Commons:Candidates a imáxenes destacaes

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

Alemannisch | Asturianu | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | Italiano | 日本語 | Lëtzebuergesch | |Молдовеняскэ | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Português | Polski | Română | Русский | Shqip | Српски / Srpski | Svenska | Українська | 粵語 | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−

Si creyes qu'hai dalguna semeya o imaxe na andecha abondo guapa como pa tar ente les imáxenes destacaes, entós pues amestala na llista de candidatures editando nesti enllaz. Si hay consensu xeneral depués de 10 díes, la imaxe tresferiráse a imáxenes destacaes.

Contents

[edit] Propuestes

[edit] File:USAF F-16A F-15C F-15E Desert Storm edit2.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2009 at 00:13:31
USAF F-16A F-15C F-15E Desert Storm

  • Info: created by U.S. Air Force - uploaded by Kallerna - nominated by Matasg -- Matasg 00:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Matasg 00:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Gämse, Rupicapra rupicapra.JPG

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2009 at 21:57:05
Chamois

[edit] File:Inde bondo8658a.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2009 at 21:35:05
girl headcarrying goods

[edit] File:NASA Mars Rover.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2009 at 10:46:55
NASA Mars Rover

  • Info: NASA Mars Rover - created by Maas Digital LLC - uploaded by Dschwen(?) - nominated by JovanCormac -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Reason for nomination: High-quality render, encyclopedically relevant. As an added bonus the NASA logo doesn't appear anywhere on the image, freeing it from any restrictions, in addition to being public domain already. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Neat. --Calibas (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support It looks good to me. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support nice and very rare view --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Good work.   • Richard • [®] • 17:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - MJJR (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Complete with 2 fried eggs for breakfast! -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support –Juliancolton | Talk 23:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Econt (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Arkansas State Capitol.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2009 at 02:18:43
Arkansas State Capitol in Little Rock.

  • Info: Arkansas State Capitol in Little Rock. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen (talk).
  •  Support -- Dschwen (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • P.S.: had to chose 600px as the generation of new thumbnails is currently broken. --Dschwen (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: Have you tried an rectilinear projection? I think it would look better from that point of view. --S23678 (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, tried it, but it makes the sides very distorted and unnatural looking. --Dschwen (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Support Very nice --Muhammad (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Citron-1 (by).jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2009 at 21:11:50
Gonepteryx rhamni

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Lib-quad-3 (by).jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2009 at 21:10:29
Libellula quadrimaculata

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO the four images of the same dragonfly should be nominated in one nomination as alternatives. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral While this is the best of the dragonfly set, IMO it could use some cropping on the top right. Will support if done. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Lib-quad-1 (by).jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2009 at 21:08:52
Libellule à quatre taches

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support As a set, or as all 4 views combined into one single image. Any single one is good. As a set, they constitute a very informative view of the dragonfly, including behaviour. I have put my support with this one image, which I like along with Lib-Quad 2, for the angle of view and the action in the scene. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Lib-quad-2 (by).jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2009 at 21:07:34
Libellula quadrimaculata

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the action in this view in the manner in which the dragonfly is holding on to the stalk. As I have noted, I would like to see all 4 views combined into one image (with a little cropping so that the insect is the main detail). -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Lib-quad-5 (by).jpg

Libellula quadrimaculata

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment The composition seems a little unbalanced. A different crop and maybe a little rotation might improve it. Otherwise it's a great picture. --Calibas (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Xanthippus corallipes.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2009 at 14:45:10
Xanthippus corallipes

[edit] File:Times Square Ads.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2009 at 08:42:23
Times Square Ads

  • Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Question: Could you be polite by telling the reason of your opposition? --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      •  Comment Well, composition does not do it for me... the human brain wants to read text in images, and there is truncated text in the image, so that doesn´t work... take this as a tip... the cropping is off somewhat... The lights are dull... and if it a picture of signs, regarless of the place, their are not the most visually attractive signs... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Tomas. Downtowngal (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Beautiful Blonde at the beach.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 22:00:04
Beautiful Blonde at the beach.

  • Info: created by Carlos Allevato - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Econt (talk) -- Econt (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Nice buttocks --Econt (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Econt (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice buttocks indeed. --Calibas (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the resolution is below 2 megapixels. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Size, bad crop. —kallerna™ 08:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
size of what? ;) --AngMoKio (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose well..ahm..yeah nice buttocks, but I think this can't be enough. It has a taste of voyeuristic snapshot (220mm shot), I'd be interested under which circumstances this pic was made. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Looking very well. --Karel (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Can't be promoted: under sized (image), not mitigation. Lycaon (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it can be promoted if enough people support, that's the rule. The size is only a guideline. --Calibas (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Mbz1 (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose File is grossly undersized. Of all the thousands of beaches out there, filled with hundreds of similarly nicely-buttocked women, I'm sure we can do better than this. I support having such a nice ass as an FP, but not at the expense of technical concerns and not with such a messy composition. Maedin\talk 17:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too small. Yann (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Too large (the buttocks) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, I agree that there is no reason to ignore the size guideline in this case. --Aqwis (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice shot of a female Homo sapiens sapiens, but I cannot support a picture of a living being without at least the family (Hominidae) in the name or description. Interesting discussion going on here. --Ernie (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  this is easy --Econt (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice image. --Dezidor (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice picture (even though the composition is a little bit disorderly) of a very nice looking young person. But unfortunately that's not a sufficient reason for FP promotion IMO. And the image size is effectively far to small, so no QI as well. -- MJJR (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  We need a bigger buttocks? --Econt (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Rainbow Falls in GGP.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 21:49:10
Rainbow Falls

  • Info: Rainbow Falls in w:Golden Gate Park
  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cluttered and oversharpened (halos). Lycaon (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    I see no halos. Could you please point out one?--Mbz1 (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    The most obvious one is near the top center, where the dark rock partly occludes the waterfall (e.g. around pixel 1140/280). I think I can also see some around the leaves at the bottom right, (e.g. around 2325/890). And, while I'm looking closely, there seems to be some rather noticeable chromatic aberration visible in various places (e.g. foam spot at 1040/1645, branch at 1905/5, top of waterfall and branch at 1080/35). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The overall composition is not interesting. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Wind Point Lighthouse 071104 edit2.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 21:40:33
Wind Point Lighthouse

 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the higher resolution of the same image is featured already. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If no contrary views are expressed within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

[edit] File:Paw 1.JPG

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 19:16:31
Indian Peafowl

[edit] File:Mount batur and lake.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 10:34:01
SHORT DESCRIPTION

otrs covers it. I got the higher res which aren't available on Flickr anyway.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Question: Why do you state flickr as the source if it's not from Flickr, but Flickr jast has a downsized copy? Do you have a licence for the higher res pic then? -- H005 (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
It's been sent via OTRS. Which means the author of the image consented to the higher res version on Commons.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great composition, low noise, but oversaturated and strong vignetting. I'd say QI, but not FP -- H005 (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There seem to be a lot of detail lacking in the trees. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Daniel78 and H005. Not even worthy of QI. Lycaon (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per other opposers. —kallerna™ 11:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As per H005. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Jetty at candidasa.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 10:32:15
SHORT DESCRIPTION

otrs covers it. I got the higher res which aren't available on Flickr anyway.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the composition, I'll overlook the overedited sky. --Calibas (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor quality overall. Oversharpened (halos) and CA. Lycaon (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lycaon. —kallerna™ 11:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice. --Karel (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great composition, unfortunate post-processing. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Hispaniola Vinckeboons4.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 05:00:36
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Johannes Vingboons - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova and Ynhockey. Restored from File:Hispaniola Vinckeboons.jpg by Durova. See also courtesy copy at File:Hispaniola_Vinckeboons4_courtesy_copy.jpg for viewers with slow connection speeds. -- Durova (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Nautical chart of Hispaniola and Puerto Rico, circa 1639.
  •  Support -- Durova (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment - There is a dramatic difference between the original and the restored version in what the colouring is concerned. I wonder if this kind of correction is the right thing to do with old manuscript maps. Is the medium paper or vellum?-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Library of Congress staff have confirmed the scanner was miscalibrated; the coloration on the unrestored version is affected by the miscalibration. Durova (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Removing discolourations, stains folds and cuts is what a restoration is about. The Venus of Milo is yellow because of the varnish and as such different from how it looked when the painting was fresh. Your argument is an old one and imho a clean crisp look provides the best illustration. GerardM (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Removing dirt and varnish physically so that the original colours are restored is a common and accepted practise. Doing it digitally is a totally different thing because we only can guess what the original looked like at the time it was made. In this particular case I find the background tone too bluish even if the medium is paper, as I suppose. An old argument is not necessarily irrelevant or wrong. A clean and crisp look provides the best detail but may be considered unacceptable in historical terms. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • What you are saying, basically, is that restoration includes elements of esthetic discretion. People who do restorations have been discussing that a long time (it's graphic art after all). If you'd like to discuss that in more depth at another venue, and try your hand at it, then by all means let's take it to talk somewhere. Durova (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Manuscript old charts are often considered as works of art. And exactely as with other paintings, I don't think that aethetic discretion in the restoring process is acceptable in these cases. In some libraries and museums, when we order a high definition digital copy of an old map, it comes with a color target which was photographed together with the original so we can reproduce its exact colours. Stretching the concept of digital restoring as to consider it as a form of art is hardly acceptable when the object is an historical document. Maybe the best place to discuss the issue is here, where the images are being evaluated. In this particular case I would consider to support the image if the colours were faithfully reproduced from the original, which doesn't appear to be the case. As I have stressed before, we at FPC evaluate the merits of images not of the restoring process. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- GerardM (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't see any "wow" here. --Calibas (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Per my comments above, as the original colouring appears to have been strongly manipulated in the restoring process. That is, in my opinion, not acceptable in a historical manuscript chart. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Great. Yann (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm not sure some people realize the technical complexity of both making the original image, and the restoration by Durova and myself. If this doesn't have the "wow factor", then I don't know what does. —Ynhockey (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Lycaon (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - don't find Alvesgaspar's argument convincing - during restoration, it's usual to change the aged paper back to white. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fossil Bay Seascape.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 02:53:54
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Very small, but interesting.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  SupportJukoFF (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Very nice. Tevonic (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting result with the long exposure time blurring the waves. My apologies for a negative - The white line on the seaward side of the foreground rocks due to the "sharpness" setting is in conflict with the overall pastal shade of the picture. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Lovely. --Calibas (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Hmm, something good. --Aktron (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice. --Karel (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support it is just an atmospheric shot but a really good one. Can seldom resist long time exposures. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit uninteresting when at the thumbnail, but it looks great at the full resolution. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Paris 16 (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Amazing --Dtarazona (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:The Totem Pole, Cape Huay.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 02:52:53
SHORT DESCRIPTION

[edit] File:BurjDubaiJI3.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 2:41:31
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Flickr user jez- uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Ktr101 -- Ktr101 (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment-I uploaded this two days ago, but forgot to list it. Please forgive me changing the dates to fix this.
  •  Support as nominator Ktr101 (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment You should tilt it to give a vertical result, as it is sometimes used by reviewers as a reason for opposing. →Diti the penguin — 08:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Many ghosting/stitching problems. For example see the palm trees in the bottom. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Quite spectacular as a thumbnail, but I was a little disappointed that the clarity in the top half of the building does not meet expectations - was the wind blowing the cranes? I am curious - does the building really have that curve? The top is perfectly perpendicular, but the bottom leans to the left. Given that Dubai is a city built on sand, it is probably going the way of the Tower of Pisa, but they are building the top to a true vertical. Nice picture - will be of particular historical interest if the building tips over! -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image contains disturbing ghosting Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If no contrary views are expressed within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

. Lycaon (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  •  Comment I can straighten the bottom, but then the top is out of kilter. I'm wondering if there is some sort of distortion in the image or atmosphere. Ktr101 (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Dimitri Torterat - C-160 Transall passing by (French Bastille Day 2009).jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 23:19:28
C-160 Transall.jpg

  • Info: Created, uploaded and nominated by Dimitri Torterat. →Diti the penguin — 23:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Today was the French national celebration. I brought my non-pro gear with me, concentrated mostly on the planes, and here's what I got. →Diti the penguin — 23:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Picture is too static... props are frozen, thus depriving the image of a sense of motion. In a back to front motion, a slower shutter speed is able to freeze the plane´s movement, and at the same time blurr the props. Composition and angle of view uninteresting. There is no dynamics in image. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Don't mind the non-blurred propellers, but it's not a very exciting angle. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No WOW. --Aktron (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Common image, nothing special. --Karel (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ParcoPuez-Odle.JPG

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 20:46:09
A little valley (direction Lungiarü) in the Naturpark Puez-Geisler/Odle, in South Tyrol (Italy).

  • Info: created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support It is difficult to have mountain picture wich is not ordinary and stands out. I like the balance of green and rock. It is not a valley view (looking upp) or a mountaintop view (looking down), but has both. The cloud shadows add a playfull element. Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Paris 16 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - not special. Downtowngal (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:FEVE Valencia 15.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 18:46:57
Local railway in Valencia

  • Info: created by Smiley.toerist - uploaded by Smiley.toerist - nominated by Smiley.toerist -- Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- It is an historic picture (1987). Neither the station or the train exist anymore. Is a scanned slide. The scanning of old pictures should be encouraged. Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Although the technical quality of the picture is not flawless, I tend to support it. The subject is interesting and 'historical' (as it doesn't exist anymore). The original slide seems to be very good. The scanning is rather good, except the halos in the sky near the electric wires, probably due to oversharpening. Anyhow, I fully agree with Smiley.toerist that the scanning of old - and also of not so old - pictures from the pre-digital period should be encouraged here at Commons, especially when they show objects or situations which profoundly changed or even disappeared since then. No doubt that the slide collections of many Commoners contain a lot of useful and valuable images. -- MJJR (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  SupportJukoFF (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - as supporters. Downtowngal (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose We should not encourage very visible jpeg artifacts, and if this is valuable it sounds more like a VI candidate than something for FP. The composition is not very good either and the quality is far too low; colors seem wrong plus the visible halos. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Hmm does not look like somewhere in Europe. But I like this one. --Aktron (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Culvert assembly.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 16:50:37
SHORT DESCRIPTION

[edit] File:12 foot culvert.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 16:43:44
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support nice sky.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - Peripitus (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see it as great QI, but not FP. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - Something about the mood and the curving road vs. the straight pipe. (This looks better full-size than thumbnail size.) Downtowngal (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Rebar worker.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 16:34:01
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support rare pic of humans with a nice composition. Maybe a slightly tighter crop would be better to cut away the worker on the left but this is also ok for me. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice one. It's got feeling, personality and action. --Calibas (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Good industry photo and engaging portrait. Maedin\talk 06:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JovanCormac (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral - it looks posed, and it's not clear what the worker is doing. Downtowngal (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Renoir, Pierre-Auguste - The Two Sisters, On the Terrace.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 16:08:17
Two Sisters on the Terrasse

  • Info: created by Pierre-Auguste Renoir, uploaded by Ilmari Karonen, nominated by Yann (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful painting by one of the most famous French painter. Huge size. I cropped the black border. Yann (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Econt (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, but also here, the colour rendition is wrong. The addition of a colour chart on this copy however offers the chance to get this correct. Maybe with some advice of the "restorers" around? Lycaon (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • And now? I tried to correct the white balance. Yann (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      •  Comment You should update the image info, it still say it has not been color corrected. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • ✓ Done Yann (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      •  Comment Looks a little blueish/greenish to me. --Calibas (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Really nice.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Paris 16 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Silver tree Leucadendron argenteum bark details.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2009 at 23:31:07
Bark of Silver tree

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info:w:Bark details of Silver tree, Leucadendron argenteum
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose maybe a VI but a FP? --AngMoKio (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I nominated the image because it looks as the tree has a face - two eyes, a nose and a mouth. So I thought it was cool.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
When I first saw it in thumbnail size I actually thought it is the backside of an elephant :) --AngMoKio (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Mostly confusing, and not interesting enough to be FP. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination

[edit] File:Großer Perlmutterfalter, Argynnis aglaja 1a.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2009 at 21:18:54
Argynnis aglaja

  • Info: all by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- H005 (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Aqwis (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Otherwise superb, but the crop isn't perfect (see the legs). —kallerna™ 06:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It looks great in thumbnail, but in full view it misses crispness and the crop of the legs is indeed unfortunate. Lycaon (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lycaon. →Diti the penguin — 18:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It looks very good, pity that the feet are not fully visible. --L.Kenzel (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Lycaon. Estrilda (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose – Is it just me or are the wings a bit out of focus? Per Lycaon --Ernie (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As opposers and I think the strong shadow is a bit distracting. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Chrysomya albiceps + Potentilla palustris.JPG

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2009 at 19:44:43
Chrysomya albiceps on Swamp Cinquefoil (Potentilla palustris).

  • Info: created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 19:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support —kallerna™ 19:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful Downtowngal (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Cool! --Aktron (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No wow.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focused subject only covers 10% max, too small to be a descriptive picture of a common insect, and the rest of the image is 95% blurr. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Isn't 10% + 95% = 105 %? Smile What do you think about the version 2? —kallerna™ 11:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- per Tomascastelazo -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support As above. BTW, have you seen the little gnome face reflected on the abdomen of the fly? Lycaon (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Yep. Smile It's probably my camera. —kallerna™ 12:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it. --Lošmi (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The spider web disrupts the harmony of your composition. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Apis mellifera on Potentilla palustris.JPG

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2009 at 19:41:43
European honey bee (Apis mellifera) on Swamp Cinquefoil (Potentilla palustris).

  • Info: created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 19:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support —kallerna™ 19:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Lycaon (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Downtowngal (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cluttered picture of a common bee, poor technique and point of view. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- composition Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Estrilda (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Bees are usually fast moving so it is difficult to get them "well composed" for their portrait. And it is interesting to see the different varieties of "common honey bee" (I think I have photographed 5 or 6 this year). I like the level of detail on parts of the bee, but it is too far off-centre, and needs a bit more "wow" factor. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition. --Karel (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As per Karel. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Declaration independence.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2009 at 17:57:35
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by John Trumbull - uploaded by Panoptik - nominated by Ivan03 -- Ivan03 (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ivan03 (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: Previous versions and the image at the Capitol website [1] are more yellow - can you explain why this one is more accurate?Downtowngal (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I only nominated this picture for its quality, I did not know that the image had other version, if the version more yellow is the accurate I nominate this version. Sorry but my English is not very good. Ivan03 (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Largely for historical significance. The colour difference seems like different white-balance settings or light used to digitise the picture. I looked for an alternative copy on the internet, but did not quickly locate one. But Wallbuilders has the text of the Declaration [2], and a useful on-line library of historical documents; and the original document does look rather yellow, showing its age. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Polycristalline-silicon-wafer 20060626 568.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2009 at 13:49:01
Solar Cell

[edit] File:Female gorilla with 2 months old baby boy gorilla in SF zoo.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2009 at 13:34:51
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info:A surrogate mother with 2-months old baby boy gorilla in SF Zoo
  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose regretfully - a too-rare photo of a female and baby, in an interesting relationship. Almost there, but the wow requires thinking about the photo; the wow is not immediately apparent. P.S. The photo title has three misspelled words. Downtowngal (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, before you knew that I am a bad photographer. Now you know that I am a bad speller too. Oh well... :)
I don't think you are a bad photographer. Personally, I prefer to look at your images (and those of Tomas Castelazo), which are not perfect technically but make me think. But the FP criteria require something special, which I understand to be an immediate visceral aesthetic response. Downtowngal (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Cute fellow! MartinD (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Umnik (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Tevonic (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I somewhat agree with Downtowngal's view, and also the mother is much too dark. Providing there aren't areas completely black or assuming you have the RAW files, you could try using a shadow/highlight adjustment. Maedin\talk 16:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I hope you do understand that, if two gorillas, sitting so close to each other, and the color of one of them is OK, it means that the color of the second one is probably OK also, which means that the color of female gorilla is natural? --Mbz1 (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral For the reasons given by Downtowngal; I'd support it if it was taken in the wilderness. But technically it's good, hence neutral. I do not think the mother is too dark. -- H005 (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No wow zoo pic. Lycaon (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lycaon. —kallerna™ 07:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice scene...but for FP a bit too ordinary. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
This vote by a person, who takes lots of images of the birds in captivity, and does not even mention this fact in the nominations really surprised me, and IMO it is better to have a single image of gorillas as FP than two images of the same bird taken in the same ZOO few minutes appart. BTW your "too ordinary scene" reminded me a story my co-worker has told me. She took her 3-years old to ZOO. The boy was not amazed by anything and kept saying "boring, boring, boring..." At last my co-worker cried :"What do you want? You want animals to dance for you?!" That story is about 3-years old, AngMoKio :) And what in your opinion would not be "too ordinary scene", if I may ask? AngMoKio, I take your votes personally.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
All I say to this: First of all taking votes personally is always a bad choice. I only vote for or against your pictures, it has nothing to do with you (although you attack me personally now) - you know exactly that I also voted pro for some of your pics. I tried several times to put things straight btw us on your talkpage. I learned now that this makes no sense and I won't do this anymore - it simply leads nowhere. Concerning the pic (and this what it all should be about): The composition is too ordinary - the pic might very well work as a QI or VI but imho not as FP. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
It might be a "bad choice" , but it is how I feel, and I'd rather say it clear and loud. BTW you still did not answer my question. What composition in your opinion would not be too ordinary? It is not so often a baby gorilla is born in a zoo. This fact alone already is making the image somehow special IMO. The image was taken the way that a viewer will never guess that it was taken in a ZOO. Isn't that interesting that a baby is so small that he is almost hidden behind the grass? Isn't that interesting that he has his finger in his mouth as human kids often do? Anyway as I said earlier, and I repeat it one more time, IMO it is much better to feature "too ordinary scene" of a single image of gorillas than two the same images of the same bird taken in the same ZOO. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The fact that constantly mention my pics of birds (which have nothing to do with this topic here) makes it obvious to me, that it is not about the pic for you but some kind of personal fight. So it makes actually no sense to discuss things here. This pic simply doesn't convince me - fact! You have several pics that do convince and for which I voted pro. Anyway as I said earlier, and I repeat it one more time: Don't take my votes personal! --AngMoKio (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder why you are going to be fooled to justify yourself and get psychologized for an oppose vote. Polls consist of many votes and I don't understand why some votes get boiled thoroughly. Maybe ... after Hans it's you ;-) It seems that there must be permanently a bad guy (or more) around who will be teased so long as he/they say something very direct ... and in the end Milla leaves Commons and you will get a sore conscience ... This kind of working atmosphere is very counterproductive IMO.   • Richard • [®] • 17:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Brilliant picture, but I wouldn't feature anything whose title was misspelled.  Support if the image could be moved. INVERTED (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: I requested the image to be renamed. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: The spelling of the name is corrected. It might be a good reason to reconsider some of your opposes Smile--Mbz1 (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As per AngMoKio. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:E3 sentry zh101 planform arp.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2009 at 13:31:27
E-3 Sentry Planform

  • Info: created and uploaded by Arpingstone - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: An unique and interesting angle of a NATO AWACS (Airborne Warning And Control) aircraft. Even better, the picture has been taken by a member of the community, not a member of the military.
  •  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Very nice, but it looks like the file has been processed a bit too much. →Diti the penguin — 14:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support, nice picture. Ktr101 (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- excellent shot. Tevonic (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Geolocation and use of information template would make it even better ... -- H005 (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good, but per Diti. —kallerna™ 19:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing special, a plane from the bottom. This is not excellent. Quality Picture OK but really not an exzellent Picture! HBR (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As HBR. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose – Is it valuable enough to become featured? --Ernie (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Gallotiagalloti primerplano.JPG

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2009 at 13:01:26
Juvenile male Gallotia galloti in Teide National Park

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by El fosilmaníaco (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- El fosilmaníaco (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- H005 (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Durova (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The unfocused foreground is distracting, perhaps a different crop would help. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It lacks a bit of contrast. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Brooklyn Bridge NY.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2009 at 10:19:06
Brooklyn Bridge

  • Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral -- Good shot, sharpness, light, perspective, noise are excellent, but a tad too ordinary IMHO for FP and much distortion in the edges. -- H005 (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the exposure. Well some much different shot like soon before sunset might be better but this is quite fine. --Aktron (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Lumberwoods.JPG

Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2009 at 22:02:36
Virginia's Enchanting Woodlands

  • Info: created by Tripodero - uploaded by Tripodero - nominated by Tripodero -- Tripodero (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Tripodero (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- no wow, technical quality is not spectacular --che 23:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Hmm I think there are many different ways how to take a picture of a forest. And much better shots of course. --Aktron (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This shot does not stand out among forest-shots. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Ordinary photo. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Detmold Freilichtmuseum R05.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2009 at 19:58:24
Detmold (Germany): Open Air Museum

[edit] File:Detmold Freilichtmuseum R04.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2009 at 19:49:01
Detmold (Germany): Open Air Museum

  • Info: created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by Mmxx --   ■ MMXXtalk  19:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --   ■ MMXXtalk  19:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- MJJR (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment - This is a beautiful, clean image, and there is just as much artistry and effort here as in the many images of insects on plants. But those achieve FP because we are not accustomed to looking close-up, and this image may not achieve FP. A perfect example of the guidelines' bias. And now I'll shut up about them. Downtowngal (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I totally agree. There are way too many close-ups being shoehorned into the FP process. --Ernie (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support The central part of the image is cool. I mean the angle of the front building, this looks good. --Aktron (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral – The composition does not convince me. I think the picture would look alot greater if the house to the left was not in the center of the image. --Ernie (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Prefer and supported the R05 version instead that is a closer and gives a better view of the building. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Amselmännchen.JPG

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 10:22:49
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by --L.Kenzel (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- L.Kenzel (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate (central) composition and light. Lycaon (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yeah, this light conditions are not good indeed. --Aktron (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mauna Loa from the air May 2009.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2009 at 17:23:19
Mauna Loa

  • Info: w:Lava flows of a different colors and a w:fissure vent at w:Mauna Loa
  • Info: The image was taken from a helicopter.
  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Simply great. Yann (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting scene. (And I think I am now seeing true colours having just replaced my fading old CRT monitor with something more modern.) -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Obviously, I'd like to know how a shot from an helicopter and some lava being shown can make this a Featured Picture? Besides, why is it cropped (or erhm downsampled?) Assuming the camera can go up to 3888 x 2592, an horizon would have been nice... Esby (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure I follow your comment/question. Are you against featuring lava images in general? Are you against featuring images that were taken from a helicopter in general? Have you noticed by any chance that the image shows a fissure vent, not only the different lava flows? Have you read the articles the image is linked to? Were you able to learn something new from that reading? The original image did not show the horizon either. The camera was pointed mostly down. I cropped the image the way I believe was better to see the lava and the vents. The size of the cropped image is more than 2 times bigger than the required size.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
That's simple; I don't see any wow in this picture. Honestly I'd be for having this image promoted as VI or QI, but not as a FP. I know that lava is rare, that helicopter are rare (althought it's relative to where you actually are for both) but still there is nothing special in it to my eyes. I know some (commons) guy that is in Iceland right now with a good camera, are we going to make his pictures of geyser/volcano FP too, supposing he used an helicopter? Esby (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
May I please ask you to be a little bit more specific?
  1. Are you opposing because you are against featuring any lava images at all?
  2. Are you opposing because you are against featuring any images taken from a helicopter at all?
  3. Are you opposing because you are against featuring any cropped images?
  4. Are you opposing because you are against featuring any images that do not show a horizon? --Mbz1 (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Although I might maybe hang this pic on my wall as I like the colours and the structure, I really miss sth to get a feeling for the size of that structure and also a horizon would be helpful to get a general feeling for that landscape. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - As AngMoKio: no sense of scale or orientation. The abstract structure is not special enough imo to reach FP status. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

 CommentHonestly IMO all those talks about horizon, scale and orientation sound funny to say the least. It is impossible to have a scale and/or to show the horizon in this kind of image. The similar image is not easy to find on the NET. I did a search on Flickr and Google and did not find any. The image has big EV. Many features of this image do not even need a scale to be encyclopedic. For example different colors of the lava. Well, there is nothing new in those opposes. I learned a long time ago that quite a few reviewers here will rather promote number tenth European honey bee or few images of the same bird taken in the same zoo than a really unique, one-of-a-kind image, but, no worries, next time I will ask my husband to jump down to create a scale just for few shots, you know, and I will ask the pilot to fly as close to the mountain as possible in order to take an image that will show both the lava and the horizon. If the helicopter will crash, it will not go down in vain. Just think what a great scale it will create for all other photographers, who will happen to fly by :)--Mbz1 (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Trun gorge1082.JPG

Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2009 at 05:26:45
The gorge of river Erma, near Trun, Bulgaria

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Biso -- Biso (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Biso (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No details in the shadows. →Diti the penguin — 08:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise, chromatic aberration, lens reflexes. Also, either choose a long exposure time to smoothen the waterflow or a short one to freeze it, but this is indecisively in the middle. -- H005 (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Opposeagree with H005 concerning the exposure time...was about to write exactly the same :) --AngMoKio (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Vorderhopfreben Üntschenspitze 1.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 22:30:45
Alps in Bregenzerwald

  • Info: all by -- Böhringer (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Böhringer (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - Beautiful. I see a little chromatic aberration in the trees on both sides. Downtowngal (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Noticeable stitching errors on the left side, but otherwise excellent. H005 (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support   ■ MMXXtalk  18:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support very nice --AngMoKio (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Some minor stitching errors indeed (which could easily be corrected btw), but in general a great image. FP quality! -- MJJR (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: stitching errors corrected - Thanks for the hint --Böhringer (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support —kallerna™ 19:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Hollariduljöö   • Richard • [®] • 19:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Real good picture! HBR (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Halfalah (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Chrumps (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Aktron (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --L.Kenzel (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Super! --Karel (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Paris 16 (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Port w Bonifacio.JPG

Harbour in Bonifacio

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Bartek Ptaszyński --BartekPtaszyński (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --BartekPtaszyński (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good holiday snapshot, not more. Try nominating it as a quality image. -- H005 (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Camera location missed and
  •  Oppose similar H005 --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor quality. —kallerna™ 19:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nah. Well the colors can be edited to make this picture look better, or even some more GIMP edits can make it a FP material, but this one is unfortunately not. --Aktron (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (3).jpg

Syrphidae in a flower.

[edit] File:ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (7).jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 08:14:40
Syrphidae sp. copulation

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Bit low DOF thou. —kallerna™ 16:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not identified (try to start at Syrphinae or at least do the effort to ask at http://www.diptera.info). And please, if you must upload unidentified organisms, do place them under the relevant unidentified xxx categories. Lycaon (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose – per Lycaon. Shallow depth of field. --Ernie (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Diptera sp. (by).jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 08:12:34
Diptera in a petunia flower.

[edit] File:Humayun's Tomb from the entrance, Delhi.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 05:50:56
Humayun's Tomb, a UNESCO World Heritage site, from the entrance, Delhi

  • Info: created by Poski - uploaded by Ekabhishek - nominated by Ekabhishek -- Ekabhishek (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ekabhishek (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Bit noisy, but acceptable. The crop is bad, the black area is not symmetrical. Also geolocation would be appreciated. It'll have my support if all this is fixed. -- H005 (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Hmm yeah the crop ruined a bit. Fixing this make me to vote in favor. --Aktron (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Archives and the port.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 03:57:39
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by JalalV - uploaded by JalalV - nominated by JalalV -- JalalV (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JalalV (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Good shot, but please add geolocation. -- H005 (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support as H005 -- MJJR (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Great picture. The only problem is filename, I have no idea where it was taken. But that is not a matter of technical quality or composition of this image. --Aktron (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Meerkat in SF zoo f.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 01:10:59
Meerkat

  • Info:w:Meerkat in SF ZOO
  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Meerkats are always cute and funny, this one is IMHO not exceptional enough. But I'd support it as QI. -- H005 (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: It is the only image of Meerkat at Commons that shows a Meerkat laying on his back. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like this picture, a pity some visible noise appears in shadowed areas though. →Diti the penguin — 22:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Cute subject but not a particularly interesting composition and the lighting is poor - harsh sunlight and deep shadows leaving one eye mostly hidden. - Peripitus (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Yes, I was going to say the same thing, but I couldn't recommend brightening the eye a little more, due to the noise there is already. →Diti the penguin — 23:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose lighting --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with Peripitus --AngMoKio (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination

[edit] Edit 1

Meerkat

  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with Peripitus --AngMoKio (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination

[edit] File:William Berryman Plantain Walk2.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2009 at 22:21:58
SHORT DESCRIPTION

[edit] File:ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (2).jpg

Syrphidae sp. in fly.

If he's got it down to the family, that's pretty dang good for a photographer. Not all of us are biologists and expecting photographers to identify every species is just going to result in misidentification. If it doesn't already. --Calibas (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course being a biologist has nothing to do with getting an id for an organism. It is about being able to obtain useful information, and that is what wikimedia is all about, isn't it? Lycaon (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Identification is no criterion in FP, sharpness and exposure are excellent, the crop is not. The fly alone would have been better. -- H005 (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I would like to see this identified to better than family, but as identification isn't an element of FP criteria, I cannot justify opposing based on it. As for the crop, I think it is great—it is giving it dynamic and target and movement. As for the sharp capture of a flying subject, I think it is excellent. Kudos to Thomas. Maedin\talk 20:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Maedin - this sharp a picture of an insect in flight is quite something. I only wish I could have done it. Zoomed in, the insect alone looks impressive. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose – per Lycaon --Ernie (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice catch! --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Agave americana R01.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2009 at 15:20:57
Agave americana

  • Info: created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- MJJR (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support nice, perfect quality and valued for Wiki. I like this --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I recognise that different things appeal to different people, and usually, if I'm not interested in the subject, I don't vote on an image. This picture, however, seems to me to be of a completely ordinary composition, with nothing setting it apart from any other picture of the same species. The subject of the picture is not particulary apparant, and blends into the background, making for a cluttered shot. The view of the plant is unremarkable, and reveals very little about it, and leads to a very shallow DOF. Kudos to the photographer for the high technical quality, but just not featured, for me. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing special, neither subject nor photographic quality. -- H005 (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - Agree with George. Also, the photo shows the agave in the dry, sunny conditions it likes in the wild. You can see a baby plant emerging on the left side of the mother plant and younger plants nearby. A more aesthetic approach would not be as informative. Downtowngal (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment But FP ist primarily about aesthetics, for informative pictures we have COM:VI -- H005 (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment - Well, I am confused. The guidelines say "Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special,..." Actually, these two sentences can be contradictory. What is very valuable may not be special (see simultaneous fireworks), and what is special is not always valuable (see smoking fish). Usually I make high aesthetic quality an absolute requirement. (You caught me here making an exception.) In practice that policy ends up limiting the kind of images that easily qualify for FP to landscapes, macros and existing high-quality artworks. Other kinds of images (buildings, some plants, objects) face a higher standard because they are not as intrinsically aesthetically pleasing. We even had a big debate about whether the extremely valuable 1838 photo should be FP! So I would appreciate some discussion on whether the guidelines should be revised, or a pointer to a previous discussion of this bias problem. Downtowngal (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Zebra portrait.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 21:13:46
SHORT DESCRIPTION

[edit] File:Male Checkered White, Megan McCarty125.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 18:15:05
Male Checkered White

[edit] File:Cyprinus carpio smoking.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 15:46:41
Carp smoking?

  • Info: created by Wouterhagens - uploaded by Wouterhagens - nominated by Wouterhagens -- Wouter (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Wouter (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Smile As sad water pollution is   • Richard • [®] • 15:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Smile A dead man walking, a dead fish smocking--Mbz1 (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lots of noise and no wow. --Afrank99 (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Disturbing --Muhammad (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Econt (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support The photo is a freak. It seems to have little encyclopedic value. But it is evidence of an abnormal situation that is not always easy to capture photographically. For this I overlook the noise. Downtowngal (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support We need more humorous FPs. I put it up on reddit [3]. --Calibas (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Great capture. --Lošmi (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy, no wow. —kallerna™ 12:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not enough value (according to me) for Commons. There is noticeable vignetting, noise, and the polarization of light because of water gives an unaesthetic result. It may be a rare shot, but I cannot see this one featured. →Diti the penguin — 13:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Diti.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Funny, but quality is just average. -- H005 (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with opposers. As joke it is good Smile --George Chernilevsky (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support A smocking fish ! Great shot ! --Wikinade (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Diti said it well. Maedin\talk 14:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Blackberry fruits 2008 G1.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 11:39:35
Ripe and unripe blackberries on a bush


  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Ripe and unripe blackberries on a bush --George Chernilevsky (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Hmm. Yummy, but I think some more interesting composition would be much better. --Aktron (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support –Juliancolton | Talk 02:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like to oppose but: DOF isn't great; we manage better for insects, and this was a static subject. The composition isn't great. I think this may be a tad too bright. It feels somewhat overexposed. On their own not enough to oppose, but the three together are, sorry. Maedin\talk 22:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Maedin. —kallerna™ 16:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Honeymoon Bay Sunset.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 10:42:33
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Hopefully 3 is an acceptable level of spam. -- Noodle snacks (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Stunning picture, but IMHO looks too artificial probably due to post-processing. Also, I noticed a lot of chromatic aberration. -- H005 (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Chromatic aberration is unavoidable at wide angles. The lenses able to avoid it cost two good months of salary. →Diti the penguin — 13:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Easy enough to photoshop out if it is a deal breaker Noodle snacks (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: What are blue particles in the sand?--Mbz1 (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The saturation was boosted the saturation artificially. This isn't normal practise for my images though. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Wow! Technically not perfect but good enough. - Ukuthenga (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. Although it could get positive feedback from photo magazines, it doesn't present encyclopaedic values enough, to give it a featured status. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I like the concept - there is a lot of drama which makes me want to support it. But I agree with the comments about the post-processing, and wonder why you went from what seems to be the original 10Mpx to below 3Mpx (if I have calculated correctly). It would be interesting to see this at original resolution, and with a bit less fore-ground sand as a variation. This has a tremendous feeling of drama which makes it stand out from the common crowd. Well done for that. (And the blue particles in the sand look like the sky reflected of something such as shells.) -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cygnus atratus Sunset.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 05:46:10
SHORT DESCRIPTION

That's an argument against its misleading name, not the picture itself. -- H005 (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree, and edited my oppose.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's a nice graphic, but doesn't have the wow for FP. Downtowngal (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Makele-90 (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fortesque Bay Sunrise.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 05:35:45
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support ---donald- (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Fantastic! -- H005 (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support The atmosphere in your pictures is breath-taking. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support i am a fan of long time exposures. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Amazing shot. Brianga (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral - Well-done but not all that special, IMO. Downtowngal (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice. --Afrank99 (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It looks really nice, but no EV. Just another too photoshopped sunrise-photo, sorry. But it's very beautiful. —kallerna™ 20:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The lack of EV is exactly why I sent it here. Beyond a graduated blend, no photoshop work has been performed. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • EV = "encyclopedic value"? (I should know this...) –Juliancolton | Talk 02:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • “EV” stands for “Educational value”. I see one, a perfect representation of a sunset taken with a low exposure time. Suitable for articles about photography. →Diti the penguin — 13:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
        • And hopefully, it will illustrate Noodle's entry in the Featured Photographers page, when he eventually gets one. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support, looks fine to me. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful! →Diti the penguin — 13:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support — Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 08:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tree branch after ice storm.JPG

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 00:05:23
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Tevonic - uploaded by Tevonic - nominated by Tevonic -- Tevonic (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support. Photo shows how freezing rain after an ice storm can lead to severe damage in forests. -- Tevonic (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support –Juliancolton | Talk 04:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Great light, low noise, but the DOF does not completely cover the main object. -- H005 (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - useful for an encyclopedia, but no wow. Downtowngal (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment I would respectfully disagree with Downtowngal on this. Freezing rain is supercooled water that freezes to ice on impact with an object on the ground, coating everything with ice. There are many good images of such objects on the commons, with some of them being more colorful than this one. However, the amount of ice here is incredible, and I could not find an image which conveys buildup on a similar scale. For this reason, I believe the unique composition, educational value, color, and lighting warrant consideration for FP. I agree with H005 that the DOF could be improved, but disagree that this detracts from the image. Tevonic (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Indeed, such a significant buildup of ice is exceedingly rare (unless of course the branch is situated directly under the gutter...) –Juliancolton | Talk 16:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support As I was planning on nominating it myself, I suppose I should support it. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting work Esc861 (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support good colours --George Chernilevsky (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support — Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 08:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tom dl (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Missing wow and I don't particularly like the light. Lycaon (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The "wow" comes from the sheer depth of the ice, as noted above. Freezing rain usually accumulates to less than a few tenths of an inch, and I estimate this is at least 1 1/2 inch thick. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Great image!--Mbz1 (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sarcophaga sp male.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2009 at 23:54:53
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: c/u/n   • Richard • [®] • 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Male Sarcophaga fly feeding on honey. Males cannot be identified easily to species level without killing or anesthesia, people at www.entomologie.de said. That shouldn't be my job :-) Otherwise a good study IMO.
  •  Support --   • Richard • [®] • 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Gross. You didn't feel like capturing it and dissecting it's genitalia to determine what species it is? I don't blame you. --Calibas (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support –Juliancolton | Talk 04:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Perfect. -- H005 (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree. --Lošmi (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Durova (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok. —kallerna™ 16:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --L.Kenzel (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Lycaon (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Grasshopper June 2009-3.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2009 at 23:03:59
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: Detail of an Egyptian Grasshopper. Everything by -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Impressive close-up with lots of sharp details of the main body, but unfortunately DOF is too tight, legs and antennae are extremely blurry. -- H005 (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the dof is ok here. I accept that the legs and antennae are out of focus, but considering the angle and extreme change of plane, this seems acceptable. Maedin\talk 12:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: Was it alive? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Certainly the antennas doesn't look very vital but I may be wrong.   • Richard • [®] • 15:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Porto Covo July 2009-1a.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2009 at 22:51:47
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: The sea and cliffs in Porto Covo, Portugal, by the end of the day. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Camera Location missed. Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done - Added, but not a requirement for FPC though. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Nicely done   • Richard • [®] • 23:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support nice --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO the lower part of the image (most of all the lower middle and the right lower corner) are not sharp at all. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral As per Mbz1, plus it's somewhat impressive, but no real "wow" ... -- H005 (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - As Mbz1 including the sorry. Downtowngal (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks like one of my 5000 holiday snapshots. No wow, sorry. --Afrank99 (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
This image is not a snapshot. This is a good image, which has some problems that made me to oppose. May I please suggest to you to be a little bit more polite in your comments? Remember you'te talking about somebody else work. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry (Alvesgaspar!), I did't mean to step onto anyone's feet. I'm just trying to express my opinion on the image, and it's far, far away from being something special IMHO. And even being a good image is not enough for FP. For me it still looks like a snapshot (how do you know it's not one?), sorry again. --Afrank99 (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Otherwise really good, but per Mbz1. —kallerna™ 20:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose per Mbz1. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Zepper-Tony Sly (NUFAN).jpeg

Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2009 at 11:30:05
Guitarist and vocalist Tony Sly from No Use For A Name

  • Info: created by Curnen - uploaded by Curnen - nominated by Curnen -- Curnen (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support A little bit noisy, but I think thats forgivable. -- Curnen (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support After downloading it and trying some noise reduction myself, I think it's better with a little noise - any removal needs quite strong luma noise reduction, which blurs out details in the shadows. Great shot! --Tom dl (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose quality (noise and sharpness).--Mbz1 (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative

Zepper-Tony Sly (NUFAN)

I agree with Tom dl, but I doubt that with all those noise image has a chance, so I tried to denoise it a bit anyway. --Lošmi (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  •  Comment – I think the best way to get noise out of this image is to downsize it. It is lare enough to allow a little resizing. According to the EXIF data it was shot with ISO 6400 (!!). For such a high ISO it has quite alot of detail though. Amazing what modern CMOS sensors are capable of. --Ernie (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support a really great shot made under difficult conditions --AngMoKio (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Great shot and great job denoising it. The resolution is high enough that I don't see any problems with the sharpness. --Calibas (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent shot. -- H005 (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice job on denoising, yet lots of CA most of all at the right arm. I do not like how the face came out. I am the first one to forgive those problems for the images that have big EV. IMO (and I underline IMO) this one does not. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment
@Lošmi: Thanks a lot for removing the noise, you did indeed a fantastic job. (I almost went nuts trying, because of the artificial fog wafting on stage adding to the usual noise)
@ Ernie: Yes, the photo was indeed shot at ISO 6400, which was the most reasonable balance between shutter speed and noise, because I needed to shoot hand-held out of a crowd of celebrating fans in front of the stage. Less than 1/160s at 400mm was at least for me impossible [Although I tried ;-)]
@Mbz1: Sorry, what does CA mean ? and EV ? By the way, I agree that the picture has some flaws in it and can live with it beeing rejected because of them. ;-)
--Curnen (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
CA means w:Chromatic aberration, EV means enciclopedic value. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Curnen: You're welcome. I'm glad you like the result. --Lošmi (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much denoised (... and the photo is just too noisy to be fully denoised). —kallerna™ 20:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality not enought, I'm sorry --George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks still great as thumbnail, but in large it looses too much detail. It's a good concert pic (mood, perspective, expression, ...) , but with the fog machine running you need a lot of luck and good light conditions (or a camera in the highest price range) to get an image without noise. -- Cecil (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Kalapana and steam from lava entering the ocean .jpg

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 23:55:55
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: The big Island of Hawaii is growing by an hour. All brand new land (sorry lava) that pours in the ocean, creating new shoreline, belongs to the state, but if a new lava gets atop of the old one, the prior owner still keeps his rights. The owners home was covered by lava in 1990. Now they try to sell their new/old lava. The steams at the background are volcanic plumes from at least two ocean entries of the lava. There is a helicopter nearby to show how big the thing is.
  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose — It's nothing special. Nice photo but not really informative or educational at all. Acablue (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
"Informative" or "educational" is not a criterion here as far as I know. bamse (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO very informative. I was not ware of such an incidence occurring. --Muhammad (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Fascinating story but the picture itself doesn't tell the story. Plus the lack of sharpness. Downtowngal (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
If any picture here tells a story, this is the one. The picture shows lava desert, sign for sale and volcanic plume from new lava entering the ocean nearby. It it shows a helicopter to see the size of the plume. It is a great story for ones, who know how to read it. IMO the image is sharp enough.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Türkenbund Lilie, Lilium martagon.JPG

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 21:22:35
Türkenbund Lilie, Lilium martagon

  • Info: Lilium martagon all by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support maybe the DOF is bit too low, but the composition is really nice! --Leviathan (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support — Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 13:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support   ■ MMXXtalk  16:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Like it! —kallerna™ 20:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Paris 16 (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Durova (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Useful picture of a less common flower. Sorry to make one negative comment, though - DOF and general sharpness are a little disappointing, though overall it is still good. The contrast between the flower and the background works very well. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:BallonKathedrale01.JPG

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 14:38:24
Fantasy of Flight

[edit] Edit 1 (sharpened)

Fantasy of Flight

  •  Support the sharpened version. The lighting and composition are so attractive and the photo is not easily reshot. Downtowngal (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Mbz1 (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support sharpened version. A unique balloon and well-placed lighting behind the camera. Ikluft (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support sharpened version. Fantasy-styled view --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support thanks for the Promotion and sharpen --Böhringer (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support POTY 2009 ?   • Richard • [®] • 12:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversharpened (strong halos) yet blurry. Lycaon (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - per Lycaon -- Pro2 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lycaon, although I see the improvement. -- H005 (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: What I'm wondering is, is this even a free image? I'm not sure freedom of panorama applies, given that the balloon is presumably not permanently installed in public. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Cars and planes are not permanently installed in public, either. --Lošmi (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment I think this a very valid point. Obviously freedom of panorama does not apply, as it is not permanently installed. (Btw, according to the coordinates the camera was in Switzerland, although the balloon possibly was in Austria. The latter has freedom of panorama, Switzerland I don't know.)

Cars etc. are not a good example, as these are not considered "art", but just things of everyday usage. This might be different here. At least the creators of the balloon call themselves "Künstler" (="artists"), and they are called artists in publications, so the balloon could be considered a pice of art, which unsually must not be reproduced on Commons. -- H005 (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC).

  •  Comment Perhaps it is justified as a public event with the clear wich to be represented in Media and Internet. I think we would get no problems here in Germany but I'm not absolutly shure about Austria. --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Western tent caterpillars Malacosoma californicum in Joshua Tree NP.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 15:55:35
Western tent caterpillars

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: The image was nominated here and did not get promoted. After that the quality of the image was improved.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting --Muhammad (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Intriguing theme, good quality -- H005 (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support very good photo --George Chernilevsky (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC) - I now move my vote to the Original version --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I needs new crop and the quality isn't FP-material IMHO. —kallerna™ 14:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as kallerna. It is oversharpened to the point that everything glitters. Lycaon (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: to Kallerna: What exactly do you mean by "quality isn't FP-material"? Sharpness and lighting is excellent, I think. And the crop, ok, it could be centered better, but not really an issue IMHO. -- H005 (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
And besides it is already FP material on English Wikipedia. Smile --Mbz1 (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, Maedin. The original image was added to the nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Original

Western tent caterpillars

  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Muhammad (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the sharpened version better, but if others prefer the original, so be it. -- H005 (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Yep, definitely prefer this one. Maedin\talk 13:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support very good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support my whole class has traumas from these little things from a trip we took once. --SuperJew (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Candidates_a_im%C3%A1xenes_destacaes"
Personal tools