Open main menu

Commons:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder

FormalienEdit

NominierungEdit

Leitsätze für die NominierungEdit

Bitte lies alle Leitsätze (Englisch) vor der Nominierung.

Dies ist eine Zusammenfassung von Kriterien, auf die du bei der Einreichung und Bewertung von Exzellenz-Kandidaten achten solltest:

  • AuflösungFotografien mit einer Auflösung unter 2 Millionen Pixel werden in der Regel abgelehnt, außer unter „stark mildernden Umständen“. Beachte, dass ein 1600 x 1200 großes Foto 1,92 Megapixel hat und damit weniger als 2 Millionen.
Grafiken auf Commons können auch in anderen Weisen als zur Anzeige auf einen herkömmlichen Computerbildschirm verwendet werden. Sie können auch als Ausdruck oder zur Anzeige auf hochauflösenden Bildschirmen verwendet werden. Man kann nicht vorhersagen, welche Geräte in Zukunft Anwendung finden, deshalb ist es wichtig, dass die nominierten Bilder die höchstmögliche Auflösung haben.
  • Eingescannte Bilder – solange es keine offizielle Richtlinie gibt, findet man unter Help:Scannen für verschiedene Typen von Bildern Hinweise für die Vorbereitung, die hilfreich sein können.
  • Fokus – jedes wichtige Objekt im Bild sollte normalerweise scharf sein.
  • Vordergrund und Hintergrund – Objekte im Vorder- und Hintergrund können stören. Kontrolliere, ob etwas vor dem Motiv des Bildes wichtige Elemente verdeckt. Auch soll nichts im Hintergrund die Komposition verderben, zum Beispiel eine Straßenlampe, die über dem Kopf einer abgebildeten Person „steht“.
  • Allgemeine Qualität – nominierte Bilder sollten von hoher technischer Qualität sein.
  • Digitale Manipulationen betrügen nicht in jedem Fall den Betrachter. Digitale Nachbearbeitungen, um Fehler von Fotografien zu korrigieren, sind allgemein akzeptiert, vorausgesetzt, sie sind begrenzt und gut gemacht, ohne dabei betrügen zu wollen. Akzeptiert werden normalerweise Beschneiden, perspektivische Korrekturen, Schärfen und Verwischen sowie Farb- und Belichtungskorrekturen. Umfangreichere Korrekturen wie das Entfernen von störenden Hintergrundobjekten sollten in der Bildbeschreibung mit Hilfe der Vorlage {{Retouched picture}} klar beschrieben werden. Nicht oder falsch beschriebenen Manipulationen, die dazu führen, dass das Hauptmotiv falsch dargestellt wird, sind unter keinen Umständen akzeptabel.
  • Wertunser Hauptziel ist das Hervorheben der wertvollsten Bilder von allen anderen. Bilder sollten irgendwie etwas Besonderes sein. Darum sei dir bewusst, dass:
    • nahezu jeder Sonnenuntergang ästhetisch ansprechend ist und die meisten keinen wesentlichen Unterschied aufweisen zu anderen,
    • Nachtaufnahmen hübsch sind, aber dass man normalerweise mit Aufnahmen bei Tag mehr Details zeigen kann,
    • schön nicht immer wertvoll bedeuten muss.

Auf der fachlichen Seite gibt es die Belichtung, die Komposition, die Bewegungskontrolle und die Fokustiefe zu beachten.

  • Belichtung bezieht sich auf die Verschluss-Blende-Kombination, die ein Bild mit einer Tonkurve wiedergibt. Idealerweise bildet diese Tonkurve in akzeptabler Genauigkeit Schatten- und Spitzlichtbereiche im Bild ab. Dies nennt man „Belichtungsspielraum“. Bilder können im niedrigen Teil der Tonkurve (unterer Bereich), im mittleren (mittlerer Bereich) oder hohen Teil (oberer Bereich) liegen. Digitale Kameras (oder Bilder) haben einen engeren Belichtungsspielraum als Fotofilme. Fehlende Genauigkeit im Schattenbereich ist nicht unbedingt ein Nachteil. Tatsächlich kann dies ein gewünschter Effekt sein. Eingebrannte Spitzenlichter sind dagegen ein störendes Element.
  • Komposition bezieht sich auf die Anordnung der Elemente im Bild selbst. Die „Drittel-Regel“ ist ein guter Grundsatz für die Komposition und ein Erbe der Gemäldemalerei. Die Idee ist, das Bild mit jeweils zwei horizontalen und zwei vertikalen Linien zu teilen. Dadurch wird das Bild in horizontale und vertikale Drittel geteilt. Das Motiv im Zentrum des Bildes zu platzieren, ist oft weniger interessant, als es auf einem der vier Schnittpunkte der horizontalen und vertikalen Schnittlinien zu platzieren. Der Horizont sollte eigentlich niemals in der Mitte des Bildes liegen, wo er das Bild in zwei Hälften „teilt“. Die obere oder untere horizontale Linie ist oft eine gute Wahl. Der Hauptgedanke ist, den Raum zu nutzen, um ein dynamisches Bild zu schaffen.
  • Bewegungskontrolle bezieht sich auf die Weise, wie die Bewegung im Bild abgebildet wird. Die Bewegung kann stillstehend oder verschwommen sein. Weder das eine noch das andere ist besser; es kommt auf den Zweck der Aufnahme an. Bewegung ist relativ innerhalb der Objekte des Bildes. Zum Beispiel vermittelt uns das Fotografieren eines relativ zum Hintergrund stillstehenden Rennwagens kein Gefühl für das Tempo oder die Bewegung. Also zwingt uns die Fototechnik, das Motiv stillstehend vor verschwommenem Hintergrund abzubilden, wodurch ein Gefühl für die Bewegung entsteht. Dies nennt man „Schwenken“. Andererseits kann eine Aufnahme eines im Vergleich zur Umgebung stillstehenden Basketballspielers während eines hohen Sprunges das „Unnatürliche“ der Natur dieser Pose sichtbar machen.
  • Fokustiefe (DOF – Depth Of Field) bezieht sich auf den Fokusbereich vor und hinter dem Hauptmotiv. Die Fokustiefe wird abhängig von den spezifischen Erfordernissen jedes Bildes gewählt. Große oder kleine Fokustiefe kann auf die eine oder andere Weise die Qualität der Aufnahme vergrößern oder schmälern. Geringe Fokustiefe kann die Aufmerksamkeit auf das Hauptmotiv des Bildes lenken, das Hauptmotiv erscheint dadurch von seiner Umgebung gelöst. Hohe Fokustiefe bringt Abstände zwischen Motiven zur Geltung. Objektive mit kurzer Brennweite (Weitwinkel) ergeben eine hohe Fokustiefe, umgekehrt haben Objektive mit langer Brennweite (Teleobjektive) eine flache Fokustiefe. Kleine Blendenöffnungen bringen große Fokustiefe, und umgekehrt große Blendenöffnungen bringen flache Fokustiefen.

Bei den grafischen Elementen gibt es Form, Volumen, Farbe, Struktur, Perspektive, Balance, Proportion, usw.

  • Form bezieht sich auf den Umriss des Hauptmotivs.
  • Volumen bezieht sich die dreidimensionale Qualität des Motivs. Diese wird durch Seitenlicht herausgebildet. Im Gegenteil zum allgemeinen Glauben ist Frontbeleuchtung nicht die beste Wahl. Frontbeleuchtung lässt das Motiv abflachen. Das beste Tageslicht hat man am frühen Morgen oder nachmittags.
  • Farbe ist wichtig. Übersättigte Farben sind nicht gut.
  • Struktur bezieht sich auf die Oberflächenqualität des Motivs. Diese wird durch Seitenbeleuchtung verbessert.
  • Perspektive bezieht sich auf den „Grad“ zusammen mit Linien, die in einen Fluchtpunkt innerhalb oder außerhalb des Bildes enden.
  • Balance bezieht sich auf die Anordnung der Motive innerhalb des Bildes, die entweder das scheinbar gleiche Gewicht haben oder schwerer auf einer Seite erscheinen.
  • Proportion bezieht sich auf die Größenunterschiede der Objekte im Bild. Normalerweise tendieren wir dazu, kleine Gegenstände klein im Vergleich zu anderen darzustellen. Eine gute Methode kann aber sein, kleine Objekte groß im Gegensatz zu wirklichen Größenverhältnissen abzubilden. Zum Beispiel: Eine kleine Blume überwiegt gegenüber einem großen Berg. Dies nennt man Maßstabsinversion.
Nicht alle Elemente müssen berücksichtigt werden. Einige Fotografien können anhand individueller Eigenschaften beurteilt werden. Für ein Bild kann die Farbe oder die Struktur wichtig sein, oder Farbe und Strukur, usw.
  • Symbolische Aussage oder Relevanz…. Der Meinungskrieg kann hier beginnen…. Ein schlechtes Bild von einem sehr schwierigen Motiv ist ein besseres Bild als ein gutes Bild von einem gewöhnlichen Motiv. Ein gutes Bild von einem schwierigen Motiv ist ein außergewöhnliches Foto.
Bilder können kulturell beeinflusst sein durch den Fotografen und/oder den Betrachter. Die Bedeutung des Bildes sollte vor dem kulturellen Hintergrund des Bildes beurteilt werden, nicht durch den kulturellen Hintergrund des Betrachters. Ein Bild „spricht“ zu Menschen und hat die Möglichkeit, Emotionen auszulösen, wie zum Beispiel Zärtlichkeit, Zorn, Ablehnung, Heiterkeit, Traurigkeit usw. Gute Fotografen sind nicht darauf beschränkt, gefällige Emotionen zu provozieren.

Um die Chancen für einen Erfolg deiner Nominierung zu erhöhen, lies vor der Nominierung alle Leitsätze.

Eine neue Nominierung aufstellenEdit

Wenn du glaubst, ein Bild mit passender Bildbeschreibung und Lizenz gefunden oder geschaffen zu haben, das als wertvoll erachtet werden könnte, folge der anschließenden Anleitung.

Schritt 1: Kopiere den Bildnamen in dieses Textfeld (einschließlich des Zusatzes Image:), hinter den schon im Feld stehenden Text, zum Beispiel „Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:DEIN-BILD-DATEINAME.JPG“. Danach klicke auf die Schaltfäche mit der Aufschrift „neue Nominierung aufstellen“.


Schritt 2: Folge den Anweisungen der geöffneten Seite, und sichere sie.

Schritt 3: Füge manuell einen Link zu der erstellten Seite oben auf der Seite mit der Kandidatenliste ein: Hier klicken, und füge folgende Zeile OBEN bei der Nominierungslist ein:

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:DEIN-BILD-DATEINAME.JPG}}

AbstimmungEdit

Du kannst folgende Vorlagen benutzen:

  • {{Support}} (  Support) (Stimme zur Unterstützung des Exzellenz-Status'),
  • {{Oppose}} (  Oppose) (Stimme gegen den Exzellenz-Status),
  • {{Neutral}} (  Neutral) (neutrale Meinung, keine Stimme),
  • {{Comment}} (  Comment) (es folgt ein Kommentar, keine Stimme),
  • {{Info}} (  Info) (es folgen Informationen, keine Stimme),
  • {{Question}} (  Question) (es folgt eine Frage, keine Stimme)

Du kannst angeben, dass das Bild keine Chance für eine erfogreiche Kandidatur hat. Benutze die Vorlage {{FPX|reason}}, wobei reason angibt, warum das nominierte Bild klar unakzeptabel für die exzellenten Bilder ist.

Weitere Vorlagen gibt es hier.

Bitte füge ein paar Worte an, warum dir das Bild gefällt oder nicht gefällt, insbesondere wenn du dagegen stimmst. Bitte denke auch daran, zu unterschreiben (~~~~). Anonyme Stimmen sind nicht zugelassen.

Abwahlkandidaten der exzellenten Bilder aufstellenEdit

Mit der Zeit ändern sich die Standards für die Exzellenten Bilder. Es kann entschieden werden, dass Bilder, die vorher „gut genug“ für die Exzellenten waren, es nicht mehr sind. Dies ist zum Aufstellen eines Bildes, welches deiner Meinung nach es nicht mehr verdient, exzellent zu sein. Dazu wähle mit

  • {{Keep}}   Keep (das Bild verdient es immer noch, als exzellent zu gelten) oder mit
  • {{Delist}}   Delist (das Bild verdient es nicht mehr, als exzellent zu gelten).

Wenn du denkst, dass ein Bild nicht mehr den Exzellenz-Kriterien entspricht, kannst du es für die Abwahl nominieren, indem du den Bildnamen in dieses Textfeld (einschließlich des Zusatzes Image:) hinter den bereits stehenden Text im Feld kopierst:


In der eben erstellten neuen Seite für die Nomination des Abwahlkandidaten solltest du einfügen:

  • Informationen über den Ursprung des Bildes (Ersteller, Uploader),
  • Einen Link zur originalen Exzellenz-Kandidatur-Seite (es erscheint unter „Links“ auf der Beschreibungsseite),
  • Deine Begründung für die Nominierung und dein Benutzername.

Danach musst du einen Link zu der erstellten Seite oben auf der Seite mit der Liste der Abwahlkandidaten manuell einfügen.

Richtlinien für Exzellenz-KandidatenEdit

Allgemeine RegelnEdit

  1. Nach dem Ende des Abstimmungs-Zeitraumes wird das Ergebnis am Tag 10 nach der Nominierung festgestellt (im Zeitplan weiter unten gezeigt). Also dauert der Abstimmungs-Zeitraum 9 Tage, plus die Stunden bis zum Ende von Tag 9. Stimmen, die an Tag 10 oder danach abgeben wurden, werden nicht gezählt.
  2. Nominierungen von anonymen Mitwirkenden sind erwünscht.
  3. Mitwirken bei Diskussionen von anonymen Mitwirkenden sind erwünscht.
  4. Nur Nutzer mit einem commons-account, der mindestens 10 Tage alt ist und 50 Beiträge hat, können wählen. Ausnahme: Die eigene Nominierung kann gewählt werden, unabhängig von Alter und Beiträge.
  5. Die Nominierung zählt nicht als Stimme. Unterstützung muss explizit angegeben werden.
  6. Nominierungen können vom Einsteller jederzeit zurückgezogen werden. Dies geschieht einfach durch das Schreiben von „I withdraw my nomination“ (eng. Ich ziehe meine Nominierung zurück)
    oder durch Hinzufügen von {{withdraw|~~~~}}.
  7. Denke daran, das Ziel von Wikimedia Commons ist es, einen zentralen Speicher für freie Bilder, genutzt von allen Wikimedia-Projekten, bereitzustellen, einschließlich für mögliche zukünftige Projekte. Dies ist nicht einfach ein Speicher für Wikipedia-Bilder, deshalb sollten hier die Bilder nicht danach beurteilt werden, ob sie zu diesem Projekt passen.
  8. Bilder können vorzeitig am Tag 5 (fünfter Tag nach der Nominierung) von der Abstimmungsliste genommen werden („Regel des 5. Tages“):
    1. Wenn sie keine Unterstützung erhalten, die Einsteller nicht mitgezählt.
    2. Wenn sie 10 oder mehr Pro und kein Kontra erhalten haben.
  9. Bilder, welche durch die Vorlage {{FPX}} markiert wurden, können 48 Stunden, nachdem die Vorlage gesetzt wurde, von der Liste entfernt werden, vorausgesetzt, das Bild hat außer von den Einstellern keine positiven Stimmen (Unterstützung) erhalten.
  10. Bilder, welche durch die Vorlage {{FPD}} (FP denied) markiert wurden, können 48 Stunden, nachdem die Vorlage gesetzt wurde, von der Liste entfernt werden.
  11. Es dürfen von einem Benutzer maximal 2 Nominierungen gleichzeitig platziert werden.

Regeln zur Wahl und AbwahlEdit

Ein Kandidat wird in die Galerie der exzellenten Bilder aufgenommen, wenn folgende Bedingungen erfüllt sind:

  1. Passende Lizenz (selbstverständlich)
  2. Mindestens 7 positive Stimmen (Pro-Stimmen)
  3. Das Verhältnis von unterstützenden zu ablehnenden Stimmen ist mindestens 2/1 (eine Zwei-Drittel-Mehrheit)
  4. Zwei verschiedene Versionen desselben Bildes können nicht beide exzellent werden, sondern nur das mit der höheren Zahl an Stimmen.

Die Abwahl-Regeln sind dieselben wie zur Wahl der exzellenten Bilder bei gleichbleibenden Abstimmungs-Zeitraum. Die Regel des 5. Tages gilt für Abwahlkandidaten, die keine Stimme für die Aberkennung des Exzellenz-Status' bis zum Tag 5 erhalten haben, außer die des Antragstellers.

Ein erfahrener Nutzer kann die Anfrage beenden. Wie man eine Anfrage beendet, siehe unter Commons:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder/Was tun, wenn der Abstimmungszeitraum zu Ende ist.

Vor allem sei freundlichEdit

Bitte bedenke, dass das Bild, das du beurteilst, das wohlüberlegte Werk von jemandem ist. Vermeide Phrasen wie „it looks terrible“ (eng. sieht schrecklich aus) oder „I hate it“ (eng. Ich hasse es). Wenn du dagegen Stellung nehmen musst, tu dies bitte mit Rücksichtnahme. Bedenke außerdem, dass deine Englischkenntnisse nicht die gleichen sein müssen wie die eines anderen. Wähle deine Worte sorgfältig.

Viel Spaß beim Bewerten …, und denke daran: Alle Regeln können gebrochen werden.

Siehe auchEdit


InhaltsübersichtEdit

Contents

Exzellenz-KandidatenEdit

Seite erneut laden für neue Nominierungen: purge this page's cache

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:British Columbia Parliament Buildings in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 22:55:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kur-Trier Mai 1919.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 22:47:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Iglesia de Cristo, Winhoek, Namibia, 2018-08-04, DD 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 19:28:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Río Tanana, Tok, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-28, DD 158-170 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 19:24:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Panoramic view of a landscape at the banks of the Tanana River near Tok, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poco2 19:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 19:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Highlights too bright on the clouds and a yellowish cast that gets more noticeable at the edges, where it's also very unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Bergweg tussen Andiast, Ladinas en Breil-Brigels (actm) 16.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 16:40:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Haydée, ou Le secret Act II - Philippe Chaperon.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 16:03:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Staraya Russa asv2018-07 various45 Railway station.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 07:55:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Hippasa holmerae (Lawn wolf spider) in its funnel web.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 01:01:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Done below. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

 

  Info Rotated and cropped version from the previous comments, Yann, Ikan, Isiwal, Charles, thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Technical quality not great, but I like the composition. It's not easy to find the spiders in this position. Charles (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer this version --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support even better! I would not have rotated it, but that's a minor concern. Spiders walk upside-down all the time. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • with this sort of shot there's no 'correct' orientation because you're usually scrambling to get the shot and not thinking about keeping the camera horizontal. --Charles (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I wish you could get in even tighter, but I think this is as far as you can go in that direction without making technical compromises. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 22:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Ardea herodias standing on a rock at St. Pete Beach.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2019 at 21:26:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
  •   Info created by Grendelkhan - uploaded by Grendelkhan - nominated by Grendelkhan -- grendel|khan 21:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- grendel|khan 21:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing to say against showing an animal in its natural environment, but in this case the subject is not well separated from the background without any need for it (IMHO), making it harder to see the quite interesting silouette of the bird. The worst part are feathers on the bottom of its beak that are of very similar tone as the water reflections behind it. E.g. a lower angle would have cleared the background up a lot and provided more presence. – LucasT 21:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Quite good IMHO. Yann (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Yann. The fact that the background is somewhat blurred gives sufficient separation, and the bird is quite well captured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Cannot compete with the many Ardea FPs. Charles (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per others - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:MuseoJuanManuelBlanes-Montevideo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2019 at 21:17:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info all by me -- Ezarateesteban 21:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 21:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Boring lighting on an overcast day, unbalanced composition with distracting tree base and random people, one of them even seemingly reacting to being photographed. – LucasT 21:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad light and per Lucas -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas and Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas. -- Ikan Kekek ([[User talk:Ikan Kekek|
  •   Oppose per Lucas. --Fischer.H (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination thanks!!!! Ezarateesteban 21:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Alpine chough on Veliki Vrh, Karawanks, Slovenia 10.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2019 at 20:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Lucas You reckon that the previous amount of sharpening was better? I tend to sharpen less as I'm trying to avoid these bright lines around subjects from oversharpening. But you're probably right that this time it wasn't that bad - I uploaded a new version with more sharpening. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Podzemnik thanks, it's much better now and I don't see any artifacts. Bright lines can be mitigated by adjusting the settings, there are many guides on the internet about unsharpen mask and other techniques and how to handle them, in various programs. – Lucas 16:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Lucas Silly me, it's as simple as masking! Thanks for the advice, --Podzemnik (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for the lighting, leaving most of the bird in shadow. --Charles (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charlesjsharp --Fischer.H (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:RhB ABe 8-12 Langwieser Viaduct with Langwies from Rongg.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2019 at 17:37:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created and uploaded by Kabelleger, nominated by Yann (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lovely scene, but the big shadow in the corner distracts from it too much. Also the shadow together with a more near tree top (not well identifiable without zooming in, too) cover up half of the village. Overall, the image doesn't tell a clear story to me as it contains too many competing elements of similar size in the frame. The composition could be improved as well. – LucasT 19:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - The sweeping shape works well enough to me as a composition, and the shadow is minor to me, in the scheme of things. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Bijay chaurasia (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Works better, and thus the shadow is less distracting, if you see it as a winter landscape rather than a picture of the bridge (Nice that you waited for the train to be going over it). Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel nailed it --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Lasikahvila café in Tapiola, Espoo (December 2018).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2019 at 17:16:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Finland
  •   Info Lasikahvila café in Tapiola, Espoo. A photograph by me. --Msaynevirta (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nitpicky, I know, but the lowest row of tiles show that the camera was either not aligned with the tiles well enough or it was tilted marginally. If this is fixed I'd be happy to reconsider. – LucasT 19:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition does not convince me, and it looks somewhat distorted (see previous comment) --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree Uoaei1 Seven Pandas (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Seven Pandas, Uoaei1, Lucasbosch: Did a small perspective correction, what do you think, is it better? --Msaynevirta (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    •   Comment I strike my oppose. – LucasT 17:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Pretty restful composition to me, and I don't mainly mean because it's late at night and there are no people. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition is fine with me, but the contrast is just too high. As a result the eyes are drawn only to the logo at the top and the horizontal line in the middle, detracting attention from the more interesting interior. I think it would work better if taken earlier in the night. -- King of ♠ 01:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dark, nothing special in my view, and the upper left corner with banners in the shadow is particularly ugly -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others opponents. -- Karelj (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Lake Geneva from Chillon Castle.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2019 at 10:05:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2017.06.05.-22-Anglerteiche-Rimbach--Plattbauch-Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2019 at 09:23:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
  •   Info This is the same dragonfly as in this picture but has a complete another view and composition. I was really not sure if I should nominate it due to you possibly dislike the wing in the foreground. On the other hand ... see for yourself. ;-) Thanks in advance. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I agree with you about all but one of the wings, but this is otherwise a pretty interesting view and quite an impressive closeup. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Super detail, but colours seem a little over-saturated. --Charles (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Wago 221-413 splicing connector with stranded wire.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2019 at 19:22:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info all by me – LucasT 19:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportLucasT 19:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Very good quality of photo, but no wow factor to me. -- -donald- (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Different, and because I like the abstract forms I like it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Exciting at 100 %. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support KTC (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Superb technical quality, but looks a bit like an advertising shot. Charles (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Charles if the photo feeling like an advertising shot is a detriment for you, please explain why. – Lucas 18:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Because the composition (not the blackground) is similar to those used by the company in its advertising for this product range. Charles (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You are right, but rest assured I arrived at this composition from my own thoughts and was led by the text orientation on the connector. The manufacturer mainly uses computer generated images though. – Lucas 22:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Bergtocht van Peio Paese naar Lago Covel in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italië). Wond van een afgebroken tak. Europese larix (Larix decidua) 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2019 at 16:56:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects Wounded tree (Larix decidua).
  •   Info This is a picture of a large open bleeding wound of a European larch. The tree produces resin to protect the open wound from external influences. Stelvio National Park (Italy). Wound from a broken branch. European larch (Larix decidua).
    All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Almost looks like a mouth ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose crop is too tight in my opinion and there's not too much of wow factor in the subject, as these kinds of wounds in trees aren't too unusual. Sorry. --Msaynevirta (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I respect your opinion about this picture. But I would like to give a little explanation. The European larix (Larix decidua) occurs in Central Europe especially in the Alps. We are nature lovers and love the Alps. We have been going on holiday for years. Rarely have we seen a larix (Larix decidua) with such a large bleeding wound against the trunk as the larix in this photo. The branch has been broken down to the outside of the core in the tree trunk. An ordinary photo that you can shoot regularly is not my opinion.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment We have similar Pinaceae family trees here in Finland, and I've seen similar wounds in them. The subject may be interesting, but the problem is more in the current presentation (crop and composition). --Msaynevirta (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Edith Kermit Carow Roosevelt by Frances Benjamin Johnston.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2019 at 11:01:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Frances Benjamin Johnston - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info I really like how Johnston used sepia to bring out the lace. I have tweaked the levels a bit to try and bring out the detail, but the effect is 100% in the original. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Everything is good: the pose, the costume, the original photograph, the copy, and the restoration. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question You're sure the darks aren't too darkened? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I tried a few things, and this looked best to me. Anything much lighter looked faded out. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Yann. --Aristeas (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Well done, please add info about the restoration procedure in the image description. --Photographer 01:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I did, though it was pretty standard. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Stanford Dish April 2011 003.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2019 at 05:35:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Crew Demo-1 Mission (39684490143).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 22:19:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
  •   Info created by SpaceX - uploaded by Elisfkc - nominated by Msaynevirta --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose heavily downsized from the 50 MP the 5DS is capable of. It looks quite soft and grainy as well. – LucasT 23:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas. Quality really could be better for 2019. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas, sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas.--Peulle (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas, and could benefit from perspective correction as well. Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas. -- Karelj (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Johannes Wilhjelm, Skagens gamle kirke. Nat, 1910. SKM1393, Skagens Kunstmuseer.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 19:03:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Panther chameleon (Furcifer pardalis) female Montagne d’Ambre (2).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 14:52:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • tweaked a bit. Charles (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Our finest reptile photography includes habitat. What is the point in photographing one in the mountains of Madagascar, when the result looks like a pet in somoene's bedroom? The hard direct flash does it no favours either, resulting in over exposure and loss of three-dimensionality. -- Colin (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Still bearing a grudge from the 'flash can kill a chameleon' discussion. Sad. And of course it's not direct flash. Try looking at the shadow from the tail wrapped around the branch. Of course it's an artifical setting, but that doesn't stop it aspiring to be included in our finest reptile photography. --Charles (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Why should I bear a grudge? I seem to recall you got upset with The Photographer. Charles, this does you no favours. I commented on the photo, and I examined our collection of reptile FPs. I said the flash was direct, I didn't claim it was a ring flash. Any flash mounted a few inches from the centre of the camera produces that effect. Please Charles, go look at the link you added to our current FP reptiles. Ambient light, or merely using a little fill-flash would have included some habitat colours, but you went for tiny aperture, low ISO, fast shutter and a whopping big flash at a distance of 1.6m to compensate for your choice of settings. So the wood is blown and the background is lost. -- Colin (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't recall you being with me when I took the picture and your analysis of my camera settings shows a very limited understanding of night-time wildlife photography. I chose to have a blackground. Charles (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Charles, first you transfer your grudge on to me (who has nothing to have a grudge about), then insult me. Your camera settings may well be for a chosen black background, if you say so, but they also required an unnecessarily bright flash to compensate, hence the over-exposed branch. That's basic photography, nature, night-time, or otherwise. My opinion stands, and since you once again seem to be more interested in personal attacks, than photography, I'm unwatching. -- Colin (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I propose to lay down the weapons. There are more important things in life than a picture!--Famberhorst (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Contrary to Colin, I find the back background very good: it helps making the animal standing apart. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would support this for the style which is similar to my still life photos, but the lack of sharpness and therefore definition of its features, especially on the head, and the out of focus areas, are too much. All this is visible even without zooming in to 100 %. – LucasT 18:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't mind the overexposure on the branch as that is not the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Ramparts of the historic fortified city of Carcassone 16.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 00:29:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
  •   Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support very good. Reminds me of one of my own images. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Really good! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Some verticals of the higher towers seem to be a bit tilted to the left, espesially in the left half. --Milseburg (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but this is quite some level below the standards for Castles/Fortifications on Commons. I'm guessing you are using Lightroom's photo merge, rather than a dedicated package such as Hugin or PtGui. For architecture, these are essential in order to supply vertical alignment guidelines and appropriate projection adjustment. The horizon is titled strongly at both sides, the towers are all quite wonky, including the middle corner. The far left is blurred. Overall, it looks quite strongly vertically compressed. The light and shadow combination is unfortunate too. -- Colin (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Yes, I use the Lightroom. Thanks for your review. Tournasol7 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. It's quite dizzying to look at. – LucasT 18:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I've crossed out my vote and comment. I guess I was too absorbed with the details to notice the tilts mentioned above, but I see them now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice idea, but the closer you get to either edge, the worse the flaws get, as Colin documents. Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

File:50pfg-koeln2.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 21:08:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 05:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Historical

File:Овцебыки - самые грозные млекопитающие Таймыра.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 10:01:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info Muskox on Bolshoy Begichev Island in Laptev Sea. Natural monument Terpey-Tumus, Sakha (Yakutia) Republic, Russia. -- ViseMoD (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I haven't found a picture of a Muskox in a wild with such high quality on wiki. -- ViseMoD (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question downsized? Charles (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No response. I assume it is downsized. Will cancel oppose if it isn't --Charles (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not the author, so can't be sure. But looks like it is downsized. --ViseMoD (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Doesn't that mean you should withdraw the nomination? "Images should not be downsampled" --Charles (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Let the people decide! ;-) --ViseMoD (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A lot closer than I got to any muskoxen during my time in the Arctic ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support JukoFF (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would crop it above and on the left so that the face is centred in the middle. --Hockei (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles.--Peulle (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Остров Белл и Убежище Эйры.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2019 at 18:23:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alas, I am not the author of the photo: ( JukoFF (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Excellent picture, but why is it downsized? The camera of the drone provides a resolution of 5472x3648 px! --Isiwal (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice but tilted and downsized -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks great at 3x my 13-inch screen size, which is bigger than the full size of this picture. Also looks pretty good at 200% of full size, especially considering that it's a drone pic. I'd love to see the picture in its original size, but it's an impressive, unusual view. I don't think we should demand that drone pictures have absolutely level horizons - do you demand that of shots from planes, too? Satellite pics? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • That's certainly not a drone nor a robot that uploaded this file on Commons. So the author should do as everyone usually do when checking their pictures, just fix the tilt by a simple rotation of the image, quick and easy step in post-process, and aesthetic touch to avoid a sea rocking like a supernatural phenomenon. I can understand a selfie by a monkey being kept not leveled, but a drone ? Is that a creative tool ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! --Tozina (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I would like that the Features pictures have had more pictures of this kind! --ViseMoD (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Strong tilted, so definitely not a FP. The motif has potential but the technic isn´t. The sharpness is rather low considering the also low resolution. --Milseburg (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Great (and rare) motif and very good in terms of composition. The sharpness is very good, too. I'd immediately change to support if someone would level the horizon. --Code (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Tuxyso. This may be a new candidate for northernmost FP. Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support For me, quite impressive, especially now after the horizon has been levelled. --Aristeas (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Karelj (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.04.21.-03-Mannheim Vogelstang--Gamander-Ehrenpreis.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2019 at 08:24:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 12:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks over saturated to me. -- Colin (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose 5 few years ago I've photographed also a Gamander Ehrenpreis, see: File:Gamander-Ehrenpreis.jpg. I think the detail quality of the nomineee here is not sufficient for an FP (compare with my photo). In 100% view the photo here looks somehow overprocessed, especially at the edge of the flower. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I do not know the picture of Tuxyso and at the moment I only view this candidate. The blossom is very detailed and sharp. And I like this composition with a sharp main focus and blurred rest. --Tozina (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin; it seems too saturated for me. Sorry. Tournasol7 (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Saturation doesn't bother me so much (unsurprising) but it is horribly overprocessed ... just look at the edges of the petals. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info Daniel, I've reworked it. However, without changing the saturation. This saturation isn't more adjusted than in my other pictures too and I love it. Hope it's good now. --Hockei (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Ingrown oval sculpture of human head in a tree trunk in Laos (1).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2019 at 00:26:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • "Amateurish" couldn't be more wrong. There's this face also very near in the same tree, which is not surrounded by roots, and that the monks everyday honor with encense and gifts just because it's part of their real worship. This (different) FP was controversial because it is unsharp and completely overprocessed. It would have had less oppose votes if the post-treatment had been better. There are religious items surrounded by tree roots in many places in Asia, in Ayutthaya Thailand of course, but also in Ankhor Vat Cambodia, and here in Laos in this isolated place where no tourist never go. Just search "temple of Don Som" on Google and you'll find no result because it is not an attraction (contrary to that famous one in Thailand). It is similar to other (better known) sculptures, yes, and so, what's the problem ? Are these fake roots ? For me it's an extraordinary creation showing the local spirit in link with nature. That also completely illustrates the art in Laos. It's just 100% authentic. Here photographically the fresh leaves gives something special, but even the painted sculpture itself I find this absolutely great, culturally amazing -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support according to Basile's statement --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support We shouldn't be judging the work itself, just the image of it. I could see opposing it on the basis of this image being too similar in concept to the other one, but I wouldn't be the one doing it. As it is, this to me is different enough because it has a playfulness the other one lacks. Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • We often judge subjects (castles => wow, ordinary houses => meh). We also judge the aspects that make a great photo (great light, great composition, great moment). This has none of those. It is very much a "point camera directly at subject in very ordinary light and press shutter button". It is a QI, but I see no FP here. -- Colin (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No, this is not a "point camera directly at subject in very ordinary light and press shutter button". I've got this picture at several times of the day, including one at 6:35 am, which means I woke up before sunrise and took my boat in the darkness to reach this island, to make the best picture of this subject. That's my way of creating, yes. I love this shot in particular, its composition, the natural light, and think the "great moment" was to discover by chance this rare camouflaged object. Thanks, Daniel -- Basile Morin (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Isiwal (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It doesn't look like much in a thumbnail but quite impressive in a full size. --Podzemnik (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 19:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 05:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects


Zeitplan (Tag 5 nach der Nominierung)Edit

Mon 14 Jan → Sat 19 Jan
Tue 15 Jan → Sun 20 Jan
Wed 16 Jan → Mon 21 Jan
Thu 17 Jan → Tue 22 Jan
Fri 18 Jan → Wed 23 Jan
Sat 19 Jan → Thu 24 Jan

Zeitplan (Tag 10 nach der Nominierung)Edit

Wed 09 Jan → Sat 19 Jan
Thu 10 Jan → Sun 20 Jan
Fri 11 Jan → Mon 21 Jan
Sat 12 Jan → Tue 22 Jan
Sun 13 Jan → Wed 23 Jan
Mon 14 Jan → Thu 24 Jan
Tue 15 Jan → Fri 25 Jan
Wed 16 Jan → Sat 26 Jan
Thu 17 Jan → Sun 27 Jan
Fri 18 Jan → Mon 28 Jan
Sat 19 Jan → Tue 29 Jan