Commons:Propositions d'images remarquables

Les règles des Propositions d'images remarquables ont changé.
Conformément aux règles générales, une image est promue avec 7 (sept) votes "support" ou plus (et un ratio de 2/1 de # supports/opposes) et le nombre de nominations actives par utilisateur est limité à 2 (deux)
Désormais, seuls peuvent voter les membres inscrits depuis plus de 10 jours ayant procédé à au moins 50 interventions dans "Commons"


Skip to current candidates Aller directement aux propositions en cours

Cette page recense les images qui sont proposées pour être affichées dans les Images remarquables. Notez qu'il ne s'agit pas de la même chose que l'image du jour ou que les images de qualité.

Les archives des votes précédents se trouvent sur cette page.

Il existe également une liste chronologique des images remarquables.

Voir aussi les Images de qualité, les propositions d'images de qualité et les critiques photographiques.

ProcédureEdit

Conseils avant de proposer une imageEdit

partie en cours de traduction depuis la version anglaise, votre avis est le bienvenu.
Lisez entièrement le guide avant de commencer
Quelques règles informelles à retenir avant de proposer une image (les termes en italiques sont la traduction anglaise des termes).

  • Définition (display resolution) : les images de Commons peuvent être utilisées sur d'autres supports qu'un écran d'ordinateur, par exemple pour être imprimées ou vues à très haute résolution. Il est important que les images proposées aient la plus haute résolution possible. Au moins 2 millions de pixels (par ex. 2000 x 1000) semble raisonnable à présent. Les images de définition inférieure sont systématiquement rejetées sauf s'il y a une bonne raison.
  • Mise au point (focus) : tous les objets importants de l'image devraient être nets. Dans l'idéal les objets non primordiaux sont nets.
  • Avant-plan et arrière-plan (background and foreground): ils peuvent être dérangeants. Le sujet principal ne devrait pas être caché par le premier plan, ni se confondre avec l'arrière-plan.
  • Qualité générale (general quality) : Les images proposées devraient avoir une très haute qualité technique.
  • Une retouche (digital manipulations) ne doit pas tromper l'observateur. La correction de quelques défauts dans l'image est acceptée pour autant que ce soit limité, bien fait, et non pour tromper. Les retouches courantes sont le recadrage, la correction de la perspective, de netteté, des couleurs ou de l'exposition. Des manipulations plus importantes, tels quel l'élimination d'éléments dans l'arrière plan, doivent être décrites dans la description de l'image, par le biais du modèle {{RetouchedPicture}}. Les retouches non décrites ou mal décrites qui transformeraient le sujet sont inacceptables.
  • Utilité (value) : notre but principal est de présenter des images utiles et précieuses. Les images devraient ainsi être spéciales d'une façon ou d'une autre, donc, entre autres :
    • La plupart des coucher de soleil sont beaux, et la plupart ne sont pas différents des autres existant déjà.
    • Les photos de nuit sont souvent belles mais davantage de détails sont visibles de jour.
    • "Beau" ne veut pas dire "utile".

Au niveau technique, nous avons l'exposition, la composition, le mouvement et la profondeur du champ.

  • L'exposition (exposure) est l'obturation du diaphragme qui modifie la luminosité (brightness) pour rendre avec qualité les ombres et les lumières au sein de l'image. Le manque d'ombres dans le détail n'est pas nécessairement négatif, cela peut être un effet désiré.
  • La composition (composition) est l'arrangement des éléments dans l'image. La "Règle de trois" est un bon guide pour la composition, c'est un héritage des écoles de peintures. L'idée est de diviser l'image par deux lignes horizontales et deux lignes verticales, nous avons donc trois parties dans chaque sens. L'objet ne doit pas forcément être centré. Les sujets intéressants doivent êtres placés aux 4 croisements des lignes. L'horizon ne doit jamais être mis au milieu, car il couperait l'image en deux. L'idée principale ici est de rendre l'image dynamique.
  • Netteté (sharpness) renvoie à la manière dont les mouvements sont représentés dans l'image. Ils peuvent être nets ou flous. Ils ne sont pas mieux l'un que l'autre, cela dépend de l'intention du photographe. L'impression de mouvement dépend des différents objets de l'image. Par exemple, photographier une voiture de course qui apparaît nette par rapport à l'arrière plan ne donne pas une idée de la vitesse. Il faudrait en fait que la voiture soit représentée nette, mais avec un arrière plan flou, créant ainsi le mouvement. D'un autre coté, représenter le saut d'un joueur de basket net avec le reste de l'image flou, en raison de la nature peu habituelle de la photo, lui conférerait de l'intérêt.
  • La profondeur de champ (depth of field or DOF) renvoie à la zone de mise au point devant et au delà du sujet principal. La profondeur de champ est choisie en fonction des besoins spécifiques à chaque image. Une profondeur grande ou petite peu améliorer ou dégrader la qualité de l'image. Une faible profondeur de champ peu attirer l'attention sur le sujet principal, en le séparant de son environnement. Le lentilles à petite distance focale (grand angle) ont une grande profondeur de champ, et vice versa, les lentilles à grande distance focale (petite ouverture) ont une petite profondeur de champ.

PropositionEdit

Si vous pensez avoir trouvé ou créé une image qui puisse être considérée comme parmi les meilleures de Commons, avec une description et une licence appropriée, copiez le nom de l'image dans la boîte ci-dessous (en incluant le préfixe File:), après le texte déjà présent :


Après cela, vous devrez insérer un lien vers la page que vous venez de créer en haut de Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list.

VoteEdit

A l'exclusion de tous autres, vous pouvez utiliser les modèles suivants:

  • {{Pour}} ( Support),
  • {{Contre}} ( Oppose),

Ainsi que :

  • {{Neutre}} ( Neutral),
  • {{Comment}} ( Comment),
  • {{Info}} ( Info),
  • {{Question}} ( Question).


IMPORTANT: veuillez notamment NE PAS UTILISER les modèles {{weak support}} ( Weak support) ni {{weak oppose}} ( Weak oppose), ils ne sont pas reconnus par le robot, et votre vote serait considéré comme non valide.

Merci d'inclure quelques mots expliquant pourquoi vous soutenez ou non la promotion de l'image, surtout si vous votez contre. N'oubliez pas de signer avec ~~~~.

RèglesEdit

Règles généralesEdit

  1. Le résultat est donné 9 jours après la proposition (voir le planning en bas de page). Les votes ajoutés le 10e jour ou après ne sont pas décomptés.
  2. Les utilisateurs non-enregistrés peuvent proposer des images, faire des commentaires, mais pas voter.
  3. La proposition elle-même ne compte pas comme un vote : il faut l'ajouter explicitement.
  4. Le proposant peut retirer une image à tout moment, en écrivant : {{withdraw}} ~~~~
  5. Souvenez-vous que le but de Wikimedia Commons est une bibliothèque pour tous les projets Wikimedia, y compris des projets futurs ; les images n'ont pas à être utiles uniquement pour Wikipédia.
  6. Les images peuvent être retirées de la liste dès le 5e jour si elles n'ont reçu aucun vote "pour".
  7. Soyez attentifs et très sélectifs dans les choix que vous faites, car il ne peut y avoir que deux propositions actives par proposant. Toute proposition supplémentaire sera rejetée sans examen.
  8. Seulement 2 nominations actives par même utilisateur (qui est, en nomination sous "review" et non encore close) sont autorisées. Le principal but de cette mesure est de contribuer à une meilleure qualité moyenne des nominations, par un choix plus judicieux des photos présentes en nominations.

Règles de promotionEdit

L'image candidate devient une image remarquable si elle remplit les conditions suivantes :

  1. Une licence appropriée (bien sûr !)
  2. Au moins sept votes "pour".
  3. un ratio de 2/1 de votes "pour"/"contre".
  4. Deux versions différentes de la même image ne peuvent pas être promues en même temps, mais seulement celle avec le plus grand score.

ContestationsEdit

Avec le temps, les critères d'évaluation évoluent, et il peut être décidé qu'une image qui était auparavant assez bonne pour être dans la liste ne peut plus l'être.

Pour qu'une image soit déchue, il faut qu'une majorité de 2/3 avec au moins 5 votes accepte de retirer l'image, autrement elle reste "remarquable". Pour voter, utiliser les modèles {{Keep}} ( Keep : mérite de rester "remarquable") ou {{Delist}} ( Delist  : ne mérite plus le label).

Pour contester une image, copiez son nom avec le préfixe dans la boîte ci-dessous à la suite du texte déjà présent :


Vous devriez inclure les informations suivantes :

  • Informations sur l'origine de l'image (créateur, importateur).
  • Un lien vers le vote d'origine.
  • La raison pour laquelle vous contestez le label, avec votre signature.

Insérez ensuite un lien en haut de Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal.

SommaireEdit

Pour ajouter votre proposition à la listeEdit

Pour ajouter votre proposition à la liste, cliquez ici et ajoutez votre proposition en haut de la liste : {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:FILENAME}}

Propositions en coursEdit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Thira (Santorini) - Fira-01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2016 at 07:51:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Greece
  •  Info all by Wladyslaw. You see the main place of Thira Island called Fira on the escarpment of the caldera. The mountain in the background is the Profitis Ilias massif (567 meters). The staircase leads downward to the little harbour. -- Wladyslaw (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:White Orange and Gray Tabby Cat.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 23:55:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Vitoria - Knitted graffiti 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 20:47:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#Spain
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It was a bit unfortunate that you found such a rather poor example of yarn bombing, had the work itself been better this picture could have worked. As it is it looks like a rather sad example of this guerilla art form. For an FP on the subject I'd like something more substantial like this or this. I also think the angle should have been such that there was some space between the rest of the bollards, now they are more or less one clump. Sorry. --w.carter-Talk 21:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, more or less per W.carter. The composition is O.K. and probably good, but doesn't strike me as outstanding. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. INeverCry 00:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Pantani di Accumoli.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 19:02:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural
  •  Info created by Leonardo Angelini - uploaded by Alexmar983 - nominated by Alexmar983 -- Alexmar983 (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support As the uploader/nominator. I found it whilst looking for image to describe the area hit by the recent earthquake in Central Italy. The Italian photographer was very nice and removed the original copyright mark at the bottom (but the flickr license was ok since the beginning). I think it is very nice picture, I love the contrast of colors and he clouds around the top of the mountains.-- Alexmar983 (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I probably forgot to transclude this page somewhere, I've asked for help. Sorry.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I salute your motivations, but this photo is way too unsharp for FP or QI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, per Ikan Kekek. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, per Ikan Kekek and too noisy--Lmbuga (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp, noisy and CAs. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini (Rome) - Dome.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 13:45:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •  Support - In this case, a Google image search shows other photos of this cupola that are comparable with the colors in this picture. I'm not sure all the colors or saturation are ideal (some parts seem a bit washed out to my eyes), but I accept that this is probably what they look like, and I like the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • They are not wash, but ruined. Hovewer thanks.--LivioAndronico (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Understood completely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 19:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nicely done! --w.carter-Talk 23:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nicely done!--Lmbuga (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Nasir al- mulk mosque, Shiraz.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 13:07:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •  Info created by Mohammad Reza Domiri Ganji - uploaded by Mohammad Reza Domiri Ganji - nominated by Mhhossein -- Mhhossein talk 13:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mhhossein talk 13:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbazri (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks really great, but roughly 2Mpixels resolution is not sufficient for an FP --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WOW these colors, what a beautiful mosque! Unfortunately, the photographic rendition is not as good as it could be - I would name resolution, noise and detail rendition. I would so much look forward to have a HQ pic of this mosque and to vote for it in a heartbeat. --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Please take a higher-resolution picture of this beautiful mosque. I would suggest for you to submit it to COM:QIC first for feedback on technical matters. If it passes there, submit it here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per everyone else. Great start but this could be higher-res. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Leopard-digitalART.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 10:06:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Mallnitz Tauerntal Tauscherböden 20160807.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 06:15:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Austria
  •  Info Alpine pasture Tauscherböden in the Tauern Valley near Mallnitz, Carinthia. All by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Really great resolution. I did not find any stitching errors. I only notice a slight haze, which is probably unavoidable at this distance. --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 06:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I enjoy exploring this panorama at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support w.carter-Talk 08:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Raghith 09:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Another one from the department of pictures I wish I had taken. Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support very good. Charles (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Cute--Lmbuga (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 03:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Stramberk castle - View from Kotouc.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 10:38:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Stift Melk Gartenpavillon 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 06:05:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Austria
  •  Info Garden Pavilion in the park of Melk Abbey, Lower Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Can't find any technical deficiencies (no visible noise, no CA, no sharpening artifacts, no blown out areas, no perspective distortion, sharpness almost everywhere...). I like the composition and the good light that day brings out the colors nicely. Great shot! --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Those animal cutouts are so strange! But I digress...I greatly enjoy this restful photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 06:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --w.carter-Talk 10:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The lighting is a bit too stale for me; taking it later in the afternoon would improve the picture. Also the crop on the sides of the fountain is rather tight. --King of ♠ 00:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good picture, I'm not agree with "King of Hearts", but wav?, Why?--Lmbuga (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:MonumentoEcuestreaSanMartin-MDP-ago2016 alt 3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 00:04:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The image has a previous nomination

  •  Support -- Ezarateesteban 00:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Again. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Again. And in my opinion, it's not a problem that the interesting tree takes away attention from the monument, because the monument is not the subject of this picture. Instead, this is a picture of the monument and the tree, and in my strong opinion, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with a picture having a dual subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Still doesn't work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Hopefully we don't get two more alternates... INeverCry 06:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor lighting. Charles (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Raghith 10:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bad shadow side ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, and strong sharpness IMO--Lmbuga (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Mannheim - Planetarium.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 17:21:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I think planetarium buildings are interessting in their shape and therefore not common or ordinary. The building is centered, like 95% of all building images are, also FP-building-images. The light is strong, the sky is blue, no rubbish, just a good and concise shot. If I compare this image to all other images this photo persuades with it's simplicity. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  weak support I find myself wondering if the image would be more pleasing if you'd moved a little to the left to take advantage of the symmetry? Regardless, this is an interesting building and a high quality photograph. -- Thennicke (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per INC. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per INC. Adding a bit for the benefit of Alchemist-hp: Some buildings are interesting enough to look good in a straight forward centered photo, this is not one of them. This building needs more shadow/light interaction to make it "come alive" and be interesting enough for an FP. Since the main part of it is almost the same hue as the clear sky it doesn't stand out that much. Imagine if there had been some linear cirrus clouds behind it, that would have been effectful. Or perhaps reshoot it in autumn and get the yellow leaves to complement the blue roof. It is a very good QI/VI but it lacks the wow of an FP. w.carter-Talk 03:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I have no problem with the positioning of the planetarium, but with no clouds or significant chromatic variation in the sky, it just sits there and detracts from an otherwise very good photo that could have been featurable in my opinion. I'd like to see a similar photo with interesting clouds and/or during sunrise or sunset. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Sure, a few clouds in the blue sky would be nice, but a part from that there is nothing to object about this picture. Remarkable sharpness without sharpening artifacts. Nice colors and lighting. --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • of course  Support, because absolutely incomprehensible opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. I think we are here more and more in a photocommunity, no real votings here?!? My opinion!
    • @Alchemist-hp: I don't understand the meaning of this post scriptum...--Jebulon (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
      • @Jebulon:: and I don't understand the other (o)votings here ... Now we have both a problem!? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
        • @Alchemist-hp: Sorry, I did not vote for now. I understand your support vote, and that you are angry against "o" votes, but I really don't understand this :"I think we are here more and more in a photocommunity, no real votings here?!?" What do you mean by this ?--Jebulon (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
          • I guess he means that the voting behaviour is more than the tase of a photocommunity and disregards the encyplopedic value of an image. Indeed we already have a forum for valued images but nevertheless we shouldn't forget that this image pool is primarily for the encyploedia and not other purposes. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, QI, but nothing special IMO. It is a well presented building--Lmbuga (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:National Library of Australia, ACT - perspective controlled.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 11:59:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •  Info National Library of Australia, Canberra. 16-image Panorama. I've spent hours fixing as many stitching errors as I could find; let me know if you find more.
  •  Info Created, uploaded, nominated by Thennicke
  •  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support very nice --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 20:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent. Could you please give some information about the panorama? How many single frames did you take? Did you use a panorama head? --Code (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Code I didn't use a pano head (hence all the stitching errors). It's 15 single frames: I've added that info to the description. -- Thennicke (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:A U.S. Navy Hull Maintenance Technician 3rd Class Robert Frey fabricates a steel countertop aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) Aug. 20, 2013, while underway in the Gulf of Oman 130820-N-JC752-778.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 04:16:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
  •  Info created by US Navy / MCSN Kole E. Carpenter - rotated by Pine - uploaded by - nominated by Pine -- Pine 04:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Pine 04:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Sparkly! I wish I could prowl around a carrier for a month or so with my camera, so much activity and hardware to shoot... >(sigh)< --w.carter-Talk 08:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support strange... colors and less than perfect sharpness resemble 1940s film photography in a way. Could be a picture taken during WW2 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I think the sparks are the main thing that make this picture an interesting enough composition for me to want to feature it, but the positions of the electrician and various objects also help. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - cool shot! Atsme 📞 20:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The man seems a bit scrunched up in such a vertical composition. Other than that, a photo of a man doing a common job like welding isn't wowing for me. INeverCry 20:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per INC. You want cool sparks in a welding picture, cool enough to be an FP? Then compare the nominated image with this one. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Awsome example, but I'm enjoying the Norman Rockwell feel this pic has, the hunched concentrated position, goggles (instead if face shield), baggy pants (yes, used by welders to prevent burns) has a dated look to them, the shoes (steel capped toes gives a dated look), not to mention the light and color, very 1940s just like Martin said. w.carter-Talk 21:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Nice. Interesting. Clear FP IMO, sorry --Lmbuga (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
    • And very nice and usefull. Very good composition--Lmbuga (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:St Peter's Square, Vatican City - April 2007.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 04:04:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pine -- Pine 04:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Pine 04:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --w.carter-Talk 08:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support More pictures from Vatican City. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I love the detail and symmetry. The shadow at the bottom is annoying. -- Thennicke (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Atsme 📞 20:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 20:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm slightly disturbed by the dark shadow in the lower left corner but this is a great picture overall. --King of ♠ 20:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Raghith 10:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is spoiled by the asymmetry of the foreground - can it be corrected? See annotation. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    • It could be corrected, but I'm not sure if it's needed. I can't be sure but I think it might not actually be perfectly symmetrical in reality. Also, as the image is downsampled (unfortunately, I wasn't thinking forward at that time), any adjustment to the perspective will probably make it a bit less sharp. Diliff (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Lmbuga (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Ida B Wells High School San Francisco January 2013 002.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 22:43:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •  Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♠ 22:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- King of ♠ 22:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Weak Pro I like the light situation. A nice capture although I think it needs a little bit more contrast. The crop bus station in the foreground isn't that fortunate as well. --Code (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support maybe a tiny bit oversaturated --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I agree with Code on the bus stop. The light is very nice though. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Very good photo, interesting light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Building is just striking enough at this angle and in this light to offset the potentially distracting detail below. Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 20:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nothing special. It's a bit saturated IMO. Contrast? Why FP, sorry? Is it FP because the hour of he take the picture? Sorry, What special? --Lmbuga (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 21:11:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
  •  Info all by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Charles (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the dark shadow. Whatever's behind his head, maybe an oval-shaped rock (darker than the rest of the shadow), is an added distraction, as it almost looks like it's connected to his head. INeverCry 21:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Fair enough, but the harsh shadow is intended to add menace. Your 'rock' is one of its legs. Please remember that this is not a zoo picture and he was not particularly happy that I was kneeling down pointing a large camera lens at him Charles (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    I don't know if you really need to add much menace to a huge dangerous lizard, but good for you for having the guts to get in close... INeverCry 00:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Strong support "Here he is ...Your komodoooo DRAAAA-gon". Although I agree that there's more of that shadow at the right than there needs to be ... perhaps you could get rid of that part with the bit of sun? Tightening the image so that the beast fills more of the frame would IMO go further toward your goal (already partially accomplished) of making it more menacing, leaving the viewer with only this small stretch of darkness to seek refuge in. Amazing coincidence ... I went out to get more whole-bean coffee at Starbucks, and because of this picture I picked Komodo Dragon Blend. And now that you've made him look even more badass, we can sing: "Mr. Ko Mo Do DraaaaaaGON ... Got to keep on draggin'" Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Addendum: See note. Daniel Case (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Cropped version uploaded... Charles (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
My support upgraded to strong. Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Much more striking now that it's been cropped -- Thennicke (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per Thennicke and thanks to Daniel. OMG what a creature! Is this how you train for your pet photography? w.carter-Talk 03:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
After the photoshoot I asked him if he minded being called a cold-blooded killer. 'Not at all', he replied. 'I am a reptile after all.' Charles (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
--w.carter-Talk 08:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support, and I hope you were far away from the lizard, as I wouldn't want you to become a statistic! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Really impressive. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Healey Silverstone (17.06.2007).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 20:00:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Myurella nebulosa 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 18:56:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:PL-PK Mielec, rzeźba Miotacz (Henryk Burzec) 2016-08-15--15-01-02-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 18:50:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •  Info created and uploaded by User:Kroton - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I just really like the gesture the sculpture is making, and I think this photograph captures the sense of motion in this actually static work of art well. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I like the pose too, and the detail is great. But that may be its undoing. It looks like, in the pursuit of that excellence, the image might have been oversharpened (look at that bit of the white truck in the background for something a bit too processed). The WB also seems a bit too cool, even given the predominant colors. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I do see a bit of seeming oversharpening, now that you point it out. I think it's slight, though. Very small areas of the picture may be posterized. User:Kroton, would you like to make some edits based on Daniel's points? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Regretful  Oppose Pose, light and detail are fine but I find the cars disturbing, especially having a bright green between its legs. I also keep wondering what the statue's feet look like but maybe the hedge is unavoidable. Sorry. w.carter-Talk 03:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I understand your objections. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

File:La Roque, Salagou Lake 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 15:26:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you, hdr simulation from one RAW file, the less sharp areas were the most shadowed areas Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
oh no I know from where it come from, I try currently the DXO software free version and a bokeh simulation is activate by default, I will upload a sharper version...let me a few minutes Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done Alchemist-hp, I uploaded a version without these setting, that should be better Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Now  Support. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --w.carter-Talk 19:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support An excellent example of how to make this sort of scene beautiful in autumn. Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 04:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support while maybe less wow than I would like, it's a nice atmospheric landscape photo with an impressive level of detail. --Pine 04:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ivar (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Raghith 10:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --King of ♠ 00:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Cithaerias Esmeralda MHNT.ZOO.2004.0.976 (2).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 15:19:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •  Info created and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I do not remember all the butterflies I had the pleasure of photographing. But it remained in my memory. It's always difficult to photograph transparency. After several tests monochrome backgrounds; has a foam pad that I use support that gave the best result. But mostly I have had the pleasure of seeing a living, it's a real aesthetic shock. Thanks Christian Ferrer...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 18:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - nice! --Atsme 📞 19:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Sublimely beautiful ... the kind of butterfly that inspires fine lingerie. Which brings me to think, Nabokov would be proud. Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Another fine specimen from Projet Phoebus! -- Thennicke (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting! Jee 04:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Raghith 10:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Globen metro station May 2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 07:55:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Elsie Leslie (1899) by Zaida Ben-Yusuf.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 04:53:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Võilille seemnis.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 23:17:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales
  •  Info created and uploaded by Abrget47j - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would prefer much more depth of field (F3.8 used). Charles (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I actually like the depth of field. Helps the viewer focus on the essentials. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shallow DOF is good when the subject is perfectly aligned. Not here. Jee 02:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Depth of field is just a bit too shallow, making almost everything unsharp at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Once again: art meeting nature!--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the shallow DoF here is pleasing and gives a sort of soft 'halo' to the pic. w.carter-Talk 10:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DoF to low. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Personally I like the DOF. I don't see how you'd do otherwise for such a small object without focus-stacking -- Thennicke (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jee, Ikan and Alchemist. I can understand a DoF that leaves the spores blurry. But it should have all of the kernel in focus. Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Trachycephalus mesophaeus Albine.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 20:38:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

What's a false focus? and please add CA note to fix it --The Photographer (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
The peak of the nose is sharp, not the head + eye. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for the notes, CA now is fixed --The Photographer (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp area at right is a distraction. Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I fixed the CA and now some areas look more sharpening, please, let me know if it is ok --The Photographer (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Acherontia-Kadavoor-2016-06-23-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 13:52:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I just tested a downsized version. Hope noise is acceptable in that size? Better? Jee 17:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Better leave it, as it is. This specimen is better at full resolution. --Ivar (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 Comment marked improvement IMO, I wanted to talk to you about this software, I see you did not wait me :) Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I agree that this change produced a marked improvement. I wish the caterpillar were a bit sharper still, but I think it's quite sharp and detailed enough to be both fascinating and of great educational/encyclopedic value. As others have said, it's amazing to look at, and the composition is pretty good, too. In this version, I definitely think this deserves a rotation on the front page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Pihtsusköngäs canyon in winter.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 13:46:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •  Info all by Grtek -- Grtek (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Grtek (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 14:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment A very nice mystery picture were it is hard to tell the scale until you see the two skiers. Some blown parts on the ice and quite a lot of CA (purple + green) in many places. This should have been pointed out at QIC and fixed before this. Please fix the CAs at least. --w.carter-Talk 14:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment CA fixed, thanks--Grtek (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Great! And  Support --w.carter-Talk 09:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Wonderful -- Spurzem (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Just the sort of picture I like on a warm and humid late-summer day. Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 20:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't think the lighting is helpful nor the position of the skiers. Charles (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Very sadly the most bottom part of the picture is in a strong shadow. Otherwise very worth seeing. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Wladyslaw. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Croatia BW 2014-10-10 12-41-09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 11:28:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •  Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --w.carter-Talk 14:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice perspective and detail. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A house hidden by a tree, an ordinary walkway, and an almost purple sky. I'm not wowed by this. INeverCry 20:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Like INC... Yann (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Very nice but I think the top third adds nothing to the composition. I've suggested a crop. --King of ♠ 00:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Nice composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry Berthold, but not enough for a FP in my opinion. Missing somthing special. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. -- Thennicke (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Bombus lapidarius drone - Carduus crispus - Keila.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 05:30:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Francis Fukuyama at Fronteiras do Pensamento São Paulo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 00:52:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alt version

  •  Info Fixed background distracting and microphone --The Photographer (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - like magic? At what point do edits become lies? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I try to recreate the Francisco Fukuyama chin based on other pictures of him, however, this was a mental base and not real. We are changing here the main subject (Francisco) and it's a good question and I invite you to see the history of this FP --The Photographer (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I really do admire your photoshop capabilities! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Sir :D --The Photographer (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry? This is one of the worst photoshoppings I have seen within months. Collar and background extremely pixelated, and the cloning on the chin is too obvious to be trustworthy. --Kreuzschnabel 10:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done Pixelation on background is gone now --The Photographer (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Then you haven't seen any really bad photoshopping in the past months... ;-) But ok, at 100% the result is less convincing - which was to be expected. And please note that I didn't even support the edited alternative. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • And another alternate. Pretty soon every nomination will have an alternate by The Photographer... INeverCry 06:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Totally agree with INeverCry. The Photographer is good with the photoshoping and is apparently only trying to be helpful, but as I said before this is becoming a bit too much. w.carter-Talk 08:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry, Understood, I'll stop doing this kind of photoshoping and yes I think this was too far --The Photographer (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Beggar woman carved in pinewood Gröden.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 19:27:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Duna Mayor, Valle de la Luna, San Pedro de Atacama, Chile, 2016-02-01, DD 173-175 HDR.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 17:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •  Info View at dusk of two of the highlights in Valle de la Luna, the Great Dune in the foreground, and the Amphitheater in the background, San Pedro de Acatama, northern Chile. Poco2 17:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Poco2 17:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Impresionante. --Lmbuga (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Splendid! Now, why do I suddenly have a hankering for a latte... --w.carter-Talk 18:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Impressionante more than ever --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 19:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Impressionante! (2) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --King of ♠ 23:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Really striking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Per w.carter. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Love that tiny little car in the middle ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality is not perfect (noise on the sand dune), but nevertheless light and landscape are outstanding. --Ivar (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Grtek (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 14:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support very nice, but Poco, can you please add the geo location? --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    Wladyslaw:  added Poco2 09:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think it's the best composition but it's a lovely image in every other aspect -- Thennicke (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    Thennicke, would you please elaborate that? what composition would you have chosen? I'm curious. Poco2 16:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Poco a poco: The rock in the bottom left is an intrusion; it causes the image to be unbalanced. Your very best compositions (in my opinion) often include features in the foreground too (e.g. [1] [2]) So personally, if I could go there to take the image, I would try and find a way to show those closer rocks in a balanced fashion at the bottom of the image, while still showing the cliffs and sky in the background. But I'm not the master photographer here, and like I said, it's still a very good image. :) -- Thennicke (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, Thennicke, I get your point. I think that the foreground was balanced in the picture of the Tower of Hercules (which you btw linked above twice) because I was close to it and it helped to provide perspective. In this case I was elevated (I had to, otherwise the Amphitheater of rock in the background would not be visible). I can offer more of the rocks in the foreground here (see the former version of the file), but that would definitely not help. The only thing I can do is cropping out the rocks in the bottom. what do you (and others) think? Poco2 09:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Poco a poco: I fixed the second link above; my mistake. Honestly I don't think cropping the rock would help at this point, because then the image would be very narrow and have a boring sandy foreground. I would leave it as it is; like I said, it's a good photo. (I understand what you say about having to get to a high place to take the image; in my experience sometimes it's hard to actually find a good composition and I find myself wishing I had a drone to hold my camera) -- Thennicke (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thennicke, actually, in the moment I got your last message I had already uploaded an edited version. Please, let me find out what others think. I think that it's worth it, actually I prefer the alt version Poco2 10:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Inspirational...Atsme 📞 19:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Laitche (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

AltEdit

File:CoA Catherine de' Medici Petites Heures d'Anne de Bretagne.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 15:25:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  •  Info Book created by the Master of the Petrarch Triumphs - found, uploaded, restored and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Something different today, from the french national online library. Here we have a (restored by me) manuscript illumination featuring the coats of arms of dowager queen Catherine de'Medici, widow of king Henry II of France. This was included ca.1560CE in a ca.1500 CE illuminated prayer book manuscript called Petites Heures d'Anne de Bretagne. One can see that they are CoA of a widow due to the Ordre de la Cordelière around the escutcheon. This chivalric order was created after the death of her husband king Louis XII of France by queen Anne of Brittany, for widow noble women. You have at left (dextre in french heraldry) the CoA of kings of France, and at right (senestre, yes, it is inversed) the CoA of Catherine, showing her descent (Boulogne, Medici, Tour d'Auvergne). During her life, she was Queen Consort, and a very powerful Queen Mother of the three last kings ( brothers Francis II of France, Charles IX of France and Henry III of France) of the House of Valois of the Capetian dynasty. Her death marks the end of the french Renaissance. The original version of this image is available as first upload for comparison, as I usually do.-- Jebulon (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Might be QI but I see nothing outstanding here. Edges aren’t straight. --Kreuzschnabel 17:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Something wrong with your breakfast ? --Jebulon (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • What’s breakfast? --Kreuzschnabel 18:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • No matter, just a joke: as you opposed with the same words two completely different pictures, I thought you were angry, maybe due to the fact that someone had stollen a part of your breakfast, or something. Please don't care, that's a french kind of reaction.--Jebulon (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
        • The French and their food... --w.carter-Talk 21:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
          • Stop trolling Kreuzschnabel, he has the right to eat his food cold like a vendeta. Bon apetite --The Photographer (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support As far as I can see, this is an excellent rendition of an old illumination. Most likely made on handmade paper (no straight sides, vellum usually have cut sides) in an age when rulers and set-squares were optional. Colors are consistent with those of the era and so is the gilding. Granted, it's been some years since I studied such manuscripts at the British Museum, but from what I recall this seems ok. Nice to see something unusual like this here. :) w.carter-Talk 18:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 19:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per W. carter. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 14:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Градбата на Саат Кулата во Неготино 1.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 12:47:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
  •  Info created by Cibrev - uploaded by Cibrev - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I guess this photo in landscape orientation is better. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure the landscape orientation would work better as the image depicts a wall of this tower.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • And what exactly is your reason? Your image is just a detail view of the wall structure and not the tower itself. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
        • I want to say that, given that it's a wall of a tower with relatively short sides compared to other buildings, a landscape photograph from the same distance will capture the surrounding area of the tower that may spoil the composition.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice texture. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --w.carter-Talk 21:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 01:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 05:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose good QI, but not outstanding for me. portrait orientation is not suitable for me too --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Alexmar983 (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think a bit of tower is FP and it's not very sharp. Charles (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I don't really get what people are liking so much about this composition. This tower might look good in context (depending on light conditions, et al.), but this crop of one side of it feels random to me, as does the resulting composition. I really wouldn't understand a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, not special enough for FP. --Code (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose a wall ... hm, not enough for an FP in my opinion. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's missing "wow" factor. Atsme 📞 19:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for me this lacks wow. Sorry. --Pine 04:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Blue-tailed damselfies (Ischnura elegans) mating female typica 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 08:57:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

comment Charlesjsharp can you correct the misspelling of "damselflies" in the image name? Atsme 📞 13:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Will do. Charles (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Raghith 10:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Retzbach Maintal.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 07:38:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •  Info created by Imehling- uploaded by Imehling- nominated by Imehling -- Imehling (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment for sure: this is a nice point for a pano. But here he have several problems: (1) The depth of the red color is to big. (2) The left part of the image with the church is strongly unsharp. (3) The whole image is gloomy and some parts (especially the shadow areas) are very dark. (4) IMO the reflections are not that nice to show them in this way. The layout of this motive is not very coherent in my eyes. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I have uploaded a new version with more sharpness, different crop (less bush on the right side), slightly less red, less blown areas and brighter shadows. As for the reflections: I like them ;-) --Imehling (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Reluctant oppose Unsharp all over, and too many blown areas on buildings. Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Daniel INeverCry 19:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Teddy Leonard.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 06:56:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • You don’t need to oppose your own nomination, yet you’re free to do so. --Kreuzschnabel 14:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I assume you only meant to "quote" some of the editors above with writing 'Oppose', but if you do so in that way here it means that you voted 'Oppose' for the picture. You can't vote both 'O' and 'S' on the same picture. Please sort this out. I also formatted the text for you. Don't start a line with a space or you get a box around the text, use : instead. Look in the editing window and you will see. w.carter-Talk 15:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Overexposed too, bright parts are blown. --Kreuzschnabel 14:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough, jacket and background full of rainbow Chromatic aberration, white parts blown. If you want to see what level of sharpness is required here, please take a look at this musician at full size (100% not just full screen) and compare that with your photo. I would recommend that you first nominate your photos for Quality image to get them assessed and get some tips before you take them to FPC. w.carter-Talk 15:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
too unsharp you must be joking, not hard to tell your not a trained photographer.T Heart 13:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC) I am not opposing my own nomination... as stated obviously these images are being graded by untrained photographers T Heart 16:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Did you even look at the example (File:Hombre cantando por dinero en las cercanías del Hotel Humbodlt.jpg) that I linked to above? w.carter-Talk 18:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Better pose than the other one, but still unsharp in too many places. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. INeverCry 19:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
yes I did look at the sample and as stated about.... its all raw image and then photoshop photography, to get the effect. That's not skill that's photoshop. That is my point, without photoshop that image would not have the colours it does. Most photographers today have no clue what 'real photography' is as they do not know how to do it unless its photoshop. I am not from that era I am a trained photographer to use my skill. Most photographers today if they had to just 'use their skill' would fail badly at images. Thank youT Heart 13:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Pat-carey.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 06:53:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •  Info created by Imasku - uploaded by Imasku - nominated by Imasku -- T Heart 06:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- T Heart 06:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Also not very sharp to my eyes. As a musician, I'd like to support these photos, but I don't find them to be at FP level. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek:, did you mean to oppose? Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks for catching that error. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough and very noisy. The bottom crop is a bit unfortunate. Sorry. --Cayambe (rest of sig broken by edit)
  •  Oppose Mot sharp enough. Did @Ikan Kekek: mean to support? Charles (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Please see explanation on your first photo. w.carter-Talk 15:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Quality way too low for such a small image. --Kreuzschnabel 14:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for the same reasons as the first photo. w.carter-Talk 15:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose per others. Poor technically and not really that striking a composition. Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
too unsharp you must be joking, not hard to tell your not a trained photographer.T Heart 13:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC) I am not opposing my own nomination... as stated obviously these images are being graded by untrained photographers T Heart 16:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
What a pity you’re the only trained photographer in here. Btw, may we see some samples of your work to adore? --Kreuzschnabel 17:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. INeverCry 19:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
yes I did look at the sample and as stated about.... its all raw image and then photoshop photography, to get the effect. That's not skill that's photoshop. That is my point, without photoshop that image would not have the colours it does. Most photographers today have no clue what 'real photography' is as they do not know how to do it unless its photoshop. I am not from that era I am a trained photographer to use my skill. Most photographers today if they had to just 'use their skill' would fail badly at images. Thank youT Heart 13:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Kreuzschnabel Did not say I am the only trained photographer, one of the few that uses trained skill not photoshop photography, there is a difference. The lighthouse below is my work and it has been disallowed. Last time I will submit my work. Enough of wiki. Thank you T Heart 13:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Lyriothemis acigastra-Kadavoor-2016-06-26-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2016 at 23:20:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Xanten RömerMuseum 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2016 at 21:43:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
  •  Info created by Till Niermann - uploaded by Till Niermann - nominated by W.carter -- w.carter-Talk 21:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- w.carter-Talk 21:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Wow, simply amazing and I can feel the geometric art here --The Photographer (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 21:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Per The Photographer. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Nice view, interesting light conditions. But it looks a bit to dark and underexposed for me. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Very interesting composition but a bit too dark -- Spurzem (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info Upped the light a little bit per requests and cloned out the partial bird/UFO while I was at it. If Till Niermann don't agree with this, then I apologize and you can of course reverse it. The change was so very little that I did not see the need for a new version. We already have one alt version, no need for three since the change was suggested by two editor and I agree with it. If I was wrong in doing so, please let me know. w.carter-Talk 11:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Info Thanks for optimizing, I'm far from opposing the enhancements. --Till (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • That was reassuring, thanks for letting me know. If you want to vote for your own picture, you can do so if you like. w.carter-Talk 18:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me both are too dark. --King of ♠ 23:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Great composition! The editor of a photo calendar would probably prefer the de-molehilled version below, but the more I think about it the more I like this version, as they somehow break the otherwise strictly geometrical patterns in the image. --El Grafo (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Also kind of reminds me of "Der Maulwurf Grabowski": a picture book I had when I was a child, telling the story of a mole who has to find a new place to live because people are turning his meadow into a construction site …
  •  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 14:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Alexmar983 (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Great use of abstraction -- Thennicke (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me both are too dark, as King of hearts. Oversaturated IMO--Lmbuga (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Alt version

  •  Info Fixed black UFO, sharpening problems, noise and severals distracting objects like irregular lawn. --The Photographer (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - The only difference I see is that clods of dirt on the grass were cloned out, but those don't bother me. I won't oppose this, though; it's fine, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support move to  Neutral on this for less confusion now that the UFO is gone on the first. - Thanks for fixing the UFO (or part of bird top center on the other pic) and the noise. The lawn did not bother me in the original version, looks like they have a problem with some rodents or other animals digging there, but that is part of the landscape. I'm fine with either version. w.carter-Talk 09:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me both are too dark. --King of ♠ 23:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I prefer the original. INeverCry 06:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Alexmar983 (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me both are too dark, as King of hearts. Oversaturated IMO--Lmbuga (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Pelícano pardo de las Galápagos (Pelecanus occidentalis urinator), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 80.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2016 at 21:17:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alt version

  •  Info I preffer this version, for example, compares the eyes --The Photographer (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support--Lmbuga (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support As always. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Is this legitimately an alt version? It is better, though, and I support it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you Miguel for this nom. I always was fond of this subject and still cannot understand the outcome of the first attempt. Poco2 06:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I see I changed my mind. What did it is that I thought about how detailed the picture of the pelican is, and the background looks OK at full-page size, though it still looks strange to me at full size. Best for me not to think about that part too much... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Question What do you mean ?--Jebulon (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Previously, when this photo, now presented as an alternate, was nominated, I opposed featuring it on the basis that I couldn't get past the background on the right side being so blurred at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --w.carter-Talk 07:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm confused. This image is already shown in the gallery as FP. Charles (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Same as Charlesjsharp... Strange.--Jebulon (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    Jebulon, Charles: if it would be a Commons FP you'd see the FP star in the top right. As you can see in the FP template it is considered FP in the Spanish WP, but not in Commons. Poco2 15:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Mmmmh, yes of course, I've noticed this, but anyway, this picture is now listed as Commons FP--Jebulon (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I dont't get you Jebulon, Poco2 17:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Please have a look to the current categorization of this file...--Jebulon (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Are those cats for exclusive use of Commons FPs? That would be knew to me. I have though no problem with removing any categories containing "Featured" and not in "xxx Wikipedia" if there is consensus about that, but it isn't the place to discuss that, I guess. Poco2 17:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The trees of Category:Featured pictures by country and similar, are only for Commons FP, because "FP's" on many wikipedia languages are not necessarily what we consider as the finest of Commons, making these categories rather trivial when sorted into. Thanks --A.Savin 18:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
It should be on category page, anyway, now diliff will win the first place --The Photographer (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
A.Savin: no problem, will remove the images that are FP somwhere but not on Commons (I just checked they are 20) from Category:Featured pictures by country and from Category:Featured pictures of landscapes (or whatever subject).
The Photographer: is there something to win? what do you mean? Poco2 06:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I have the idea that in some point WMF will support the photographers with more FP. Maybe I'm wrong, however, could be nice see WMF supporting us with a camera or a lens, for example. --The Photographer (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The background is overpowering to me. INeverCry 06:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Pine 04:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Aeolian Islands at sunset.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 18:16:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • O sorry, I thought it was a detail of a church ceiling (I joke ).--Jebulon (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes esteban, I know....is the beautiful,blue sky,red sky and island. Thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting and beautiful -- Spurzem (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many posterized and unsharp areas. Daniel Case (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Daniel is not posterized is the rarefied air ..... anyway where would unsharp? thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose mostly per Daniel. It is rather noisy, there are practically no details at all on the sea, the sunset in itself is not extraordinary enough for an FP, the color especially around the islands is so posterized and saturated that at full size it almost looks like those psychedelic posters I had in my room during the 1960s, ok fond memories but not FP, sorry. --w.carter-Talk 21:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Daniel & WC. INeverCry 22:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Sorry, it's a nice sunset, but except for the colorful striations in the middle, the picture pretty much just sits there, and at full size, it gets worse to my eyes, as explained by others above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Lovely but the picture suffers from barrel distortion. I also wonder why it's that noisy at only ISO 100. --Code (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Well, as it seems that the author isn't interested in any improvement of this picuture, I think I'll have to oppose. A pity. --Code (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see distortion...and more a opposition more....what change? --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Of course that was more or less what I expected. Why are you participating here if you don't care about the feedback others give you at all? I really don't get it. This project is not just about collecting awards. --Code (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Because someone has talked about awards? Do not go out nonsense, I do not care about your opinion. It's different. This way you do it is pedantic and boring.--LivioAndronico (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I was triying fix the noise, if it is not ok for you, please revert me LivioAndronico --The Photographer (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reverted --The Photographer (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Well, as it seems that the author isn't interested in any improvement of this picuture after of my comment I do not I received any feedback and btw, I agree with Code when he tell this project is not just about collecting awards and I found a lack of respect and maturity when LivioAndronico comment to Code I do not care about your opinion. It's different. Code deserves an apology --The Photographer (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • And here's The Photographer who talk without being questioned. If you want respect then begins to respect others' opinions! Do what no one has asked you is not a test of maturity but of intelligence! However, I close here because probably become a boring speech which you are used to but I do not.--LivioAndronico (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Code: I would think Livio is participating here because he feels his photos deserve FP status. He's been right about this 96 times, so he's doing pretty well. If he doesn't want to change his images according to suggestions, so what? That's his business. Your comment about collecting awards is offensive. 96 FPs means 96 images of Livio's that were judged to be impressive enough for FP status. He earned those 96 FPs through his skill and talent as a photographer, he wasn't awarded anything. INeverCry 21:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Dear INeverCry, a good photographer not make you automatically an polite person. This place is not an street photo exhibition where opinions do not matter, it's a community based on participating which is the base too of FP section. Definitely, reviews are essential and for IMHO is the only way to improve the quality professional of this section. Code's comment refers to the fact that Livio ignored my comment followed by an immaturity act. --The Photographer (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: Come on, seriously? My comment was offensive? Don't you think it's offensive to ignore other users comments or attempts to help and to tell them that one doesn't care of their opinion? If he doesn't care for other users' opinions why is he presenting his pictures here? At FPC, everything is about the opinions of the community. We're not only allowed to talk if Livio wants us to. Although Livio's behaviour is always very rude some users (including myself) try to help him improve his pictures again and again and all we get in return are statements like the ones cited above. You're defending that by pointing out that he's got 96 FP stars? Really? BTW: I don't expect him to change his pictures upon my request. But I expect him to at least answer other users' comments. It's a simple issue of politness. --Code (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Ha ha! The same Simon Cowell who passed up Jennifer Hudson for Fantasia...a great judge... INeverCry 01:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Túnel natural, Hartelholz, Múnich, Alemania, 2016-04-03, DD 05.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 17:24:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •  Info Natural tunnel with a viewer at the back :) in Hartelholz Forest, Munich, Germany. All by me, Poco2 17:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Poco2 17:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 19:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nice doggy (and tunnel)! :) But there is red CA on most of the branches at the top. w.carter-Talk 19:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks! And  Support --w.carter-Talk 08:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Has an almost hand-painted appearance. Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Interesting motif, but I'm not really feeling the composition adding up at full-page size, maybe partly because of the crops, and the blurring makes a lot of branches look like they have snow on them at full size. That's too much (or maybe the wrong kind of) distortion, in my view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I also wowed that there's something in Munich I've never even heard of - Hartelholz... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Lucky?? --Hubertl 20:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    Right, Hubertl! Lucky!! :) Poco2 21:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    Awww... --w.carter-Talk 21:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    Is this the dog who doesn't swim? --Basotxerri (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, the one who doesn't like swimming :) Poco2 15:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 05:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  weak support I like the composition, although the branches seem blurry. --Pine 04:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Trifolium pratense - Keila.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 06:16:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •  Info Red clover (Trifolium pratense), all by Ivar (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WB if off, and the image looks oversharpened (see dark lines at the countours) --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Uoaei1: WB was not off, look at shooting time (or maybe you haven't seen orange light during golden hour?). Leaf edges of the red clover are sometimes dark red, look this --Ivar (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I have also added the Category:Plants and trees at golden hour (set up some new cats since the first one was getting crowded) to the pic, same as I did to your previous flower. Perhaps you should remember to add that in the future to keep misunderstandings to a minimum. w.carter-Talk 10:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The droplets really make this golden-hour flower special. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 18:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Modelo didatico bovino correto.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 00:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alt version

  •  Info It's not a correction, it's a restoration from original file, because, IMHO Arion nomination has destructive alterations like oversharpening, overexposition and color saturation, btw, I preffer a black background, remembering that it's only my opinion --The Photographer (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Really a nice work, thanks! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support This has evident relevance for Wikipedias! Joalpe (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support As a Wikipedian, I thank you. :) w.carter-Talk 16:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 19:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 19:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

* Support, although to make this even much more valuable, parts should be labeled. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - I'm finding the remarks in opposition pretty persuasive, particularly Adam's remarks below. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  strong opposition what's that in the mouth of the animal? Did you invented a new part? And this is a anatomic model, colours are painted by the human, it's not oversaturated, it's the colour of the model, and could be any colour actually, it's a educational model... And it was not "destructive" was we do not have any lost of information. Next time, ponder your words, or at least bring truths... Btw, your cuts are not clear, and the reason is simple, you changed the background colour, but do not took into consideration the invasion that black creates, now we have harsh white knurled lines, and you also do not removed the invasion of magenta provoked by the model itself. Remembering that it's only my opinion. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 17:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
PS:I strongly suggest you bright down your monitor, the grey it's not even close to be black, and we do not have areas overexposed in the orginal image. Seeing those evidences, your monitor is probably away more bright that should be to work with images. If you do not believe me, check the histogram... grey vs black. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 17:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done Rodrigo please, we are here to learn, take it easy. --The Photographer (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
well, The Photographer, we are here to collaborate, not for learning, learning is the reward, and you started listing number of problems that was not there, and more, qualifying the contribution as "destructive". How this is collaborative? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 12:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Rodrigo, please don't take it personally, how you can see, destrutive is a word very used here. --The Photographer (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The Photographer 23 results, we can not classify as very used, we have more presence of the word "shit" [3], and this do not mean that is good way to classify the work of someone, and more, using adjectives in an evaluation it is not appropriate and unproductive.
You still wrong in your affirmative...
And removing the poll and the clamps, made this away more unrealistic that already was, if you will remove the poll, remove the base... Clone stamping something so big should have the {{Retouched picture}} warning, specially in FP. Did you notify the volunteers that voted before this modifications? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 09:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Pido disculpas si fale uma coisa errada, analisando um pouco, tudas as modificações som destructivas e a gente faz sempre o melhor independentemente gente para algums seja bom o ruim. --The Photographer (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I'm not comfortable with the amount of digital edits made. It is what it is, and removing the pole, changing the background... Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Adam, thanks for your recomendation, however, the pole is a rusty suit that has nothing to do with the main subject and black blackgrounds are used in most scientific anatomy books to enhance the main subject. --The Photographer (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
This isn't just a diagram; it's a model. It loses a lot of value if parts of the model are removed. Besides the pole, the various screws and latches were also removed. But not the base. It's an awkward hybrid; you're basically trying to turn a photo of a 3D object into an SVG diagram. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Atsme 📞 18:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Adam Cuerden. Seems imbalanced only in two legs. Jee 03:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:2016.07.04.-26-Eilenburg-Ost--Distelfalter.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 17:04:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Black Cliffs' Lake, Lagodekhi Protected Area, Georgia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 14:11:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •  Info created by Giorgi Balakhadze - uploaded by Giorgi Balakhadze - nominated by Giorgi Balakhadze -- g. balaxaZe 14:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- g. balaxaZe 14:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Welcome to FPC, Giorgi Balakhadze! It's really a good start, but being a cell phone camera, the level of detail is somewhat limited. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Very weak support per Arion. Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I would suggest cloning out that black thing at top left in the sky. Good to see a nomination not shot with a multi-1000$ camera/lense. INeverCry 18:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It is a beautiful scene, but I think the level of detail should have been a bit better here for an FP. This is not your fault, it's just us being very picky here. I also think you should nominate these for Quality Image and one of them for Valued image. We would also appreciate if you could provide the coordinates for the camera location on the files so that they can be displayed on OpenStreetMap and Google Earth. Please look at this files page to see how that is done. w.carter-Talk 19:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice scenery, and the quality is quite good for a cell phone - but not enough for FP level. Details are too unsharp, and parts in shadow are too dark and noisy. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question - That's quite an impressive cell phone pic! But what is that black streak in the sky? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment It can be an eagle or something like that. I don't remember I was concentrated on the lake.--g. balaxaZe 06:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
      • It doesn't come across as an eagle. If you'd be willing to remove it (clone it out), I would support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes beautiful place, but still we have our quality standards. Btw, the one below is better. --A.Savin 18:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Black Cliffs' Lake, Lagodekhi Protected Area, Georgia 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 13:50:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •  Comment well, given the miniscule size of the camera's sensor (4mm diagonal), the f-stop as such is more than adequate. The lack of sharpness (at least when compared to more advanced photographic systems) is due to the sensor itself. This being said, the picture's still good enough imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 18:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Striking, especially that cloud shadow. Also the effort of getting these photos (reading the description) rivals this nom. w.carter-Talk 19:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of details. I also miss something special in this scenery. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support For me this image is very good. Perhaps we could look for lacks but we should not overdo. -- Spurzem (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I think this image is beautiful, poetic and deserves a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful but too unsharp for a 6 MP image. --King of ♠ 23:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Junonia atlites-Kadavoor-2016-06-23-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 05:54:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Zaadpluizen van Cirsium vulgare in mild avondlicht. Locatie, De Famberhorst 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 05:14:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Family Asteraceae.
  •  Info Seed Fluffs Cirsium vulgare in mild evening light. Location The Famberhorst in the Netherlands. All by User:Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --w.carter-Talk 07:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 18:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 07:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I'm going to dissent here. The thistle is quite clearly photographed, but the aggressively blurry grass distracts my eyes too much for me to be able to enjoy the photo's composition or even feel that it's good. Perhaps if the background were faded further, I might feel like supporting, but I don't really suggest for you to do that now, because then you'd have to ping everyone... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:7N Djurgårdslinjen SSB A2 24.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 16:10:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
  •  Info created/uploaded/nominated by Alexandar Vujadinovic -- Alexandar Vujadinovic (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - as nom. - Alexandar Vujadinovic (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is a beautiful picture that brings back fond memories for me and certainly a QI or VI, but that modern tram behind the tram spoils the image for me and an FP should be perfect. (not suggesting it could be cloned out this time) This museum tram runs so often that it would be no problem to wait for one with no modern vehicles around it. The architecture around this stop is from the 19th century so the perfect setting for the tram otherwise. Also you got the geo tag wrong, it has this as on the bridge, but the stop and this pic is on Strandvägen at 59.331748, 18.092906 just before the bridge even if the stop is named after the bridge. Sorry, but thank you for showing it. :) w.carter-Talk 17:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the location data, I've updated the page now. As for the newer tram in the background, I waited for it on purpose because I thought it'd be fun to have the newest and one of the oldest in the same image - Alexandar Vujadinovic (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for explaining how you thought, perhaps others will see this the same way you do. Had it been a side-by-side or more shown of the new version, I would have agreed with you, but not as it is unfortunately. w.carter-Talk 19:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per WC. INeverCry 21:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, plus I don’t like the current collector to be cut off as it is part of the coach. Sorry if it sounds harsh but this strikes me rather as a tourist shot than a carefully composed image. I am sure this can be done better, in a less busy environment. --Kreuzschnabel 22:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Kreuzschanbel. Daniel Case (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Gloucester Cathedral High Altar, Gloucestershire, UK - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 14:02:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Diese "distorted"-Behauptung wird nicht wahrer vom ständigen Wiederholen. Ich warte immer noch auf Deinen Vorschlag, wie man solche Kircheninnenräume denn besser abbilden sollte. --Code (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • durch natürliche Projektion. --Ralf Roleček 16:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Aha. Und was ist das, "natürliche Projektion"? Ergänzung: Dein Bild hier wurde mit einem 10mm-Objektiv gemacht und hat eine geradlinige Projektion. Das Bild von Diliff wurde aus mehreren Bildern zusammengesetzt und entspricht einem 8mm-Objektiv, ebenfalls mit geradliniger Projektion. Deins ist ok, seins nicht oder wie soll ich das verstehen? Erklär mir den Unterschied. --Code (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, ich muß zugeben, darauf habe ich keine Antwort. --Ralf Roleček 17:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral See several discussions below.  Oppose It really is beautiful and perfect, but IMO too beautiful and perfect, it doesn't look real, more like some computer animation from a film or a game with a huge budget and very good animators. Truly sorry. w.carter-Talk 17:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: Sorry, but I really don't understand why you opposed. Please, explain me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @ArionEstar: I explained it below to Ikan, is that enough or should I do this once again here? w.carter-Talk 13:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @ArionEstar: Now this is turning into a philosophical discussion, by "too perfect" here I meant that it was so flawless that it looked unreal. Kreuz said it better in his explanation when he called it overprocessed and oversaturated. That was the "photography-speak" I was looking for. I am not wowed by this picture, it has perspective but it does not convey a sense of depth, the light is flat, the arches nearest the camera are far too distorted, the stained glass window at the end looks too bright. I don't find this image as stunning as the rest of his church pictures. But I will probably be explaining this "not-wowed" for the rest of my life if I keep up opposing this, so I move to neutral instead. I've learned my lesson. w.carter-Talk 14:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't worry about expressing your opinion... You might be right or you might be wrong, but you're entitled to a subjective opinion. You may have a point about the flat lighting anyway. It's not actually flat (there is plenty of contrast), but there was a huge range of luminosity in the scene and the only way to 'squeeze' it into a normal low dynamic range image is to compress it and sometimes that makes it appear flat even when it's not. As I said below, I think reshooting it when the lighting was more balanced would help, but for now, this image is what it is. :-) Diliff (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support perfect as always. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - It certainly looks real to me. W.carter, I have to shake my head in disbelief at the idea of opposing a photo because it's "too perfect". Because really great computer animators can produce a fine simulacrum of reality now, we're going to penalize the very greatest photographers for their level of perfection? I think that's not only absurd but really objectionable, and a totally untenable basis for opposing a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: We deal very much in subjectivity when casting our votes on these candidates, and describing why you don't think something that ought to be ok, is not, that's very difficult. That was the nearest I could come to explaining why the image did not appeal to me. Perhaps I should have used a language like 'flat light', 'too bright stained glass windows', 'arches nearest the camera looking distorted', 'even though it has perspective, it does not convey a sense of depth'. A perfect rendition of something is not necessarily a good photo. Would such a description be more satisfying? We all have our own way of describing why we like or don't like a photo. You often talk about "moving your eyes around the photo", an expression I have never understood, but I respect that as your way of describing how you take in a picture. Mine is often by using simile or metaphore. w.carter-Talk 20:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Those specifics make sense to me. In terms of moving one's eyes around the picture frame, see if you can find information about the linear arabesque. My father, a painter, cited a specific treatise, but I don't remember its name at present. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll see if I can look that up somewhere. And I'll use a more direct language in the future. We don't want things to get 'Lost in translation'. w.carter-Talk 07:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 21:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Diliff is the best church interiors photographer. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • That, I can totally agree with! :) But even the greatest masters sometimes create works that does not appeal to everyone. I don't like all Rembrandts just because they have his signature either. w.carter-Talk 21:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • An odd discussion indeed. I'm very surprised at being pummeled like this for having a different opinion than the rest of the community, I thought that was allowed. I'm starting to feel like a heretic in front of the inquisition for daring to not be wowed by a work of Saint Diliff The Magnificent! But if it saves me from being burned at the stake, I can change me vote to 'Neutral' so as not to hinder the speedy ascension of His work to FP. ;) --w.carter-Talk 07:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • w.carter: Ups, my last comment was way more harsh than I intended it to be. I should have added a smiley or two. I've realized that after re-reading it. I absolutely and honestly didn't want to attack you or your right to an dissenting opinion which I do - of course - respect. Therefore I'd like to apologize for my tone. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: Come on, this is ridiculous and you know it. Your opinion is always very welcome. But that doesn't mean that other's aren't allowed to reply on your comments as well. This is what we call a discussion. It's quite simple: If you don't want others to reply on your comments you shouldn't post them in the first place. However, I agree with you that language is often a problem here at FPC. I'm not a native English speaker as well and I often don't really know how to express my opinion properly. Thoughtfulness is the key, I think. --Code (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, yes, I know. I enjoy a good discussion as much as anyone else and I can give as good as I get. No need to apologize for anything neither you or Martin, I have a very thick skin. Now I also know that speaking metaphorically may be nice when discussing art or the taste of a good wine, but not so much when discussing photos here. I should have tagged my comment above with a ";)" to clarify that I made that one smiling. (now fixed) And to explain a bit, part of my job is to go through hundreds of almost identical photos of something each day and decide which one is the best for a cover, an ad, a brochure, etc. So I'm more used to the "in or out" system, "neutral" is new to me. w.carter-Talk 10:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Though I usually am a great Diliff fan this is overprocessed in my eyes. Colours oversaturated (see all red areas, and even the blue books). Impressing level of detail of course but the look at 100 percent is too unreal for me. --Kreuzschnabel 22:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Wow, this is even better than I thought ... come for the quality church interior, stay for the German lesson . Daniel Case (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Great // Martin K. (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment. From memory this was a tough interior to process. I don't think the colours are unrealistic, especially on the books. If anything, the stained glass was the hardest part to process and some parts are blown a little bit (even with 5 bracketed images with 2-3 stops between them!). I would like to visit again when the light isn't as harsh, I think the stained glass would look better that way. But it's still quite accurate I think. Diliff (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good IMO (I love your pictures)--Lmbuga (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Insula Maioricae Vicentius Mut 1683.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 13:33:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Yep, looks terrible in FF but fine in Chrome. INeverCry 04:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 Question - Wait. What is this about Firefox? And how will it look on smartphones, which a lot of people will use to view it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the problem. This evening I will try to get rid of those ICC-Data tags that seem to be causing problems with Firefox. --Hispalois (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)  Done by El Grafo (see below).
  •  Oppose per Alchemist. If it's hard to view, it's not a good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Sorry, but it's fine with me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Arion. INeverCry 21:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm not having a problem reading it. Daniel Case (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support any chance to fix the profile problem? IE and Safari work, FF doesn't. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • It was using a strange, non-standard colour profile called Metis DRS 2A0 CC24. Tried converting to standard sRGB using Gimp – new version looks normal to me in Firefox now (but @Hispalois: please feel free to revert my version if you've got a better solution). --El Grafo (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Your version fixed the issue. Thank you very much! --Hispalois (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is not an original, just a 1946 reimpression. Far much less value--Jebulon (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 Comment I agree that an original would fetch much more money in an auction but regarding the encyclopaedic usefulness of the image I'd say there is not much difference. It should be noted that this was a true reimpression, from the original copperplates, not a facsimile. --Hispalois (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - El Grafo, thanks for fixing the problem. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 19:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 06:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Does the black frame need to be that thick? Is it needed at all? I find it distracting. --Till (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:13-04-13-st-poelten-landhausviertel-628.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 13:03:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.