Commons:Featured picture candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Featured picture candidates in other languages: Alemannisch | Asturianu | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Galego | 日本語 | Lëtzebuergesch | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Português | Polski | Română | Русский | Shqip | Српски / Srpski | Svenska | Українська | 粵語 | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | 古文 / 文言文 | +/-

Shortcut: COM:FPC

Skip to current candidates Skip to current delist candidates

These are the candidates to become featured pictures. Please note that this is not the same thing as the picture of the day.

[edit] Formal things

[edit] Nominating

[edit] Guidelines for nominators

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:

• Resolution - Photographs of lower resolution than 2 million pixels are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'. Note that a 1600 x 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level.

Graphics located on Commons may be used in ways other than viewing on a conventional computer screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible.

• Scans - While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on preparation of various types of images that may be useful.

• Focus - every important object in the picture should normally be sharp.

• Foreground and background - foreground and background objects may be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head).

• General quality - pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality.

• Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provide it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive. Typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{RetouchedPicture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable.

• Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
  • almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
  • night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
  • beautiful does not always mean valuable.

On the technical side, we have exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.

• Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Digital cameras (or images) have a narrower latitude than film. Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element.

• Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The “Rule of Thirds” is a good guideline for composition and is an inheritance from the painting school. The idea is to divide the image with two imaginary horizontal and two vertical lines, thus dividing the image into thirds horizontally and vertically. Centering the subject is often less interesting than placing the subject in one of the “interest points”, the 4 intersection between these horizontal and vertical lines intersect. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they “cut” the image in half. The upper or lower horizontal line is often a good choice. The main idea is to use space to create a dynamic image.

• Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better over the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the “unnatural” nature of the pose would be a good photograph.

• Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or subtract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and vice versa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF.

On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, colour, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, etc.

• Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects.

• Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is acomplished using side light. Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not the best light. It tends to flatten subject. Best light of day is early morning or late afternoon.

• Colour is important. Over saturated colours are not good.

• Texture refers to the quality of the surface of the subject. It is enhanced by side lighting… it is the “feel” to the touch….

• Perspective refers to the “angle” accompanied by lines that disappear into a vanishing point that may or may not be inside the image.

• Balance refers to the arrangement of subjects within the image that can either give equal weight or appear to be heavier on one side.

• Proportion refers to the relation of size of objects in picture. Generally, we tend to represent small objects small in relation to others, but a good technique is to represent small objects large contrary to natural size relationship. For example, a small flower is given preponderance over a large mountain…. This is called inversion of scales.

Not all elements must be present. Some photographs can be judged on individual characteristics, that is, an image can be about color or texture, or colour AND texture, etc.

• Symbolic meaning or relevance…. Opinion wars can begin here…. A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.

Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image “speaks” to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations….

You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating.

[edit] Adding a new nomination

If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following.

Step 1: copy the image name into this box (including the Image: prefix), after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:YOUR-IMAGE-FILENAME.JPG. Then click on the "create new nomination" button.

Step 2: follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save that page.

Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:YOUR-IMAGE-FILENAME.JPG}}

[edit] Voting

You can use following templates:

• {{Support}} ( Support),
• {{Oppose}} ( Oppose),
• {{Neutral}} ( Neutral),
• {{Comment}} ( Comment),
• {{Info}} ( Info:),
• {{Question}} ( Question: ).

You can indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP.

Please include a few words about why you liked/didn't like the picture, especially when you vote oppose. Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Anonymous votes are not allowed.

[edit] Featured picture delisting candidates

Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote {{Keep}} Keep (it deserves to be a featured picture) or {{Delist}} Delist (it doesn't deserve to be a featured picture).

If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box (including the Image: prefix), after the text already present in the box:

In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:

• Information on the origin of the image (creator, uploader);
• A link to the original FP nomination (it will appear under "Links" on the image description page);
• Your reasons for nominating the image and your username.

After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal.

[edit] Featured picture candidate policy

[edit] General rules

1. The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination. After the end of this period the result will be determined. Votes added on day 10 and after are not counted.
2. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome
3. Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome
4. Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
5. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated.
6. Nominators can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by simply writing "I withdraw my nomination"
   or by adding the text {{withdraw|~~~~}}.
7. Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.
8. Pictures are taken from the list if they have no support (not counting the nominator's) on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5). ("The rule of the 5th day")
9. Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 48 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator.

[edit] Featuring and delisting rules

A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:

1. Appropriate license (of course)
2. At least 5 supporting votes
3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority)
4. Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with the higher number of votes.

The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5.

Any experienced user may close requests. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished.

[edit] Above all, Be polite

Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be be the same as someone elses. Choose your words with care.

Happy judging… and remember.... all rules can be broken

[edit] See also

• To edit the list of nominations go to: Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list
• For a chronological list, see Commons:Featured_pictures/chronological
• For an archive of previous nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log
• For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished
• Basic list of photography-related terms
• Quality image candidates
• Photography critiques
• Help:Scanning

[edit] Table of contents

Contents 1 Formal things 1.1 Nominating 1.1.1 Guidelines for nominators 1.1.2 Adding a new nomination 1.2 Voting 1.3 Featured picture delisting candidates 1.4 Featured picture candidate policy 1.4.1 General rules 1.4.2 Featuring and delisting rules 1.5 Above all, Be polite 1.6 See also 2 Table of contents 3 Featured Picture Candidates 3.1 Image:SanFrancisco from TwinPeaks dusk MC.jpg 3.2 Image:Great grey slugs (Limax maximus) mating closeup 1.jpg 3.3 Image:Papilio bianor Raupe LC0134.jpg 3.4 Romalea guttata 3.5 Image:RyuichiSakamotoJI4.jpg 3.6 Japanese Squirrel edited version 3.7 Image:Wasp May 2008-1.jpg 3.8 Image:Male Mallard Headshot.jpg 3.9 Image:Mallard 080508.jpg 3.10 Libellula quadrimaculata 3.JPG 3.10.1 Noise reduced version 3.11 Image:Kanton Zürich Detail DE.png 3.12 Image:Monarch Viceroy Mimicry Comparison.jpg 3.13 Image:Lily-flowered Tulip Tulipa 'West Point' Flowers 2000px.JPG 3.14 Image:Red-necked wallaby442.jpg 3.15 Image:Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis Wings 1918px.JPG 3.16 Image:GreatEgret Alligator.jpg 3.17 Image:Triumph Tulip Tulipa 'Prinses Irene' Single 2859px.jpg 3.18 Mrs. Herbert Stevens (Hybrid Tea) 3.18.1 Original (left) 3.18.2 Alternative1 (center) 3.18.3 Alternative2 (right) 3.19 Image:Cox Ford Bridge, IN 1.jpg 3.20 Image:Schloss Nymphenburg Munich.jpg 3.20.1 Edit 1 (centre) 3.20.2 Edit 2 (right) 3.20.3 Edit 3 (alternative) 3.21 Image:Kaiseradler Aquila heliaca 2 amk.jpg 3.22 Image:Thraciae-veteris-typvs.jpg 3.23 Image:JewliaEisenberg August2007.jpg 3.24 Image:Spider and mites May 2008-1.jpg 3.25 Image: LA_Skyline_Mountains.jpg 3.25.1 Original 3.25.2 Alternative (right) 3.26 Image: Assomption de la Vierge.jpg 3.27 Image:Riviere Langevin Trou Noir P1440224-35.jpg 3.28 Image:Dsm pano.jpg 3.29 Libellula quadrimaculata 3.30 Image:Bath-Abbey02.jpg 3.31 Image:Mandoe.JPG 3.32 Pelargonium graveolens 3.33 Image:Forestry Forwarder Ösa 250 2.jpg 3.34 Image:Forestry Forwarder Ösa 250 2.jpg 3.35 Image:Victoria Crater taken by Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.jpg 3.36 Image:Galaxies Gone Wild!.jpg 3.37 Image:Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddin Mosque 02.jpg 3.38 Image:76.Pollineta a Agullana.JPG 3.39 Image:Kaiseradler Aquila heliaca amk.jpg 3.39.1 Original (left) 3.39.2 Edit (right) 3.40 Image:Konica Minolta alvesgaspar.jpg 3.41 Original (left) - not featured 3.41.1 Alternative (right) 3.42 Image:Lynx der lander.jpg 3.43 Image:HP Pavilion (angle).jpg 3.44 Image:Garden of Eden ArchesNP MC.jpg 3.45 Image:Coat of arms of Mexico.svg 4 Delisting candidates 5 Timetable (day 5 after nomination) 6 Timetable (day 9 after nomination)

[edit] Featured Picture Candidates

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page cache

[edit] Image:SanFrancisco from TwinPeaks dusk MC.jpg

• Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Chmehl 08:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support The San Francisco skyline seen from Twin Peaks just before sunset. In the background: The Bay Bridge leading to Oakland. -- Chmehl 08:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support, reminds me of why I don't like American cities, but it's a very good photo. --Aqwis 11:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Great grey slugs (Limax maximus) mating closeup 1.jpg

• Info: created by en:User:Spleines - uploaded to commons and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden 02:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Adam Cuerden 02:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Umnik 13:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting behaviour, but not rare enough to overcome the technical issues, namely lack of sharpness, harsh flash and the brickwork. --MichaelMaggs 17:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Image:Great_grey_slugs_(Limax_maximus)_mating.jpg is also possible, but, you know, it's not as pretty in the penile region. Adam Cuerden 18:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • ...Um, you know what I mean. Adam Cuerden 18:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Papilio bianor Raupe LC0134.jpg

• Info: created, uploaded and nominated by LC-de -- LC-de 20:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- LC-de 20:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Nice lighting. Freedom to share 21:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - Crisp and well done. --- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Romalea guttata

• Info: created by Ryantwood - uploaded by Ryantwood - nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 16:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Laitche 16:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support, wow. --Aqwis 17:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer 19:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support and another good insect picture ;) Lycaon 22:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support nice shot - but are there some dust spots visible? (if yes they can get removed easily) --AngMoKio 23:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Removed. -- Laitche 11:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Support Beautiful. /Daniel78 00:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 17:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support very good --Richard Bartz 18:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Well done. --Calibas 01:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - Nice critter and good photo. A pity that its author only spent a single day and a couple of edits in Commons! -- Alvesgaspar 07:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RyuichiSakamotoJI4.jpg

• Info: created by Joi - uploaded by Joi - nominated by Joi -- Joi 12:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Joi 12:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment The image needs to be categorized, and could also benefit from some short information about the person or a link to the article about the person on one or several of the wikipedias. /Daniel78 00:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Ryuichi Sakamoto - composer en:Ryuichi Sakamoto ja:坂本龍一 --Joi 04:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good image, but not enough for FP. --Karelj 19:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Squirrel edited version

• Info: created by Ma2bara - nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 06:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Info: Edited version of this nomination. -- Laitche 06:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I think this squirrel is living in fairy tale.（＾＾）／ -- Laitche 06:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I like the colours and the composition --norro 09:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --AKA MBG 09:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Perfect. --Taraxacum 12:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Laveol 12:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--JDiPierro 16:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer 19:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support DOF could be better but the composition is very nice. --AngMoKio 19:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 20:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice colors. The focus feels a bit odd when viewed in fullsize. /Daniel78 00:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj 19:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Too cute. --Calibas 01:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wasp May 2008-1.jpg

• Info: A queen paper Wasp (Polistes gallicus) taking a rest. At this time of the year they are usually taking care of the new colony. They leave the nest only for short periods to gather food and drink for the larvae. Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar 23:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alvesgaspar 23:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Male Mallard Headshot.jpg

• Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by JDiPierro -- JDiPierro 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- JDiPierro 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Exposure could be a bit better, but the atypical composition appeals to me. It is slightly noisy (what was the ISO?), but I really like the background blur. Freedom to share 17:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment It was at ISO-1600, It was a bright sunny day but the lens I have is horridly un-sharp so I shoot it at high ISO to get the fastest shutter speed possible. I can't fix ISO without killing what sharpness there is so if anyone can, feel free to upload a different version (but remember to credit me :D). --JDiPierro 21:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Question: Do you still have the RAW file? Freedom to share 11:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It was, unfortunately, shot at JPEG compression. 67.240.35.101 19:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mallard 080508.jpg

• Info: created by Anton Holmquist Soasta - uploaded by Soasta - nominated by Soasta -- Soasta 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Soasta 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Exposure could be better to bring out the details on the feathers. Freedom to share 21:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I agree. Also the general quality is not enough -- Alvesgaspar 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Libellula quadrimaculata 3.JPG

• Info: created by Username - uploaded by Username - nominated by Username -- Böhringer 06:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Böhringer 06:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --norro 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Sauba --Richard Bartz 08:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Schön umgesetzt. --AngMoKio 10:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 14:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Compression artifacts.. on the legs for example.. sorry.. Yzmo 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral a bit noisy. -- Laitche 16:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Although sharpness is slightly lacking, the wow factor more than makes up for it. --MichaelMaggs 17:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - Agree with Michael. Also this is a valuable picture -- Alvesgaspar 23:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Laveol 12:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noise reduced version

•  Support Removed some of the BG noise. Lycaon 23:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support This version is really better, also bcs in the orignial version are some clonings and maybe also some dust spots visible that are now gone. --AngMoKio 23:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Laitche 07:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 08:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alvesgaspar 10:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Laveol 15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj 19:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support es ist wirklich besser, Komplimet --Böhringer 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kanton Zürich Detail DE.png

• Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Tschubby -- Tschubby 05:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Tschubby 04:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Nice detail. --Beyond silence 15:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Monarch Viceroy Mimicry Comparison.jpg

• Info: Images created by Ram-Man (left) and PiccoloNamek (right). Uploaded by Lokal_Profil (left) and Ram-Man (right). Composite created and uploaded by Ram-Man. 05:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Info: This image is a composite created for en:Monarch (butterfly) to explain Müllerian mimicry.
•  Support We already have a similar standalone monarch featured picture, but we don't have a composite featured picture like this. Both images are at least decent quality, although I had to upsample the right image, so on its own it isn't FP material. Perhaps it isn't fancy enough (like a poster), but it's definitely useful and educational. -- Ram-Man 05:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 14:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I believe that for an FP composite, both images should be FP material, which they aren't (even if you look at size). We need to draw up criteria for such a type of image. Freedom to share 17:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very useful yes. But not FP material in my view, as it's a simple concatination of two images, one of which is itself not up to FP standards. --MichaelMaggs 17:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lily-flowered Tulip Tulipa 'West Point' Flowers 2000px.JPG

• Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 02:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Info: Lily-flowered Tulip (Tulipa 'West Point')
•  Support -- Ram-Man 02:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very beautiful image, but noisy. Sorry. I will support the image, if the noise could be reduced--Mbz1 03:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I never cease to be shocked at votes. If this is noisy, then we will have to require pictures from full-frame digital SLRs only or require images to only use the upper 75% of the tonal range. Of course you can see noise when viewing a 30+" magnification from 18" away! This is the pinnacle of extreme pickiness. And an "Oppose" vote at that, not even a "Neutral". Even you admit that it's beautiful, but the impossible quality standard takes priority. And I will *not* denoise the image, that's just totally rediculous. -- Ram-Man 03:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• "...but impossible quality standard takes priority." RM ;
  "This is the pinnacle of extreme pickiness. And an "Oppose" vote at that, not even a "Neutral"." RM.
  Well, I had some great teachers and you were one of the best. Thank you.--Mbz1 14:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose Sorry, but I find the background too confusing, especially the other yellow tulips one of which confuses the outline of the main subject. --MichaelMaggs 06:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment It seems to have a red colour cast. --norro 08:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Lerdsuwa 18:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral - Can't oppose, as I find the composition of the two flowers superb. But the background is indeed distracting (BTW, what's wrong with denoising?) -- Alvesgaspar 23:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It doesn't need it. -- Ram-Man 23:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Red-necked wallaby442.jpg

• Info: created by, uploaded by and nominated by Benjamint 01:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Benjamint 01:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Nice catch. I like the way in which only the head is in focus. Freedom to share 15:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Lerdsuwa 18:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose - The quality is excellent but wow is missing -- Alvesgaspar 23:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Lycaon 06:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Lycaon --Richard Bartz 08:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support An excellent pic, I hope it has a chance under the domination of all these insects, flowers and bird lovers. --Taraxacum 12:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Not bad! --Karelj 19:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis Wings 1918px.JPG

• Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 01:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Info: A brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) drying his wings.
•  Support -- Ram-Man 01:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Solid and proper. Freedom to share 15:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I don't like the extreme contrast between the subject and the background as if the photo were taken at night with a flash. And the tight crop. of course. -- Alvesgaspar 23:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis 17:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose medium sharpness and light. --Beyond silence 15:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose The extreme contrast bothers me. --MichaelMaggs 17:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:GreatEgret Alligator.jpg

• Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Justin DiPierro -- JDiPierro 01:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- JDiPierro 01:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose The image should only focus on one of them as otherwise it is very difficult to have them both in focus. Furthermore, there is some serious chromatic aberration on the bird. Freedom to share 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition. There is nothing to tie the two animal together to make the photo interesting. --Lerdsuwa 17:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support The egret and alligator together make it a very interesting composition.--Mbz1 19:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unfortunate composition, not a very good DOF and then the disturbing CA that Fts mentioned. Lycaon 06:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose CA fringing visible even at thumbnail size...now if the egret was standing on the alligator - Peripitus 12:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't like the composition; DOF-problems. --Mbdortmund 09:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral The composition is perfect: the triangle of bodies of animals, the twig that divides them. --AKA MBG 09:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Triumph Tulip Tulipa 'Prinses Irene' Single 2859px.jpg

• Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. -- Ram-Man 01:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Info: Triumph Tulip (Tulipa 'Prinses Irene')
•  Support -- Ram-Man 01:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Gorgeous colours, perfect composition, amazing depth of field. JDiPierro 01:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like washed out flowers at background and I love colors, but I do not like the front flower cut and IMO it is noisy. Sorry.--Mbz1 03:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not even close to noisy. You're the only person I know who would look at the darkish corner of the image instead of looking at the flower. This was shot with a 6MP SLR with the lowest ISO setting. You can't get much better noise control than this. -- Ram-Man 03:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• " You're the only person I know who would look at the darkish corner of the image instead of looking at the flower. " RM.
  Would it be the right thing to say that now you know the second person? :-)--Mbz1 14:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Agree with Mbz1. Beautiful bokeh but unbalanced composition and poor image quality. -- Alvesgaspar 08:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Am I the only one who first looks at the flower, then at the darkish corner? Freedom to share 15:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful. I think it is the property of bokeh, not noise. --Lerdsuwa 17:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support ! --Calibas 01:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Great composition, beautiful color, excellent detail on the tulip. Great work. --JaGa 07:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting composition, but nothing wow or high value for FP. --Beyond silence 15:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mrs. Herbert Stevens (Hybrid Tea)

[edit] Original (left)

• Info: created, uploaded & nominated by Laitche -- Laitche 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Laitche 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lycaon 21:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support A little muted, but it's pretty good. -- Ram-Man 00:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer 06:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment The flower could be brightened up a little; it's rather too dark for my liking. --MichaelMaggs 06:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral agrre with MichaelMaggs --norro 08:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)