Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Kandidatët për fotografi të shkëlqyeshme

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




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


VOTO!

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

RrjedhaEdit

Fotografit e propozuaraEdit

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

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


VotimiEdit

Rregullat e votimit:

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

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

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

KandidatëtEdit

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

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Revista-anteojito-nro6.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2017 at 22:36:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:NASA's Shuttle Carrier Aircraft 905 (front) and 911 (rear).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2017 at 11:36:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Dead Horse Gap Panorama facing north-east, NSW.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2017 at 11:29:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Drum of a washing machine (Bosch Maxx WFO 2440).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2017 at 07:50:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info Drum of a front-loaded washing machine (Bosch Maxx WFO 2440; 5 kg; 1200 RPM). All by me. -- Mile (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I dont know why they didnt accept it on "Women's world" !? Its still fine shot. -- Mile (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Do only women wash where you live? --cart-Talk 09:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support great idea - --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Cool. --A.Savin 10:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment CA removal needed.--Peulle (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Show me Peulle, where is it. cart you forget to vote. --Mile (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comments can be made without voting. You have nothing to gain by telling people to do so, it's just rude. I don't have the time to examine photos closely right now. --cart-Talk 12:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For such a static subject I think the composition needs to be better. The rib at the bottom isn't centered, and the bottom corners have intrusive elements. Perfect lighting and processing though -- Thennicke (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info Thennicke if you crop corners you will lose lot of picture. If think this is better than croped. Static - more or less all is static. --Mile (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • That's true, but I still don't like the rib at the bottom. Do you still have access to this washing machine? If you could do it again with everything symmetrical I'd be supporting -- Thennicke (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Doing on that Thennicke, centralizing...but some corners will stay, cant go out, unless drum would be so big, to put camera more in. --Mile (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Interesting idea.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info Now is more in center Thennicke. And some CA was there Peulle, i removed. --Mile (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  Support--Peulle (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support What do you do if the weather is horrible but you like to shoot something? You go for the washing machine! --Basotxerri (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Centro histórico de Skagway, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-18, DD 41.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2017 at 07:10:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created & uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Something different. I think it's interesting enough to feature. I'll be interested to see what you think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 10:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I thought of this as an FPC when I saw it on QIC, however the crop isn't symmetrical what I would prefer for this kind of image. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
    Ok, fair enough, Basotxerri,   fixed Poco2 16:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support and once more my gratitude to Ikan Poco2 16:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • De nada. You did all the work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK, you deserve my vote  . Thank you! --Basotxerri (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice but WB is too yellow. -- King of ♠ 00:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support HalfGig talk 01:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Revista-billiken-n2079.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2017 at 22:20:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Editorial Atl{antida - uploaded/nominated by me Ezarateesteban 22:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 22:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Congrats to your fourtieth birthday, Ezarate. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose imo the resolution is not really sufficient for a nom of that kind. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree, this is not good enough even as a historical picture for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of posters and historical images, but   Oppose per the others.--Peulle (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Παναγία Πορταρέα 3816.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2017 at 21:07:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info All by C messier -- C messier (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The small square where is located the church of Panagia Portarea, which apart of the church also features the funerary monument of Pantazis Anast. Zoulia. The church dates from the 16th century and is built by stone, including the roof top, a characteristic of the traditional architecture of Pelion, Greece.   Support -- C messier (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Special mood, captured very well. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice color pass, from white to yellow. Compo also well. --Mile (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I thought this was a painting when I saw it at thumbnail size. -- Thennicke (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A little busy but I like the evening mood. Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Riisa raba varahommikul.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2017 at 20:47:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Neymar Jr official presentation for Paris Saint-GermainEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2017 at 14:53:06 (UTC)

  •   Info The most expensive footballer Neymar Jr official presentation for Paris Saint-Germain, 4 August 2017.
  •   Info created by by Antoine Dellenbach (Flickr) - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much noise (why is the ISO so high?) and the left image is of too low resolution for me to support the set.--Peulle (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose because I really don't see any of them as exceptional. Two of them are tilted and the other is a pretty standard grip-and-grin image. Daniel Case (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm afraid I have to agree with the other opposers --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Would support just 3rd. --Mile (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Nanxiong Sanying Ta 2014.01.12 08-26-52.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2017 at 13:17:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Sanying Pagoda, a pagoda in Guangdong, China, built in 1009, more than 1000 years ago. All by Zhangzhugang -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is not a bad idea and the image could work but as it is, it seems too pale and would require better lighting and sharpness to convince me. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basotxerri, especially the comment on sharpness. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basotxerri. Daniel Case (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basotxerri. --Mile (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Common black-hawk (Buteogallus anthracinus gundlachii).JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2017 at 09:28:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I think heat haze followed by poor post-processing to sort it did for the lions! Charles (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Cirsium vulgare. Uitgebloeide Speerdistel Cirsium vulgare in verval.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2017 at 07:18:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Aspen groves in Öhed.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 18:44:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Benasque - Aigualluts - Árbol muerto 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 18:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Spain
  •   Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Reminds you of Ansel Adams. Note that BW does hide unsharpness, and the foreground grass would look like a blob of fuzzy green carpet if it were a color image. -- King of ♠ 01:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Outstanding. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Reminds me to much of Yosemite to say no. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

*  Oppose   weak support per KoH basically. Any chance to redevelop your raw? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes, I can, but sorry, I don't understand exactly what you want me to do. The front part is unsharp because I shot this using a 120 mm eq. telephoto lens. If you tell me what to improve I could try to do so. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe I was being unfair. The foreground looks blotchy to me, so I assumed that the image was simply overprocessed. Your technical explanation is convincing, I'll change my vote. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't worry Martin, I understand your arguments and you just express your opinion. Maybe the next time I'll have to be more conscious about the depth of field but of course it can't be the same image in the same place. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Village weaver (Ploceus cucullatus cucullatus) female.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 15:17:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Santorin (GR), Fira -- 2017 -- 2598.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 14:23:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I can try it, but I don't think it's moiré. --XRay talk 18:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Fixed You're right. I haven't seen the problem yesterday. Moiré removed. --XRay talk 15:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I have to demur on this: it's certainly a good photo, but I don't think it's special enough to warrant a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk)
  •   Support The angle, the Greek national colors ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel -Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral, tending to oppose. The lamp is disturbing, and Santorini is not the whole Greece (one can see these colors almost only in the Cyclades, on tourist advertising posters and on the greek flag...), this is not very far from a "tourist/postcard snapshot" (as often said here) but I find this very inspiring regarding the composition. I think it needs a crop at left, and the blue and dark parts suffer of (chromatic) noise. My vote is provisional, it needs reflexion...--Jebulon (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I kinda like the colour scheme, but I'm not really wowed - I also have this sneaking feeling about the quality; it just doesn't seem quite crisp enough.--Peulle (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Santorin (GR), Exomytis, Marina Exomitis-Vlychada -- 2017 -- 2812.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 14:21:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others_2
  •   Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 14:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 14:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Fishing nets usually make for interesting photos but they don't work too well here. The colors are too bland in the flat light to make sufficient contrasts, half the scene have harsh shadows and the other almost none, it just looks messy. Sorry, I think you should have gone in closer. --cart-Talk 18:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - This works well for me as an abstract form. I would enjoy a painting that looked like this, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart, who sees exactly the same issues I do. Daniel Case (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart and Daniel, sorry. Maybe a gradual filter from the right could get the lighting better but I'm not sure if it would be enough for a FP. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Turnau Hochanger Panorama 20171014.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 13:14:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
  •   Info 240° panorama from Hochanger mountain (1,682 metres (5,518 ft)) near Turnau, Styria, Austria. ATTENTION: this file is really huge! --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Awesome piece. I was wondering if it was a little overexposed but on second thought I don't think it is. The sharpness is good and the depth is amazing; you can really see everything from birds to bonfires, from ravines to logging tracks. As for the size, well, you know it's a big image when I have to open it on my gaming rig. :) --Peulle (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Brilliant technically I'm sure, but it crashed my PC. We need a better way to assess these panoramas. And why so much grass in the foreground? Charles (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I propose to cut off the lowest part with the unsharp grass --Llez (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, though I'd like to see how it looks with some of the grass cropped out. Charles, did you use the zoom viewer? I used the non-flash one and didn't have a problem this time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik (edits) 20:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Impressive size. A pity that it is not 360°. The unsharp bottom ruins FP to me at the moment. --Milseburg (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Past a certain point, you can't get more resolution (due to diffraction) without having the foreground being unsharp. There's always focus stacking, but technologically we're not yet at the point that we should demand it for all such FPs. -- King of ♠ 00:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support crazy --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Pogled od Crn kamen Jablanica.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 08:11:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Altenstein-Kapelle-Ruine-266191.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2017 at 21:43:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice atmosphere and colours and although it seems somewhat insignificant, I like how book on the table can be seen entirely. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:2013.05.18.-24-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim-Vierfleck-Weibchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2017 at 15:48:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • No mistake! See my answer in the note. Look carefully, then you'll see what it is. This is a single shot. And I didn't use any optrions (what ever you mean). At most I used extension rings. A lot of time is gone by now, so I can't remember exactly. I made the picture in the year 2013. --Hockei (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I get it, its other part of edge. --Mile (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  --Hockei (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:MB&F HMX Black Badger Blue.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2017 at 15:18:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by MB&F - uploaded by MB&F - nominated by Claus Obana -- Claus 15:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Claus 15:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very clean photo, but please add to your file description the fact that this is a watch, because it's not clear just by looking at it, and I think supplying just a link isn't optimal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For description. I had to see official page what am i looking at. Can anyone read what time is it !? Otherwise good commercial shot. --Mile (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others about the description. Documentation for an FP should be just as good as the photo. Regarding the photo, it is no doubt a very good photo but I simply fail to be wow-ed by yet another advertisement using black on black to make their product look cool. It looks rather flat and clinical. --cart-Talk 09:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a clear FP photography-wise in my book, but   Oppose per the others re documentation. It really is necessary to get these things done before nominating.--Peulle (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 13:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Conditional support per Ikan pending better documentation. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:MB&F Arachnophobia Black.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2017 at 15:16:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by MB&F - uploaded by MB&F - nominated by Claus Obana -- Claus 15:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Claus 15:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, but again, please add a prose description to the file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose insufficient description Ezarateesteban 20:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As above...seems like copying Jeff Deboer. --Mile (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per others. Daniel Case (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Wolf spider (Lycosidae; Slovenia).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2017 at 06:34:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family : Lycosidae (Wolf spiders)
  •   Info Wolf spider (Lycosidae; Slovenia), size of body bellow 2 cm. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Background is "busy", but I have to support you for getting such an amazingly clear larger-than-life picture of this spider, and I mean every visible part of the spider is in focus. That's really impressive. Is this a single shot? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great light and I really like how the grass and leaf gives a depth to the overall photo. This could be an illustration in a childrens' book, the kind a parent would read and point out all the little details to their child. --cart-Talk 09:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Ikan Kekek Its stacked shot, if you mean for composition, i have 2 more shots, but as cart said, light and background/composition is best here - for childrens book. --Mile (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, unfortunate background, but the sharpness and detail with this impressive depth of field is outstanding. Charles (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info For background, this is their habitat. They don't spin webs and don't catch their prey in them, they do that on the ground. Actually, I am very happy with background, isnt so easy to capture it. --Mile (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I should have said the leaf is distracting, and as I said, an outstanding image. Charles (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • No, the leaf is part of the story. - "...and so Peter the Spider walked along the grass straw, down to the curled up brown leaf where Amanda the Ladybug had hidden the treasure." That's all for tonight kids. Goodnight and sleep tight. :) --cart-Talk 19:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

File:École Marcelle-Mallet.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2017 at 21:40:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info All by -- The Photographer 21:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Quite striking, but there appear to be stitching errors just above and to the right of the central cross. If they're not stitching errors, they're something else that needs to be fixed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question Why is the photo slightly off-center? -- King of ♠ 05:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Stitching problems, need PD corrections. --Mile (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The main building is too gray-- 晴空·和岩 讨论页·反互煮 10:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image is too unnatural. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I can see what you were thinking but it just didn't come together. Daniel Case (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sure what projection this is, but it isn't working for me. Perhaps just too wide-angle? I can see why you want to keep the upper-clouds but the sky is a bit inconsistent with some parts dark and less good to look at, and I think this unbalances the composition having so much sky. The building hasn't got great light on it, which would really help make it pop with some raking sunlight. As others noted, the viewpoint is off-centre in a way that doesn't quite work, and the sky has some stitching glitches. There's quite a lot of gravel foreground, which isn't that interesting. A square crop of the central part of the building would avoid the perspective issues. I think it needs to either be centred closely or else much more off-centre. Is there no way you can get further back to photograph it? -- Colin (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. This place is located on an island, I need to take a boat to get there, however, I think I can do it again. It is not possible to take a picture in the morning because of the children there, however, I could try to make an HDR to mitigate the shadow on the facade. I added the sky because I found it dramatic and to do a balance with the foreground--The Photographer 19:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Auguste Mariette photography.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2017 at 21:01:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Nadar - uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kasir (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, I mildly   Oppose, because as good as this is, I think the restoration process isn't complete and the dark shape just above and to the viewer's left of the man's head is probably just a product of the damage shown in the original scan. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Thank you Kasir for choice. I did my best with this very difficult restoration. I think perfection requested is not of this world...--Jebulon (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question Why would it be so difficult to make the dark area about the same as the rest of the background? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Try by yourself, and you will see !  --Jebulon (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
This is the best version --Kasir (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
That's an argument for VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Already VI.--Jebulon (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. I agree it was a spirited restoration, and you started from very far back, but I don't think the result is up there with our other featured restorations. Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, thank you.   Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Parque del castillo de Goluchow, Polonia, 2016-12-21, DD 29.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2017 at 13:21:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info View of the arboretum surrounding the Gołuchów Castle, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Poland. The arboretum is the largest landscape park in Greater Poland and also on its own a registered polish monument. Poco2 13:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 13:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I love this composition, but the lack of DoF IMHO. My recomendation is take two pictures to use a merge image technique or use tripod if the light conditions are very low, however, maybe it´s not the case.
  •   Oppose I was thinking the same thing; too few of the trees are sharp, IMO. Good composition, though.--Peulle (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose composition --Mile (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The shallow DOF helps create an organic, three-dimensional impression. Absolutely fine with me. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very nice light, but shallow DOF is imho very distracting, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Κίονας Αθηνάς - Ακαδημία Αθηνών 1186.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2017 at 10:09:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Photographer, I assume you don't consider it sharp enough (although it is in focus), but can you please add notes at the dust spots?--C messier (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lighting does it no favors. Daniel Case (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Statue of Saints Cyril and Methodius on Radhošť.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2017 at 11:13:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Support--Peulle (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Spb 06-2017 img47 Church on the Blood.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2017 at 08:58:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info Bird's eye-view of Church of the Savior on Blood and Griboyedov Canal in Saint Petersburg, Russia - all by A.Savin --A.Savin 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The overall tone is too grey-- 晴空·和岩 讨论页·反互煮 09:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think this should be rotated into portrait. Perhaps anticlock. --Mile (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support for the general composition.--Peulle (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Capricorn4049 (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great image. Birds' eye views are always awesome to look at, even if (according to a photographer I was chatting with the other day) they're often judged as a fad in more "serious" photo competitions. -- Thennicke (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice, good job. --Selbymay (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Quite visually arresting. But I wonder whether it would look better with a bit of noise reduction. What do you think? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
      Comment I did my usual portion (for Phantom always more than for DSLR) in Lightroom. Some remaining noise in darker areas is inevitable, but I'm eagerly awaiting a Phantom with more megapixels, less noise, and not much more weight and price... )) --A.Savin 09:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Unsual view and it works. --C messier (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Because it looks like some kind of weird steampunk machinery. :) --cart-Talk 18:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 05:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per cart. It has the technical shortcomings of most drone pictures, but it's an arresting view that only the drone could have gotten. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 13:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Weissfluhjoch Panorama winter labeled.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2017 at 00:36:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Swiss Camp (Greenland), aerial photography 4.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2017 at 00:34:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Capricorn4049
  •   Oppose Sorry but I'm not seeing the quality I expect from an FP; the detail is just not high enough.--Peulle (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - This photo is pretty noisy in the sky and last time I checked, it had apparently been declined at QIC for technical reasons. I'm not seeing anything about the photo that's so outstanding in other ways as to prompt an FP designation in spite of that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support – Interesting composition, very good colors, sharp enough, for me not too noisy -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very harsh environment, technically too cold to fly a drone, extraordinary location. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Faust tower - Maulbronn Monastery.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2017 at 20:00:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - As a musician, of course I know the Faust story. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I just focus on the picture. Its story has nothing to do with me. -- 晴空·和岩 讨论页·反互煮 04:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just a QI for me. -- Colin (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Rdeča mušnica (Amanita muscaria).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2017 at 05:52:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
  •   Info created & uploaded by Mile - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Awesome amanita picture! The depth of field is about as close to ideal as possible, and the level of detail is outstanding. There's also a tiny little insect on the mushroom's shaft - can any of you identify it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great photo. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Johann. I especially like how the background fades to black (making the mushroom stand out), and yet the lighting is even -- Thennicke (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanx Ikan Kekek for nomination. And true, Thennicke, i was looking for a mushroom which i can dissolve with black background, so object become more clear. --Mile (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, I just wish this would be in portrait format --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Excellent @PetarM:, but portrait format for me too. Charles (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info Interesting question Charles, Uoaei1, more topic for me. I asked myselve while ago, why people use mostly panorama and not portrait at mushrooms. Probably because of T form, otherwise i even tried portrait; i didnt even shot, what i saw on viewfinder was enough to abandon portrait. And mostly they do it in panorama. So answer here is no. I dont tell that is always necessary, but in my case was. And probably in most FPs on Commons also. For checking more see Fungi photos. Google can admit that. I saw situtation for portrait shot, as they grow like that. Someday i will try. --Mile (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Well it would be silly to not vote when anyone wanting to use the image cropped can crop it. Charles (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

*  Support -- Giancarlolozza (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Giancarlolozza, thanks for dropping by this board and for your vote. What's the rule in terms of eligibility to vote? I don't see 50 prior edits, but he's been a Commoner since no later than 9 July 2008, so does he become eligible by virtue of length of membership, providing he signs in and doesn't just vote using his IP address? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    That IP address is an open proxy. LX (talk, contribs) 15:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • So I guess the vote is invalid. Why can open proxies be blocked on sight? Only some of them that have a history of trolling or vandalism, I think? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
IP not allowed to vote. -- Colin (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Perfect!--Ermell (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I, too, would prefer it in portrait, but I accept Mile's reasoning for why he kept it this way. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great sharpness, a worthy FP. Also a VI, I think.--Peulle (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Peulle so far just Italian Wiki has article for this variant of mushroom, but enough for VI i think. I will put it.--Mile (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 06:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp! Mile, what lens did you use? --Basotxerri (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info Its macro lens-Zuiko 60 mm. --Mile (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Another great stacking shot -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For me it is not a FP. The quality of the mushroom is very good. But not more. There is no composition at all. The background is just black. I have no feeling when I look at it. --Hockei (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Monumento de Guerra, Jardín del Patio, Múnich, Alemania, 2017-07-07, DD 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2017 at 08:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Monuments_and_memorials
  •   Info War memorial monument ("Kriegerdenkmal"), Hofgarten, in front of the Bayerische Staatskanzlei, Munich, Germany. The monument is composed of an open crypt, that consist of 12 stone blocks, lcoated in the middle of a rectangular pit. The crypt just contains the statue of a dead soldier, a work of Bernhard Bleeker. The monument was inaugurated in 1924 but the origintal statue, that was replaced by a bronze cast in 1972, and is now exhibited in the Bavarian Army museum in Ingolstadt. All by me, Poco2 08:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 08:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Ah, that was on my bucket list as well... well, too late. Good, important nom. But why didn't you use a tripod? Technically the image could be better. Considering that it was taken handheld, it's awesome, of course, and it's certainly good enough to pass here. But it's not that the monument is so crowded that using a tripod is impossible... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    Well, I shot it without a tripod, checked the quality, I found it pretty good and came to the conclusion that a tripod wasn't really required. To be honest I didn't expect then to nominate it for FPC but when I saw it on the monitor I really enjoyed the lighting, so, here we're...Poco2 17:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A little distorted, but maybe since it was handheld that can't be helped anymore than it might have already been. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Not the sharpest but quite good for the conditions. -- King of ♠ 01:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - I'm neutral because the size of the photo is probably great enough for the noise and unsharpness of the statue and closer foreground to be OK, but I really don't understand why several of you think that we should relax our standards ("considering/since it was handheld") because Poco chose unnecessarily not to use a tripod. Why should we take into consideration that a tripod was not used in a situation in which it could have been used? The more I think about that in particular, the more tempted I am to oppose on that basis, but I will not, because of the aforementioned file size, and also the excellent composition and combination of light and shade. It may be good enough to feature - but without consideration of how it was taken. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    Ikan: I totally disagree with your comment and the direction it goes. The main reason why we all take our cameras and go out is because it is fun. I cannot agree that anybody takes away my freedom to take the pictures the way, when and how I want. If a picture deserves a FP star it should get it, independently whether it could be even better. If your point would be considered valid the next one would say "why did you use that lens instead of that other one, I am sure the result would have been even better for this scene" or "why where you there at 2 p.m. instead of 5 p.m. the ligthing then would have been even better" or "why didn't you used that day your 50 MPx camera and just the 40 MPx one"? Sorry, but we are talking about freedom and about fun here. Pictures have to be judged the way they are. If somebody tops one we can always start a delist and replace process but that's a different story. Poco2 06:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying it isn't good enough to feature; I'm saying that we shouldn't judge the photo by lower standards because you didn't use a tripod. That's what it sounds to me like some people are doing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • And by the way, it's extremely common for FPC nominations to fail because of criticism that the time when the photo was taken wasn't as good as it could have been. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan: the question hier ist the "even" before "better". If a picture is over the FP bar, than it should become FP. If the picture is below it shouldn't, and if the reason for that is the timing, the equipment, whather, then that's perfectly fine. But my impression here was that you consider that the picture deserves FP status but you didn't support because it could have been managed even better. Poco2 07:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • No, I'm genuinely neutral. I think it may warrant a feature, but I'm not sure because the noise and unsharpness in the foreground give me some pause. And I wanted to express my opinion that we should judge the photo as it is, not by handicapping it on the basis of it being a hand-held photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, got you, Ikan. I missunderstood you. Poco2 18:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm sorry, but the main subject is not sharp enough for me. --Ivar (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support for the wow factor despite the technical shortcomings.--Peulle (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)