the sky and a halo at his left cheek. cart-Talk 14:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I see that the face is natural and there is no problem in the sky --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I have marked some of the dust spots (there may be more) and the almost white halo next to his cheek, please see notes on the file. cart-Talk 15:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment The lighting is just ideal for this portrait (professional use of a flash/compulsory flash) and the man and the scenery are worth the image. However, the white halo aside his left cheek is very disturbing to me (maybe a matter of cranking up the dynamic range too much, see below). In addition I wonder why at a focal lenght of 24mm the sharpness of the background is so mediocre. Lastly, I find the overall increased contrast or elevated dynamic range disturbing, --AWeith (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now, because of the dust spots and halo. If those problems are taken care of, I would expect to support this as otherwise a very good portrait. Even though like AWeith, I would prefer a clearer background, I recognize that it's legitimate to focus on the subject, and perhaps there's even a poetic point being made in blurring the background somewhat. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not just because of the technical issues. I don't find the composition works for me. It could at least be cropped in on the sides to square it up around the face because we don't see enough of the vehicle to justify that orientation. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 22:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Black sea, black fog, sun&ice, polar sea.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 14:03:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Reflections
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info Now for some arc/tis/tic topic for a change. Very often you experience some weather in the arctic just like in every other part of the world but the atmosphere is entirely different. Mind you the silence that prevails everywhere and the light that is really different. Judge yourself whether I brought the foggy, sunny morning mood across. -- AWeith (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Pure poetry. It's one of those pictures where you have a hard time realizing that it is actually a photo and not a painting. I've seen the horizon vanish many times at sea but never like this. --cart-Talk 14:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Really pure poetry. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 17:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Fantastic. --Laitche (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'm going to be the party-pooper here. Yes, it's artistic, but I can't recognize anything but the sun, its reflection in water (the only place where I really recognize water), some ice and its shadow. Everything else is a total blur or black. That's probably what you saw, but to this viewer, it's opaque and not clearly informative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support for artistic merit. --Pine 06:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Joalpe (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Strong support per Cart and others. Per my comments in the past on how the possible use of the image is a factor in wowing me, if this were a movie onesheet (at least in North America, based on its shape), I would find out more about it to see if it was as worth seeing as this image promised it might be. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very unusual and highly artistic. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

File:2016R1535 - Київ.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 11:31:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Horodkivka Catholic Church RB.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 10:14:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings
  •   Info created by Rbrechko - uploaded by Rbrechko - nominated by Rbrechko -- Rbrechko (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I believe one is always happy about such an almost-ideal mirror image in the water. However, I would prefer a more close-up crop in this case, leaving the central part and the mirror image, but eliminating some of the sky and of the trees left and right. --AWeith (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 00:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --King of ♠ 00:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I more or less agree with AWeith, but not exactly. I like the sky but would prefer a crop immediately to the right of the large evergreen that's between the church and the current right crop. I guess on the left side, cropping just to the left of the group of trees to the left of the church would probably be ideal, or perhaps just to the left of the smaller group of trees closer to the margin. We've been getting such great pictures with reflections later that there's a danger in becoming a bit jaded with merely excellent pictures, by comparison. This is quite a good picture, but I'm uncertain about voting to feature it and will think more about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 06:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the composition. The building roof is a bit bright for my taste, but overall the quality of the photo is attractive. --Pine 07:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Pine. Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Halavar (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Clouds swirl (7401827926).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 10:05:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I'm sorry for the delay. I underestand you and a good practice should be take it from the original picture, however, I can't contact the author and for this raison I applied a desaturation. Let me se what do you think --The Photographer 17:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It was a nice try and the best you could do (I tried it myself and ended up with something similar), but the pic is so damaged by the original processing that it leaves blown areas in the cloud. Pity. cart-Talk 14:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Excuse me but I am totally confused. Can you please explain the occurence of the two opposingly spinning cloud vortexes? Also the lighting on the wings and elevator wings of the plane indicate a different position of the sun to me than the clouds do. -- AWeith (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The cloud swirls created in the wake of a plane flying though a cloud are not that uncommon, picture-Google "cloud swirls plane" and you'll see. Pilots sometimes buzz a cloud for fun or for a photo. The sun's position looks plausible, the U.S. Coast Guard who issued this photo are usually reliable, but the colors look processed/saturated. cart-Talk 19:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Joalpe (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per the "heavy-metal light" effect duly noted by cart. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel. lNeverCry 22:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Herbst im Sauerland.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 09:10:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
  •   Info created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Very good resolution and excellent photographic work; but it doesn't wow me at all. It's not because I find the Sauerland boring ( indeed I do); but I think the scenery is so mediocre and does not bring any message across - especially an autumn feeling - that is worth an FP to me. I acknowledge the documentary character, though. --AWeith (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The colors are very nice but the shadows ruin it for me. --King of ♠ 00:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per the neutral folks. I think you might be able to get a featurable photo out of this by focusing on the body of water - especially the bend to the left - and the colorful trees alongside and near it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I was going to oppose based on the shadows, but at full resolution the image is in such fine detail that I couldn't. Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Hope Bay-2016-Trinity Peninsula–Arena Glacier 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 04:44:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena#Ice
  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Godot13
  •   Support -- Godot13 (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hm. EXIF says colour space not calibrated but there's AdobeRGB embedded, which is not really suitable for web use. Maybe you can upload another version with sRGB embedded? Additionally I'm not really convinced by the sharpness. --Code (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Code, "Color Space = Uncalibrated" is the expected value for AdobeRGB. The only permitted values in that field are sRGB and Uncalibrated, which should be read as "Not sRGB". The profile is what counts for those web browsers that are colour managed, and I agree that AdobeRGB isn't good for web use as some browsers (including all mobile browsers I'm aware of) are not colour managed and so do not display the colours correctly. AdobeRGB is for printing, not web. -- Colin (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: Thank you, I didn't know that. Strange anyways as AdobeRGB isn't what I'd call "uncalibrated". --Code (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - This is a pretty spectacular scene, but the brightest areas are completely blown. Do you have any similar images that don't have such large blown areas? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Not judging about image quality at this point: I would have found it very dangerous to approach the glacier front to such a small distance! Plus it seems to be an active calving front owing to the many loose chunks. Low EV I am afraid. --AWeith (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Code, Colin, Ikan Kekek, AWeith: - There is nothing I can do to improve the sharpness (and it was shot from a moving zodiac). I can still see some texture in the smooth snow above the edge (if that's the blown area being referred to). I would have thought the EV of this image was the close proximity of people providing an immediate sense of scale (nothing to do with calving). I will see if I have any other raw files I can work up as an ALT, or withdraw and offer something different. Thanks for the comments.--Godot13 (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Regarding the argument of the moving Zodiac, I do not not see any motion blur; also, I guess that at a focal length of 135mm and an exposure time of 1/320 one would not necessarily induce it. I designate this motif very attractive, though; I, therefore, recommend to adjust the white levels and the dynamic range of the image to satisfy the critiques of burnt white areas. - I am still concerned about the innocence with which the guide at the helm was approaching this obviously unstable glacier front. --AWeith (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I don't think the places where I can see texture are the very brightest areas. That said, even if not completely blown (and I maintain that, at least on my browser, some areas do indeed look that way), the brightest areas are certainly very glary. I'm sure they looked glary in person, too, but it seems to me, some details are lost, though others, as you point out, are visible. I'm still considering voting for this, due to the rest of the picture and the pure impressiveness of the view. You might consider cropping out the nearest unsharp foreground areas, though, about half the distance to the boat. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I like the idea of this, but between the flood of comments above and the CA on the people in the raft I will hold off on a !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, AWeith, Code, Colin: I will go back to the raw file and create a separate but nearly identical file to work on. As the original nominated is already featured on English Wikipedia I do not feel I can alter (write over) it. Thanks for everyone's input and I'll ping when the ALT is up.--Godot13 (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer non cropped version. --Lošmi (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT Added - Per suggestions above the following have been addressed to some degree: highlights, crop, and CA. I hope this is better.--Godot13 (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


Forgot to ping @Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, AWeith, Code, Colin:.--Godot13 (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I think this is a significant improvement. I'm not fully convinced, but this is after all an impressive scene, so mild   Support from me for this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Wary   Support per Ikan. However and ever again: can you imagine what would happen to the zodiac crew when the big and unstable chunk of at the very top comes down, releasing quite a number of icy bullets aiming at anything in the near? The weather appeared to promote such a scenario, lots of icicles indicating warm temperatures. --AWeith (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support This version looks ok for me (in regards to picture quality, after reading AWeith's description, I'm even more wary of ice vs sea than before). cart-Talk 17:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Radaja Seto Festival (2016) - 040.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 02:26:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful! lNeverCry 02:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Left crop is slightly frustrating, as it would be nice for it to be just slightly further left, but I won't withhold support because of that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support A very happy pic, but please add some appropriate additional categories. I'm sure people who go looking for dancing girls, summer pics or folk costumes would like to find this excellent pic. cart-Talk 07:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm working on it. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose yes, a nice pick, but overexposed and unsharp. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quite grainy, not really sharp and bad crop on the left --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment She was still dancing and 1/320 was the slowest I could had used there. That crop was intentional and I think it works lot better for the composition (and the part that I ignored when taking that photo really wasn't worth to be on the image; an image to give some idea about surroundings). Kruusamägi (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I understand the constraints you were under and it is a testament to your photographic skill that you were able to get a usable picture of her. And while I love the colors, especially all those shades of green, and the expression on her face, the composition is off enough for me to oppose. Daniel Case (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose disturbing overexposition Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral This image has lots of positive energy, but crop on both sides and unbalanced light on the face are unfortunate. --Ivar (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Пороги Улу-Узень.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2016 at 17:39:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created and uploaded by A4ernyh - nominated by Ivar (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Kruusamägi (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 02:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice autumn mood. --Code (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Bijay chaurasia (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support beautiful! A bit oversaturated maybe --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support This is very nice.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Would it be possible to get a geotag on it and perhaps some category related to autumn since the pic is very much about that? cart-Talk 07:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support - This is quite a beautiful composition, but I am not feeling wowed by it because of the depiction of the water, which strikes me as a bit unrealistic. The solid white color above is posterized, rather than capturing the gurgling activity that I imagine the naked eye perceives. I'm not so convinced about the depiction of the pool below, either. But the roots, and the rhyme between them and the branched watercourses, is special. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. In my opinion the top crop is too tight, but otherwise very good. --King of ♠ 00:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Code. Someday I will get something like this from the Catskills ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 06:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Joalpe (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support though just a very little bit oversatured IMO Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Ainava pie Sventes (autoceļš V698).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2016 at 11:02:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info created by Kikos - uploaded by Kikos - nominated by Kikos -- Kikos (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kikos (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor sharpness and oversaturated --A.Savin 16:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A.Savin --cart-Talk 16:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per A.Savin. lNeverCry 20:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Good picture for the cover of a fantasy novel, but not good for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Any scene shot into the sun with a foreground that's not totally dark will have inevitably have a certain look to it. Saturation of the greens is a bit high for my tastes but acceptable IMO. --King of ♠ 00:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan, who takes the words right out of my mouth. I would thus have to add that this is another example of "What Commons featured pictures look like on Instagram". And the overprocessing is really evident the closer you look to the sun. Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I like the composition a lot, but I must agree that sharpness is lacking. I think that a photo taken from the same location, in the same conditions, but with a better camera, would be a good fit for Commons FP. --Pine 06:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

File:M.Nonius Balbus Nuceria equestrian Statue MANN.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2016 at 10:01:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support The equestrian statue of Marcus Nonius Balbus, the Younger (inv.6104), found in the forum of Herculaneum (Campania, Italy), one of the cities of the area of the Mount Vesuvius, destroyed by the eruption of 79 CE. This marble statue was sculpted around 50 CE, and is a very nice example of the ancient imperial roman art of sculpture. It was a gift of the inhabitants of the city of Nuceria, in recognition to his benefactor. It is in very good shape, with many interesting details. On display at the Naples National Archaeological Museum, not to be confused with another similar statue of his father, Marcus Nonius Balbus, the Elder (inv.6211). The original version, and a transparent background version, are available in the file description page, as I usually do. -- Jebulon (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Photographer 10:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 16:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice horse. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - This is an interesting photo, because if you had presented it against the original background, it would have lacked sufficient contrast to be a great photo. However, I don't really find that there's anything dishonest about your representation of this great equestrian statue itself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Stunning. --PierreSelim (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Wandeltocht rond Lago di Pian Palù (1800 m). in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italië). Huis tussen de bomen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2016 at 04:56:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Walking around Lago di Pian Palù (1800 m). in the Parco nazionale dello Stelvio (Italy). House among the trees. All by User:Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • For me this (ordinary) home in this setting very special. *  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild   Support - I like the composition, except for the glary light in the sky, but there isn't that much of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Tilted. --King of ♠ 05:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
      Done. Small correction Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    If you look at the center line in the cabin, it's still not perfectly straight. --King of ♠ 01:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
      Oppose Still not fixed. --King of ♠ 00:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    Note: The line is exactly vertical. See note.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    It is not. Take your fingernail, place it on the lowest visible part of the line, and then scroll up on your monitor. Your fingernail will be to the right of the line by quite a few pixels. --King of ♠ 11:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I rather like this "Cabin in the Woods". --cart-Talk 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Pretty. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 08:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral This is definitely an image of high technical quality but, after having stared at it for a while, it seems to lack wow for an FP.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support At first I was going to oppose based on Kirill's !vote, but ... I looked at closely and there's a logic to it. I like the conflict/dynamic between the rectilinearity of the house and the sprawling chaos of the surrounding forest. Sort of like this picture I took a long time ago, but more intense. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose largely due to composition. --Pine 06:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Mallnitz Hagener Hütte Panorama NO 01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2016 at 04:10:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
  •   Info Panoramic view from Hagener Hütte at the mountain pass Niederer Tauern near Mallnitz (Carinthia) towards Naßfeld valley, High Tauern National Park, federal state of Salzburg. All by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 04:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild to moderate   Support - Panoramas submitted here lately have been at such a high level. This is certainly a good pic, and I'm gradually liking the composition more, the more times I look at the photo. But what really puts it over the top to me is the labeling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 08:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting and instructive. --Milseburg (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per others. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Splendid! You can even see the guy in his red windbreaker smiling to his girlfriend in a white anorak on top of the Greilkopf! You just don't know what he's saying to her ... --AWeith (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 05:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural/Austria

File:Capybara skeleton.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2016 at 01:16:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 05:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Mammals

File:Open refrigerator with food at night.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2016 at 23:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info One household appliance as requested by Colin. Not quite sure if I should nominate it for category "Objects" or "Food and drink" though. All by me, -- cart-Talk 23:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 23:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'm sorry, but the main thing I find myself saying while looking at this is: "So? It's a refrigerator." Perfectly good photo, but whatever would take it past the mundane for me isn't happening. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Most of us know this view very well, I guess. Nicely executed and something completely different from what we usually see here. --Code (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support modern still life with (implicitly present) best before dates signifying the inevitable memento mori... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. It is surprisingly hard to take a high quality "stock photo" of the "mundane". Particularly when Cart's fridge looked like this the day before! The subject is isolated on black -- we don't have to concern ourselves with Cart's choice of kitchen tiles or postcards or calendars. The fridge is spotless. There's a colourful and carefully arranged set of foods much like one might expect in a manufacturer's brochure. The labels are removed to avoid concerns about brands and to make it international. I query the wisdom of storing a cheese uncovered in the fridge and why there are unopened cans of coconut milk -- surely that keeps just fine in the cupboard? There's a lot of thought gone into arranging this photo, plus the effort involved in stacking to get the front-to-back in focus. I hope we get more like this at FP. -- Colin (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for noticing! First time I've ever "styled" a fridge.   A lot of preparation and some artistic freedom for the sake of the photo. The cheese (and the ham) is normally covered with unappealing plastic. While I confess to selecting nice-looking things in the grocery store, I chose things that I normally eat or drink. I didn't want to let food go to waste. The coconut milk is usually kept in the cupboard to the right of the fridge but they made a guest appearance in the fridge as token cans, with nice reflective interesting surfaces, and I was not about to lie to you about the content. ;) The greatest bother when creating this pic was that the lamp is on a timer so it would go out during a shot from time to time. cart-Talk 08:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It wasn't so much the content of the cans (coconut milk) as the fact that generally canned food doesn't need refrigerated. But it's a minor quibble. I first thought the cheese was a cheesecake, which would explain the midnight raid on your fridge. -- Colin (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Btw, small tip: If you keep canned fruit (like sliced pinapple or fruit cocktail) in the fridge, it makes for excellent cooling things in your drink, adding flavor while not diluting it. (Stirred not shaken.) There are purposes for keeping cans in the fridge. ;) cart-Talk 09:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ahh. Now you've got me googling frozen-fruit ice cubes. -- Colin (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Photographer 10:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 08:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Love your unusal ideas. Or are they more usual than I think? Anyway, I conclude from the image that you are a vegetarian; that would put me into disenchantment. But the green bottles look just like my "Green Veltliner" bottles! Everything onkydory again! --AWeith (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks! :) Nope, not a vegetarian, the top shelf has a small plate of ham (see the description) but it's true that I eat very little red meat but love fish and sea food (these are kept in the freezer below the fridge). Unusual? That might be right though, ask Ikan... ;) cart-Talk 19:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)*  Enthusiastic support Perhaps we should challenge each other more often like this ... this is an excellent result. Yes, it's a refrigerator; but I like the way cart has seen the still-life possibilities here and made the most of them. She could have just shot right into the fridge from the front with the room lit ... proof of concept, alright, but boring! Instead, she darkened the room, using only the refrigerator's internal light, and shot from a three-quarter angle with the door partway open to give it a bowtie symmetry we don't normally associate with a refrigerator (It's there, but duh, why didn't I think of that first? And the raking light, the actual source of which we do not see, with its stark contrast that results creates the kind of mood we see used so effectively in sci-fi or horror movies. As an enhancement, we get the spots of warm color against the cool (in more ways than one) background of the appliance created by the vegetables so artfully arranged.

We wonder what the story is here (well, when we pretend we don't know what it really is). Has someone gone down at night to sneak some food? Because they can't sleep? Or is there something deeper, and darker, going on? Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Daniel, Commons:Photo Challenge. You are welcome to suggest ideas and to go out and take photos for the challenge. There are plenty FPs that were also PC nominations. -- Colin (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: I know PC exists ... however, I think I only have time to either do this or that, and I have chosen this. Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I entirely agree. Praise to Alfred Hitchcock and cart! ... And by the way: the image is all too familiar for me per your remarks on people sneaking for food. --AWeith (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Chicago September 2016-20.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2016 at 22:43:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info One Museum Park, the tallest all-residential building in Chicago. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Blown-out reflective portion is unfortunate, but otherwise very good and high-quality. --King of ♠ 23:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support - I'm inordinately bothered by the left crop. I can understand why you don't want to crop it closer, but in that case, maybe you could have included the entire building you cut. But since the picture, overall, is this good, I support, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment This will get my support as soon as you add a geocode. --Code (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 08:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Welcome back! Can you please tick the box in CaptureNX when you save the JPG to "embed ICC profile" (see [ page 162). That way the colours will be accurate for all viewers. -- Colin (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Static, but striking all the same. Nice to see Chicago now has a very 21st-century looking building in its skyline, too, to complement The Popular, Much-Photographed Artwork We Cannot Host Any Images of Here near the lakeshore. Ordinarily I'd say the WB was a bit too cool, but I think that works in favor of this image. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pine 07:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice, slightly leaning to the left though. --Laitche (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 05:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Library Congress October 2016-1.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2016 at 22:38:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info Stained-glass celing in the Beaux-Arts style, Main Hall of Thomas Jefferson Building. Library of Congress, Washington DC. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --King of ♠ 02:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question - Is there any way to make the names clearer on the left and right sides, without damaging the photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please add a geocode. --Code (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 08:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Works both as a pleasant piece of art (desktop! desktop! desktop!) and a document of the artistic properties. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support thanks, I love this ceiling \o/ --PierreSelim (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 05:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

Image:View on Golden Gate Bridge from an airplane.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2016 at 21:41:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#United_States
  •   Info created by Moritzfaehse - uploaded by Moritzfaehse - nominated by Moritzfaehse (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Moritzfaehse (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose An average-quality aerial photo; much of it is hazy, out of focus, noisy, etc. Nothing that would suggest FP to me. lNeverCry 23:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - INC said what I would have written. Plus, a really special photo would show SF. That's unusual weather, but FPs are supposed to be special, and quite a few of them have required a supreme effort by the photographer to be there at the right time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan and INC. Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A real pity; the scenario would be so unusual and really worth it. But in my opinion the photo technically has too many flaws to be considered as an FP. --AWeith (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Mausoleo de Diri Baba, Qobustan, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-27, DD 11.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2016 at 21:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info View of the Diri Baba Mausoleum, a mausoleum of Sheikh Diri Baba, located in Maraza city, Gobustan Rayon, Azerbaijan. The two-storeyed mausoleum-mosque dates from 1402 and is located on a glyptic cliff, opposite an ancient cemetery. All by me, Poco2 21:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 21:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild   Oppose - This doesn't excite or delight me the way most of your FPC nominations have, recently. The sky is duller than optimal and not everything is completely in focus. I also feel like everything is kind of overcrowded into the left side, with less than an optimal amount of space on the near side, where the staircase starts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. I was about to oppose per Ikan, but then I took a look at it fullscreen and found the diagonal patterns throughout the image to be interesting enough for a feature. --King of ♠ 05:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Oxyopes javanus-Kadavoor-2016-06-17-002.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2016 at 17:37:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida
  •   Info Oxyopes javanus female. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- Jee 17:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jee 17:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I appreciate this photo for what it is, though I'm greedy and would like to see a photo of this species of spider that's focused across more of its body. But this is in any case a notable achievement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    Yes; I would have used f/14 if taken now. Its a learning curve. :) Jee 05:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 08:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support DoF is fine for me. I feel the silvery-whitish pattern on the abdomen is slightly overexposed. No big deal though, it's a fine portait! --AWeith (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 05:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida

File:Lidingöbron October 2015 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2016 at 07:36:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
  •   Info A new Type A36 tram on Lidingöbanan crossing the historic Lidingöbron (the Lidingö bridge) 24 October 2015. Lidingöbanan (the Lidingö line) was reopened on 24 October after being closed since summer 2013 for engineering works, modernisation and installation of new equipment. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ArildV (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like the contrast of the speed of the tram with everything else that seems to be sitting still (though we know work is going on elsewhere). The motion blur is kind of hypnotic to me, in this case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The mood in the photo is great, but I find the sun slightly distracting, competing with the tram for the viewer's attention. It could have been totally hidden by the bridge beam. --cart-Talk 16:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thank you all for comments and votes. Personally I like the sun here, also since you also can see the sun on the tram.--ArildV (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 04:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support To me the light actually works. It's rush hour (hence the deliberate use of the tram's motion blur). It's the end of the workday. These people on the tram, whom we can't see but know to be there, are looking forward to getting home and doing what they must or what they can with what light remains of the day ... and then getting up in darkness (at this time of year in Stockholm, yes) to go do it all over again, another day, another krone. Daniel Case (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it but, as a suggestion, I would remove that street light on the left image border. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Perspective splendidly captured. Not really an "It's home time" mood as there seems to be no pedestrian rushing home ... --AWeith (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Evening sun in Fair Haven, Svalbard.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2016 at 07:09:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • You're welcome. We'll see whether anyone else considers it worthy of a feature. You can vote for your own picture, by the way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Agree about the underexposure, and the top crop is a little too close. --King of ♠ 02:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    Weak   Support, as I would rather it be brighter still. --King of ♠ 01:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment@Martin Falbisoner:&@King of Hearts:@Ikan Kekek:: I thought changing the crop and lighting it up a bit is designated a minor change so I did it. Please have a second look. I still like it and, therefore, it gets my   Support--AWeith (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • AWeith, that edit increased the noise, so I think it would be good to do a slight amount of denoising now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done Ikan Kekek, Thanks for having spotted that. One should always have a second look after changing something. --AWeith (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support That extra bit of sky a the top settled it for me and I'll happily support it. I don't mind the extra light either, you can still tell by the angle of the light that it's evening. --cart-Talk 20:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Arctic majesty. Daniel Case (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support very good now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Boletus in Finnish forest.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2016 at 14:44:30

  •   Info Really bad quality image. No way a FP. (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- Kruusamägi (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question - What makes it a bad quality image? The idea of having a big mushroom in the foreground with scenery in the background is interesting. The background bokeh seems alright to me. I don't love the unsharp branches in the foreground, but there isn't a drastic number of them. I'll consider any arguments you lay out, and of course the picture is quite small for FP, nowadays, but right now, I feel   Neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment The fungus itself is unsharp, there are chromatic aberrations, image is tilted, lighting is lousy (specially this dark shadow in front). What else do you want? Even back in 2009 it should not had been good enough for a FP star. Good image of a fungus looks like this, but this one here is just bad. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - To my eyes, you have pointed me to a photo that's less clear. True, the boletus isn't completely sharp, but it's big and pretty clear. The photo you're giving as an example is artfully soft focused on the mushrooms and almost all of the rest is bokeh. The chromatic aberrations aren't clear to me and even if the mushroom is tilted, that could be remedied. Who cares about a dark foreground? The mushroom itself is well lit except for part of the stem. I think you may have a case for delisting, but the way you're making it is going to have to appeal to someone other than me, because it sure isn't clear to me that the photo you prefer is better than this, let alone clearer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
In this image here the background is more as an distraction and the quality is nowhere close of being suitable for FP.
You ask "who cares". Well I do. And I think this image is unfit for the FP and so I have started this delisting. Kruusamägi (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I specifically said "who cares" about a little bit of dark foreground. I'm by no means blown away by this photo, and it's too small for FP at this point, so it's probably reasonable to nominate it for delisting. But I didn't think it was evident that the alternative you presented to me was clearly better. I just haven't found your arguments convincing so far, probably because I don't see some of what you're seeing, and otherwise, I like the idea of a big mushroom in a landscape. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist Per Kruusamägi. lNeverCry 05:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist --Hockei (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist - I thought more about this photo. I'm not convinced it's actually bad, probably because I'm not so good at seeing chromatic aberration that isn't drastic. However, it's not at FP level. And I would cite these three FP photos in Category Boletus as more one-to-one counterpoints. All three photos could be criticized, but what they have in common that contrasts with this one is a much greater level of detail in their depiction of the boletus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep I still like this former POTY finalist --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Martin Falbisoner. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Martin Falbisoner. --Code (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist The appealing surface of the mushroom is not enough to counteract the cluttered nature of the rest of the composition. A nice idea, but ultimately it doesn't work. Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist per Kruusamägi, but was bothers me most about the pic is that the light temperature and direction of the flash clashes completely with the natural light in the rest of the picture, adding an unreal look to it. cart-Talk 08:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Delist Per nom. It will stay as a "former FP" in our archives.--Jebulon (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Martin Falbisoner --Milseburg (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Martin Falbisoner. --Ralf Roleček 11:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Martin Falbisoner --Karelj (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Dummy   Support to prevent the bot from closing the nom. Feel free to continue voting. Jee 05:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Svitjordbreen on Svalbard calving.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2016 at 22:21:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Ice
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info I bring this image to your attention for the second time. According to the initial comments by Ivar and Ikan Kekek I have changed brightness, contrast, and field of view. I also tried to convey the magical evening mood by adjusting the color temperatures a bit. As I wrote before, this gigantic calving took place in the later evening after the Svitjordbreen as a paramount example for a surging glacier was busy leaving small icebergs to the fjord all day. None of those calvings compared to the one in the evening shown here. We stayed at a safe distance, i.e. approximately 500 meters (one usually stays away from the glacier front for about five times its height), because we took in mind that in the past quite a few people have been hurt or even killed by ice chunks during calvings. We experienced the offshoot of the induced freakwave nevertheless. Please take the resorting gulls as a scale for what happened at the glacier front.-- AWeith (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support An event of such magnitude that it is almost hard to grasp when looking at it on a monitor. --cart-Talk 07:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per cart. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Kruusamägi (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   strong support just grand! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Certainly a great moment joined with very much luck to catch it. Nevertheless the wow effect doesn't want to come over me. I don't know why but the drama of the moment is hardly perceptible for me in this picture. --Hockei (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Ideally a picture of a glacier calving so explosively would take in more of it, but I understand the limitations you were under. Taking into account what Hockei says, to me the drama comes through in full-res, when we see the chunks of ice frozen (ahem) in mid-air, and in contrast the birds flying around near the bottom of the icefall like this happens every day (which, of course, from their perspective, it does). Daniel Case (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support At first I was a bit confused with this. But when I opened it big I was certainly impressed. --Ximonic (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --King of ♠ 02:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Hockei. I think this kind of event is best captured using video. Here the sense of violent motion and size is limited, and so is less wowing to me than it might be if I could see and hear the event take place. lNeverCry 20:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

File:2011 Ochryda, Cerkiew św. Pantelejmona (11).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2016 at 11:31:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Мајката лебед со подмlaдокот.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2016 at 09:36:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
  •   Info created by Silfiriel - uploaded by Silfiriel - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Doesn't have the pinpoint sharpness of a closeup, but still pretty clear and a beautiful composition. I think it compares favorably to this existing FP of a mother swan and her cygnets. I thought this picture was undercategorized and added the categories of Cygnus and Cygnets. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Silfiriel 10:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good composition but not sharp enough, and more precise description (i.e. in species level) is recommended for FP nominations -- Zcebeci (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not extraordinary. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A lovely scene, but not sharp enough and lacks some contrast in the plumage for an FP on this subject. Perhaps a COM:VI for Swan and Cygnets‎. --cart-Talk 16:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. The plant reflection at top right is a small bother as well. lNeverCry 03:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I wonder if a tighter crop might take care of the sharpness issues. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Gary Kendall.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2016 at 08:39:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by imasku - uploaded by imasku - nominated by imasku -- Imasku (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Imasku (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, nice shot but not enough sharp for FPC Ezarateesteban 22:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good shot, almost there but not all the way, some unsharpness can be acceptable on hands playing but the face needs to be sharper for a portrait, sorry. --cart-Talk 16:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me; looks like so many other shots of guitarists. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Correios Building, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2016 at 22:12:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Brazil
  •   Info Correios Building, São Paulo, Brazil. Note: Left side is a little different, is not an perspective error -- The Photographer 22:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. The crop on at the top and right are a bit tight, but still FP for me. --King of ♠ 00:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Moderate   Support - The building is beautiful, and the VW bug and people hanging out on the left side are a distraction, but it's 7:40 PM in a city, so that goes with the territory and doesn't ruin the picture for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support But please can you save this in sRGB. The Photographer, do you have a wide-gamut monitor? If not, then editing/saving this in AdobeRGB is about as wise as editing with a black and white monitor. Unless there is a strong case that an image requires the wider colour space of AdobeRGB, or is being sent to a printers, then please use sRGB. It won't display properly on mobile devices (which aren't colour managed) and is more likely to have posterisation issues than sRGB. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Colin, I haven't one own, however, I think there is one cheap dell in my work. In this work I used your photomatix and ptgui recommendation. Please, do you know some comparative tool to see the difference with colors palette?. Thanks
The "comparative tool" is your eyes. If you have a wide gamut monitor (and have configured your OS to display a wide-gamut image calibrated for it), then Lightroom and Photoshop can display the image with the wider colour palette. And they can also simulate what happens when you export as sRGB (the "soft proofing" checkbox on the develop module). Often the difference is very subtle but for some saturated colours it can be noticeable, and can affect which colour channels blow out. For example, the purple acoustic discs in my Albert Hall photo were very problematic wrt colour as they saturated the blue channel in an 8-bit JPG and were "out of gamut" -- I had to make some adjustments to the blue/purple levels/saturation to get them looking right. There was a clear difference between how well my wide gamut display handled those, and how a standard gamut (sRGB) handled them. But that isn't common. My point is you can't honestly export the work as AdobeRGB if you haven't seen what the image looks like in wide-gamut and compared vs standard-gamut. So just save it as sRGB. Really, AdobeRGB is a PITA and only suitable for sending JPG/TIFF files to a print shop. The very slightly wider gamut was designed to show colours on a display that a CMYK printer can print -- it was never designed simply as a better RGB display format. It causes so many display problems for people. Look a my User:Colin/BrowserTest with a mobile device to see the problem.
As for "photomatix and ptgui recommendation" I've never used Photomatix. Diliff used it years ago before I persuaded him to try Lightroom to tonemap his HDR images. And Diliff's experiments showed that PtGui was superior to Photomatix and Photoshop in terms of generating an HDR file (e.g. 32-bit TIFF). So my recommendation is
  • ensure all your images in the stitch set have the same white balance settings
  • export from lightroom in the best quality you can (e.g. use 8-bit TIFF or 100% quality JPG for speed, or 16-bit TIFF if you have a good computer and plenty disc) Just export in sRGB unless you have a wide-gamut monitor/workflow
  • stitch and generate an HDR image in PtGui (save as 32-bit TIFF, or PSB if it is really huge)
  • import to Lightroom again and adjust the basic develop controls, apply gradients, etc, etc, to tonemap the image successfully
  • export as sRGB JPG with quality level 90.
-- Colin (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Alt, based on Colin suggestions


  •   Info Thanks Colin for your review and sorry for the delay, my pc is slow and it took a while. I followed your steps, the colors look differents and maybe I did some wrong. Please, let me know what do you think. --The Photographer 16:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh, something's gone very wrong there, particularly with the sky. Overall too bright. I suggest you don't disrupt the nom with this alt. The existing one is fine. -- Colin (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Please withdraw the alt. Look at the sky, especially! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Thanks Ikan and Colin. I was trying fix the exposition and sky noise, however, the colors are not real IMHO. BTW, I can't underestand what happend with the sky because I was repeating the same procedure and become this noise and too lighted sky. I preffer withdraw this alt for Ikan recomendation. --The Photographer 01:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 05:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture#Brazil
The chosen alternative is: File:Correios Building, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg

File:John Meintz, punished during World War I - NARA - 283633 - restored.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2016 at 15:25:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info From the National Archives and Records Administration, photographer unknown - nominated and restored by Opencooper. -- Opencooper (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Opencooper (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support  Oppose Almost he dies, however, in the end justice was done. BTW, destructive image contrast --The Photographer 18:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @The Photographer: I knew the contrast might be a bit much so that's why I uploaded the image before curves adjustment at the history of File:John Meintz, punished during World War I - NARA - 283633 - restored.tif. If you can do a better job please use the TIFF and upload an alternate version. I'm an amateur so I'd be very willing to cede to someone who knows how to use the tools better. If the contrast is the only thing behind your oppose and a better version is shown I'd like to see your support :). Opencooper (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - How many people have seen any photos of someone who's been tarred and feathered? Tarring and feathering was such a part of the American ethos in times gone by that the phrase became a common expression (and is still used today) for someone getting in big trouble. I find this image clear enough to be a good representation of the effects of this practice, and I don't get what's destructive about the contrast. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I was talking about original image with the "restoration" comparison, the new image look IMHO artificially contrasted killing detail information in shadows --The Photographer 22:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Got it. Well, yes, the shadows are darker, but what information was there in the shadows? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Opencooper and Ikan. Shadow/Highlight adjustment works by reducing contrast and to adjust the range of tonal values that will be affected by this adjustment, use the Tonal Width slider. A low value causes only a limited range of tonal values within the image to be affected, whereas a high value allows the adjustment to apply to a wider range. In other words, you expand or contract the area to be adjusted by defining a tonal range. The Amount slider for Highlights provides a similar ability to darken the brightest areas. Your first reaction may be that doing so simply reduces contrast and produces a muddy image. Dynamic range is of considerable importance to image quality in both the digital and emulsion domain. Both film and digital sensors exhibit non-linear responses to the amount of light, and at the edges of the dynamic range, close to underexposure and overexposure the media will exhibit particularly non-linear responses. The non-linear dynamic response or saturation qualities of emulsion film are often considered a desirable effect by photographers, and the distortion of colour, contrast and brightness varies considerably between film stocks. There is no limit to the number of possible levels of colour on emulsion film, whereas a digital sensor stores integer numbers, producing a limited and specific possible number of colours. Banding may be visible in the unusual case that it is not obscured by noise, and detail may be lost, particularly in shadow and highlight areas. BTW, you could use use burn for shadows (See more) --The Photographer 11:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support cart-Talk 21:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good pic, and important historically, as a reminder that people were still literally doing this less than a century ago. Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Disgust, disgust, disgust! --Karelj (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

  •   Comment I've reuploaded a version of the image that is minimally leveled from the original. This time no information should be lost in the shadows. I realize now that the image didn't need so much overcontrasting. Let me know if there are any issues or if you can do a more experienced adjustment, thanks. Opencooper (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


I think that the original with all the scratches and dust give us more, however if we will do a restoration, I prefer to treat the photo with another approach:


Now we can see more of the eye, and the subject pops-up a little bit more from the background. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 14:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  •   Oppose - You're right that you have improved upon the original, at least in the condition it's now in. But this is not a restoration, as you have greatly brightened the picture. So if the point is to restore a historical photo while respecting the choices the original photographer made, I don't think this does it. Also, your version still has a bunch of scratches and other damage in it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    • "respecting the choices the original photographer made" Ikan Kekek one photo that old I don't see this as a choice, I see this as a limitation of the equipment. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 14:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
      • You mean they didn't have the ability to add more light then? Just how old was this? :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Ikan Kekek, this photo is a 1918, in closed place, and not a studio, as this seems to be just a photo for documentation purpose. You are seeming this as a artistic work, and its probably just a small register. And I don't know why I'm losing my time. Peace. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 16:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
          • If you really think a discussion is a waste of your time, next time, consider not replying. And notice that no-one else even commented, so maybe they didn't think it was worth their time to consider this version, but really, who's to know? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek "no-one else even commented" that's why for me was a wast of time, not our discussion. Got it? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I was reading your remark as an insult. So no harm done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: X support, X oppose, X neutral → not featured. /Note: this candidate has several alternatives, thus if featured the alternative parameter needs to be specified. /FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC))