Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Kandidater till utvalda bilder

Det här är kandidater till att bli utvalda bilder.

För ett arkiv av tidigare nominerade se: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log

Det finns också en kronologisk lista av utvalda bilder.

NomineringEdit

Om du tror att du har funnit eller skapat en bild som kan anses värdefull, lägg till den här nedan i sektionen för nomineringar, högst upp i listan, med hjälp av den här länken (Hjälp). För det behöver du inte ha en inloggning, även anonyma användare får nominera.

Men innan du nominerar, kolla upp så att bilden har lämplig bildbeskrivning och licens.

OmröstningsreglerEdit

  • Röstningen pågår i 9 dagar. På den 10:e dagen blir resultatet fastställt.
  • Om en bild efter 5 dagar inte fått någon mer positiv röst än från den som nominerade, så kan kandidaten tas bort ifrån sidan.
  • Nomineringar ifrån oinloggade bidragsgivare är välkomna
  • Bidrag ifrån oinloggade bidragsgivare till diskussionen är välkomna
  • Röstning från oinloggade bidragsgivare räknas inte
  • En nominering räknas inte som en röst, men den som nominerar får rösta
  • Den som nominerar en bild kan när som helst ta bort bilden ifrån omröstningen

En kandidat kommer att bli en utvald bild om följande krav uppfylls:

  • Lämplig licens (så klart)
  • Minst 5 stödjande röster
  • Förhållande mellan stödjande/motsättande röster på minst 2/1 (minst två tredjedels majoritet)
  • Två olika versioner av samma bild kan inte båda bli utvalda; endast den med högst antal stödjande röster blir utvald.

Röstning kan göras med "{{Support}}" (stöd) eller "{{Oppose}}" (ej stöd), neutralitet kan anges med "{{Neutral}}".

KandidaterEdit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Webysther 20170619072151 - Pedra do baú e a direita Vale do Paiol Grande.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2017 at 03:22:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Webysther 20150906183737 - Rio São Francisco, Xique-xique - Bahia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2017 at 02:58:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Umeda Sky Building, Osaka, November 2016 -01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 20:32:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Image:Junge Kohlmeise (Parus major) kurz nach dem Verlassen des Nistkastens.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 15:05:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Piéride du réséda ( Pontia daplidice) au Lac sud de Tunis.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 12:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kopenhagen (DK), Nationalmuseum -- 2017 -- 1473-9.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 10:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • May be we have different opinions. ;-) IMO the clouds are like a cream hood. They show, it is natural. --XRay talk 16:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support HalfGig talk 00:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A. Savin; also there's this sort of HDR halo effect visible. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Webysther 20160207091237 - Jiboia Boa constrictor constrictor.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 23:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @ cart: ok for this. But it looks very unnatural and unattractive here. See my annotation in the image. --Cayambe (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Its is really natural, serious. Is a skin condition affects some snakes exposed to sun. [1] -- Webysther (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying if it looks attractive or not, just explaining what it is. Some may find it cool and others may think it ruins the photo, that is up to the individual viewer. --cart-Talk 16:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The surroundings are too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Zebra 2013 10 06 1274.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 05:39:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Panoramic view of Kata-Tjuta in the early morning.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 00:35:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Terrible technical quality. -- Colin (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Aleksander Uurits. Portrait of a Lady. TKM 0088M.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 00:27:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Heath fritillary (Melitaea athalia lachares).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 22:07:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

another revenge vote from George. Charles (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Please, don't take offense. There is no "revenge" anyway. You can see my support votes of Your nominations here and here and here and more. Very friendly, -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
My apologies, George. I'm too touchy today! Charles (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
All OK now, have a good day!   -- George Chernilevsky talk 04:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Turbo sarmaticus 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 21:00:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kopenhagen (DK), Peblinge-See, Søpavillonen -- 2017 -- 1453.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 15:07:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Denmark
  •   Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 15:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 15:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 16:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A nice image with colours and the reflections give a suitable wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Isn't there a better viewpoint to eliminate the horrible building on the right? Charles (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, but the "white" of the building is too bright (burned out) and unsharp for me, otherwise very nice. Can you try please to rework this image from the raw? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Fixed @Alchemist-hp: Thank you for your hint. I just made some improvements in the white areas. --XRay talk 05:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ha, thanks, now   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Another good water-reflection pic. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. Lovely, and I think that cropping out the building on the right wouldn't improve the picture, because of what you'd have to cut off to do that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Пешна (4862122015).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 10:04:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Done I have uploaded a version with higher resolution.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can't see any reason to feature this. Charles (talk)
  •   Oppose the white edges ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Clearly oversharpened, per Alchemist. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Morning in Langtang.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 09:48:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Q-lieb-in - uploaded by Q-lieb-in - nominated by Biplab Anand -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 09:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 09:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Very nice composition and colors. Please add geo location and upload a better resolution. --XRay talk 15:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, although it would be nice to see a slightly larger version. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Stunning image - but then I am a sucker for repeated mountain ridges! For me the pixel number is not an issue, but I would love to fly to the spot on Google Maps - geo location would definitely add to the value of the image. --Alandmanson (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose At only 3.7MP, 40% linear resolution compared to 24MP camera, this is too small imo for a landscape FP in 2017. Please upload a full size image for FP. -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.07.12.-11-Flemhuder See Quarnbek--Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Weibchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 05:28:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Balloërveld, natuurgebied in Drenthe 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 04:34:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural The Netherlands
  •   Info Walking tour of the Balloërveld. Cycle path next to the sandpath. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, but boring and uninteresting. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but I also think that it looks like a casual shot with a B&W effect. -- Pofka (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Araçari-poca.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 00:37:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created and uploaded by Jairmoreirafotografia - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak support technically not perfect but impressive enough --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Quality of the bird is doubtful, but probably could fit minimum requirements. -- Pofka (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Background is working at cross-purposes to the bird. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak support per Martin -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment It's too dark at the moment and the bits of tree, as Daniel says, are off-putting. Charles (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment What about categorization, location, things like that?--Peulle (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Mouette rieuse en vol au lac sud de Tunis.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 22:24:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Harebells by a road.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 21:13:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info A "star" harebell with its "chorus line". Last attempt with a more innovative way of photographing plants, after this I'll go back to the old "safe" style. All by me, --cart-Talk 21:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 21:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'd go back to the old "safe" style! Composition/background doesn't work. Charles (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Январское побережье.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 18:12:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created and uploaded by Андрей Кровлин - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks extraterrestrial. Daniel Case (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support This image definitely has huge wow factor for me - it also looks to have been taken under challenging conditions.--Peulle (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Tones and textures… ♥ 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive. -- Pofka (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Lovely. For this kind of camera a better resolution would be nice. And it looks like JPEG artifacts or unsharpness (at the right). --XRay talk 15:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It saddens me not to support this, but at least author could have used a better downsampling algorithm (which I think are the JPEG artefacts mentioned above)... Looks like a simple "mean value" one... - Benh (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Is it just me or the colors seem rather unnatural. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per others, in spite of the criticisms, which may be valid. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:De la floraison à la fructification (2).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 15:26:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order : Asterales
  •   Info All by Deniev Dagun (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose; just doesn't work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image is unique in a way, as it seems to focus on imperfection rather than the typical crop-photo-esque exactness often strived for by many photographers. Despite this, the photograph technical flaws that can't be overlooked. The depth of field is too shallow, resulting in too much area being out of focus, and the area that is in focus still could be sharper. Along with that, the colors and exposure aren't quite right: there are several places with notable clipping, and IMO the blue sky is a bit dominating over the subject (though that is hard to control). Overall it was a good concept, but with subpar execution. Sorry. WClarke 02:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Interesting, but not great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Diamonds Thudufushi Beach and Water Villas, May 2017 -09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 14:43:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Mezquita Shah, Teherán, Irán, 2016-09-17, DD 49-51 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 06:11:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2016.10.05.-05-Lauten-Weschnitz--Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 05:57:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Polaroid Lightmixer 630 SL BW 2017-07-01 18-44-42.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2017 at 13:13:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support an obsolete technology -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Very weak oppose I would like to like it but that crop of the strap in the background gets in the way. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think the choice of base/background grey is a poor one. Generally pure white is most useful for a wide variety of purposes, though many photo images also enjoy a pure black background for such items too. The result is an image that just looks under exposed. It isn't very clean either -- if you examine our best photo/game FPs then you'll see they are meticulously clean. -- Colin (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak oppose I actually like the grey background, as it interplays nicely with the several different types of grey of the camera. It's good enough on a technical level – including lighting, which turns out to be a problem in similar nominations quite often. The problem is: I am not Wow-ed. To my mind, there is a certain level of perfection required to bring a very good product photograph like this to "wow, this is awesome" level. For example, cleaning your subject thoroughly can be quite tedious, but it's definitely worth the effort (compare e.g. the works by User:Evan-Amos). The strap should be either made a feature of the image or hidden behind the camera. The crop is too tight for me, especially at the top and bottom. There are some blown highlights on the top. These are of course details that could be unavoidable in most other kinds of photographs. But in a controlled studio environment the photographer has the chance to spend some extra-time on perfection, and that's what I personally expect from a Commons FP (but not necessarily Wikipedia FP) in this category. --El Grafo (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Opgebaggerd hout (Langweerderwielen) 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2017 at 04:18:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The wood on this image has been under water for years. It has been removed from the lake during dredging operations. created All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A more selective crop (see note) might work better here and B&W is not doing this documentation photo any favors. With color, the waterlogged logs might have contrasted well with the green(?) grass and plants and giving the viewer a clue as to what this is. In B&W it looks to much like ordinary burnt firewood. --cart-Talk 09:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done. Photo cut out. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: this picture is better?   --Famberhorst (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It's better, but the plants were not as interesting as I hoped for. I think that for such an image to work, you need some extraordinary feature in the wood, dramatic light or something beside the log that is beautiful, creating a contrast. Sort of like this log. --cart-Talk 20:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose why B&W??? Boring. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support IMO a good idea to use black-and-white to improve the structures. --XRay talk 15:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.07.09.-07-Bossee Felde--Gemeine Becherjungfer-Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2017 at 18:25:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Following the positive votes above @Hockei:, do you wish to change the crop? Charles (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  Info The raw photo is currently not present for me. Independent from that I like the crop as it is. The stem waving in the wind shows the fragility of everything. I don't know at the moment what exists right and left. Either disturbing thinks or uninteresting emptiness. --Hockei (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Lucanus cervus male 2017 G1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2017 at 16:52:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Mezquita de Agha Bozorg, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 85.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2017 at 07:39:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info Bottom view of one of the iwans of the Agha Bozorg mosque, a historical mosque in Kashan, Iran. The mosque, located in the center of the city, was built in the late 18th century by master-mimar Ustad Haj Sa'ban-ali. The mosque consists of two large iwans, one in front of the mihrab and the other by the entrance and the courtyard in the middle. All by me, Poco2 07:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 07:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --SDKmac (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now: I see chromatic aberrations on the wires up by the blue sky. Come on, Poco, you're such a good 'tog I expected you to fix stuff like that ... :P --Peulle (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
      CA removed Peulle, just didn't see it... Poco2 12:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure you got it all? I'm still seeing some green. Maybe the cache is not refreshed; I'll wait and check again this evening.--Peulle (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I got it all at 100% view, but saw room for improvement at 200%, so there you are :) Poco2 15:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, good. :)   Support.--Peulle (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Peulle, the FPC page reminds voters not to judge the photographer. We are here to review the image, which at 44 MP with sub-pixel CA in the original image, is really imo quite a petty reason to oppose. If this image was a Flickr upload, where minor issues generally don't get fixed, would you have opposed? I would hope not. Please leave such pixel peeping "improvements" as a polite request rather than a oppose. Your oppose clearly interrupted the flow of support votes, so is not without harm, and it encourages other voters to pixel peep themselves. -- Colin (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The answer to your question is 'yes'. I oppose any image that has such clear CA.--Peulle (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I can only suggest you read some books on what makes a great photograph. You might then notice that (absence of) CA does not figure in the criteria. Please consider that your oppose votes on such will actually deter good photographers from participating here, and that is not good for Commons. -- Colin (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. Under the "color" section of the QI/FP guidelines, CA is listed as one of the issues/common problems and I have seen images rejected from both QIC and FP for this reason. In FP, this should of course be weighed against the criterion "Given sufficient "wow factor" and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality." On the voting issue, I have looked at the FP voting section and see that while there is a "request" template I admittedly could have used, you are contradicting yourself: you give the example that problems with flickr images would not be fixed, so how do you expect a "request" to have any effect in such circumstances? As for whether my vote would deter others from voting to support, I feel I cannot oblige you; I must have faith in other users' ability to judge for themselves. I vote the way I see fit, others will hopefully do the same. --Peulle (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
While chromatic aberration is indeed a flaw, we are not robots nor is the any requirement that an image is technically perfect, whatever that might mean. The "wow factor" get-out for low technical quality is intended for images far lower in technical quality than this. The kind of flaw you point out here is irrelevant. It's a kind of nit picky "improvement only visible if pixel peeping very closely on a 100dpi monitor at 100%". Stick a High DPI monitor on your desk for all our sakes and you might appreciate how utterly irrelevant a faint blue tinge on the edge of a black line on a 42mp image really is. I don't "contradict myself": I was rather assuming you were a reasonable person, and were only pointing out the CA because you knew Poco would fix it. My Flickr question was supposed to be rhetorical. Your response, that you feel the need to oppose a great image because of sub-pixel CA, is quite remarkable. I have seen, over the years, good photographers leave this project over votes like yours. So there's nothing theoretical about that. Don't base your judgement of makes a great image is based only on Commons Image Guidelines: buy some books. Digging your heals in and saying "I vote the way I see fit" is no attitude to have. I'm not asking you to follow my opinion on what is great, there are plenty great resources on photography, and absolutely none of them focus on CA. Please leave CA issues for when you next choose what prime lens to buy, and not for when selecting great images. At 44MP, this sort of nit picking just makes Commons look foolish, and really is a huge turn off for proper photographers. -- Colin (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't like your reasoning: it sounds like you're trying to pressure a fellow Commoner to vote the way you want, which is something I cannot accept. On the one hand, you're saying you don't want me to follow your opinion, but your whole line of reasoning definitely does: you want me to think the way you do - and I don't. As the Guidelines point out, different users may have a difference of opinion, which is the purpose of the voting system. I also disagree with your evaluation: these were not tiny CA barely visible by means of "pixel peeping", but clearly definable streaks of colour visible at 100% view. As for sources you want me to study, I use only one: the Commons FP/QI Guidelines. CA is listed as a possible problem and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. Whether photography books say otherwise is simply not relevant to me. If you're suggesting that any Commoner who has not actively studied photography should not participate in this project, well, I disagree with you on that as well.--Peulle (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
"visible at 100% view" == "pixel peeping". That's the definition. And it isn't a compliment. Peulle, the guidelines were written when many images uploaded to Commons were barely 2MP, and many from that age, if you view on a HD screen, will not even fill the monitor. So, worrying about people viewing at 5x magnification wasn't in the minds of that guideline. This image is 1.4 metres tall if viewed at 100dpi. And you are juding something only visible from close up. Do you think, if Poco got this on the cover of National Geographic, that you could see the CA even with a magnifying glass? There is more CA (and colour moire) in your last FP than in this one, and it is only 6MP (from a 24MP camera) vs this 44MP. So, downsizing and CA. Are you willing to delist your own 6MP FP, or accept you are being ridiculously and harmfully picky on a 44MP image? If that's a downsized image you got to FP, then you are being hypocritical to pick faults on Poco's generously full-size upload. -- Colin (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, now, among us, and if I've to be honest I do consider the CA comment (specially the second one) pixel-picking for such a big image. I've already participated in similar discussions of whether it is fair and healthy for the project to use oppose votes as pressure measure to get a fix for small flaws, and I still believe that this is not a good practice, specially when you all now that I'll fix all quality issues anybody addresses here. Poco2 17:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
There's no CA that I can see in my bridge photo - it was removed in PS. Nor is it downsampled, it's cropped to get rid of the disturbing trees. Oh and @Poco: I didn't mean to pressure you; if the photo had gained enough votes even with my oppose that would have been fine by me - this is a democracy. :) --Peulle (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
There is CA and colour moire to similar degree to Poco's earlier uploads. But to be completely fair here, you need to blow yours up to 250% so it is 41MP also. Then pixel-level flaws just jump out at you and there is no need to squint at the screen, whereas at 44MP Pocos's image is great. You believe in judging the images equally don't you? I magnify both images to same size on my desktop. Or do you think your 6MP image should not be examined as closely as a 44MP image? Perhaps you should judge Poco's image at 40% so it is similar size to yours? In other words, you are unfairly criticizing an image because (a) it was taken by a higher resolution camera and (b) generously uploaded at full size. If instead, we judge all images at FP equally, you need to find a balance between merely looking at it full screen and looking at it 100%. If you view everything at 100% then (a) you are only looking at a tiny part of the picture and (b) you are more likely to oppose technically superior images like this one simply because they are offered in higher resolution. And that's just daft, and quite harmful to this project. -- Colin (talk) 07:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I understand your point about high resolution possibly weighing up for flaws, but if you're saying we should not judge images at 100% anymore that's news to me. Oh and since you're a pro perhaps you can tell me what is the difference between CA and the remains of CA; I did remove it from my photo using software, so what wer're seeing is traces of the CA that used to be there. ...--Peulle (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I think most people have worked this out, but clearly not everyone (especially at QI). Photographers often point out minor details that are only visible at 100% as suggestions for fixing because many of us are perfectionists and improve techniques, but that doesn't translate to those issues being something to oppose over. If you notice the FPC page only requires photos are of a "high technical quality" and goes on to list various aspects (focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field) to consider -- nowhere does it say that images must be judged at 100%. The "complete guidelines" are just that, guidelines, and mostly aimed at beginners in photography and are generally a bit out-of-date. Really I think the page should be archived and replaced with something shorter, and with separate teaching pages for beginners who don't know about JPG compression or CA. The CA/moire in your photo is getting out-of-scope for this FPC so ping me if you are interested. -- Colin (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting image and great technical quality. -- Colin (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Almost an abstraction. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the thing with making the hanging lights appear like a coronet instead. --cart-Talk 09:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support as per Colin. Daphne Lantier 07:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Eduard Wiiralt, Põrgu (1932).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 22:30:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Common kingfisher at Tennōji Park in Osaka, March 2016 II.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 20:29:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Support Excellent! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 07:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)}}
  •   Comment Not very much definition. The lens I guess is the limitation. Charles (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Benh (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Don't understand the voting here compared to this current nomination which has comparable sharpness and size of birds in pixels. Yet the other photo is a great picture and this one is not. The tree trunk is distracting and diagonal intersects the birds head. We already have a better FP: File:Kingfisher eating a tadpole.jpg with no distracting background at all. -- Colin (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree. This cannot compare with existing FP. Charles (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Really sorry but I agree completely with Colin. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin Poco2 22:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin--Ermell (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --El Grafo (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. It's a pity because the quality is good and the right side of the image is optimal. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question This is the part of FP I'm still unsure of; when images are similar. Should this be a "delist/replace" discussion? We have had several images of the same species of bird promoted before - just how similar do they have to be before they overlap?--Peulle (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment That's been an ongoing debate. People will never agree. In this case, I think they are dissimilar enough for both to be listed. PumpkinSky talk 21:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, I guess we'll have to settle it democratically, then. Thanks to Colin for pointing it out and then people can decide for themselves.--Peulle (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Disputa de galho entre duas fêmeas de Saí-azul - Dacnis cayana.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 08:59:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created and uploaded by Renato Augusto Martins, nominated by Yann (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 09:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 15:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Another great work of yours Renato! Poco2 16:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but I cannot find the focus point. You can correct me, but as far as I can see it isn't on the birds. --Hockei (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nice shot, but out of focus and partly over-exposed. Charles (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. And we've got supports on less sharp OOF still ceilings, so I'm personally fine when there's slight issues on action shots. - Benh (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Beautiful but out of focus. Pity. -- Pofka (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Benh. Too many votes looking at the pixels and not the picture imo. -- Colin (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Benh although I prefer downsampling(8MP) in this case. --Laitche (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm totally fine with an action shot not being perfect. It's good enought for me as FP. --PierreSelim (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support HalfGig talk 00:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Caminho das pedras.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 01:08:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created and uploaded by Carolach - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Sky is a little blotchy. Certainly OK for QI, but is it good enough for FP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose The view is nice but not outstanding comparing it many other FPs that make a difference thank to great ligthing or spectacular view. I don't see any of both here. The picture is also tilted in cw direction Poco2 16:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Pleasant but not outstanding as noted by Poco2. I think QI would be fine for it. -- Pofka (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose per others. -- Colin (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Chiesa di Sant’Andrea in Montefiascone.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 18:37:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info Sant'Andrea in Campo is a Romanesque style, Roman Catholic church in Montefiascone, province of Viterbo, Italy. he church is mentioned in documents from the year 853 as a church in Campo or in a rural location. The church while narrow and later within the town walls, had three naves. The portal and internal columns are Romanesque. All by LivioAndronico (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- I like the colors. --Pine 05:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 06:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, although slightly asymmetrical --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Measured support per Uoaei1. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not symmetrical, distortion on the left lamp ;), blown highlights, barrel distortion, over NRed. Below the church standard generally speaking. - Benh (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support though not exactly symmetrical (the photograph has its center between the 2nd and the 3rd row of tiles in the central aisle); that apart the photographs keep good resolution of details even with zoom it at its fullest. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Benh. Folks, do you really think this merits being featured along with the church interiors of people like Diliff? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Quai d'Alger, Sète cf01BW.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 11:53:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose At first I thought this was an old classic photo, maybe from the 50s ... but it's not. That loses the wow factor for me. QI, sure. FP? Not for me, sorry. --Peulle (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support At first I thought this was just an old classic photo, maybe from the 50s ... but, hey, surprise, it's not! ;-) Great work! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Per Martin. PumpkinSky talk 14:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support With everything going on in this photo, B&W is definitely the right choice in this light. The artistic 'old school' feel to this is very nice. --cart-Talk 16:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose I like B&W sometimes, but the composition here doesn't wow me. --Pine 05:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--XRay talk 19:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. The bright left side of the tower at the bottom left ruins it for me. It's generally not a good idea to put eye-catching things at the edge of a composition, and the heightened contrast due to the B&W conversion makes it worse. -- King of ♠ 04:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, this is just too busy for me: Busy cityscape, busy sky and high contrast. The signal-to-noise ratio is too low for me so to speak, I'm missing a clear subject. In this case, I think I'd prefer the color version, as the colors help me to separate the different elements of the scene. I'm certainly not opposed to B&W images at FPC in general – I'd love to see more of them being nominated here so by all means please keep them coming. --El Grafo (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Without B&W effect it would have absolutely no chance. It looks pleasant with that effect but still the scene is not exceptional. -- Pofka (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • A good photo, to be sure, but weak   Oppose per other opposers' remarks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Bisontea - Aizpitarteko leizeak.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 11:33:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Diego Garate Maidagan / Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia - uploaded by Theklan - nominated by Theklan -- Theklan (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Theklan (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support JukoFF (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lacking in detail and sharpness - I know such shots are difficult but still. --Peulle (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Certainly has some WOW, but it's a bit weak in terms of sharpness. I don't really understand the camera settings (F20 @ 1/80, ISO 200). Sure, the wall looks slightly curved, but I don't think it was necessary to stop down to F20 to get sufficient depth of field at 10mm? I'd certainly support it over at VIC, though. --El Grafo (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unsharp, and dark area at right is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Exceptional but lacks technical quality. Pity as it really had potential. -- Pofka (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Namibie Himba 0712a.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 10:09:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Support I like this a lot; good capture as she looks at the camera just as she exits the hut.--Peulle (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  •   weak oppose The composition looks unbalanced to me. I think it would benefit from additional Lead room on the right, or at least a tighter crop on the other sides. Otherwise very nice! --El Grafo (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak oppose El Grafo is right - the lighting is also a bit unfortunate --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per El Grafo. Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment We have very few images of this kind. So it is a pity that this picture has shortcomings (it looks tilt, left crop is not OK, etc.). Yann (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Indeed it has issues but we really lack this kind of pictures and I think it could fit minimum requirements as the composition is really nice and quality is tolerable. -- Pofka (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Жизнь и Смерть у оз. Ожогино.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 10:05:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Sakha Republic - Russia. Created by Виктор Габышев - uploaded by Виктор Габышев - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- JukoFF (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Can we get rid of that giant bug on the lens (at least, that's where I hope it is) between the upper tree branches? And do we really need to have such a dramatic title? "Life and death by Lake Ozhogino" ... OK, I get it, and it sort of fits the mood, but I think it's too much for this forum. Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support --Laitche (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --AM (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel, and I also don't like the crops. The motif is great, however, so I'd love to see a somewhat wider view of it without an insect on the lens. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Woman fishing for shore crabs 5.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 08:33:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info A woman fishing for shore crabs (Carcinus maenas) in Brofjorden at Holländaröd, Lysekil Municipality, Sweden. Her technique is simple but effective. She has bait in small net bags on strings in the shallow water under a makeshift jetty. The bait attracts crabs and as soon as they climb onto the bag, she hauls all of it up and into her landing net. The crabs are collected in a bucket, later to be cooked and eaten. The complete series can be seen in the file's page. She is not bundled up to cover her identity in the photos, it was cold and windy on the fjord and this is how she looked. All by me, -- cart-Talk 08:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 08:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

*  Oppose I'm sorry cart, the image's really interesting (I've never seen anyone fishing like that) and somehow also quite funny - but the main subject is just not very sharp... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Well, capturing a moment with a moving target, handheld, strong wind and light conditions changing all the time due to clouds, this is about as good as I can make it. Anyway, some additional Lightroom sharpness added. --cart-Talk 16:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak support Thanks for the explanation - and for adding a tad additional sharpness --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support -- Pofka (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The sharpness problems exclude this photo as a FP for me.--Ermell (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support HalfGig talk 00:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Mønsted kalkgruber exposure fused 2014-07-18.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2017 at 20:14:45
   

  •   Info Previous photo from 2014 used exposure-fusion and the limited dynamic range led to blown areas. New photo from 2017 is a full HDR generated from five exposures and tone-mapped in Lightroom. It is also sharper. The scene is a path in Mønsted limestone mine in Denmark, the largest limestone mine in the world. (Original nomination)
  •   Delist and replace -- Colin (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Great! --Yann (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Daphne Lantier 21:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace As the creator of the current FP. Colins version is clearly better. I proposed the delist and replace to them in an email. -- Slaunger (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace per Slaunger. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace -- Pofka (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Better. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Yes.--Peulle (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace -- Wolf im Wald 12:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace I like the changes. Thanks for the work that you put into this. --Pine 05:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: X support, X oppose, X neutral → not featured. /Note: this candidate has several alternatives, thus if featured the alternative parameter needs to be specified. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC))



Ta bort utvald-status ifrån bilderEdit

Efterhand kan standarden för utvalda bilder ändras. Bilder som tidigare var tillräckligt bra, kanske inte längre anses vara det. Här listas bilder som du tycker inte längre förtjänar att vara utvalda bilder. Då behövs 2/3 majoritet (och minst 5 röster) som håller med om att ta bort utvald-statusen ifrån bilden. Om inte 2/3 av de röstande håller med om att ta bort den, så är bilden fortsatt utvald. Här röstar man med {{Keep}} (bilden förtjänar att kvarstå som utvald) or {{Delist}} (bilden förtjänar inte att kvarstå som utvald). När du nominerar en bild här, ta med länken till den ursprungliga utvald-bild-nomineringen (den finns under Länkar på bildens beskrivningssida. Använd den här länken för att lägga till en borttags-kandidat.

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Webysther 20170619072151 - Pedra do baú e a direita Vale do Paiol Grande.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2017 at 03:22:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Webysther 20150906183737 - Rio São Francisco, Xique-xique - Bahia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2017 at 02:58:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Umeda Sky Building, Osaka, November 2016 -01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 20:32:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Image:Junge Kohlmeise (Parus major) kurz nach dem Verlassen des Nistkastens.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 15:05:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Piéride du réséda ( Pontia daplidice) au Lac sud de Tunis.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 12:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kopenhagen (DK), Nationalmuseum -- 2017 -- 1473-9.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 10:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • May be we have different opinions. ;-) IMO the clouds are like a cream hood. They show, it is natural. --XRay talk 16:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support HalfGig talk 00:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A. Savin; also there's this sort of HDR halo effect visible. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Webysther 20160207091237 - Jiboia Boa constrictor constrictor.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 23:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @ cart: ok for this. But it looks very unnatural and unattractive here. See my annotation in the image. --Cayambe (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Its is really natural, serious. Is a skin condition affects some snakes exposed to sun. [2] -- Webysther (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying if it looks attractive or not, just explaining what it is. Some may find it cool and others may think it ruins the photo, that is up to the individual viewer. --cart-Talk 16:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The surroundings are too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Zebra 2013 10 06 1274.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 05:39:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Panoramic view of Kata-Tjuta in the early morning.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 00:35:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Terrible technical quality. -- Colin (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Aleksander Uurits. Portrait of a Lady. TKM 0088M.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 00:27:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Heath fritillary (Melitaea athalia lachares).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 22:07:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

another revenge vote from George. Charles (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Please, don't take offense. There is no "revenge" anyway. You can see my support votes of Your nominations here and here and here and more. Very friendly, -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
My apologies, George. I'm too touchy today! Charles (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
All OK now, have a good day!   -- George Chernilevsky talk 04:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Turbo sarmaticus 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 21:00:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kopenhagen (DK), Peblinge-See, Søpavillonen -- 2017 -- 1453.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 15:07:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Denmark
  •   Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 15:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 15:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 16:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A nice image with colours and the reflections give a suitable wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Isn't there a better viewpoint to eliminate the horrible building on the right? Charles (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, but the "white" of the building is too bright (burned out) and unsharp for me, otherwise very nice. Can you try please to rework this image from the raw? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Fixed @Alchemist-hp: Thank you for your hint. I just made some improvements in the white areas. --XRay talk 05:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ha, thanks, now   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Another good water-reflection pic. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. Lovely, and I think that cropping out the building on the right wouldn't improve the picture, because of what you'd have to cut off to do that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Пешна (4862122015).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 10:04:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Done I have uploaded a version with higher resolution.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can't see any reason to feature this. Charles (talk)
  •   Oppose the white edges ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Clearly oversharpened, per Alchemist. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Morning in Langtang.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 09:48:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Q-lieb-in - uploaded by Q-lieb-in - nominated by Biplab Anand -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 09:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 09:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Very nice composition and colors. Please add geo location and upload a better resolution. --XRay talk 15:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, although it would be nice to see a slightly larger version. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Stunning image - but then I am a sucker for repeated mountain ridges! For me the pixel number is not an issue, but I would love to fly to the spot on Google Maps - geo location would definitely add to the value of the image. --Alandmanson (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose At only 3.7MP, 40% linear resolution compared to 24MP camera, this is too small imo for a landscape FP in 2017. Please upload a full size image for FP. -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.07.12.-11-Flemhuder See Quarnbek--Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Weibchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 05:28:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Balloërveld, natuurgebied in Drenthe 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 04:34:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural The Netherlands
  •   Info Walking tour of the Balloërveld. Cycle path next to the sandpath. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, but boring and uninteresting. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but I also think that it looks like a casual shot with a B&W effect. -- Pofka (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Araçari-poca.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 00:37:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created and uploaded by Jairmoreirafotografia - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak support technically not perfect but impressive enough --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Quality of the bird is doubtful, but probably could fit minimum requirements. -- Pofka (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Background is working at cross-purposes to the bird. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak support per Martin -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment It's too dark at the moment and the bits of tree, as Daniel says, are off-putting. Charles (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment What about categorization, location, things like that?--Peulle (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Mouette rieuse en vol au lac sud de Tunis.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 22:24:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Harebells by a road.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 21:13:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info A "star" harebell with its "chorus line". Last attempt with a more innovative way of photographing plants, after this I'll go back to the old "safe" style. All by me, --cart-Talk 21:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 21:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'd go back to the old "safe" style! Composition/background doesn't work. Charles (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Январское побережье.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 18:12:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created and uploaded by Андрей Кровлин - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks extraterrestrial. Daniel Case (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support This image definitely has huge wow factor for me - it also looks to have been taken under challenging conditions.--Peulle (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Tones and textures… ♥ 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive. -- Pofka (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Lovely. For this kind of camera a better resolution would be nice. And it looks like JPEG artifacts or unsharpness (at the right). --XRay talk 15:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It saddens me not to support this, but at least author could have used a better downsampling algorithm (which I think are the JPEG artefacts mentioned above)... Looks like a simple "mean value" one... - Benh (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Is it just me or the colors seem rather unnatural. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per others, in spite of the criticisms, which may be valid. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:De la floraison à la fructification (2).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 15:26:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order : Asterales
  •   Info All by Deniev Dagun (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose; just doesn't work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image is unique in a way, as it seems to focus on imperfection rather than the typical crop-photo-esque exactness often strived for by many photographers. Despite this, the photograph technical flaws that can't be overlooked. The depth of field is too shallow, resulting in too much area being out of focus, and the area that is in focus still could be sharper. Along with that, the colors and exposure aren't quite right: there are several places with notable clipping, and IMO the blue sky is a bit dominating over the subject (though that is hard to control). Overall it was a good concept, but with subpar execution. Sorry. WClarke 02:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Interesting, but not great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Diamonds Thudufushi Beach and Water Villas, May 2017 -09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 14:43:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Mezquita Shah, Teherán, Irán, 2016-09-17, DD 49-51 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 06:11:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2016.10.05.-05-Lauten-Weschnitz--Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 05:57:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Polaroid Lightmixer 630 SL BW 2017-07-01 18-44-42.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2017 at 13:13:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support an obsolete technology -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Very weak oppose I would like to like it but that crop of the strap in the background gets in the way. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think the choice of base/background grey is a poor one. Generally pure white is most useful for a wide variety of purposes, though many photo images also enjoy a pure black background for such items too. The result is an image that just looks under exposed. It isn't very clean either -- if you examine our best photo/game FPs then you'll see they are meticulously clean. -- Colin (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak oppose I actually like the grey background, as it interplays nicely with the several different types of grey of the camera. It's good enough on a technical level – including lighting, which turns out to be a problem in similar nominations quite often. The problem is: I am not Wow-ed. To my mind, there is a certain level of perfection required to bring a very good product photograph like this to "wow, this is awesome" level. For example, cleaning your subject thoroughly can be quite tedious, but it's definitely worth the effort (compare e.g. the works by User:Evan-Amos). The strap should be either made a feature of the image or hidden behind the camera. The crop is too tight for me, especially at the top and bottom. There are some blown highlights on the top. These are of course details that could be unavoidable in most other kinds of photographs. But in a controlled studio environment the photographer has the chance to spend some extra-time on perfection, and that's what I personally expect from a Commons FP (but not necessarily Wikipedia FP) in this category. --El Grafo (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Opgebaggerd hout (Langweerderwielen) 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2017 at 04:18:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The wood on this image has been under water for years. It has been removed from the lake during dredging operations. created All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A more selective crop (see note) might work better here and B&W is not doing this documentation photo any favors. With color, the waterlogged logs might have contrasted well with the green(?) grass and plants and giving the viewer a clue as to what this is. In B&W it looks to much like ordinary burnt firewood. --cart-Talk 09:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done. Photo cut out. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: this picture is better?   --Famberhorst (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It's better, but the plants were not as interesting as I hoped for. I think that for such an image to work, you need some extraordinary feature in the wood, dramatic light or something beside the log that is beautiful, creating a contrast. Sort of like this log. --cart-Talk 20:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose why B&W??? Boring. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support IMO a good idea to use black-and-white to improve the structures. --XRay talk 15:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.07.09.-07-Bossee Felde--Gemeine Becherjungfer-Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2017 at 18:25:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Following the positive votes above @Hockei:, do you wish to change the crop? Charles (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  Info The raw photo is currently not present for me. Independent from that I like the crop as it is. The stem waving in the wind shows the fragility of everything. I don't know at the moment what exists right and left. Either disturbing thinks or uninteresting emptiness. --Hockei (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Lucanus cervus male 2017 G1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2017 at 16:52:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Mezquita de Agha Bozorg, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 85.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2017 at 07:39:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info Bottom view of one of the iwans of the Agha Bozorg mosque, a historical mosque in Kashan, Iran. The mosque, located in the center of the city, was built in the late 18th century by master-mimar Ustad Haj Sa'ban-ali. The mosque consists of two large iwans, one in front of the mihrab and the other by the entrance and the courtyard in the middle. All by me, Poco2 07:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 07:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --SDKmac (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now: I see chromatic aberrations on the wires up by the blue sky. Come on, Poco, you're such a good 'tog I expected you to fix stuff like that ... :P --Peulle (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
      CA removed Peulle, just didn't see it... Poco2 12:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure you got it all? I'm still seeing some green. Maybe the cache is not refreshed; I'll wait and check again this evening.--Peulle (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I got it all at 100% view, but saw room for improvement at 200%, so there you are :) Poco2 15:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, good. :)   Support.--Peulle (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Peulle, the FPC page reminds voters not to judge the photographer. We are here to review the image, which at 44 MP with sub-pixel CA in the original image, is really imo quite a petty reason to oppose. If this image was a Flickr upload, where minor issues generally don't get fixed, would you have opposed? I would hope not. Please leave such pixel peeping "improvements" as a polite request rather than a oppose. Your oppose clearly interrupted the flow of support votes, so is not without harm, and it encourages other voters to pixel peep themselves. -- Colin (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The answer to your question is 'yes'. I oppose any image that has such clear CA.--Peulle (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I can only suggest you read some books on what makes a great photograph. You might then notice that (absence of) CA does not figure in the criteria. Please consider that your oppose votes on such will actually deter good photographers from participating here, and that is not good for Commons. -- Colin (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. Under the "color" section of the QI/FP guidelines, CA is listed as one of the issues/common problems and I have seen images rejected from both QIC and FP for this reason. In FP, this should of course be weighed against the criterion "Given sufficient "wow factor" and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality." On the voting issue, I have looked at the FP voting section and see that while there is a "request" template I admittedly could have used, you are contradicting yourself: you give the example that problems with flickr images would not be fixed, so how do you expect a "request" to have any effect in such circumstances? As for whether my vote would deter others from voting to support, I feel I cannot oblige you; I must have faith in other users' ability to judge for themselves. I vote the way I see fit, others will hopefully do the same. --Peulle (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
While chromatic aberration is indeed a flaw, we are not robots nor is the any requirement that an image is technically perfect, whatever that might mean. The "wow factor" get-out for low technical quality is intended for images far lower in technical quality than this. The kind of flaw you point out here is irrelevant. It's a kind of nit picky "improvement only visible if pixel peeping very closely on a 100dpi monitor at 100%". Stick a High DPI monitor on your desk for all our sakes and you might appreciate how utterly irrelevant a faint blue tinge on the edge of a black line on a 42mp image really is. I don't "contradict myself": I was rather assuming you were a reasonable person, and were only pointing out the CA because you knew Poco would fix it. My Flickr question was supposed to be rhetorical. Your response, that you feel the need to oppose a great image because of sub-pixel CA, is quite remarkable. I have seen, over the years, good photographers leave this project over votes like yours. So there's nothing theoretical about that. Don't base your judgement of makes a great image is based only on Commons Image Guidelines: buy some books. Digging your heals in and saying "I vote the way I see fit" is no attitude to have. I'm not asking you to follow my opinion on what is great, there are plenty great resources on photography, and absolutely none of them focus on CA. Please leave CA issues for when you next choose what prime lens to buy, and not for when selecting great images. At 44MP, this sort of nit picking just makes Commons look foolish, and really is a huge turn off for proper photographers. -- Colin (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't like your reasoning: it sounds like you're trying to pressure a fellow Commoner to vote the way you want, which is something I cannot accept. On the one hand, you're saying you don't want me to follow your opinion, but your whole line of reasoning definitely does: you want me to think the way you do - and I don't. As the Guidelines point out, different users may have a difference of opinion, which is the purpose of the voting system. I also disagree with your evaluation: these were not tiny CA barely visible by means of "pixel peeping", but clearly definable streaks of colour visible at 100% view. As for sources you want me to study, I use only one: the Commons FP/QI Guidelines. CA is listed as a possible problem and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. Whether photography books say otherwise is simply not relevant to me. If you're suggesting that any Commoner who has not actively studied photography should not participate in this project, well, I disagree with you on that as well.--Peulle (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
"visible at 100% view" == "pixel peeping". That's the definition. And it isn't a compliment. Peulle, the guidelines were written when many images uploaded to Commons were barely 2MP, and many from that age, if you view on a HD screen, will not even fill the monitor. So, worrying about people viewing at 5x magnification wasn't in the minds of that guideline. This image is 1.4 metres tall if viewed at 100dpi. And you are juding something only visible from close up. Do you think, if Poco got this on the cover of National Geographic, that you could see the CA even with a magnifying glass? There is more CA (and colour moire) in your last FP than in this one, and it is only 6MP (from a 24MP camera) vs this 44MP. So, downsizing and CA. Are you willing to delist your own 6MP FP, or accept you are being ridiculously and harmfully picky on a 44MP image? If that's a downsized image you got to FP, then you are being hypocritical to pick faults on Poco's generously full-size upload. -- Colin (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, now, among us, and if I've to be honest I do consider the CA comment (specially the second one) pixel-picking for such a big image. I've already participated in similar discussions of whether it is fair and healthy for the project to use oppose votes as pressure measure to get a fix for small flaws, and I still believe that this is not a good practice, specially when you all now that I'll fix all quality issues anybody addresses here. Poco2 17:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
There's no CA that I can see in my bridge photo - it was removed in PS. Nor is it downsampled, it's cropped to get rid of the disturbing trees. Oh and @Poco: I didn't mean to pressure you; if the photo had gained enough votes even with my oppose that would have been fine by me - this is a democracy. :) --Peulle (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
There is CA and colour moire to similar degree to Poco's earlier uploads. But to be completely fair here, you need to blow yours up to 250% so it is 41MP also. Then pixel-level flaws just jump out at you and there is no need to squint at the screen, whereas at 44MP Pocos's image is great. You believe in judging the images equally don't you? I magnify both images to same size on my desktop. Or do you think your 6MP image should not be examined as closely as a 44MP image? Perhaps you should judge Poco's image at 40% so it is similar size to yours? In other words, you are unfairly criticizing an image because (a) it was taken by a higher resolution camera and (b) generously uploaded at full size. If instead, we judge all images at FP equally, you need to find a balance between merely looking at it full screen and looking at it 100%. If you view everything at 100% then (a) you are only looking at a tiny part of the picture and (b) you are more likely to oppose technically superior images like this one simply because they are offered in higher resolution. And that's just daft, and quite harmful to this project. -- Colin (talk) 07:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I understand your point about high resolution possibly weighing up for flaws, but if you're saying we should not judge images at 100% anymore that's news to me. Oh and since you're a pro perhaps you can tell me what is the difference between CA and the remains of CA; I did remove it from my photo using software, so what wer're seeing is traces of the CA that used to be there. ...--Peulle (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I think most people have worked this out, but clearly not everyone (especially at QI). Photographers often point out minor details that are only visible at 100% as suggestions for fixing because many of us are perfectionists and improve techniques, but that doesn't translate to those issues being something to oppose over. If you notice the FPC page only requires photos are of a "high technical quality" and goes on to list various aspects (focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field) to consider -- nowhere does it say that images must be judged at 100%. The "complete guidelines" are just that, guidelines, and mostly aimed at beginners in photography and are generally a bit out-of-date. Really I think the page should be archived and replaced with something shorter, and with separate teaching pages for beginners who don't know about JPG compression or CA. The CA/moire in your photo is getting out-of-scope for this FPC so ping me if you are interested. -- Colin (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting image and great technical quality. -- Colin (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Almost an abstraction. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the thing with making the hanging lights appear like a coronet instead. --cart-Talk 09:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support as per Colin. Daphne Lantier 07:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Eduard Wiiralt, Põrgu (1932).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 22:30:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Common kingfisher at Tennōji Park in Osaka, March 2016 II.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 20:29:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Support Excellent! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 07:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)}}
  •   Comment Not very much definition. The lens I guess is the limitation. Charles (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Benh (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Don't understand the voting here compared to this current nomination which has comparable sharpness and size of birds in pixels. Yet the other photo is a great picture and this one is not. The tree trunk is distracting and diagonal intersects the birds head. We already have a better FP: File:Kingfisher eating a tadpole.jpg with no distracting background at all. -- Colin (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree. This cannot compare with existing FP. Charles (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Really sorry but I agree completely with Colin. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin Poco2 22:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin--Ermell (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --El Grafo (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. It's a pity because the quality is good and the right side of the image is optimal. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question This is the part of FP I'm still unsure of; when images are similar. Should this be a "delist/replace" discussion? We have had several images of the same species of bird promoted before - just how similar do they have to be before they overlap?--Peulle (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment That's been an ongoing debate. People will never agree. In this case, I think they are dissimilar enough for both to be listed. PumpkinSky talk 21:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, I guess we'll have to settle it democratically, then. Thanks to Colin for pointing it out and then people can decide for themselves.--Peulle (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Disputa de galho entre duas fêmeas de Saí-azul - Dacnis cayana.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 08:59:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created and uploaded by Renato Augusto Martins, nominated by Yann (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 09:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 15:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Another great work of yours Renato! Poco2 16:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but I cannot find the focus point. You can correct me, but as far as I can see it isn't on the birds. --Hockei (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nice shot, but out of focus and partly over-exposed. Charles (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. And we've got supports on less sharp OOF still ceilings, so I'm personally fine when there's slight issues on action shots. - Benh (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Beautiful but out of focus. Pity. -- Pofka (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Benh. Too many votes looking at the pixels and not the picture imo. -- Colin (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Benh although I prefer downsampling(8MP) in this case. --Laitche (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm totally fine with an action shot not being perfect. It's good enought for me as FP. --PierreSelim (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support HalfGig talk 00:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Caminho das pedras.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 01:08:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created and uploaded by Carolach - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Sky is a little blotchy. Certainly OK for QI, but is it good enough for FP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose The view is nice but not outstanding comparing it many other FPs that make a difference thank to great ligthing or spectacular view. I don't see any of both here. The picture is also tilted in cw direction Poco2 16:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Pleasant but not outstanding as noted by Poco2. I think QI would be fine for it. -- Pofka (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose per others. -- Colin (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Chiesa di Sant’Andrea in Montefiascone.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 18:37:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info Sant'Andrea in Campo is a Romanesque style, Roman Catholic church in Montefiascone, province of Viterbo, Italy. he church is mentioned in documents from the year 853 as a church in Campo or in a rural location. The church while narrow and later within the town walls, had three naves. The portal and internal columns are Romanesque. All by LivioAndronico (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- I like the colors. --Pine 05:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 06:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, although slightly asymmetrical --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Measured support per Uoaei1. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not symmetrical, distortion on the left lamp ;), blown highlights, barrel distortion, over NRed. Below the church standard generally speaking. - Benh (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support though not exactly symmetrical (the photograph has its center between the 2nd and the 3rd row of tiles in the central aisle); that apart the photographs keep good resolution of details even with zoom it at its fullest. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Benh. Folks, do you really think this merits being featured along with the church interiors of people like Diliff? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Quai d'Alger, Sète cf01BW.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 11:53:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.