Commons:Candidatas a imágenes destacadas

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Aquí están las candidatas a imágenes destacadas

[edit] Formalidades

[edit] Nominación

Si crees que hay alguna foto en Commons lo suficientemente atractiva como para estar entre las imágenes destacadas, entonces por favor inclúyela en la lista de candidaturas editando este enlace. Si hay consenso general después de 10 días, la imagen se transferirá a imágenes destacadas.

Para votar, emplea {{pro}} y {{contra}}.

Puedes hacer comentarios en el idioma que quieras, aunque más vale tener en cuenta el hecho de que la mayor parte de los usuarios hablan inglés.

[edit] Reglas

Hay 9 días de deliberaciones. Se decide el resultado al día 10 después de la nominación.
Los usuarios anónimos pueden proponer candidatas.
Los usuarios anónimos pueden participar en la discusión.
Los votos de usuarios anónimos no cuentan.
Una nominación no cuenta automáticamente como un voto. Debes expresar tu apoyo de forma explícita.

La candidata se convertirá en una imagen destacada a condición de:

estar bajo una licencia libre (por supuesto)
que haya un mínimo de cinco votos a favor
que la proporción de votos a favor / en contra sea al menos 2/1 (o sea, una mayoría de dos tercios o 67%)

1 Formalidades
- 1.1 Nominación
- 1.2 Reglas
2 Propuestas

[edit] Propuestas

[edit] Image:Giraffa camelopardalis angolensis (courting).jpg

Info:Giraffe version of picture below ;-) created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon 17:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Lycaon 17:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Florida Box Turtle Digon3.jpg

Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 ^talk 17:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment The turtle was moving too fast for me to get better DOF without getting blur. I just hope it doesn't ruin the picture too much. --Digon3 ^talk 17:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Male and female Mirounga angustirostris.jpg

Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 16:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Mbz1 16:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lunar Crepuscular Rays 1.jpg

Info: Crepuscular Rays are a beautiful sight. Crepuscular Rays under the stars are even more so. The Moon was behind the mountain. Crepuscular Rays were created by the shadows of the objects (trees, rocks, bears :-) ) atop of the mountain.
Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 14:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Mbz1 14:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Support --Karelj 16:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lunar Crepuscular Rays 2.jpg

Support --Mbz1 14:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Map of the Great Wall of China.jpg

Info: created by Chumwa - uploaded by Chumwa - nominated by Chumwa -- Chumwa 06:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Chumwa 06:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ophrys incubacea (flower).jpg

Info: Black Ophrys near Neoneli, Sardinia, Italy. Created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon 05:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Lycaon 05:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Support - well-done Lycaon. --- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I find it a valuable image of this species, but there are some techical aspects of the photo which are not on-par with the FP bar. Only a minor part of the flower is actually in focus, I find the lightning too harsh (taken at 1pm I see). I would suggest taking such a shot in the morning or evening. I also find the composition somewhat uninteresting. Sorry. -- Slaunger 06:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Those plants are that uncommon that you take a picture when you encounter it on your trekking. No way to take it into a studio (protected rare species) or to change much of the composition. It takes quit an effort just to find them. You can't choose many of the other variables... These are mitigating circumstances. Lycaon 06:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am not suggesting to take it out of its natural environment, perhaps to return to the site at a time of day when the lightning is better and spend more time at the site to get the optimal composition. (of course I know you cannot do that now). I know from myself that FPC can be quite reluctant to mitigate such field conditions, but I think it is fair enough. On June 1 0:00 UTC, when Valued images goes on-line, you could nominate one of your images of the species there, as the subject fits very well with VIs purpose (sorry, could not resist doing a little promotion). -- Slaunger 07:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Support and I wish Lycaon once in a while applied his words about uncommon subjects to some other images too :-) --Mbz1 12:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:London-Mounted-Boxman.jpg

Info: created by Aldaron - uploaded by Aldaron - nominated by Aldaron -- Aldaron 02:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Support A vivid version of a classic subject.-- Aldaron 02:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The headless horseman? If this is a detail shot of the breastplate it would be better of in portrait orientation. As it is it just feels wrong, the sword is clipped on the left and there's unneeded space to the right. Awkward composition. Mfield 03:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The cropping seems awkward, per above. The description of the image does not match the image — describing an image of the guard, whereas the image seems to be a detail shot of the breastplate(?). The coloring is very good, though. G.A.S 05:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose It must be some joke, isn´t it? --Karelj 16:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Litoměřice Sv Štěpán.jpg

Info: Cathedral of St. Stephen with belfry in Litoměřice, Czech Republic Created & nominated by --Karelj 20:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC) --Karelj 20:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Support --Karelj 20:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Lycaon 20:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Info: For the record: this was the fastest support ever ;-)). Lycaon 16:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment please add geo-location next time. Lycaon 20:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Support --B.navez 02:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Support --Aldaron 02:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Support — aesthetically pleasing — G.A.S 05:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Support --Böhringer 06:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Vassil 09:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Laitche 10:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Support --Simonizer 10:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Nice view --Richard Bartz 11:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ? No wow, tilt and sharpness problems. --Beyond silence 14:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Butterfly May 2008-3a.jpg

Info: A beautiful Small White (Pieris rapae), maybe my best butterfly shot. Yes, there is already a FP with the same subject (at least). Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar -- Alvesgaspar 20:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Alvesgaspar 20:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The EXIF seems to have gone missing somewhere along the line ... --MichaelMaggs 20:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is the result of using a free denoising application! I included the relevant info in the picture file -- Alvesgaspar 09:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The main subject should have been entirely in focus. Barabas 21:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not always. -- Ram-Man 22:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Question: Butterflies are sometimes hard to evaluate. When I look at this at my 2MP viewing standard, it looks either out-of-focus, blurry, or over-sharpened. Does this butterfly naturally have this type of look or is this a photographic fault? -- Ram-Man 22:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- You can judge by yourself here. I tried to shoot this species on various occasions and could never got a perfect depiction of the body. I belive the main problem is the dense fur made of very fime hair. In most of the pictures in the gallery one cannot see the individual hairs; in others (like in the present FP), sharpening the image to better resolve them didn't result well. Dowsampling isn't a good solution either and might contribute to worsen the blur. The problem could of course be solved with a "deep asleep" butterfly photographed in a studio, using a large aperture to avoid diffraction and focus bracketing. In the meantime I'll keep trying outside... -- Alvesgaspar 09:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  - The problem can be solved with a tripod, a remote-control release and a mirror lockup - or - as an exception a doubleplus ultra steady hand. Question: What do you have against studio techniqes ? [1] --Richard Bartz 11:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Focus issues are distracting. Excellent composition though. --Aldaron 02:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Helsinki demonstration against the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.jpg

Info: created by User:Szilas - uploaded by User:Szilas - nominated by User:Szilas -- Szilas 17:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Szilas 17:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
{{~~FPX|~~}} small and not sharp --QWerk 18:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Interesting due to the history behind the photo. Jeblad 19:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Far too small to be considered. Also bad quality. Lycaon 20:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose No chance of promotion at that size. --MichaelMaggs 20:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose size, of course. -- Ram-Man 22:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose As I said before. --QWerk 13:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kochi chinese fishing-net-20080215-01a.jpg

Info: created by Haros - uploaded by Haros - nominated by Jeblad -- Jeblad 14:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Jeblad 14:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Support --A very good candidate. The picture is illustrational highly relevant, it is practically without technichal flaws, the textures are very good reproduced from the delicate net to the coarser poles, the motive is elegantly distributed in the picture area, the lines are playing elegantly against the subtle atmospheric bacground. The picture is highly descriptive and artistic at the same time. I'd like to see more of this kind.

--Frode Inge Helland 15:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)--84.202.109.20 15:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Support as per above. I remember these fishing nets when I was in Kochi over Easter! Very nice photo... Booksworm 15:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Nice photo indeed. -- Klaus with K 17:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Not bad. --Karelj 20:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Support --Böhringer 06:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Support as per above. Nsaa 07:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Question: Can you give a feeling for the size of the subject? --norro 08:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the fishermen's shelter to the left. It gives a good indication.--Frode Inge Helland 08:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That is probably the best indication, but there is yet another clue in the 14 or so birds sitting on the structure. They are visible only when viewing the highest resolution though. Haros 15:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Support as per above.---Nina- 08:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Support--Mbz1 14:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Statue of Liberty.svg

Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Vis Unita Fortior -- Vis Unita Fortior 08:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Derivative work from Image:Liberty-statue-from-below.jpg. I had initially been trying to make a simple piece of clipart but thanks to the level of detail it came out much more nicely than I'd expected, primarily due to the skill of the original photographer Derek Jensen (Tysto). Also, I'm not sure why the thumbnail is showing it with a white background, the background is actually transparent. -- Vis Unita Fortior 08:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Vis Unita Fortior 08:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Although the image is nice, I think it's too dark. Expressional/facial features are wiped out. -- Bthv 09:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Not enough detail in face... shading in torch doesn't fit with high contrast of body... and in general it isn't that polished... looks like an autotrace without any fine tuning. – flamurai 13:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I don´t like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karelj (talk • contribs) 20:10, 21 May 2008 UTC (UTC)
Oppose Does not look so good to me. The yellow torch looks out of place when it's yellow and the rest black. /Daniel78 20:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose--Econt 02:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon 05:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Support An excellent monochrome SVG image, very suitable for printing on almost any sort of background in the way that a photograph or grayscaled SVG would not be. Good use of shadow to highlight form while de-emphasizing features. Use of a yellow-black gradient on the torch is effective mimicry of the actual gold-leaf torch and having the torch as the one spot of color in the image is an obvious and effective parallel to the RL contrast between the golden torch and the greyed bronze statue. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 13:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Disclosure - I have an affiliation with the creator here, but I figure it doesn't matter if I'm standing against five "Oppose" votes anyways and not tipping the balance or anything. I think you guys are judging this as if it's a photograph, not an SVG illustration that's explicitly purposed to be clip-art rather than a reproduction of the original photo. Aspects that are being called out as flaws are obvious intentional details.
Also, I think that Flamurai may be thinking of potrace. It's potrace that's the tool which only does monochrome, the description of this image says it was made with autotrace which actually requires a fair amount of effort and pre-flight raster work to turn out good monochrome traces. But in either case, you would not just dump the original photograph into a tracing tool and get out an image like this - anyone who thinks so does not do much tracing. But I definitely do. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 13:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Avondrood.JPG

Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Bthv -- Bthv 07:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Info: Beautiful Evening Afterglow in the Netherlands.
Support -- Bthv 08:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is small and not sharp

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may remove this template and replace with a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If no contrary views are expressed within 48 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon 09:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dawn Redwood Metasequoia glyptostroboides Needles 3264px.jpg

Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 03:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Info: Needles of the Dawn Redwood (Metasequoia glyptostroboides)
Support I realize this is naturally "noisy", especially in the flat areas (it was taken a while ago with my point-and-shoot), but I find the composition and the delicate needles to be beautiful. Afterall, the noise is not visible at reasonable magnifications. Maybe I'm the only one, but we'll see. -- Ram-Man 03:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Too noisy for me - sorry. I'm also not that keen on the composition and would have preferred a backgound without the additional leaves. --MichaelMaggs 06:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bluebeard Caryopleris incana 'Jason' Dried Flowers 2000px.jpg

Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 03:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Info: Dried flowers of Bluebeard (Caryopteris incana 'Jason')
Support -- Ram-Man 03:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Subject does not stand clear of background, and the unfocussed flowers behind the subject confuse the lines. --MichaelMaggs 06:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Tone in tone subject/background -insufficient separation --Richard Bartz 18:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose As above. --Karelj 20:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata Insect Feeding 3008px.jpg

Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 02:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Info: Sphex ichneumoneus feeding on the nectar of the Asclepias incarnata
Support Normally I focus on flowers alone, but this is one of the best examples of a nectar feeding insect that I've seen. The focal point is perfect. I love how the rear and fore legs are both engaged in the flowers. -- Ram-Man 02:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Good quality, nice picture. The wasp's absorption of pollen/nectar is hidden by a leaf of the bud and could/should be displayed better. The background is 2 distracting/nervous. I think for 2008 macro shots a separation like this should/must be standard IMO. --Richard Bartz 12:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking of standards, we can't all do what you do. Not everyone owns a 180mm macro lens. - Ram-Man 16:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  - This isn't a question of gear. 65mm or 300mm ... it's the scene which separates. --Richard Bartz 17:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    - See the talk page for my response. -- Ram-Man 22:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Natural environment, and not the usual deep freezed bugs. Jeblad 15:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment This is not a very nice comment, can you make this hard? If not, please refrain of insinuations. Thanks. Lycaon 18:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the bug-pictures has clear indications of bugs slowed down after a stay in the deep freezer. This is a very common technique for slowing down bugs while making such photos. If you have made such photos you most probably have done this yourself. If you don't know anything about this and feel insulted by a comment then I guess you should read a book about this kind of photography. Jeblad 08:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Aha i see you are a macro specialist. Freezer can be a technique but isn't common - carbon dioxide is more effective and is used by scientists - the most common technique for a photographer is to wake up early and being prepared when the dawn has broken. Insects are clammy when the night was cold. Another thing is the wind - the thermal comes fast when it goes warmer .. so the sharpest pictures can be made between 5-8 o'clock in the morning --Richard Bartz 10:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - I like it and believe it is well above of what I think it is a reasonable FP passing bar. The standard suggested by Richard is too high and puts too much emphasis on the technical aspects, like absolute sharpness, perfect focus and studio-like backgrounds. If it is necessary to use focus bracketing to reach those standards than forget it, I'll go fishing instead. Remember that the correct way to evaluate these pictures is not by looking closely at their full magnifications on the screen. The present one, for instance, is more than 80cm wide (screen size) which means that should be looked from well further than 1m. Nice picture, nice catch and nice bug. -- Alvesgaspar 19:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Support --Karelj 20:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Support I understand Richard's concerns, but this one still tilts to support. Lycaon 16:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ball Cactus Parodia magnifica Top 2000px.jpg

Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 02:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Info: Ball Cactus (Parodia magnifica)
Support -- Ram-Man 02:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Too little in in focus. A smaller aperture would have been better IMO. --MichaelMaggs 06:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - A superb composition, but Michael is right. -- Alvesgaspar 19:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- The shot was hand-held (my tripod broke, so I didn't have it available) so it was available light only. I figured the important elements were in focus anyway, but I respect this opinion. Because of the composition, the eye is naturally drawn to the in-focus cacti and at reasonable magnifications and viewing distances, many of the other cacti have reasonable sharpness. -- Ram-Man 22:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Composition. --Karelj 20:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Triumph Tulip Tulipa 'Prinses Irene' 2000px.JPG

Info: Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 02:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Info: Raindrop covered Triumph Tulip (Tulipa 'Prinses Irene').
Support Beautiful. -- Ram-Man 02:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lisa3.jpg

Info: created by Alessio - uploaded by Katzenmeier - nominated by Econt 20:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Econt 20:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment This needs the model's permission per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. --MichaelMaggs 21:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Mmmmm... Neutral a contact lens and a towel and lack of sharpness. -- Laitche 22:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Neutral Until the permission of the model has been clarified. However, it would seem that consent has been given as the photo currently appears on Flickr. Please contact me when this has been resolved. Booksworm 15:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Object looks nice. --Karelj 20:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why I didn't oppose. -- Laitche 08:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Please comment on the permission issue at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lisa3.jpg. --MichaelMaggs 20:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Fly May 2008-6.jpg

Info: A simple fly, in the style of our talented photographer... well, you know who. This is a female flesh-fly, probably a Sarcophaga sp. (the females of these family are not normally identifiable from a photograph). Notice the hairy arista (the bristle-like branches of the antennae), the long legs and the red eyes. Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar 19:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Alvesgaspar 19:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment maybe you could identify this one of mine that's been in the unidentified category for a year or so :) Mfield 20:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
~~Neutral~~ It's wonderfully composed, but it seems to lack sharpness required for this type of shot. Maybe because it was shot at f/16? -- Ram-Man 02:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I strongly disagree that focus bracketing should be required. My only concern was that in my eyes it didn't look the proper sharpness at my 2MP viewing standard. Diffraction should be invisible at that magnification, but perhaps it was over-sharpened or just blurry to start with? In any case, I stared at it for a while and realized that it looks fine at normal viewing distances and magnifications. Borderline for me, but on the right side. -- Ram-Man 22:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment f/16 causes diffraction blur. Focus bracketing can be a solution --Richard Bartz 18:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- No way, I don't want to turn myself into a studio freak! If this picture is viewed from the correct distance, or printed with a 300 dpi resolution, then no blur will be apparent. -- Alvesgaspar 19:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  - Why not to bring out the best ? --Richard Bartz 20:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Visita di Papa Benedetto XVI a Genova - 2008-05-18 - Primo piano di Benedetto XVI.jpg

Info: created by Username - uploaded by Username - nominated by Username -- Dongio 23:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Dongio 23:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose This is a fine capture. However, there is no wow. Also, technically, the angle is not the best, the lighting is dull; it is unfortunate that the hand overlaps the face, and I would much preferred people in background to be more isolated from the subject. I perfectly understand that the photographer perhaps was not free to choose the angle and lighting, but still, those are not strong points of the image. Those are just technicalities, the main reason is "wow". Barabas 23:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Some postprocessing could help and I could maybe support a colour-corrected version. I really hope that we manage to get a portrait of such a great man featured. Imagine the value! (He is quite a good writer, too) Freedom to share 06:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I don't like the guy with the cyborg eye in the right upper corner. Lycaon 09:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Exposure --βαςε _LXIV ™ 11:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, composition. --Aqwis 15:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Somehow he looks demonic --Richard Bartz 15:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Usually or just on this photo? Remember the headline "Wir sind Papst!"? (forgot which newspaper, same one who once wrote "Wir sind Weltmeister!". Freedom to share 16:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Wir sind Papst" was the headline of Bildzeitung at 20. April 2005 --Richard Bartz 17:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I heard about that. I vaguely remember Das Bild. (Sorry, didn't go to Germany for some time) Still don't see what you find demonic about him though. Is it the man or the shot? Freedom to share 19:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to know this newspaper. This world would be at least a bit better without such newspapers. --AngMoKio 20:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rodina-mat.jpg

Info: created by Vesta-Top - uploaded by Vesta-Top - nominated by Art-top --Art-top 19:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Support This photo is high-valuable for encyclopedia. Also the rising sun and the meaning of the statue are supplemented each other. Composition is good. --AKA MBG 20:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Nice idea to use the statue at dawn, but it would be good if the statue had details, too. For this you could use HDR, such as was done in this example: [2]. Take multiple exposures and combine them to bring out both the dawn and the details on the statue. Freedom to share 14:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good. Please, without rusophobia.
Support. Very nice. --Pauk 10:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Not bad. --Karelj 20:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose no wow for me. Lycaon 22:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose effect is used, statue's view is bad. --Beyond silence 14:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Chelonia mydas is going for the air edit.jpg

Info:Green turtles as all Sea turtles breath air. Every 20 minutes or so a turtle going up and brakes water surface to breath.This is an underwater picture taken at Hawaii.
Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 15:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Mbz1 15:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Wow. Some technical flaws mitigated by the wow effect. --norro 16:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)