Commons:Candidatas a imagens especiais

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Candidatas a imagens especiais en otras lenguas:

Estas imagens são as candidatas para se tornarem em Imagens especiais. Por favor note que isto não é a mesma coisa que a imagem do dia.

Para ver o arquivo de nomeações prévias veja: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log

[edit] Formalidades

[edit] Nomeação

Se acha que encontrou ou criou uma imagem que possa ser considerada especial, então por favor adicione-a em baixo na secção de nomeações, no topo da página, editando este link.

Mas antes de o fazer, assegure que a imagem tem uma descrição apropriada e licenciamento.

Por favor vote ao usar a palavra na sua linguagem nos modelos em baixo:

Concordar (a favor) — {{Sim}}, {{Amei}} (gostou muito), {{Support}}, {{Yes}}, {{Ja}}, {{Oui}}, {{Sí}}, {{Kyllä}} etc.
Discordar (contra) — {{Não}}, {{Oppose}}, {{No}}, {{Nein}}, {{Non}}, {{Ei}} etc.

[edit] Política de candidatura a imagem especial

Período de votação de 9 dias. O resultado será determinado no 10º dia após a nomeação.
As nomeações feitas por anónimos são bem vindas.
As contribuições para a discussão feitas por anónimos são bem vindas.
Votos de anónimos não são contados.
As nomeações não contam como votos. O voto deve ser feito usando o modelo de voto.

A imagem candidata passará a ser uma imagem especial de acordo com as seguintes condições:

Licença apropriada.
Pelo menos 5 votos positivos.
A relação de votos positivos/votos negativos terá de ser pelo menos 2/1 (uma maioria de dois terços, ou seja pelo menos 67% de apoio).

Para ver instruções sobre como lidar com nomeações antigas, veja Template talk:Featured pictures candidates#What to do after voting is finished.

[edit] Propostas

[edit] File:US Navy gas mask excerise 021015-N-6996M-589.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2009 at 08:03:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Shane T. McCoy (US Navy) - uploaded by Liftarn - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: The yellow attachment is a MILES. And yes, I'm aware of the large space on the right, but I think the picture benefits from the off centre composition. Feel free to disagree. :P
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support WOWWWW --Muhammad (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Amazing composition. -- Jovan Cormac 09:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Enough to get on your POTY list? :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  - That's what I thought as well, though the mosquito below is also a good candidate. -- Jovan Cormac 11:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Aqwis (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Too noisy 4 me. —kallerna™ 11:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, considering that he's walking around in cloud of smoke, some noise is to be expected... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Regretfull oppose i like military photos, but this really too noised. :( -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I hate image noise, but in this special case I think it actually enhances the image, since it looks like the soldier is walking through dirty, green fog. -- Jovan Cormac 15:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I agree about the noise. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support. Noise adds to this image.--Silversmith Hewwo 21:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mosquito Tasmania.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 23:52:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Nice. -- Zoo Fari 01:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support More disgusting than nice. Noting the abdomen swollen with blood. I hope you killed it. ;) Durova (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support like Durova, disgusting but also wow! -- Ra'ike T C 08:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Good. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support One of our better macros. Resolution is acceptable given the high magnification. -- Jovan Cormac 09:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Aqwis (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Astrid Vockert - Projekt Landtag edited.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 22:14:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Mathias Schindler - uploaded by Mathias Schindler - nominated by Durova with minor shadow/highlight edits -- Durova (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Durova (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Weak support Amazingly detailed portrait, but I could do without the blown background and the cut off collar. -- Jovan Cormac 23:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose the crop and the background and the 0 wow factor. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per Silversmith --AngMoKio (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose "Media needing categories as of 24 November 2009" —kallerna™ 11:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment So I fixed it, and you could have as well.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support this is a quality picture of a German politician. Wikimedians have reached out and went to the parliament to make these pictures. These are not American politicians and they deserve equal respect. These pictures have additional value because of the effort involved.. An additional reason to support this image. I strongly urge the nay sayers to reconsider. GerardM (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment I took the original image, so I will not comment on the nomination itself. However, I fail to see how the points you raised have anything to do with the quality of the image. It shouldn't really matter who took the image under what circumstance. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC) and since there will be roughly 500 images coming from up to 100 members of parliament, taken by 4 Wikipedians, you might just want to wait until the upload is finished. Again this would not be a statement on quality, just on procedure. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Background. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Torre del homenaje.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 16:14:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Qoan - uploaded by Qoan - nominated by Qoan -- Qoan (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Qoan (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Only a little foreground in shown making orientation less easy. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose No wow ... looks like any other old stone tower. Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Too much vignetting, and it's very soft in the edges. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:RSD-10 2009 G1.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 12:19:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: All by George Chernilevsky ^talk -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: SS-20 Saber a.k.a. RSD-10 Pioneer . Intermediate-range (Europe-range) Soviet ballistic missile with 3 nuclear warheads.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Theoretically a fine subject, but the composition is relatively poor (distractions, background objects, shade etc.). —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Per Anonymous. Sigmund Freud would love this, though. -- Jovan Cormac 17:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Good resolution, good quality, high EV, and I cannot think how it could have been photographed with a better composition.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Distracting objects and the nose-cone of an aircraft in the background. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose ack Snowmanradio --AngMoKio (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Umnik (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Rub' al Khali (Arabian Empty Quarter) sand dunes imaged by Terra (EOS AM-1).jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 06:15:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by NASA/GSFC/METI/ERSDAC/JAROS, and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team - uploaded by Elipongo - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Who knew sand could be so reflective?
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Fantastic view! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Great image, I had considered nominating it myself once. Observe that the "water" between the dunes is of course actually air. -- Jovan Cormac 07:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Jovan, it is not a mirage. One cannot see a mirage looking down like that. Here's a good place to learn about mirages.What we are seeing here is rather an optical illusion I guess.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an air reflection, similar to the phenomenon called a "Highway mirage", which is described in the article Mirage (even though it arguable doesn't fulfill the classical definition of Mirage being = Fata Morgana). -- Jovan Cormac 23:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It is no air reflection! There are many little salt lakes between the dunes dry or filled with saltwater. Look a long time to the enlarged image: You can see, the salt lakes are lying in holes between the dunes. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be that, it might also be the "Typical pale gravel plains" mentioned in the WP article on the en:Rub' al Khali. I do think I see reflections of clouds there, though. Strange that the NASA page doesn't explain the phenomenon. -- Jovan Cormac 15:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

- Question: Why didn't you? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  - Don't quite remember. I think I nominated File:Oil platform P-51 (Brazil).jpg instead, and then forgot to nominated the Rub al Khali picture later. In fact, I only remembered when I saw this candidate. -- Jovan Cormac 08:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Kosiarz-PL 09:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support —kallerna™ 17:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support I wish I saw it in real life :) --Mbz1 (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure how you'd get back down though... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  - Well I meant I wish I were able to see it from above, let's say from ISS :)--Mbz1 (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Lovely as an abstraction, too. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Wow. Durova (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support 99of9 (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Kardo-lenin-kopia.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2009 at 15:09:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dmitry Kardovsky. «V. I. Lenin in Gorki village, of Pereslavl uezd». 1926.

Info: Dmitry Kardovsky. «V. I. Lenin in Gorki village, of Pereslavl uezd». 1926. — Created, uploaded and nominated by PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC) -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment "Source: Own work"??? Please supply more detail. -- Jovan Cormac 22:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- This photo is my own work. Clarified at the file description.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Secret Service WMG.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2009 at 20:55:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: Secret service by William Gillette , 1897. - uploaded by Barun - nominated by Barun -- Barun (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Barun (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Wholly undocumented attempt at restoration on this image, broken source link at upload page. Appears to be a good faith attempt, though. Would gladly work with the nominator toward a viable nomination. Durova (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Yiddish WWI poster2.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2009 at 07:34:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Charles Edward Chambers - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Yiddish WWI poster.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: World War I era poster in Yiddish. Translation: "Food will win the war - You came here seeking freedom, now you must help to preserve it - Wheat is needed for the allies - waste nothing".
Support -- Durova (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Of course. Takabeg (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Good restoration work. Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Of course. -- Jovan Cormac 14:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
A favore Wow! Thank you! --Phyrexian (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Buteo magnirostris -Goias -Brazil-8.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 20:00:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Wagner Machado Carlos Lemes - uploaded by Snowmanradio - nominated by - Snowmanradio (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Snowmanradio (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support nice hawk, nice colours -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support I wish that there weren't so many distracting elements in the bottom-left, though. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Durova (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support, Nixón^〃 00:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support WOW. Takabeg (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 10:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --ianaré (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
A favore Very beautiful. --Phyrexian (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Good angle, composition and background. Feather barbs are visible. Please add to Buteo magnirostris. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. Added to gallery on species page. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Support SQUAAAAWWWWWWWK!!!! Daniel Case (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Woodbridge isothermal chart3.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 18:43:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by William Channing Woodbridge - uploaded by Jujutacular - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Woodbridge isothermal chart.jpg by Jujutacular and Durova -- Durova (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: Historic map of the world that shows Alexander von Humboldt's isothermal lines. Published 1823.
Support -- Durova (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Good job. Takabeg (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Happy to support the restoration of this map :) Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support It's fascinating to see that even in 1823, there were "white spots" on the map, and Canada was largely unknown as well. -- Jovan Cormac 07:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
A favore Really fascinating... --Phyrexian (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:House wren - food drops.ogv

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 17:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by qmnonic - uploaded by Kozuch - nominated by Kozuch -- Kozuch (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Kozuch (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Pity for the resolution, but the quality, educativeness and rarity of this free video gets my support! Diti the penguin — 19:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I intentionally uploaded the lower resolution even as HD is available (because of people with low bandwidth). There is no problem to upload the HD version, you can watch it on Flickr for now. As there are close to no official rules for video now, I just did not know how to behave, whether to do low-res or high-res. --Kozuch (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  - Low resolution (of course: low to a reasonable scale) is better, because of the bandwith. Remember that you aren't very likely to put an 800px wide video into an article. And even if you insert it as, say, 480px, it won't increase the speed of loading anyway. Wolf (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    - Well, so I suppose current 640×360 pixels is not a real low-res for a video. If someone thinks this cant get featured at this resolution, I will upload HD.--Kozuch (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  - I suspect in the long term we'll want high res, just as we do for photos. It can't be that hard to produce scaled down versions, but it's impossible to scale up. 99of9 (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support It's a rare sight that someone dares to nominate anything but a static picture here. Great quality! -- Jovan Cormac 07:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support - High educational value and interesting. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment I think the first two seconds should be cut from the video. There's nothing happening, really. -- Jovan Cormac 20:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I think the video is not too long and doesn't need to be cut, is less than 30 seconds, and the first two are precious: you can hear the bird and begin to understand what is the subject --Phyrexian (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Right, its very educational and interesting, but this is commons and not wikipedia. And for videos the same rules should apply as for pictures. The composition is rather boring --Simonizer (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think you completely miss a point here. There is no language and that means this video is nicely useful accross various projects and languages, that makes it uniques for a Commons (featured) candidate.--Kozuch (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't think you can see anything well enough - the bird is tiny, and we can't even see it feeding the chicks, just going into the box. It's nice, but not quite wow enough. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
A favore As Jovan --Phyrexian (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - As Simonizer, common video not close to FP status. I also have some doubts as whether videos should be evaluated here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunatelly dedicated process for video does not exist yet. --Kozuch (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per Silversmith. 99of9 (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Belgian F-16 Radom.JPG

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 14:06:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Łukasz Golowanow (User:Airwolf) & Maciek Hypś - uploaded and nominated by Wolf (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment If you have the impression that this picture has already been nominated, you're almost right, this one has and now that I think of it, its failure was justified. The one here has a slightly lower resolution, but is definitely less blurry and I really like the diagonal composition (a rarity in aircraft photography) and the shadows which prevent a feeling of flatness. Wolf (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Wolf (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Significantly oversharpened. I can see the halos even at thumbnail size and they are rather distracting. Apart from that I love the image. Perhaps those from Konflikty.pl can be asked to upload the original so it can be more sympathetically processed ? - Peripitus (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Info:Chromatic abberation has now been corrected. Additionally some compression artifacts have been removed or gently softened. Chalger (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

- Info: There's a less processed version (just cropped in relation to the "original original") in the image history. Wolf (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  - Question: How about now? Wolf (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - edits have significantly improved the image but there are a lot of dust spots that need removal. I've marked the ones that I can see at even modest resolution as image annotations. - Peripitus (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Spider internal anatomy-en.svg

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 09:36:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Pbroks13 -- Pbroks13 (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Pbroks13 (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support I cannot speak for the accuracy, but the illustration looks clean, and all text is embedded as SVG text objects, allowing for easy translation of the labels. -- Jovan Cormac 11:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support just as Jovan said :) --Leafnode✉ 14:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Aqwis (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Good job. Takabeg (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --ianaré (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
A favore Bleah!! ;-) --Phyrexian (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support. I trust that it is accurate. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support – detailed and easy to follow. Perfect for a diagram. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Karel (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:RhB Bernina-Express am Lago Bianco.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 22:09:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: Two multiple units hauling the narrow gauge Bernina Express over the alps, at Lago Bianco. The picture was taken more than 2200 meters above sea level.
Support -- Kabelleger (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Wolf (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: Das Problem des Bildes ist, dass der Bernina-Express als Hauptsache zur Nebensache wird. Das Bild ist groß genug, dass Du das Nebensächliche entfernen kannst. Vom See darf nur ein schmaler Streifen mit der Spiegelung des Zuges stehen bleiben, und auch vom Himmel kann ziemlich viel entfernt werden. Die Mindestgröße des Bildes (über 2 Millionen Pixel) muss erhalten bleiben. Dann hat der Zug mehr "Bodenhaftung", und das Panoramabild verstärkt die Wirkung des langen Zuges. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Julian Alps with Prisojnik and Razor.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 13:54:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Great.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ Oversaturated, also resolution is too low for a landscape shot IMO. -- Jovan Cormac 15:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Jovan, this image has the colours and the saturation of the former Kodachrome 25 film. I worked with Kodachrome 25 in the years 1974–2001 and know what I say. Kodachrome 25 has been one of the best films with great sharpness, and I try to bring the Kodachrome 25 feeling into the digitally world. Maybe you worked in the past with other films and likes therefore another feeling with soft colours and saturation, but that is your own window to the world of photography and is ok for your own images. - This image has the resolution 2,602 × 1,645 pixels (4.28029 pixels), that's more than the double of the needed 2 million pixels. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  - Hmm, after seeing this Kodachrome picture I'll have to say you're probably right, the saturation seems to be a feature of that specific film, though I would consider that image on the verge to being overexposed as well. Nevertheless, I believe that photography (especially landscape photography) should mirror reality as closely as possible, and I've certainly never seen grass as green as it is in your candidate shot. If I understood you correctly, this is a digital image that you edited to look like it was taken with the Kodachrome film. If that is the case, it should be clearly marked as auch ("retouched" template).
    As for the resolution, this is a matter of personal taste; I myself believe that landscape shots should have at least 6-8 Megapixels unless they are absolutely spectacular. -- Jovan Cormac 08:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    - I retract my vote of "Oppose", the color issues have now been corrected AFAIC. Still don't know whether to support, though. The view is rather ordinary. -- Jovan Cormac 07:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral Actually leaning toward oppose due to the tight crop, but I do have an unhealthy-powerful zeal for giant photostitched landscapes, so I think that's probably influencing my opinion too much. —Notyourbroom (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose composition --Leafnode✉ 14:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Leafnode, what is your problem with my composition? Please see this Featured picture. It has the same composition. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  
  And as it could be expected, I don't like the composition of the second photo either. And now why - horizon is in the middle, and as a consequence in this particular shot there's too much of the bottom part - even grass is rather boring. IMO this picture would be better with some cropping. --Leafnode✉ 12:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support, very nice landscape. --Vprisivko (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, IMO bit boring composition. —kallerna™ 21:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: I made an update, cropped the Blumenwiese and made the green colour of the grass light. The "Blumenwiese" is an essential part of the high mountain region of Europa and IMO an important part of this image. Therefore I leaved a part of it. I didn't found any word for the "Blumenwiese" in the English language. JovanCormac, Leafnode and Kallerna, I hope, the colour and the composition is now ok. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Weak Support. I like it - almost perfect. --Silversmith Hewwo 06:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Avala (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Great composition. You want to walk into it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CoA Città di Milano.svg

Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 09:13:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Fale - uploaded by Fale - nominated by Fale -- Fale (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Coat of Arms of Milan city (Italy)
Support -- Fale (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Support – Molto ben fatto. --Ernie (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose A valued image for sure, but not nearly as spectacular as this recent nomination. -- Jovan Cormac 15:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Contrario Purtroppo devo concordare con Jovan, ma se puoi continua a creare gli stemmi dei comuni italiani con questo livello di accuratezza, ne abbiamo bisogno su Wikipedia ;-). I have to agree with Jovan, by the way please continue creating CoA with this high graphic level of italian municipalities, we need it on Wikipedia ;-) --Phyrexian (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Etna eruption seen from the International Space Station.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 07:21:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by NASA - uploaded by Bricktop - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Simply amazing.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

~~I withdraw my nomination~~

Whoops, forgot to denoise first. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Looking at the noise I am quite sure a lot of detail will be lost due to noise reduction. The picture is fine the way it is and noise is just natural. --Ernie (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll let the nomination run it course. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Support A lot of educational value in a difficult photo to reproduce. --99of9 (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Like Ernie, I think that denoising would only hurt this picture. -- Jovan Cormac 13:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Ultra-rare shot! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Durova (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Weak oppose I know it's hyper-rare shot and so on, but the noise is just too much for me. NASA can make better photos (even though this was taken in 2002). —kallerna™ 21:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
A favore Fantastica! Too educational value and rarity to care about quality, that is not so bad... --Phyrexian (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Peripitus (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:A surfer in the air.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 20:49:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Impressive, and much better post-processing than the other similar nomination. I would still like to see full resolution, if this is a downsample. --S23678 (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Support quite a capture. Durova (talk) 06:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral great capture, but I don't like the composition. --Leafnode✉ 15:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support excepionally! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose strange photo, not in COM:PS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is being used in an article on en.wikipedia - so is in scope.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  - There are thousands of the images on Commons that are not used in any project, which most of the time does not mean they are out of the scope. What is out of scope here is the oppose vote of kuiper, who opposed not the image, but me personally. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support I find the concept that this image is "out of scope" simply bizarre I'm afraid. This is action photography of a sport. I look forward to seeing the deletion request removing all such images. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose IMO the composition is awkward - the surfer is too close to the right edge of the image.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Well captured, but in a FP surf's photo I prefere action --Cesco77 (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is not an action shot, I do not know what is.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

- - This is an action shot of surfing. The surfer is on the board and is making a manouvre. Your image isn't bad, but isn't good to illustrate this sport well. --Cesco77 (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    - Thank you for clarifying your position! I cannot agree with you. For wxample, please take a look at that image File:Surfer in santa cruz 14.jpg. It is of a a surfer exiting a closeout. So the nominated shot is an action shot, and it is what I observe quite often. Please take a look at one more image File:A surfer in the air 2.jpg--Mbz1 (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
      - I understand your position, but wipeout isn't the best moment in this sport to take a picture, for me. The two surf pictures you have upload and featured, are simply perfect (this and this), but this one don't have the same quality IMO --Cesco77 (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support clear sport photo in action -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Shows the wave better than the surfer. To me it looks like the individual in the picture is falling of the board, so I think that the wrong moment is captured for a FA. If not, perhaps the surfing manoeuvre could be illustrated better in a video. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course he's falling of the board. They all usually do in the end :) It is a normal , and usual part of surfing. We already have few FP images of surfers on the board. It would have been nice to have one out, and btw IMO to show a surfer without the wave is not nearly as interesting. The wave by itself has EV. A surfer provdides a great scale for the wave, which makes EV of the image only higher.BTW what "FA" stands for in your comment above?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, I think that the image description should say that he is falling off the board. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Info: The image's description is corrected, the situation is explained, now you could take out your oppose vote :)--Mbz1 (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that the image description has been amended to explain the picture better. I have changed my additions above to a comment, and I might vote again later when I have considered the image again. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In any case I'd like to thank you for helping me to improve the image's decription :) --Mbz1 (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Support I don't understand the out of scope comment (above). I found no other pictures on Commons with the surfer in the air that shows the underside of the board clearly. It appears to have high illustrative merit, is probably difficult to repeat, and meets the other criteria. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Mainly for the composition, but also that most of it is a bit blurry. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. As above, mainly composition problems. --Karel (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Macaca sylvanus feet and hands.JPG

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 19:56:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Grez - uploaded by Grez - nominated by Grez -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 22:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral Decent level of quality, but if it's meant to illustrate the feet and hands (per the image's title), it does a relatively poor job due to the way the monkey is positioned. On the other hand, this is a photograph of a wild creature which is an understandably difficult subject. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
A favore --Phyrexian (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Nk1046349362-20061210-hd.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 11:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Stougard - uploaded by Stougard - nominated by Erin Silversmith -- Silversmith Hewwo 11:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Silversmith Hewwo 11:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Nice! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support WOW --Cesco77 (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Tiny resolution, but what a picture! -- Jovan Cormac 12:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Well captured dramatic action. --99of9 (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support —kallerna™ 15:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Request: Could geolocation of the image be provided please.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- And it could be renamed. —kallerna™ 16:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Don't forget about the {{Geo}} template ;) —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support, but it has to be renamed. Wolf (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose for the file name and the poor quality of the description page. It would be great to have a species name and a geolocation tag, and why is there essentially an extra license in the "Permission" field? —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Question: Also, what's happening here? Has the pelican just landed? It is flying away? Is it just flapping while floating in the water? This would also be nice to know on the description page. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --ianaré (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info: The name is now File:Pelecanus crispus-Nk1046349362-20061210-hd.jpg and the description is Dalmatian Pelican washing. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Path on water Nanjing.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 09:18:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Stougard - uploaded by Stougard - nominated by Erin Silversmith -- Silversmith Hewwo 09:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Silversmith Hewwo 09:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support – Over-sharpened! I doubt I would vote for it if it was in color. --Ernie (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I don't support desaturated color pictures. Post the color picture instead; if someone wants to see it desaturated, he or she can to so with a single click in Photoshop. But posting desaturated already simply robs the picture of color information without giving anything back in return. -- Jovan Cormac 12:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Harsh contrast (left-hand side), confusing composition, bad crop.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose This one would benefit from colours. Oversharpened. —kallerna™ 15:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per the several above points. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Very ordinary picture IMO, sorry. --S23678 (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose poorly desaturated picture, also bad contrast and composition. --Leafnode✉ 15:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CVW-5 Apr2007.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 08:05:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Jarod Hodge (US Navy) - uploaded by Cobatfor - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I like this picure. But the resolution is too low. Takabeg (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment What? It's over 12Mpx! How much larger do you want it to be?! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  - And you supported this one, which is one third the size! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    - Yes I sopport Spider Nephila clavata 0911.jpg. The resolution of that picture is enough. Bu in this picture the shapes of planes aren't sharp. Takabeg (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Resolution is low or file size? --Muhammad (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Very nice --Muhammad (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Wow! Quality is not ideal, however as a whole it is fantastic view. Rare shot -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Weak SupportMaybe Takabeg is talking about the fact that none of the planes is very focused and there are also a lot of artefacts, especially in the sky.--Silversmith Hewwo 11:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Suggestive and rare image --Cesco77 (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral Great picture, but spoilt by overzealous JPEG compression. 1.22 MB for 12 Mpix is simply ridiculous, and it shows. JPEG artifacts are all over the picture. -- Jovan Cormac 12:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral Nice composition, but too much JPEG artifacts and noise IMO. —kallerna™ 15:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The composition is great of course, but the quality is really bad due to the high compression. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Great combination --JuergenKlueser (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Quality issues, per Daniel, especially in the top portion of the sky. Given this was a photo ops, I see no mitigating reasons for the quality not being better. --S23678 (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose due to the quality related compression. Even at reasonable resolution (screen size) the clouds above Mt Fuji just look wrong with what looks like lots of posterisation. - Peripitus (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose with heavy heart, but I have to oppose because of a poor quality --Leafnode✉ 15:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Wow. --Lošmi (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support When I saw the thumbnail at first I thought it was fake - impossible! 99of9 (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Question: What's so impossible about it? Rare, certainly, but not impossible. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  - Comment Obviously I was wrong. It just wowed me. --99of9 (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose --Distracting and irrelevant background. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Irrelevant background? That's Mount Fuji you're talkin' about. I vote for this picture particularly for that reason, because it reminds me on modern version of Hokusai's series Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji. --Lošmi (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Karel (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cathedral of Learning stitch 1.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 02:52:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by User:Notyourbroom. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: This is the current valued image of the Cathedral of Learning, a Great Depression-era Late Gothic Revival skyscraper in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Support as nominator. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
~~Neutral~~I'm not convinced by the lighting/point of view/time of the day combination. Architectural features are difficult to see, given the angle at which we see them. Right side of the building has less perspective distortion but is in the shadow, and thus dimmer. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)vote striken by MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment There are only perhaps two angles from which a relatively-unobstructed shot may be obtained- remember, this is a skyscraper in an urban environment. Also, when the building is uniformly well-lit, it appears exceptionally bland and "flat." For comparison on these points, see this alternate version. My intention with the submitted shot was (1) to illustrate the structure in a way which would not confound the viewer with other buildings in the frame, as well as (2) to use the angle of lighting to my advantage to reveal the volume and ornamental nuances of the building, rather than leaving it to appear homogeneous and flat. In a sense, I am not attempting to photograph a structure, per se, but an art style or a design philosophy, and I am trying to do so in a way that will not confound the viewer with extraneous details. (Crazypaco, an expert on this structure, articulated a similar analysis in his review of the photograph for valued image.) I hope that this helps to clarify my decisions. —Notyourbroom (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for these details and explanations. I agree that the alternate view you provided almost looks like a cardboard cutout of the building itself, whereas this view actually shows the intricate volumes that comprises this tower. Is it one of the best views one can get of this structure? I'm willing to think so. Is it superior to many others we can see on Commons and elsewhere? Once again, I'd think so. Is it thus a featured picture, a valuable picture, or something else ? Well, I don't know... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Support per the explanation provided by Notyourbroom --Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: Voters may also find it instructive to see more of Crazypaco's assessment and comparison of these two images (stitch 1 and stitch 2) here on my talk page. And for fun, here is what it looks like in typical rainy Pittsburgh weather. ;) —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support I really do like the contrasts in the composition : that imposing, grey, and, to some extent, scary architecture presented in such a vivid and empty blue sky, and surprisingly green surroundings (very cartoon-like). Everything fits in place. Bravo. --S23678 (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Avala (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Just barely acceptable quality in my view, but the lighting leaves much to be desired. Return just before sunset (or just after sunrise) for a better picture. I'd keep the same composition. Noodle snacks (talk)
- Thank you for the suggestion—I may try that. I believe that sunset would be better than sunrise for this angle (because sunrise would provide almost full front-lighting), but in either case, it is now too late in the year to capture the lawn and trees in a non-dormant state. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Apophysis 3D fractal ball.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 22:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

$A tile ball created with fractal art program Apophysis.$

Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Garden Garden. 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Garden. 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Durova (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Request: This is a beautiful artificial image, but would you please elaborate on why it is a valuable addition to Commons? I do not know much about this area. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell it's the only example of a 3D Apophysis flame (i.e. one made with that program) on this website. Garden. 10:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Great educational image since it shows that the concept of a fractal is wider than the Mandelbrot set and Sierpinsky triangle laymen typically associate with the term. -- Jovan Cormac 07:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Request: None of that theoretical context and detail is present on the image's description page. Would you (or George) mind adding more information to help a layperson such as myself? Maybe a few well-placed wikilinks, too. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  - I have added a few words (in English) highlighting the two fractals shown in the image. The parameters given on the description page didn't work for me, though; therefore, I cannot give detailed information on the projection that links the surface of the sphere and the plane. It looks deceptively like a stereographic projection but I don't think it is, since the tiles are not evenly spaced on the surface of the sphere. -- Jovan Cormac 07:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Nice picture. Also i support it as an mathematician, per JovanCormac -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I never knew you were a mathematician as well. Cheers! -- Jovan Cormac 13:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support For Jovan Cormac. Jacopo Werther (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Per others --Cesco77 (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support. Excellent image. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Fantastic! -- Ra'ike T C 08:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Good! --Karel (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 01:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the fpc category: Non-photographic media/Computer-generated

[edit] File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3348-19 Huizen aan het water in Coronie, vermo2.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 22:13:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by unknown - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3348-19 Huizen aan het water in Coronie, vermo.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: Nineteenth century watercolor of a coastal settlement in Suriname.
Support -- Durova (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Garden. 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Fine. But I've never been to Coronie. Takabeg (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Beautiful. -- Jovan Cormac 07:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:A pond with reflection in Golden Gate Park 2.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 16:11:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info:everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose --Leafnode✉ 16:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Please provide a reason for opposing.--Moise Nicu (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. There's no clear subject of this picture. Most of the picture is blurry. Duck is underexposed, apart from the places, where it's overexposed (just like the rock in the bottom-right). Sorry, but I don't see any single feature of this picture that could fit in featured picture guidelines. --Leafnode✉ 19:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"Duck is underexposed, apart from the places, where it's overexposed" Hahaha. It is really funny :), and I cannot agree more, I really mean it . Yet I still like the image because it is all about shadows and light, and the light was really amazing! About the sharpness. Of course the image is not sharp because it is reflection, yet it is a rare reflection because one could see every individulal leaf.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Nice shot. --Moise Nicu (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Durova (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
OpposeBlurry and nothing exceptional. --Silversmith Hewwo 06:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose agree with Erin. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It is reflection. Have you ever seen a sharp reflection? Not all images should be sharp. Some just should be beautiful.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is beautiful as it is rather murky. Also, the leaves which aren't reflections are blurry. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I know we have a very different ideas what is and what is not beautiful. So far you have opposed few of my images, and never supported any. The image is as sharp as it gets in such situation. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think a reflection can't be sharp? --AngMoKio (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the water should be absolutely still in order for the reflection to be sharp, and it is really rare. Please take a look at that image (not mine) [1]. See how sharp the mountain is and the reflection is not so. If you have a sample of the image with a sharp reflection in a natural body of water I'd be interested to see one please. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This has to do with on what you focus and the shutter speed you chose. Right now i don't have such a picture at hand but I am sure a google search can give you a lot. Your photo was made with a shutter speed of 1/20, this way the reflection can't get sharp. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That particular reflection was not sharp, wnen I looked at it with my own eyes.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

NeutralQuality is good, but chaotic composition for me. --Cesco77 (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose for some reason the (dirty) water does not seem to be level; the duck's head is just a black blob. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO "dirty" water still is much better than dirty people.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, as above. --Vprisivko (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Family George V of Hanover.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 22:15:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Julius Giere (1807-1880) - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Durova (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ The caption in the bottom margin (see annotation) is faded and illegible. I think it should either be removed or restored. —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Thank you, Notyourbroom, I removed the illegible inscription. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  - I strike my opposition. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Mer30.Takabeg (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sean Astin 1.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:19:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: Actor Sean Astin (Rudy, Lord of the Rings, The Goonies etc.). Photo created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen (talk)
Support --Dschwen (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Simonizer (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose It's true that we don't have enough good portraits, but the quality is everything but stellar. Even the face isn't entirely in focus, and there is significant image noise in the background. -- Jovan Cormac 10:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Significant image noise in the background? That's a bit too picky in my opinion. Noise/grain has always been a part of photography and always will be. Even high-end digital cameras produce noise at their lowest ISO/ASA settings. Personally I prefer noise over any smeary NR. Noise reduction always means some detail and color will be lost. Demanding noise-freeness is simply unrealistic. --Ernie (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral – I like it, but it really is slightly out of focus. Or is it motion blur from shooting at 1/50 sec. when zoomed in to 150mm? --Ernie (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Support (weakly) I agree that it looks slightly out of focus. Otherwise, it's excellent. —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support - Peripitus (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with JovanCormac. --Karel (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ComputerHotline - Water droplets (by) (1).jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:07:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral It's a beautiful image, but I don't like the fact that the lighting is artificial. (Full resolution shows a rectangular light source reflected in the droplets) —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Flash-gun or not. I have to oppose the composition. It simply does not strike me as a featured picture. --Ernie (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Easy target, not the best result. —kallerna™ 15:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Water droplet-6 (by).JPG

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 16:56:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Question: Could you please describe what this is exactly? Wolf (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info: It's some water droplets on spider web. --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  - Silly me... Wolf (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Wolf (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose not much stuff in focus. --Dschwen (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutrale Ireally like it, but Dschwen is right after all... --Phyrexian (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Lagoon Nebula (ESO).jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 10:10:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by the ESO - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: The location of the image in relation to the rest of the galaxy.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Very subjective but, while the quality is gorgeous, the position of the nebula in the frame is not optimal (bottom center), and the nebula's shape is too vague, not "charming" enough --S23678 (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
A favore amazing quality, I like the vague nebula shape --Phyrexian (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Great quality. -- Jovan Cormac 10:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as it is with sunsets, almost every image from space telescope is beautiful. Just two days ago we've featured other skyscape, which I find far more interesting than this one. And just basing on a comparison - I vote no for this image --Leafnode✉ 16:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Yes, all telescope images like this are beautiful, but all beautiful images, I suppose, can be featured. --Cesco77 (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Kozuch (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per Leafnode. Wolf (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Millesgården 2009.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 09:22:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Holger Ellgaard - uploaded by Holger.Ellgaard - nominated by Lidingo -- Lidingo (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Lidingo (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Urbourbo (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Hard contrasts (under and overexposure), noise, CA, low details, messy composition (sculptures + tree + clouds all mixed up)... Wished I could FPX... --S23678 (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Contrario Too noisy --Phyrexian (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose FPX. —kallerna™ 15:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per others (noise, lack of sharpness, cluttered composition). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose but cannot be FPXed. It was supported, by an user other than the nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Laughing Kid.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 06:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by http://www.flickr.com/photos/vatobob/ - uploaded by Barun - nominated by Barun -- Barun (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Barun (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral Great expression, colour and lighting. My regrets are the big white scarf label, and the fact that you can see the shape of the flash umbrella reflected in his eyes. --99of9 (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Question: I have the feeling that this picture got nominated before. Most likely with another filename. Is my mind tricking me or am I wrong? Does someone else has the same feeling? :) --AngMoKio (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- See Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Well-clothed baby.jpg. Ayack (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  - Ha, I knew it. Thanks for the link. My brain is better than I thought. :) --AngMoKio (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose unfortunatelly the photo has the same problems as 2 years ago. I like the photo but the PS-work on the skin of the baby is really too much. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Support JukoFF (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as per AngMoKio GerardM (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as per AngMoKio --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Support atmosphärisch stark --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Inflatable structure in Bad Schallerbach.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 00:12:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Very good. (I hope the license is not a problem here)--Mbz1 (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Support very well seen. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral. There are things I like, like the colours and quality, but I'm not sure about the composition. I appreciate the cleverness of the children running towards the castle, but I think the castle isn't made a big enough feature of the picture. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Per Erin Silversmith. —kallerna™ 15:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose composition feels very lopsided. —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Ahh, Notyourbroom has hit what I was trying to figure out about this image. Otherwise I liked it. --99of9 (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:M-nikita-kolokolna-1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2009 at 15:20:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bell tower of Nikitsky monastery in Pereslavl-Zalessky, Russia

Info: created by PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC) - uploaded by PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC) - nominated by PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Overexposed (I believe) and the buildings detract from the main feature. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Per foreground issues stated by Silversmith --S23678 (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Support as nominator. There is no extra exposition, as a bell-tower is white itself. The foreground roofs help to see the belltower in its historical context — as the monastery was always surrounded by village.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 01:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ocean Beach in San Francisco at sunrise.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2009 at 19:37:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment I would support if there was not that red thing (is it lens flare, I don't know) on the top of the image. As well, the sky shows some levels of posterization. Are you using your RAWs and converting to JPEG only at the last step, since it's not the first time I see this issue in your nominations, or it's only from post-processing?

I cropped out the red thing. If you add notes to posterization I will try to fix it, but I am not sure where it is.Is it all over the sky or only in a few places? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember how large my previous note was, but that red flare (I'll call it flare, without knowing exactly what it is) is still very visible below the sky/mountain transition on the red side. As for the new crop, from comparing with the previous image, I feel something important is missing in the composition of the image. Rather than being part of the scene as previously, the cliff is becoming more an intrusive element in the picture. For posterizating, I don't consider it a "pass or fail" issue here since it's barely visible, but it could be a point to improve on for future nominations. As for where it is, it's all over the sky. Just more the image from left to right at full zoom to see some Colour banding where we would normally see a nice gradient (and I'm not talking about the clouds themselves). Finally, is this a downsample or a crop? --S23678 (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to fix it once again.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing has been well done at some places, but not at other, as per the new notes. The darkening of the sky caused the picture to lost a lot of it's charm as well. Fixing a problem creates other ones, I'll make you stop doing edits, and I'll just abstain from voting. --S23678 (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Nothing very distinct. Too dark. --— Erin (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose could be agreat image but the left dark side spoils it --Simonizer (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"The left dark side" could be cut off.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as Simonizer - probably this scene can't be taken properly from that position. --Leafnode✉ 08:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination

[edit] Edit 1 cut off "the left dark side"

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Muhammad (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Now the aspect ratio is improper imo --Simonizer (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Nice scene. However, either way the beach is cut in half, so I can't vote to feature either composition. --99of9 (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Between vote to feature and oppose is still a choice not to vote at all :). Both images provide a very good idea how the Ocean Beach looks, but who cares...--Mbz1 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose composition --Leafnode✉ 08:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)