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.


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.


  • 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 7 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}}".

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 7 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:Desfile de los Locos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2018 at 17:41:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:The ruins of a mill in Espoo, Finland.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2018 at 14:54:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Cart (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Parque nacional y reserva Denali, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-30, DD 13-19 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2018 at 12:47:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Schwarzseen Villanders Südtirol.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2018 at 05:10:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Italy
  •   Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - Really beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Colin (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportStorkk (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportBijay Chaurasia (Talk) 09:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --XRay talk 10:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support of course --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support I want to be there! --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment It's nice and all (hey, Swedish camera!) but this has the same strange colors as the previous one. The tone is just slightly off, even if I'm probably not the right person to complain about a little 'Purple haze'. ;) I did some color correction tests with these pics that came out a bit more natural. --Cart (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    •    Comment @W.carter: If you like I can upload a RAW file for you for some tests. I'm very happy with my 'Swedish rhapsody'. Thanks for your comment --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but that's not necessary, it such a little nudge that is needed. I only used the 'Hue and saturation' in Photoshop (ctrl+U) and toggled the 'Hue' ("rainbow slider") to -6 and got this result. It's just a suggestion, it might not be to everyone's taste. --Cart (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Osteospermum ecklonis 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 15:46:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales
  •   Info created by Tournasol7 - uploaded by Tournasol7 - nominated by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose We have lots of FP Asterales - it is a relatively easy, common and spectacular flower to photograph. I'm finding the magenta blob in the bottom left a little distracting, and think it could be cloned out. Overall it looks overcooked wrt processing -- too much contrast/saturation. Shame the right side is not continued green but earth or a path. -- Colin (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment - I'd suggest just cropping a bit on the left and then on the right to eliminate the isolated leaf in the lower right corner. Then I'd probably support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Hieno näkymä merelle Seurasaaresta.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 15:44:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Forgotten: IMO PNG is not a good choice for photographs. --XRay talk 13:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Sunset at Ganga Sagar, Janakpurdham 11.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 13:38:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Joséphine-Charlotte metro station platform, facing "Les oiseaux émerveillés" by Serge Vandercam in (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 13:16:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Andkjelvatnet seen from Durmålstinden summit.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 11:56:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Pitkä alikulku espoossa.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 09:33:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info created by JKorpimies - uploaded by JKorpimies - nominated by JKorpimies -- JKorpimies (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- JKorpimies (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Regretful oppose It's a great idea and good composition, the kind of image you'd expect to see on a square meter of canvas at photo exhibitions, but unfortunately the focus has ended up on the tiles instead of the bike. That makes it a no-go for me, sorry. --Cart (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose as per cart Bijay Chaurasia (Talk)
  •    Support - I find this a good composition and I don't find that having the bike be a little out of focus in the background makes it unworthy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Hermione (ship, 2014), Sète 2018.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 07:38:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Despite the tents the atmosphere is very special and brings this picture out of the ordinary. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Some might complain about the tents but I like the old vs. new contrast and the very lovely tones. Quality is flawless as always. --Code (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per Code -- Colin (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support The tents actually add to the image since they look exactly like the old military campaign tents of the original ship's era. They put the ship in context. In this dim light you can imagine what it looked like when the ship was made ready to sail for the American Revolution. --Cart (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support despite the tents. Storkk (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Sorry, but the angle doesn't work for me; it makes the image show too much of the harbour and not enough of the ship.--Peulle (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportKruusamägi (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment - I'm still evaluating this photo, but please fix a dust spot that's some ways to the left of the upper right corner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Done I cloned out not one but two dust-spots, let me know if yours is still here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • No, you took care of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • On the photo: I love the ship and the harbor, but the bottom crop isn't working that smoothly for me and the right crop, with the one unsharp object in the lower right corner, is bugging me. I don't know what a photo that included more that is now below and to the right of the crops would have looked like, but I think I'd like this photo better if you did a horizontal crop right in front of the unsharp post, thereby also getting rid of a lot of the tents. The tents don't disturb me per se, but they kind of clog up a section of the photo. I think my proposed crop would create a more unified composition, but of course others might disagree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Puerto de Opakua - Paisaje -BT- 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2018 at 19:08:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Lopesan Baobab, Maspalomas, May 2018 -3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2018 at 18:41:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • No time for sitting idly by the pool if you hope to be first in line for dinner! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose This picture I can only review in comparison with the already promoted one, which I clearly prefer -- perhaps the dark building parts at both sides do the blue hour photo no favor, and I also prefer for this motif the more wide crop instead of a square photo. --A.Savin 13:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Why not? IMO it's better indeed and has more of the symmetry, though because of the dark parts I still wouldn't vote in support. --A.Savin 15:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose - I'm inordinately bugged by the asymmetry of the near right and left corners. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose The sky and the pool are nice, but the building and tree lights are too dark and too bright. Not saying it could have been taken/processed any better but the result isn't quite there compared to our best night FPs. -- Colin (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternative - uncroppedEdit


File:Red Clover 2011 G1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2018 at 16:01:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - You really capture the beauty of this common flower. Any other remark from me would feel like unnecessary quibbling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose good shot, but nothing all too special imho. It's a very commons plant, and the shot lacks in the wow-department for me, especially when compared to the already featured File:Trifolium_pratense_-_Keila2.jpg. --El Grafo (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose I think lighting could be significantly better. Actually, given the positions of the leaves, I think taking a half a step around the flower to your right would have stood a good chance of producing a more pleasing photo. Also per El Grafo. Storkk (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Soyuz rocket and spaceship V1-1.svgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2018 at 13:15:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Could you please add documentation sources? Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    conditional on documentation sources --Trougnouf (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Conditional support per Trougnouf. Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Fontana di Trevi columns.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2018 at 03:23:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment Nice level of details, however the perspective distortion is disturbing. Yann (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Yann: no verticals or horizontals are vertical or horizontal, and they don't seem deliberately diagonal in a pleasing way. Storkk (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Needs a perspective correction, (mainly) I don't think it's a notably interesting composition, and I would expect it to be shot in the best technical conditions (on a tripod with minimum ISO) since it's a static easily accessible and commonly photographed scene. --Trougnouf (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Perhaps it could one day be a VI as an excellent illustration of the Corinthian order, but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Stercoraire iceland.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 22:43:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Iceland
  •   Info created by Aymen861 - uploaded by Aymen861 - nominated by Aymen861 -- Aymen861 (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Aymen861 (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Beautiful view but the front-right blurry rock kills it for me. The very bright one on the bottom-left isn't great either, and I would like to see some of the mountain range with a little bit more focus though that's technically nearly impossible. There is some red CA on the grass and the categorization is very imprecise. --Trougnouf (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment Great EV, if only you could put some more information and categories. Yann (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I added Category:Stercorarius skua. I would support with geolocation, or at least the name of the mountain in the background. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Frhdkazan (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment I don't think the out of focus rocks or mountain is a problem... but the CA is disturbing. Would support if that was fixed. Storkk (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Nice! Tournasol7 (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose - It's a really interesting composition and great luck to find the eggs! But oppose per others, primarily for the unsharp foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Ikan and Tougnouf. Great juxtaposition marred by technical shortcomings. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 21:53:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Unidentified ceiling in Panam Nagar (01).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 21:40:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Iceland's Mid-Atlantic Ridge during snow.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 20:31:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Iceland
  •   Info A shot taken from a plane over one of Iceland's mountain ranges. All by me -- Bharel (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Bharel (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment Looks very nice but it needs denoising and it's not well categorized. --Trougnouf (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    Tbh, I didn't even notice the noise. Good catch. I've applied a VERY small denoise filter, in order to leave the sharpness as is. Trougnouf, tell me if you believe I need a little bit more denoising or whether I've hurt the sharpness too much. Bharel (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    Took care of categorizing, changing it's name to be more descriptive too (managed to find the exact mountain range by comparing with other photos taken on the plane a few minutes before and after).Bharel (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    Great job on the mountain range identification. The mountains look good but the sky is still noisy, you should filter it separately. There is also posterization on the right of the sky where it turns from dark blue to lighter blue to pink/purple to gray. (very visible between the two dark blobs I just annotated and the small cloud left of them) --Trougnouf (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    How do you find those blobs? Regarding the posterization, it took me a few minutes to see that. Apparently it doesn't show up on Lightroom but only in the final product (might be due to small jpeg artifacts)? I'm currently trying different export settings. Bharel (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    Trougnouf, seems like it was ProPhoto RGB. Changing to Adobe RGB sRGB removed the posterization and most of the artifacts. I'm not entirely sure how does it work, but it worked. Bharel (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    That's a lot better. I think modern browsers still don't take color profiles into account. There is still a significant amount of noise in the sky. The last two blobs are still a little bit visible and there seems to be another one (dark spot) on the bottom-right of the central cloud. I look at QIC/FPC pictures at 200% of my (1080p) monitor and expect no visible flaw then, it might help to look at it on different monitors as the blobs are nearly invisible on my TN screen but jump at me on the IPS one. --Trougnouf (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    I actually reduced noise filter on bottom, added a little bit on top and resampled dust spots. Removal of more noise results in a soft picture and (apart from the uniform parts of the sky,) I believe the details are more important in here. Is there anything else you believe can improve the picture? (Don't have any available IPS screen nearby so do tell if you think there's something more to fix  ) Bharel (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    Well done, I don't see dark blobs or posterization →    Support --Trougnouf (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    Why thank you my friend, I highly appreciate it :) Bharel (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Big wow. :) I like that you can see that road snaking along the landscape. And the light is lovely on the left. --Peulle (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Yann (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportChristian Ferrer (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Frhdkazan (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Cart (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportStorkk (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportKruusamägi (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportDaniel Case (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - That's a really good photo from an airplane! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Water, Sand and Ice.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 19:50:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Ice
  •   Info Natural phenomenon occurring in Iceland. Icebergs from the nearest mountain get detached and melt on the pitch-black, basalt lava sand. All by me -- Bharel (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Bharel (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment I like the idea. Reminds me (remotely) of this photo. However, the flare of the sun spoils the nomination for me. Not good enough to support, not bad enough to oppose. --Code (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks Code for your review   The flare was actually an artistic choice. I have a few other shots on different angles without the flare, but I chose this on purpose. (Much like another close image I've uploaded with an international glare File: Diamonds of nature.jpg) Bharel (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding that file's name, please read Commons:File naming. Since people need to be able to search this huge archive to find the right photo, names must be accurate and not poetic or misleading. Only those looking for "natural diamonds" will find that file now, and they will be disappointed. --Cart (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
       Done , thanks cart   Bharel (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Yann (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Looks like another one that could be an album cover. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks mate :-) Bharel (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - Beautiful and striking, and this particular flare doesn't bother me, or not much. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Chirk Castle gates.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 18:57:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Podzemnik:, remember to sign your !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Fundación César Manrique - post.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 14:27:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Panorama vom Wachtküppel.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 13:24:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info Instructive panoramic view (360°) from the Wachtküppel in the Rhön Mountains. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Milseburg (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportStorkk (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Llez (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support~Moheen (keep talking) 21:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Ermell (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Procedural opposeThis image has been nominated for deletion as copyvio; we should wait until it's resolved before considering it as an FP.   Support Never mind; it turns out it was by one of INeverCry's socks and the account has been blocked indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - Lots to see, and very pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Sympecma paedisca 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 12:25:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kjæret boligeiendom.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 07:46:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Norway
  •   Info We have had quite a few different images coming up for nomination recently and I've been wondering what you guys will think of this one, so I thought I'd put it up and see if you get the same emotional impression I do; it's a house from the early 1800s located in a picturesque small town in the south of Norway. All by Peulle.
  •    Support -- Peulle (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose , as someone who's taken a lot of pictures like this, it just isn't special enough. Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Large Gautama Buddha statue in Buddha Park of Ravangla, Sikkim.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 17:27:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

--Trougnouf (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

  •    Comment The brightness of the statue has been increased by adding some localized adjustments. But as per histogram there are no over blown highlights. It is slightly on the bright side but with details intact. The slight bluish in forest I guess was a result of decreasing the global contrast in the image. - Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose as previous comments Charles (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose An impressive photo, but unfortunately you have emphasized the blue colours --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment The blue colour has been dialed down a bit globally in the photo. Pl check - Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support good enough now, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment Looks good, but there's a strange loss of fine detail (visible in the grass and bushes at the bottom). Too much noise reduction? dllu (t,c) 06:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment - This is a really imposing image. I'll await your work to address dllu's points before I vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment - I re-processed the image from scratch this time with selective noise reduction and aimed at maintaining the overall incremental improvement on this image that I have been doing basis feedback from various reviewers over the last few weeks. I think I have been able to address the issue highlighted by dllu in the latest version. The updated image has already been uploaded. - Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support chest detail is visible to the naked eye, less blue and less exaggerated colors, I approve. --Trougnouf (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Interesting subject, quite good for me. Yann (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Question statue appears to be leaning roughly 0.5° (counterclockwise from viewer's position)... does that reflect reality? Storkk (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment - The observation on tilt is correct (It was off by 0.53 deg). I have fixed it now and uploaded the updated photo. Thanks - Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support seems fine now. dllu (t,c) 18:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportDaniel Case (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Bridge leading to Dam hole at Thatipudi dam.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 15:15:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by IM3847 - uploaded by IM3847 - nominated by IM3847 -- IM3847 (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- IM3847 (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Harsh light, technical quality could be better. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose - Good motif but oppose per Basotxerri. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Ikan. Unfortunately it is very, very hard to get the quality we want for an FP using a phone camera. It has been done, but you probably need to download some image editing program for final fixes. --Cart (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per others Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 07:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Basotxerri.--Peulle (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Sorry, IMO quality is not good enough. --XRay talk 07:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of all these opposes with no new supports. Daniel Case (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2018 (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:Rosa 'Kent' (d.j.b) 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 14:41:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Rosa #Family Rosaceae
  •   InfoRosa 'Kent' has half-filled white flowers with yellow stamens on a bushy shrub that cools well. This very strong and healthy rose has green fine leaves. All by ] -- Famberhorst (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Nice shot --Patriccck (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose nice shot, but nothing extraordinary, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per El Grafo; it's nice but I can't say I'm really blown away. The white petal obscuring part of the yellow is a bit of a nuisance.--Peulle (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info That curled petal is typical of half-filled roses.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

File:De Molen (windmill) and the nuclear power plant cooling tower in Doel, Belgium (DSCF3859).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 14:22:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •    Comment What is technically missing? I think the camera settings were ideal, ISO200 is the lowest my camera goes, F/9 is optimal on this zoom level with my lens, I don't think the focus is a miss, and I even had the camera on a tripod to do exposure bracketing in case that was necessary, it doesn't look flawed to me at a reasonable zoom level. If there's anything I missed in software I would be happy to improve it. --Trougnouf (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - I find this photo compelling: The unbalanced nature of the photo that Basotxerri is complaining about is part of what I see as the dystopic new technology dominating over the windmill and the benches, grass and so on that are attempting to pretend everything is alright. I get the feeling in viewing this photo that everything other than the ugly, polluting new technology will be annihilated before long. And it looks fine to me, technically, though I could be missing something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment The technical quality is fine. It's an APS-C camera using the right settings in the daytime. The juxtaposition of the two power plants is quite interesting. I would support, but the composition is a bit left-heavy. The left of the image is a lot busier than the right. Meanwhile, I don't know what Ikan is talking about regarding "ugly, polluting new technology". The nuclear cooling tower only outputs pure water vapour, and is shaped in a beautiful hyperboloid. dllu (t,c) 06:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not an expert, but that was my emotional reaction. And I don't think we want to debate here whether nuclear power plants are completely clean. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Neutral It's really close for me, but I think on reflection it's not quite enough to gain my support. I really like the idea, but the light is a bit of an issue for me. I also find the car a bit disturbing; the left side of the image is supposed to represent the old technology, so its presence in front of the windmill is putting me off. I'd suggest reshooting on a day with better light, at least getting the light from the back so the left side is illuminated better.--Peulle (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per Ikan --Milseburg (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment I uploaded a new version where the exposure has been increased on the left side especially. Let me know if there's any other adjustment to be made, I have a lot of room on the histogram. I think the light looked beautiful at that time of the day. The car is unfortunate and I won't be going back as Doel is a ghost town that's over an hour bike ride from the nearest train station, maybe some other Belgian commonner will be luckier. --Trougnouf (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Interesting juxtaposition, but overly busy composition for FP to me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Frhdkazan (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Iglesia de San Juan Bautista, Ágreda, Soria, España, 2018-03-29, DD 43-45 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 12:48:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info Main nave of the church of John the Baptist, Ágreda, province of Soria, Castile and León, Spain. The originally Romanesque church (visible in its portal) was built in the second half of the 12th century and reworked in the 16th century with Gothic, Renaissance and Baroque elements. All by me, Poco2 12:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Poco2 12:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Granada (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportBijay Chaurasia (Talk) 07:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Patriccck (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Question What's going on with that cord the light is hanging from? Does it look like that naturally? Daniel Case (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    Daniel: I see no problem with that wire. When I saw you comment I thought that it could be due to the long exposure of one of the frames, but I see not such an issue. If you wonder why the wire is not perferctly vertical it's because it is a metal wire that doesn't get straight by its own weight. This picture is made of 3 frames with different exposure but no stitching or editing that could cause that. Poco2 09:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
   Support OK, that explains it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Припратата на црквата „Св. Ѓорѓи“ во Будинарци.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 07:24:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Checker Taxi Cab.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 06:10:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Ikan Kekek: I didn't retouch this photo. - Groupir ! (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Of course my remarks are for the photographer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Too dark, bad light. Yann (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   InfoGroupir !, Ikan Kekek, Yann, Peulle, Basotxerri: I like old cars like this so I gave the photo a bit of love, please revert it if you don't like it. The source link doesn't work anymore and it seems to be removed from Flickr. All the online versions have the same muddled license plate, so it was probably made that way by the author. I substituted it with a more natural-looking text. I also wanted to keep as much of the bluish evening light as possible since it goes well with an old cab like this. Not sure it is enough for FP, but this is as good as it gets. --Cart (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Sure! Good now. Yann (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment Still at 'no' here. The level of sharpness is not high enough; it's kind of telling that the "checker" sign is unsharp too, despite the image being one of a checker cab.--Peulle (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose The brightness is good now, but I'm with Peulle that it's not sharp enough for FP. And I don't even mean the depth of field, I'm not sure any part of the cab is actually sharp. -- KTC (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment - It looks a lot better, but I agree with the others that it probably needs more sharpness. I don't know if that's possible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Nope, sorry, post-processing can only do so much. If it's not there from the beginning, you can't get it out. --Cart (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Even putting the unsharpness and CA in the background aside, this is just too static a composition to be an FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Laurier Quebec mall, Québec city.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 23:21:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

   Done Please add more examples. --The Photographer 00:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I found two more :) --Podzemnik (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
   Done Thanks --The Photographer 01:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose I've changed the FP category as this is Places/Interiors, not Architecture/Cityscapes. The overall scene is too dark, and don't think people walking round the mall would experience it that gloomy. I appreciate it is hard to handle the exposure range here, but many of our FP interiors do. The eye catches the central monitor advertisement, which is blown. You can see from the top two revisions of File:King's Cross Western Concourse.jpg that even a single exposure DSLR photo can recover that sort of brightness. The EXIF aperture f/2.8 and the relatively low resolution for a stitch makes me suspect this was taken with a mobile phone? If so, well done, but I don't think the quality reaches the standards for Places/Interiors at FP. -- Colin (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    CommentPodzemnik and User:Dllu please can you apply any Notes using the tool on this FP candidate page and not directly on the file page. See Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Notes on a photo, Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator#Local annotations and Commons:Image annotations. -- Colin (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I can't has more quality of it because it was taken using a cheaper Chinese very compact camera Yi. --The Photographer 11:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Colin Right, sorry for that, I deleted my notes. --Podzemnik (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Neutral The issues Colin identified need to be addressed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment - I'd like to be able to support. Can you make edits that deal with at least some of his points? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Colin: IMHO has a dslr camera not should be a requeriment in FPC, it's allready a formal Quality Image on commons. I don't underestand, objectively, FPC quality requeriments --The Photographer 02:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • We're judging the image, not the camera. Cart takes FP's with a 1"-sensor compact camera all the time, but the tiny sensor in most compact and phone cameras will struggle to compete at FP -- I think we have a few that were taken outdoors in great light. FP is for the "finest on Commons" and the Places/Interiors category is full of technically very fine photos, many of which are super sharp and detailed and also handle the dynamic range seen in interiors. You wouldn't expect such a camera to compete at FP for macro or bird photography either. -- Colin (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment - I'm impressed with this photo, but you do have a lot of tough competition in the interiors category, so why don't you tweak the photo so that there is no longer a blown area, for example. And was the mall actually brighter in general? If it was, you could work on that, too, right? Anyway, looking for an objective set of criteria that automatically result in passing at FPC doesn't work when "wow" is one of them, and I think you would agree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Petr Lexa 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 19:55:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

   Comment @KTC: Should be fixed now … --El Grafo (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Not extraordinary, e.g. the mouth of the frontman is covered by the microphone, view upwards, etc. Also not the best moment, as he is not singing. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Uoaei1, not a good perspective, nothing impressive about the scene (lights, movement, set, expression). --Trougnouf (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per others. A good photo to include in the montage on the back of the album, but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Slza 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 19:55:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

   Comment I moved the page and I changed the file. --Patriccck (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose not impressive. ~Moheen (keep talking) 11:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Moheen. The face of the frontman is covered by the microphone, etc. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Uoaei1, and the perspective is way off. --Trougnouf (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Trougnouf. Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Blücher-Denkmal Bebelplatz 1961.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 19:30:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Ahem Peulle, the building in the background is part of the historical context of when the statue was dissembled and the building was a ruin. It's an iconic photo from the days of the Cold War in which the "de-throned" man from the statue looks at the ruined city. Please compare with more recent photos in Category:Blücher-Denkmal (Berlin) where it looks very different. --Cart (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I know it's part of the image but it's terribly rendered. That would be fine if it was just a background feature but it's not.--Peulle (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's a film photo and you can't expect the same quality for that as with digital photos, even if this was made by a large(r) format camera (negative 6 x 6 cm, imagine a sensor that size...). --Cart (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
6x6cm is medium format   --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Ooops!   --Cart (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
6x6 should have very high resolution, even if it is an old photo. High quality 6x6 films easily resolve over 100 megapixels of detail [1]. Even for 1960 film I think it's still possible to get better quality. I think the problem here is with low quality scanning and digital postprocessing. dllu (t,c) 22:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Good point there about the scanner. Most normal film scanners are just made for normal 35 mm film, a 60 x 60 mm would require something else. The scanning function on a printer with scanner would not be enough. --Cart (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I did use a flatbed scanner with a dedicated 6x6 negative holder, but I hat no interest in getting a 100 MB file, so I chose a lower resolution than technically possible. And no, probably there wouldn‘t have been a gain in quality. --Till (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
It can sometimes be advisable to do the scan at maximum, post-process it like that and then downsize it for publication. We did that when we scanned old glass plates at a museum and found out that was the best way to get it as sharp as possible. --Cart (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Excellent composition. --Cart (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support  --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Quality too poor. Charles (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportDaniel Case (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --XRay talk 04:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support but it is necessary to furnish a better description of the image (in german and in english) than the one given by the uploader. --Harlock81 (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I enhanced the descriptions. --Till (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Purple rain on roof.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 17:27:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Storms
  •   Info The rain came down very hard on a black roof, so my first thought was to just do this in B&W. But then the idea about making this in another monochrome color popped up, and there is really only one other color suited for rain. ;) The filter used was set to the shade that the Pantone Color Institute developed in honor of Prince. I have no idea if using other monochrome filter goes against the rules of FPC in some way, guess we're about to find out. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Cart (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - I enjoy this. And of course it has an obligatory soundtrack... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment Nice, but educational value? Yann (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment I think this discussion has popped up so many times (even on one of your own noms) that we should know it by now, but here goes: Educational value is not a requirement for FP, see FP General rules # 7 "Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.". If you look though the PTOY categories, you will find a lot of just artistic images. --Cart (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Not suitable for WM, OK, but yet some educational value is a requirement for FP. So    OpposeYann (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yann: Well, I could argue that there is probably some article that could use a photo of falling rain or that it could illustrate the color mentioned in the file description or a photo article about different filters or to illustrate monochrome images. There are several places where it could have educational value if you insist on an FP needing such, I just didn't think I would have to bring it up since it isn't an issue per previous discussion mentioned above. As long as you have some imagination, there are always articles where a photo can be used. --Cart (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • All photos on Commons must have some educational value, otherwise you should open a DR. I do think educational value is a quality we look for at FP, along with technical and artistic qualities. (The requirements mention we seek "valuable pictures" more than just pretty pictures, and this is an educational media repository, so I think it is fairly obvious what we should value). A photo with all three is a winner and a photo that is deficient in one of them inclines one towards negative voting. We all differ in our judgement of these three qualities and having wow in one of them can compensate. What isn't a requirement for FP is encyclopaedic value, which implies the image would be useful to illustrate the lead of an article at Wikipedia, or that the image is itself must be a source of encyclopaedic information. Instead, I think a wide variety of images can be used as illustrations on educational articles, as Cart notes, with a bit of imagination.
However, I do think the meta use of an image to illustrate just that style of photography or processing is the weakest argument for educational purpose. For example, I believe File:Bluebells ICM, Ashridge Estate, 2015.jpg has educational use beyond merely illustrating Intentional camera movement. Another example are the POTY 1st and 3rd prize winning photos File:Glühwendel brennt durch.jpg and File:Glühlampe explodiert.jpg. The former is not used on en Wiki at all, and the latter only to illustrate high speed flash photography. Yet people, including Yann, support these eye-candy photos, and the whole wiki community thought they were the very very finest featured images for two years running. Neither of those light bulb photos illustrates anything realistic, just the artistic imagination and technical talent of the photographer. -- Colin (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
To me, these 2 pictures of light bulbs illustrate chemical and/or physical properties. Yes, the setup is artificial, but the result has high educational value to me. Cart's picture is nice, but colored that way, I don't see any EV. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
So natural or black and white are OK and have EV, but no other colors? Then how about photos like this, no EV? Or sepia or cyanotypes? I'm just trying to find out where the boundaries are. --Cart (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
For old images, I always think that black and white is better than sepia, but other disagree. There is an obvious educational value in coloring the Ebola virus, but I don't know the technical details of electronic micro-photography. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining your standpoint on this. --Cart (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I think Yann it might be helpful to be less black & white (ha!) about saying there isn't "any EV". I can appreciate that colour toning an image is (a) not to everyone's taste and (b) can limit its usefulness vs a neutral tone. This image assumes people want or are happy with using a purple rain image vs original coloured or neutral b&w where they could apply processing themselves. At least Cart did upload the colour original. We've all seen how someone can wreck a perfectly good photo with too much HDR or sliding the Highlights to -100 or Clarity to +100, etc. The result might rarely be appropriate for some illustration and be tasteful to some people, but not many. So I respect your claim that the processing here may limit the EV, but think it is hard to claim there isn't any EV at all. -- Colin (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportEve Teschlemacher (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Extraordinary and WOW! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Mmm ... purple. Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support  :-) --XRay talk 05:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Neutral I'd actually prefer the original shot... I like these spotty yellow leaves on the grey surface --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Rain. Mood. Pop culture reference. Certainly could illustrate an educational article. Well executed and simple composition. -- Colin (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Famberhorst (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Brave nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per supporters. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per Colin and Podzemnik -- P999 (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Neutral I prefer the original version for the exact same raison as Martin. But still an unconditional fan of Cart images. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Thanks! The original is not bad at all and I totally respect yours and Martin's votes. But like so many times, I want to try out new things and see where they lead me/us. At least all versions are there for anyone to use freely and that is most important. Btw, the yellow dots are not leaves but lichen as it says in the text. --Cart (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose I cannot see that this meets FP criteria. Charles (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • No worries, a nom of my photos wouldn't be complete without an 'o' from you, Charles. :) --Cart (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Charles, you are expected to give a reason or reasons -- Colin (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't bother Colin, I'm used to this and I'm sure Charles can come up with something. --Cart (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Featured pictures are images from highly skilled photographers and illustrators that the Wikimedia Commons community has chosen as some of the highest quality on the site." As this is an image that does not not reflect reality then it is submitted as an artistic creation 'of the highest quality' and I don't think this is. I will continue to oppose any images that in my opinion do no favours to the Commons FP project. I think it is important that FP images would be rated by those not in our community as being outstanding in their genre, whether it is landscape, interiors, wildlife, sports or whatever. Artistic images have their place of course, but the artistic barrier needs to be as high as the technical barrier is for most nominations. We should make every effort not to devalue the FP award, but it is unfortunately very difficult to guarantee objective voting when many of the voters are also nominators. Perhaps we should be forbidden from voting when we have a live nomination? Would that work for everyone? See talk page. Charles (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that my photos are devaluing the FP award? --Cart (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternative - originalEdit


  •   Info Before tensions get any higher here, it might be a good idea to offer the original as an alt. Anything to keep it mellow. --Cart (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Cart (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportJee 02:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - I support this version, too. I find poetry in it. Not every FP has to hit you over the head with how specially decorated it is or whatever. Beauty also lies in simplicity, when done right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Cart has a great eye for patterns, but for some reason, I don't feel totally comfortable looking at this picture. The picture seems imbalanced and the composition seems haphazard... the strong diagonal lines are neither parallel patterns, nor do they converge in a meaningful way. The raindrops seem to be distributed nonuniformly, with fewer around the bottom-right-most line. The depth of field seems insufficient, leading to only a narrow horizontal band that is sharp; but the out-of-focus areas aren't blurry enough to become an artistic bokeh either. Ultimately the eye wanders around the image looking for detail and is left unsatisfied. As a final straw on the camel: among the yellow particles are scattered throughout the image (which are fine), there's a particularly large clump on the left, visible at thumbnail size, which draws too much attention to itself. dllu (t,c) 06:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think dllu's comment sums up the problem with photographing rain very well. When you shoot rain, the weather is always bad. A bit self-evident, but you have bad light and you are dealing with raindrops that are very small and you need detail, so you are left with a narrow selection of ISO and DoF. To get this many splashes in the 1/125 sec (0.008) you have as your timeframe, it must really come down. You might think a normal rain will do but I've tried that and at best you get about 5-7 splashes in the area of your frame. The sound when this rain hit the roof was deafening(!), and it didn't fall uniformly but moved with the wind. Personally, I don't think the non-uniform pattern is a flaw. It makes it look natural, otherwise you could just bring out the garden hose. Rain is something that's available to most of us to photograph but there are reasons why we don't have that many good photos of it here. You can't predict or plan a rain photo unless you are a storm chaser. --Cart (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is a really good photo, facing about the same problems as I had. I hope he had a waterproof casing for his camera! Even if I was standing in a window, I had to wrap my camera in a towel because of all the splatter. :) --Cart (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The main difference between File:Falling rain in mexico.jpg and Cart's photo is that that photo tells a story with a human element. When a story/scene is sufficiently compelling, even the sloppiest opportunistic snapshot can be an FP. Cart's photo, however, relies entirely on interesting patterns/textures in my opinion, so I hold it at a higher bar for technical and execution quality. Now, I agree with Cart that it's incredibly difficult to take a good photo of natural phenomena like rain, and a lot of it does come down to luck. But certain factors, like focus, framing, and lighting, can be controlled. For the uneven distribution of raindrops, the easiest remedy is to take many, many photos in quick succession, and select the most aesthetic arrangement of raindrops (Cart may have already done this). Since this is an art project, stacking or compositing different frames may not be entirely out of the question either. Also, water droplets in the air against a dark background look really cool [2], but a lot of this can't be seen in this photo because the top half of the image is the same shade of light grey as incoming raindrops --- a problem which may be mitigated by a polarizing filter or directed artificial light for the raindrops. Another possibility is to take this photo from farther away and higher up using a longer focal length, so that the scene appears compressed, allowing us to focus on the texture when all straight lines are nearly parallel and all raindrops are nearly the same size. Conversely, we can also take the photo from close up at a low angle, to isolate a single row of raindrops while rendering other droplets as artistic blurry blobs. We can also use a tilt lens or a camera that supports Scheimpflug movements to get the ground plane entirely in focus. The possibilities are endless, and heavy rain isn't exactly rare (try the monsoon season in Singapore) so I think it should be possible to achieve better execution. dllu (t,c) 09:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree totally with what you say (yes, I took and have taken many, many unpublished photos of rain, this is the best so far) and that the possibilities are endless, but in the end it comes down to just one thing: Actually doing it and publish it here. --Cart (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment Prefer the processed one. It has more pop, and some of the rain streaks are enhanced. -- Colin (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Yann (talk) 11:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Kuritiba muralo.jpegEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 13:55:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Brazil
  •   Info created by NMaia - uploaded by NMaia - nominated by NMaia -- ~nmaia d 13:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- ~nmaia d 13:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Does not meet Quality Image criteria by far. --A.Savin 14:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Patriccck (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per A.Savin. You might want to read COM:PT for some guidance about how an image is made to be up to FP level. --Cart (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per A.Savin. -- KTC (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose This is not one of the finest images on Commons. Not by a long shot.--Peulle (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Of its low quality, as noted in the above opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Daniel Case: You can't add FPX if there are more than one support votes. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Insufficient quality, per A.Savin. --Trougnouf (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Obra de Teatro Don Quijote en el Teatro Teresa Carreño.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 00:09:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

To create the sentimental effect of solitude like if god is not there --The Photographer 10:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
With this explanation, I find it compelling, but without it, I didn't get it. So in order for me to support, I'd need for this explanation to be in the file's description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Laura Fiorucci gracias a ti por permitirme tomar fotos de tu obra. --The Photographer 22:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support I like the starkness. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support And please do not crop the photograph. --XRay talk 05:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support after some consideration... but yes! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per Martin. It seems that after a while, your eyes adjust to the darkness. ;) Cart (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Very interesting shot, but the quality for the darker characters is off-putting. And too much black for my taste. Charles (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Non static scene, in a low light condition interior and a Nikon D300. Of course it has noise, IMHOW aceptable. --The Photographer 22:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Tower in Uptown, Saanich, British Columbia, Canada 05.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 19:56:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
  •   Info All by me. Just another tower you know. -- Podzemnik (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC) The hexagon-shaped tower is on top of an elevetar going down to underground garages in Uptown, Saanich, Canada. The whole structure can be foound here. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment The image is cool enough for me to support, but I'd want a bit more info - specifically about what building the tower is on. "Just another tower" isn't accurate enough for FP.--Peulle (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    • You're right, sorry for that. I just read a comment like "just another view of a tower from the bottom" in other old FPC candidate :) I've added the description. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
   Support --Peulle (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Of course!   -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - I think I'd like a little more room on the bottom, but that's a beautiful tower and very well photographed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
    Alright, I gave it a bit more space on the bottom. --Podzemnik (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment The photo seems to be oversharpened with a bright edge around every dark object, and the effect is visible both at full size and at thumbnail size (this seems to be the case with all your night photos). I would recommend not using the "clarity" slider too much for this type of photo, as artifacts from that slider are particularly obvious against the smooth sky. I am also not sure about the composition. It seems to be not quite centered, but not sufficiently off-center for an interesting asymmetric composition. dllu (t,c) 08:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you dllu, what's you're saying is really valuable to me. I actually don't use the clarity almost at all but yes, the bright edge was caused by using too much of sharpening. It seems like night photos don't handle as much sharpening as day photos. And yeah, the composition was somewhere in the middle - I tried to give it a bit more space. Do you think it's better? And thanks again for your comment, I'm basically starting with a night photography and every advice is welcome. --Podzemnik (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Patriccck (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Llez (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Weird angle doesn't add anything for me (I like this one better), and the subject itself, while perhaps interestingly decorated, doesn't have any wow for me. Sorry. Storkk (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
    No worries, thank you for the vote anyway. --Podzemnik (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support While the other image looks pretty cool too, if the creator thinks more of this one it's good enough that I will defer to his judgement. Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Weak support For me the interplay of the blue and yellow and black gives me a Wow feeling every time, which finally trumped concerns about the angle. —Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Famberhorst (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --XRay talk 04:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Templo Yanasen, Ayutthaya, Tailandia, 2013-08-23, DD 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 15:55:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thanks for the ping. No change in my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose lighting. Charles (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose as per Charles and Ikan. Yann (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Charles and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Eastern black-and-white colobus (Colobus guereza matschiei) head.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 10:37:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Charles (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Simply great! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support This reminds me to somebody I know --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment Color noise on white wool, especially on the neck. Fixable? -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Sorry, having seen File:Abyssinian black-and-white colobus (Colobus guereza guereza) male head.jpg, I think the dull light here with the resulting blue WB plus color noise and lack of detail in some parts, makes this not measuring up to FP. The light blobs in the background are also a bit disturbing. --Cart (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose as per Cart. Yann (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - I do think the other photo is better, mainly in my view because of the background. However, I love this monkey's facial expression, and that's sufficient for me to support. If you'd like to go some distance toward addressing the others' objections, that would probably only improve the photo, but it's good enough to get my support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Common blue butterfly (Polyommatus icarus) male underside.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 10:18:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Baker Beach 2.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 22:55:43

File:Cleistocactus strausii (70387).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 22:49:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Cactaceae
  •   InfoCleistocactus strausii is a "wooly torch" cactus, with dark red flowers that jut out horizontally. One of the things I like about this one is the sharpness (unavoidable pun) of the spines. Also, as a bonus, I have never seen a cactus look so much like a bird. :) all by — Rhododendrites talk |  22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- — Rhododendrites talk |  22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ha! I said "I have never seen a cactus look so much like a bird." Looking at the FP category, I see that in 2013 we have promoted another picture of the same species with some [rather creepy] birdlike qualities! I see in that one there was a suggestion to brighten it. We will see if that is echoed here -- brightening is definitely possible, although the brighter it is the more detail will be lost at the base of the spines. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Lighting is very flat, resemblance to bird is mildly amusing but composition is not Wow. -- Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose as above. Charles (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment This is one of those cases when you could experiment with using a fill-in forced flash (if you have one) on one or two photos. Try it sometime, if the ambient light is this good, you will not get harsh shadows. I'm always amazed how subtle such a flash can be even if it feels like it lights up the whole room. --Cart (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This I do not understand. I look at the image that was featured and does look to have been taken with a flash, and I see less detail/clarity than in this one, and I have a hard time imagining how a flash would be an improvement. Maybe I've just never used a good flash or known how to use one. New version uploaded - I just went back and brightened the subject in Lightroom and uploaded a new version. Presumably this is not what's being recommended here? If not, could someone link to a good example of a white subject made clearer using a flash? — Rhododendrites talk |  14:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You have a flash used in this, this and I used a flash directly on the birch in this. These are some that I could come up with right away, there are probably more/better examples out there. I think flashes are more in sync with cameras these days. Using a flash is a new tool in your camera box, it takes a bit getting used to as do all new photo things. :) Not so long ago you had no idea about CA or stacking, and look at you now! :) I thought I'd plant this seed in your curious mind. --Cart (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I do need to experiment with it more, it's true. In this case, I remain mystified how this is preferable to the current image, and skeptical (glibly, likely) that a flash would produce something preferable to simply amplifying existing light in post-processing. If the tastes of FPC are such that the other image is deemed superior, then it is a standard I'm not inclined to aspire to, for better or worse. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • As far as the specimen goes, yours is way better. :) The think a flash could have done for you here, is put a bit if sparkle in the needles and bring out the definition of the green/grey/brown plant texture of the cactus skin. It would also have lifted the shadow where the "beak" joins the main plant and made the red a bit more prominent. --Cart (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support You so want to pet it, but you wouldn't ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Patriccck (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

File:A wedge on a newly constructed support for preassure tanks 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 19:54:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Tools
  •   InfoStill life with shadow play, my way. ;) C, u, n, -- Cart (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Cart (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose For me, not an FP composition. Charles (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support I almost expected this nom. With pictures like this one it's not always easy to see the veeery thin line between something all too banal and something really interesting. For me, this image works for two reasons: a) the lighting (side light) b) the careful composition (especially the diagonals). --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Not to mention that the golden evening light and the resulting blue shadows gives it more than 'fifty shades of grey'.   --Cart (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Per Martin. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Not really special for me. Yann (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support I understand that this image is not for everyone but it works for me. Composition, colors and lights are smooth and calming even though the materials are all cold. --Podzemnik (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per Martin. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support I like the lines, the abstraction, and the textures. Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Sorry, this image is not talking to me Poco2 20:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose A bit confusing.--Ermell (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose I kind of see the ceci n'est pas une cale idea, but it still doesn't quite seem special enough. dllu (t,c) 21:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - I've been on the fence about whether it's special enough, but I guess I think it is. Nice still life per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Kokořín, tunel pod hradem.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 16:01:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by Aktron – uploaded by Aktron – nominated by Draceane — Draceane talkcontrib. 16:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 16:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Mild    Oppose - Very nice motif, but I'd suggest cropping out the bit of staircase on the right, and the light could be better. I'm also slightly bugged by the highlight in the upper center. I might be willing to reconsider if the crop is made and there is a little work done on the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Karelj (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Mild    Oppose As per Ikan Kekek. I would change my vote if current picture is cropped. Gnosis (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Conditional support on cropping the stair out. Daniel Case (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose The curve is cropped and my eyes want to see the entire road. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Patriccck (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

File:20180610 FIFA Friendly Match Austria vs. Brazil Miranda 850 0051.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 05:59:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  •   Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Finally a real sports photo again. João Miranda squeezing the ball while heading it back to the playfield. Granada (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Great team. Super match. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose super match is not an argument. Too poor quality for a FI for me. Olivier LPB (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose I want more sharpness on the Brazilian since he's the main subject. Here it looks like the focus was on the player on the right.--Peulle (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Great sport picture. --Yann (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The nomination was withdrawn, dude ... :P --Peulle (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes a post-withdraw support can prompt a user to re-open the nom. Such votes serves a purpose, dude. --Cart (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure if it would be a good idea to reopen this nom. After closing I've uploaded a downscaled Version as I am stil convinced that it is a good shot hit in the perfect moment despite some missing sharpness. --Granada (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment - I would support the original nom, if you'd like to unwithdraw it. I find it an exciting shot and a good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Isiwal (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support More sports/activity photos, please. Jee 01:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment Granada, please don't upload a downsampled version over the original version. As per Commons:Image guidelines, "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality. Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file." Even if the picture is slightly soft (e.g. due to moving subjects), just ignore the pixel-peeping haters. dllu (t,c) 08:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Patriccck (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support As long as both the original and downsampled versions are present and available, which they are, I don't really care in which order they are uploaded. They exist on the file's page. I suspect Granada might be sick and tired of all comments and discussions about size vs sports photos and all, yet again. ;) --Cart (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose As Peulle Charles (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Pride NYC 2017 (51839).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 05:15:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events (Arts, concerts, shows...)
  •   Info June is LGBT Pride Month, commemorating the Stonewall Riots, and I find myself looking through pictures from last year's parade in New York City. I keep coming back to this guy, doing his own thing by himself in the parade, facing up into the sun with this jubilant and unselfconscious expression that seems to fit the occasion really well. One of those images where I really don't know if others will think it worthy of FP, but if I'm going to nominate it, this is the month to do it. all by — Rhododendrites talk |  05:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- — Rhododendrites talk |  05:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment The subject itself is great, but the background is pretty busy and a bit distracting. That's of course difficult to avoid in a parade … I'll have to think about this for a bit. Just wanted to let you know that apparently one of your edits removed the EXIF data from the file (the first version still has it) --El Grafo (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. For some reason Lightroom retains EXIF but as soon as I put it through Photoshop it disappears. I'll restore it manually. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Done Looks like by using Photoshop's "Export" command I was stripping EXIF (and also reducing dpi!). Using the standard "save as" fixed it. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support I agree with you, this guy sticks in your mind with the pride and energy he exudes. Subject is sufficiently isolated from the background and since you spot more of the parade, he is placed in context. Otherwise he might look like a lone nut-job. --Cart (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per Cart. He stands out from the crowd to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Granada (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Composition not FP for me. Charles (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Per Charles. — Draceane talkcontrib. 16:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment Fortunately, « ridiculous does not kill », as we say in french.--Jebulon (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Nice atmosphere... --Karelj (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportDaniel Case (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Cart's got a point there … --El Grafo (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Not special enough for me. Yann (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Yann --George Chernilevsky talk 15:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Per others.--Ermell (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose --Patriccck (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Maarja Nuut Viljandi folgil 2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 00:51:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

   DoneKruusamägi (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose This darkness just does not work for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - Really striking image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment Can you add English descritpion please. Like who is it and where at least. Thank you! --Podzemnik (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support nice creative touch...Atsme 📞 16:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Personality rights template shall protect which person?--Ermell (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Since the person is identified by name and her performance is probably recognizable to her friends, family and fans, it is right to add the template. "Better safe than sorry". --Cart (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Panoramic view of Estaing 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2018 at 23:03:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#France
  •   Info created by Tournasol7 - uploaded by Tournasol7 - nominated by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Tournasol7 (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support great view! A tiny perspective correction might improve the image even further - there's also a hint of CA. But fine for me anyway --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per Martin --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • For me it seems there is a slight upward curve on the "horizon" line (which you obviously can't see because of the hills). However it is visible on the buildings vertical lines which are leaning slightly outwards from the image, especially on the right side of the picture. It's a good panoramic however. --Ximonic (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 16:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Wall bottom right is off-putting. Charles (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportDaniel Case (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportBijay Chaurasia (Talk) 08:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Llez (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Patriccck (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment per Charlesjsharp, I think cropping off the bottom ~11% would be significantly better. Storkk (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco skyline from Hawk Hill at Blue Hour dllu.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2018 at 22:23:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •    Comment I think the softness comes from strong wind causing the tripod to vibrate a little bit. There may also be some heat distortion due to the atmosphere, which I saw in a photo a few hours earlier with a 200mm lens. dllu (t,c) 17:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Ruine Aggstein 20180527.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2018 at 13:10:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •    Support Excellent work.--Ermell (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Beautiful, excellent! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Captivating, I would like to go there ! Tournasol7 (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Nice castle, but too much shadows & too harsh contrast, a pity. --A.Savin 02:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Exceptional quality, very nice composition! Light condition could be a little better where I understand the point made out by A.Savin. However, for me the other things make me go for a support. --Ximonic (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support A bit hazy in the very distant background but outstanding nearby.--Milseburg (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Overcomes the haze by being so big and detailed. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per others. Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Per others. Nice one --Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 08:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Neutral Because of the shadows -- Llez (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Plaza Mayor de Santa Ana, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, May 2018.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2018 at 16:32:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •    Comment the weather is a matter of taste, but please do elaborate on your issues with the composition, The Photographer. Thanks --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
IMHO composition is centered, not remarcable main subject, btw, tilt --The Photographer 18:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose I think the composition is fine, but the light is a bit flat, a bit dull. Not very exciting. --Peulle (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Perhaps even threatening clouds thicken slightly.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support The hills with all the houses, looking very much like some crazy piles of LEGO, make the picture. :) Different, fresh. --Cart (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose dull light. Charles (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support I like. Not sure it would have been better with sunny weather (sun = shadows). --A.Savin 21:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per Alex. The sky looks very much like ours in this Monsoon season! :) Jee 03:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose - Very drab, doesn't excite me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Nice view and good quality, but I agree with Ikan. In the picture there is some dynamic thank to the perspective but I'd tried to emphasize that with a wider angle view in order to have the feeling that I'm surrounded by those 2 rows of houses. Poco2 08:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info Addressing the issues mentioned above, I've tried to increase clarity and brightness of the image's lower half (the city). The lighting should be less drab now. As far as a wider angle is concerned, well, I'd have preferred a bit more space on both sides as well, but some protruding elements of the church's facade (i.e. ugly stones) prevented me from getting any - pinging: The Photographer, Peulle, Famberhorst, Cart, Charles, A.Savin, Michielverbeek, Jee, Johann Jaritz, Ikan Kekek, Poco2 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Still not for me. Charles (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The main issue to me is the perspective, I would have enjoyed it from a lower point of view, not sure whether just pitching down the camera would have made it. Poco2 16:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Sorry. The weather is not a problem (clouds are nice), but I think we have too much sky and not enough plaza (Composition issue). Not a bad picture, but not FP for me.--Jebulon (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per Alex. Empty bue sky could also be dull. --Milseburg (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Per Peulle. --Karelj (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose I would prefer lower camera angle to get more of the plaza. Lighting is flat. Nothing particularly special to merit FP status. —Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)