Commons:Featured picture candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This project page in other languages:

Alemannisch | asturianu | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | English | español | suomi | français | galego | हिन्दी | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | молдовеняскэ | norsk bokmål | português | polski | română | русский | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates


FPCandiateicon.svg

Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures.

Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and current month.

For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election.

Formal things[edit]

Nominating[edit]

Guidelines for nominators[edit]

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

  • Licensing - Images licensed with solely "GFDL" or "GFDL and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses.
  • ResolutionImages (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'. Note that a 1600 × 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level. A 1920 × 1080 image, commonly known as Full HD, has 2.07 Mpx, just more than the 2 million level.
Graphics on Commons are not only viewed on conventional computer screens. They may be used in high-resolution print versions, and the images may be cropped to focus on portions of the image. See Commons:Why we need high resolution media for more information.
  • Scans – While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on the preparation of various types of images that may be useful.
  • General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality.
  • Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive.
    • For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable.
    • For historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful colour adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change. Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison.
  • Valueour main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
    • almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
    • night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
    • beautiful does not always mean valuable.


Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents

There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolours, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject.

Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable.

Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution. For instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself.

Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well.

Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:

  • Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy.
  • Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are none the less wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art.
  • Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents – which may not be at all artistic – nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject.
  • Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects, for instance, illustrations of books, scientific subjects, or technical processes. The amount of artistic merit required for these will vary by subject, but, for instance, an illustration that makes the working of a complicated piece of machinery very clear need not be notable as a piece of artwork as well, whereas an illustration for a book might well be expected to reach much higher artistic standards.

Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file hosting page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced."

Photographs

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

  • Focus – every important object in the picture should normally be sharp.
  • Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Digital cameras (or images) have a narrower latitude than film. Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element.
  • Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The "Rule of Thirds" is a good guideline for composition and is an inheritance from the painting school. The idea is to divide the image with two imaginary horizontal and two vertical lines, thus dividing the image into thirds horizontally and vertically. Centering the subject is often less interesting than placing the subject in one of the "interest points", the 4 intersection between these horizontal and vertical lines intersect. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they "cut" the image in half. The upper or lower horizontal line is often a good choice. The main idea is to use space to create a dynamic image.
    • Foreground and background – foreground and background objects may be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head).
  • Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better than the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the "unnatural" nature of the pose would be a good photograph.
  • Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or subtract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and vice versa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF.

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

  • Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects.
  • Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is accomplished using side light. Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not the best light. It tends to flatten subject. Best light of day is early morning or late afternoon.
  • Colour is important. Over saturated colours are not good.
  • Texture refers to the quality of the surface of the subject. It is enhanced by side lighting… it is the "feel" to the touch.
  • Perspective refers to the "angle" accompanied by lines that disappear into a vanishing point that may or may not be inside the image.
  • Balance refers to the arrangement of subjects within the image that can either give equal weight or appear to be heavier on one side.
  • Proportion refers to the relation of size of objects in picture. Generally, we tend to represent small objects small in relation to others, but a good technique is to represent small objects large contrary to natural size relationship. For example, a small flower is given preponderance over a large mountain…. This is called inversion of scales.
Not all elements must be present. Some photographs can be judged on individual characteristics, that is, an image can be about color or texture, or colour AND texture, etc.
  • Noise refers to unwanted corruption of colour brightness and quality and can be caused by underexposure. It is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition.
  • Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.
Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations …

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

Video and audio

Set nominations

Sets are temporarily disallowed for technical reasons; will reopen soon.

If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set.

  • All images should be processed and presented in a similar manner to ensure consistency amongst the set.
  • All images should be linked to all others in the "Other Versions" section of the image summary.
  • If the set of subjects has a limited number of elements, then there should be a complete set of images. This may result in images in this kind of set with no "wow" factor, and perhaps little value on their own. Their value is closely bound to the value of having a complete set of these subjects. The decision to feature should be based on this overall value.
  • If the set of subjects is unlimited, the images should be chosen judiciously. Each image should be sufficiently different to the others to add a great deal of value to the overall set. The majority of images should be able to qualify for FP on their own.
  • All images should be of high technical quality.

Adding a new nomination[edit]

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

Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button.

All single files:

For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2


Set nominations ONLY

Sets are temporarily disallowed for technical reasons; will reopen soon.

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

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

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg}}

Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify him/her using {{subst:FPC-notice}}.

Voting[edit]

Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed.

You may use following templates:

  • {{Support}} (Symbol support vote.svg Support),
  • {{Oppose}} (Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose),
  • {{Neutral}} (Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral),
  • {{Comment}} (Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment),
  • {{Info}} (Pictogram voting info.svg Info),
  • {{Question}} (Pictogram voting question.svg Question),
  • {{Request}} (Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request).

You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator.

A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above.

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

  • No reason
  • "I don't like it" and other empty assessments
  • "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image

Remember also to put your signature (~~~~).

Featured picture delisting candidates[edit]

Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It deserves to remain a featured picture
{{Delist}} Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist It does not deserve to be a featured picture anymore.

This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Do not replace the old image with the new image as an FP.
{{Delistandreplace}} Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace Replace the current FP with the proposed replacement.

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


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

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

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

As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose.

Featured picture candidate policy[edit]

General rules[edit]

  1. The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination. After the end of this period the result will be determined. Votes added on day 10 and after are not counted.
  2. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome
  3. Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome
  4. Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits.
  5. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated.
  6. Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the following template: {{withdraw}} ~~~~
  7. Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.
  8. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5)
    1. Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator).
    2. Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.)
    3. Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added.
  9. Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator.
  10. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied.
  11. Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum.

Featuring and delisting rules[edit]

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

  1. Appropriate license (of course)
  2. At least 7 supporting votes
  3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes
  4. Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support, as determined by the closer. Whenever the closer is not sure which version has consensus to be featured, he/she should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page.

The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations.

The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between the bot has counted the votes and before they are finally closed by the bot, this manual review can be done by any user that are familiar with the voting rules.

Above all, be polite[edit]

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

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

See also[edit]

Table of contents[edit]

List may contain works considered Not Safe for Work (nudity).

Nominators are requested, out of courtesy, to include the {{nsfw}} template with such images. Users may select the gadget in user preferences "Deferred display of images tagged with {{nsfw}} on COM:FPC" to enable the template's effect of hiding the image until selected.

Contents

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:Amanita citrina - Gelber Knollenblätterpilz - false death cap - Citron Amanita - Amanita citrina - 03.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2014 at 22:42:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Amanita citrina - Gelber Knollenblätterpilz - false death cap - Citron Amanita - Amanita citrina - 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2014 at 22:39:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:St Paul's Cathedral High Altar, London, UK - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2014 at 20:58:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:St Paul's Cathedral High Altar, London, UK - Diliff.jpg
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Diliff (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But, could you add some details about how these shots were made on the file page as well as state the projection and software used? (I guess it is basically the same recipe, which you recently explained in quite some detail to Benh). For instance, use the {{Panorama}} template. --Slaunger (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:St Paul's Cathedral Nave, London, UK - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2014 at 20:53:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:St Paul's Cathedral Nave, London, UK - Diliff.jpg
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This image arguably scores extra points for rarity. Photography is normally not allowed to be taken inside the cathedral by any visitors under any circumstances, but I managed to get special permission to take this photo (and others). In addition, even if photography were normally allowed, St Paul's Cathedral is usually swarming with people and it would very difficult to get a photo like this without people everywhere. ;-)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Diliff (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's is a beautiful (and rare) image, but if I may suggest... just saw an hour ago(!) a fascinating documentary on the cathedral, explaining how the building is very slowly "sinking", and how the pillar supporting the dome are cleverly hidden etc. I think you chose to squeeze too much horizontal FOV in the Frame, and the distorsions result in a nave which looks larger than reality. I couldn't tell at first glance that I was looking at the same interior. I think this picture gives a better idea of the volume. How about a worm's view without verticals corrected or a cylindrical-like projection? And just out of curiosity, what happened to the uncropped version of File:St Paul's Cathedral Interior Dome 2 crop, London, UK - Diliff.jpg (the link is dead)? If it looks like this, it would be the picture I nominate first :) - Benh (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:RWE Tower Essen 2014.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2014 at 14:02:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

RWE Tower
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info multi-row panorama of RWE Tower in Essen. Note that shooting conditions als quite challenging (Category, Google Search). The only way to photograph the tower together with its lower building is the use of panorama technique from an extreme angle
    all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I appreciate there are a lot of compromises to take. Here you have stepped back such that the geometric distortion of the tower was correctable afterwards, and I do think that aspect of the photo has been achieved quite succesfully. But at a cost: The power lines in the foreground sign etc are distracting and the foreground as a whole is busy and distarcting, and by straightening up the tower the foreground is also severely curved, and that looks really weird. Looking in the same category, I think it is better to either choose a completely different vantage point such as in File:RWE-Turm Essen, abends.jpg, where the subject is simply the tower. Alternatively, move closer to get rid of the busy foreground as has been done in File:NRW, Essen, Sudviertel - RWE-Turm.jpg (but with an unfortunate crop) and simply let the perspective be seen as it is. --Slaunger (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Apocynum venetum 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2014 at 12:54:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Apocynum venetum
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Gidip (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Gidip (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I am puzzled why the DOF is so low, when the aperture is f/16? --Slaunger (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It is not "so" low. Gidip (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Ordre de Mobilisation générale 2 août 1914.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2014 at 11:57:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

French mobilization poster, 1914,aug.1st
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by french government - uploaded, stitched, restored and by nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Another centenial document. Exactly 100 years ago, August 1st, 1914, this poster was put everywhere on the walls in France, in order to call all the male citizens to the armies. This is a strange flyier for a terrible flashmob... This picture is visually very well known in France, and one can find many "fac simile" here or there on the web. This one is an original, from the collections of the French National Library (BnF). I don't think it needs translation, but it could be provided if necessary. High size, and high EV IMO. Restored by me.-- Jebulon (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support by all means! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good timing! Good quality, high resolution of a historic document. Yann (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Vøringfossen.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2014 at 09:51:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vøringsfossen in Eidfjord, Hordaland, Norwa
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Kenny Louie (Flickr) - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kasir (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I really want to support, but the fringe between the right mountains and the sky is suspicious. Is the sky fake? Also some issue on the left part, with double lines (look the sky, we can see a duplicate faded out mountains). There's a lot of processing done here, but something is wrong. - Benh (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just for information, the green fringe (if you are referring to this) IMO is just a chromatic aberration. Three pixels vertically upward direction and three in the horizontal direction to the left, on the winding road to the left you can see both green and red (as was expected) in the opposite direction. The magenta ghost may be another aberration related to the dark areas of the picture and extends across the central visual field, but in this case is just a guess because it is outside of the expected area. Very consistent I do not think that is a edition. -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 14:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
      • This is not CA. It's just to big for a downsampled picture (and I'm pretty sure it is). CA can be this big, but on closer subjects. We're talking about far away edges here. - Benh (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Really nice image and composition, but per Benh – something went wrong in editing. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Benh. --Slaunger (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Maramec Spring Park 20140330 151.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2014 at 03:10:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Waterfall under footbridge

" Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice place, but Insufficient quality: lens flare, burnt sky and chromatic aberration (mainly in the branches at left). --Cayambe (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For all those reasons plus blown highlights on water and distracting dark area at rear. No matter how well-composed, this was never going to make up for shooting into the sun. Daniel Case (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Mallorca - Palma de Mallorca - Castell de Bellver 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2014 at 20:52:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Palma de Mallorca: Castell de Bellver
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would suggest you to review your nominations more carefully. The image here has several even QI issues (a lot of dust spots, I've marked only a few and a strange dark area at the top center). The sharpness varries remarkably from the image center to the image border - quite unusual for a stitching - what's happened there? The people at the edges are strongly compressed due to wide angle usage or due to projection type? Last issue: The noise level on the sky especially at the upper parts is imho to high and the composition is for my personal taste relatively boring. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is it just me or does it look this is flipping the photographer offFace-smile.svg? Daniel Case (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Daniel I am no native speaker could you please clarify what you mean with flip s.o. off. Do you mean it just as technical term (the photographer does not answer to my comment) or do you mean it as malicious colloquial term which would be a direct personal attack against me. --Tuxyso (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I haven't looked at the video link, but I think Daniel simply means the castle looks like a fist with the middle finger raised in a rude gesture. No offense to Tuxyso or Wladyslaw intended. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The minor impuritys of the sky are fixed now. Some are hardly to see and not every is a dustspot but simply the inhomogeneous sky. The nature isn't that pure that some whish to have. Tuxyso: if you don't like the picture vote with contra but please spare me with those ridiculous suggestions. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    • My suggestion was not "ridiculous" (please no personal attack). As I've seen later there was already a comment on QIC adressing the same issues I've mentioned here. To avoid misunderstandings (in former times you've critized by bad English) also in German: Ich finde meinen Kommentar gar nicht so blöd wie von dir behauptet. Erst später habe ich gesehen, dass du das Foto auf QIC auch nominierst hast und dort wurden genau die gleichen Dinge kritisiert, die ich hier genannt habe. Bleibe bitte auf der Sachebene und vermeide beleidigende Kommentare wie "blödinnige Vorschläge". Auf die anderen offensichtlichen Mängel, die ich aufgezählt habe, gehst du ja gar nicht erst ein (Schärfe z.B.). Ob und wie ich abstimme überlasse bitte mir. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Scheinbar sollte man tatsächlich nur auf Deutsch mit dir schreiben, um Missverständnisse zu vermeiden. Ich sprach nicht von blödsinnigen Vorschlägen von dir sondern von lächerlichen. Und dazu stehe ich auch nach wie vor. Kleine Unreinheiten am Himmel, die ich nicht gesehen hatte, als KO-Kriteriem für eine Nominierung heranzuziehen ist nämlich nichts anderes. Und in der von dir zitierten QI-Nominierung wurde das Bild im Übrigen gelobt und nicht nur die marginalen Unreinheiten thematisiert. Soviel dazu. Außerdem: wenn ich einen Satz von dir kritisiere dann ist das keine persönliche Attake. Mir ist bewusst, dass das bei WP/COM nur allzu gerne als ultra-totschlag-Argument herangezogen wird, aber es trifft weder der Sache noch ist es in einer anderen Art dienlich.
Dass ich bei diesem "Tonfall", den du anschlägst nicht sonderlich motiviert bin, dir auf deine weiteren "Fragen zu antworten mag verständlich sein. Dennoch: ich vermag keine gravierenden Schärfeverluste im Bild zu erkennen. Dass sich am Rand unschäre ergibt liegt in der Natur der Optik (schon mal von Randunschärfe gehört?). Daran ändert auch nichts, dass man ein Bild stitched. Gerade weil man eben die Bildmitte (das Hauptobjekt im Allgemeinen) durchgängig scharf haben will, stitched man ja. Dass eine kleine Mauer am Rand nicht 100% die selbe Schärfe hat ist nach meinem Verständnis kein gravierender Qualitätsmangel. Natürlich kann man aber über jedes Pixel diskutieren. Dass die Passanten am Bildrand durch den Weitwinkelblick gestaucht wurden liegt ebenfalls in der Natur der Sache. Mich stört es nicht, sollte es die Massen hier stören, bin ich auch leidenschaftslos, diese komplett heraus zu retouchieren. Würde vielleicht in diesem Fall sogar noch atmosphärisch dem Bild zum Positiven gereichen. Dass du das Bild oder seine Komposition langweilig findest ist dir unbenommen. Will man eine Nahansicht des Bauwerks haben so bleiben aufgrund der örtlichen Gegebenheiten nicht so viele Alternativen. Aber gegen langweiligen Bildeindruck gibt es ja auch kein Argument, das ist gusto. Entweder es gefällt oder missfällt. Dann hoffe ich mal, dass du missverständnisfrei alle Infos erhalten hast, die du dir gewünscht hast. Gut Licht! --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Ja vielen Dank für die Erläuterung. Dass bei Stitchings per se am Rand Unschärfe sein muss sehe ich übrigens nicht so, vgl. dieses Foto - da ist kein bisschen Unschärfe. Es kommt auf die Aufnahmetechnik an - wenn nur nur 2,3 Fotos mit einer WW-Optik aufnimmst kann das in der Tat passieren. Du hast doch auch einen NP-Adapter, da ist qualitativ definitiv deutlich mehr drin. Nimmst du im Hochformat oder im Querformat auf? Bei Stitchings mit 28-35mm Brennweite, ggf. mehrzeilig habe ich derartige Probleme bisher nie gehabt. Außerdem kannst du ja auch etwas weiter nach links und rechts aufnehmen und dann croppen. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Einen NP-Adapter habe ich nicht und ist dementsprechend nicht zum Einsatz gekommen. Es handelt sich um drei Hochkant-Freihand-Aufnahmen, deren Stitching-Ergebnis nachträglich noch perspektivisch korrigiert wurde. Diesen Schritt hat man auch mit NP-Ausgleich. Vermeidbar wäre das m.E. nur dann gewesen, wenn ich noch deutlich weiter über die Ränder hinaus fotografiert hätte, um anschließend den nicht überlappenden Rand wegzuschneiden. Aber wie ich schon sagte: ich halte den Schärfteverlust (a) absolut für vertretbar und (b) da es sich nicht um einen Bereich handelt, der zum Gebäude selbst gehört und nicht das Hauptobjekt betrifft schon zwei mal. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentFor me there’s distractiong amounts of space left and right of the subject. I’d crop off the left until the wall has gone, and a bit off the right too, to emphasize the subject. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong vertical perspective "correction" applied making the building distorted and proportions wrong. A Google Image search for "Castell de Bellver" shows that this is the dullest viewpoint possible for this castle, which could be a "wow" subject. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Each (!) perspective "correction" ist making the building distorted and proportions wrong. This is inevitable. The correction was definetly not strong, this is a wrong statement. And I don't see what should be distracting at this view. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
No, a mild degree of perspective correction is acceptable. You simply can't make a rectilinear image of a tall building from this close a viewpoint without serious distortions. This has been known since renaisance painting. But in addition to this "correction", your proportions are just far out. This image has the building looking only about 20% wider than the tower is tall, yet other distant views show the ratio should be more than 2:1. That's due to the exaggerated wide-angle perspective, which here is very misleading. And your people look about 1m high. There's just too much wrong here. And I didn't say the view was distracting, I said it was dull. This castle has some amazing features that are visible from other viewpoints, but this seems almost chosen to exclude anything interesting. -- Colin (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Dactylorhiza fuchsii Mariazell 01.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2014 at 19:08:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Common spotted orchid (Dactylorhiza fuchsii), found near Mariazell, Styria (Austria)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Uoaei1 - uploaded by Uoaei1 - nominated by Uoaei1 -- Uoaei1 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful. Sharp, good light and color, nice contrast with background that does not distract. Kbh3rd (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as Kbh3rd. Yann (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Please edit out the dust spots on the left side. Gidip (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Thanks for the hint! --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are color fringes on a large fraction of the edges visible at full resolution. That may not be objectionable in itself, but also in modest review resolution of 2 Mpixels, the fringes are immediately visible in certain areas. I have pinpointed two of them with annotations. It appears to be at least partially due to CA, which should be correctable if you have the raw file.. --Slaunger (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done CA correction done in new version 3 --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Better now, thanks. --Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support although there is one spot, that should be removed, see note, Poco2 16:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done I am not sure that it was a dust spot; anyway it is removed in new version 3 --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Hong Kong Harbour 45.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2014 at 17:20:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hong Kong Harbour
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think you should elaborate a bit on the categorization of the file page and make it more specific. I also propose adding geodata. --Slaunger (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry Wilfredo, but too dark. Yann (talk) 07:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I consider this type of photography should be dark, if your intention is to show the hours, the photograph must be dark. In this case, my intention was to show the contrast between light and darkness of the port of Hong Kong. To say that this picture is dark is very true because the technique of this style is. It is very difficult to know how to differentiate an error photograph and intentionally achieved, especially when some kind of art is the result of the error. In this case, I tried that this photograph was dark, by the light we recognize that there is darkness. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The darkness isn't the problem IMO. It's that there's too much of one color of light, and it's not a good one—that horrible "bastard amber" produced by sodium-vapor lighting. It makes the city look a lot more hellish than I remember it being last summer. If it weren't for the distinctive Tsing Ma bridge (which avoids that lighting), I wouldn't know we were looking at HK. Daniel Case (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Aerial View - Burg Rötteln3.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2014 at 12:41:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lörrach, Germany: aerial view of Rötteln Castle
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A topic very well suited for an aerial photograph. I do not like the crop though, where the surrounding walls and buildings are separated by the main ruin in an unfortunate way. Also, considering the medium resolution of the photo, I do not think the per pixel quality is quite as good as I would have preferred - or maybe it has to do with the somewhat harsh light, which gives a slightly bleached or washed out appearance. I think you have other shots from the same series of photos, which have more wow for me and better light. Foremost File:Aerial View - Burg Rötteln1.jpg - especially if a bit of the forest could be cropped off to the left and top. This photo is also a VI within the scope of aerial views of this ruin, with good reason I think. Maybe also File:Aerial View - Burg Rötteln7.jpg, albeit the crop is perhaps a bit too tight on that one. --Slaunger (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
This image shows the upper part of the Castle so this is factual a reasonable crop and I don't see a serious photographic reason against this art work. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The way the image is cropped between upper and lower is IMO unfortunate with half cut through roofs (see annotations). Regarding my previous appraisal of File:Aerial View - Burg Rötteln1.jpg, that one looks really great in preview size, but not good enough in full resolution. --Slaunger (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but that few cut off roofs are not really significant for the image impression. Let's hear some other opinions. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see that there is s.th. significant out of focus, especially for a aerial view image. If this should be a problem I wonder how this could File:Blasieholmen February 2013.jpg become a FP. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral An aerial view alone is already an achievement IMO. But the cut off part and cold WB kills it for me. File:Aerial View - Burg Rötteln1.jpg is better in these aspects. (How sad its resolution is low). - Benh (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Arcos das ruínas de Santa Mariña Dozo Cambados Galiza. Galicia 010.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2014 at 11:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Arcs of the roof. Ruins of the church of Santa Mariña de Dozo, Cambados, Galicia (Spain).
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Lmbuga -- Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 11:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The church is a monument indexed in the Spanish heritage register of Bienes de Interés Cultural under the reference RI-51-0001122.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 11:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Interesting composition, but it does not quite work for me. Background is a little too busy for my taste (albeit probably hard to avoid). --Slaunger (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • And so hard to avoid: I do not cut trees. Remove trees with photoshop is too distort reality IMO: Behind there is a forest! The church is on the outskirts of Cambados and heavily wooded area--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 22:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • And I certainly do not want you to try and remove them artificially:) I was more thinking if it was possible to find another vantage point where the background is less busy. Either almost entirely trees, or with less trees. I admit that may be easier said than done, but then again, this is FPC after all. --Slaunger (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Cepaea vindobonensis - Banding variation.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2014 at 10:38:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The main banding types of the Viennese Banded Snail
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No question. Yann (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 11:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Goðafoss July 2014.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2014 at 09:04:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Goðafoss is a northern Icelandic waterfall with a height of 12m and a width of 30m. I took this exposure of 1s using a 64x ND filter. The two persons on the right side serve as scale.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Goðafoss is a northern Icelandic waterfall with a height of 12m and a width of 30m. I took this exposure of 1s using a 64x ND filter. The two persons on the right side serve as scale. All by myself -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great - I just wonder why the two persons are quite sharp with 1sec exposure time ?! --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it seems the left guy is posing for a picture the right guy is taking --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 11:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe a teeny bit oversharp, but not a deal breaker. Fantastic. Daniel Case (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC) (Oops, forgot a tilde thereFace-blush.svg)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks! But please do sign your review... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer Talk 11:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Moedling1997 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 16:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Clevedon MMB A9 Pier.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2014 at 05:13:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Clevedon Pier at low tide.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by mattbuck - uploaded by mattbuck - nominated by -- Christian Ferrer Talk 05:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer Talk 05:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Wha? Well, if you insist... -mattbuck (Talk) 07:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dman41689 (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice idea but the dark rocks in the foreground are too dominating for me. However the pier itself looks interesting. A wide-angle shot from a point on the rocks could be fascinating. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Clear photo of pier but poor weather makes it lack wow. We have Saffron's sillhouette FP, though a daytime photo would be good to capture detail of the pier itself. However, Mattbuck, you should be aware that it is now illegal to photograph the British coast without a 10-stop ND filter. -- Colin (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Zuzana Smatanova-2014.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2014 at 19:21:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Slovak singer Zuzana Smatanová
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Bojars - uploaded by Bojars - nominated by Bojars -- Bojars (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Bojars (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it is pretty decent concert photo, but the artist appears for me lack the kind of concentration/charisma/expression, which I expect for it to reach FP level, like these two recent concert FPs, for example. --Slaunger (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dman41689 (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Slaunger -- Christian Ferrer Talk 11:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Drnholec (Dürnholz) - wayside cross.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2014 at 17:21:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Drnholec (Dürnholz), Moravia - old wayside cross
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow for me sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The place and the object have potential but crop id too tight and too much centered, maybe an horizontal shot with more landscape...-- Christian Ferrer Talk 10:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:A Aranha-de-prata (Argiope argentata) se alimenta, antero-dorsal recorte.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2014 at 16:03:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
@Lauro Sirgado: It's fixable? User:ArionEstarArionEstar (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment@ArionEstar:I like that. I respect the Kreuzschnabel opinion (Hi Kreuzschnabel), but I have my own. The choice of point of view was just to give the impression that the spider touched the riparian forest to an observer far from the picture in the original format. This species is well distributed (even in cities) and the photo was taken to show it in its wild habitat, remove the motif of picture and replace the background ruin the motivation of the photographer to choose the composition. Anyway add a background leave the unnatural picture, due to details of the spider would be an insane work, to stay so I took it as a good job. -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 22:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentTo achieve that effect, the spider and forest should be nearly equally sharp. The unsharpness of the forest gives too much depth into the image to generate the intended deception. That idea just didn’t come to my mind. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment@Kreuzschnabel: Please take this (and the previous) for information only, I do not want to defend a position, just explained, the image would be in a frame a few steps away from the observer, the lure disappear on approach, revealing the motif. The background should be blurred in this case. Each composition(and person) requires a different way of looking, and yes(so even), I understand and respect your point of view. Ty -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 19:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not "FP enough" for me as I said earlier. (This is another Argiope taken by me which is also below the FP bar.) Jee 03:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. I appreciate the explanation by Lauro Sirgado, but I did not get the compositional idea when seeing the image, and it does not work for me. --Slaunger (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support I don't have problems with background, backwards, not a studio picture; but background with a bit of noise--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 11:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination User:ArionEstarArionEstar (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Kranj - Grad Kieselstein 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2014 at 14:30:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of Kieselstein Castle in Kranj, Slovenia
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mihael Grmek - uploaded by Mihael Grmek - nominated by Meho29 -- Mihael Grmek (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition! However, central building looks tilted CCW, entire image looks oversharpened to me (bright fringe along edges), bright areas slightly overexposed. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too harsh light and too high contrast to shadows on right hand side. Propose trying earlier in the morning or an hour or two before sunset (depending on how the shadows fall) to get more soft light. --Slaunger (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice detail in the shadows at the cost of washed-out highlights. Not sure about the composition, either. All sorts of things are chopped off at the edges, and that boring grass takes up too much of the frame. Shadows of unseen features detract. Definitely should try at other times of the day. Maybe get tighter in on the center building. How would it look if taken while standing even with the first lamp post, or even the second? Kbh3rd (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For me your sharpening is overdone. Take a careful look on the sky and on the leafs of the tree at the left. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Raspberry Pi B+ illustration.svg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2014 at 09:52:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vector illustration of a Raspberry Pi B+, a portable Linux computer used in education and private electronics projects.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Lucasbosch - uploaded by Lucasbosch - nominated by Lucasbosch -- Lucasbosch (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lucasbosch (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No "wow". --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I appreciate the Raspberry Pi topic as such, but the illustration gives me a zero readings on my wow-o-meter. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dman41689 (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the subject – I have two – but this doesn't look FP-ish. Looks too flat and too dull. A bit more saturated colors might be an improvement. I don't know how to add metallic sheen in Inkscape, but that might also help where appropriate, though perhaps still not enough to get to FP level. Kbh3rd (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Aalto-Theater-Abends-02-2014.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2014 at 05:25:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aalto Theatre in evening light
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lower part too dark, the container ruins the composition, it's a pity because this image is made good and the object is interessting --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I understand your argument with the container (could not move it), for me it is not very distracting. What do you mean with "lower part"? The lower part of the building or the lower part of the complete photo? Take a look on Suncalc: The only way to photograph the building with nice light is in summer about 1h before sunset (north facade). The consequence is that only the building is well lid, other parts are in shadow. For me no shortage, in contrary: a special quality of this photo. Nonetheless there are still a lot of details in the shadows - no 100% black. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
      • The lower part of the image (=1/3 of the complete image) is rapt in strong shadow. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the info. I will take a further look on it in the evening. Some moderate brighening should be no big deal here because all shadow details are still visible. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
          • all shadow details are still visible Sorry, but this is definitely not the case. Behind the pillars the building structure is deeply dark. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
            • ✓ Done, new version uploaded, completely new development and stitching from RAW. Taxiarchos228, please take another look. IMHO the stitching is not that bad. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
              • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral much more better than the original, the container is still disturbing, therefore I don't support the image, but I see no reason for oppose any more --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
                • Thanks for re-considering your vote. I look forward to further comments. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good -- Christian Ferrer Talk 18:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For me, the container is not acceptable. The same picture, taken at a different time without the container, would be fine for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Which container are you talking about? There are several --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent panorama! And I never seen such beautiful containers. :) --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The container/skip are distracting but overall still a good capture. -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support (but please kill the bird ... :)) --P e z i (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bitte noch einmal ohne Container. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ✓ Done Bird killed :) To all the container comments: Yes the containers might be slightly disturbing BUT you never know when they are removed (btw: at the entry of the building of my home train station is still one there for over one year (!!) without clear reason). I think the nice golden hour light in this shot in combination with the beautiful sky formation over the building and the very high resolution (62 Mpx) is highlight enough to compensate the negative influence from the container . Additionaly what you see here is a north facade - you can only make reasonable photos of it with good light in a short period in the summer. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Agree -- Colin (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I Don't understand. If this is the north facade, why do have the reflection of the sun in the window? And the shadows of the flagpoles would have a southern direction, also the shadows of the trees left on the facade. The sun in the north - impossible in Essen. --Llez (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Llez, take a careful look on this GM view. The building is curved from west to north. The area where you see the reflection is rather the western part of the facade, take also a look on Suncalc. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Thanks. This explains the reflection and the shadows. --Llez (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Slaunger (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry Tuxyso, but neither the lighting nor the subject are featurable to me. Poco2 16:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    • No problem Poco (btw: the architecture of the building is imho outstanding) but what's wrong with the lighting? As I have argued above for me the best light one can reach with this object. Where do you see room for improvement? --Tuxyso (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
      • If I may suggest: sometimes the best one can do still isn't enough. Some subjects are just compromised by their location/aspect, and some subjects appeal more to some that others. -- Colin (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I wanted to bring up the same argument like Colin. You cannot help it maybe but doing your best doesn't mean that it has to be one of the finest image here. Btw, technically there are no flaws. Regarding the lighting I find the tree shadow along with the sun reflexion really disturbing. The building itself (will not talk about the containers place near the entrance) is nice, but, at least from this perspective, nothing extraordinary IMHO. Poco2 16:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC) PD: Almost forgot, if I were Jebulon I'd also complain about the fact that we can see the photographer in the reflection of the door :) Poco2 16:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
          • ¿?¿?... But you are not Jebulon...Are you ? Fortunately, he is unique. :)) --Jebulon (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Vista de Benidorm, España, 2014-07-02, DD 51-53 HDR.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2014 at 20:41:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

High dynamic range night shot of Benidorm, turistic capital of the Costa Blanca (literally White Coast) in Land of Valencia, Spain. The shot was taken from the Cross of Benidorm, located on the summit of the Sierra Helada. Benidorm, is a town with 73,000 inhabitants throughout the year but with a peak of over half a million in the summer season. It's the third town with the most concentration of tall buildings in Europe, after London and Milan, whereas in Spain, Benidorm is positioned third, behind Barcelona and Madrid in the total number of skyscrapers. Nevertheless, Benidorm has the most high-rise buildings per capita in the world.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info High dynamic range night shot of Benidorm, turistic capital of the Costa Blanca (literally White Coast) in Land of Valencia, Spain. The shot was taken from the Cross of Benidorm, located on the summit of the Sierra Helada. Benidorm, is a town with 73,000 inhabitants throughout the year but with a peak of over half a million in the summer season. It's the third town with the most concentration of tall buildings in Europe, after London and Milan, whereas in Spain, Benidorm is positioned third, behind Barcelona and Madrid in the total number of skyscrapers. Nevertheless, Benidorm has the most high-rise buildings per capita in the world. All by me, Poco2 20:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 20:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too many parts of the image are absoutley dark (for me it's the wrong time to make such pictures, better is the blue hour), over all not so sharp and good like similar cityscape panoramas we already have as FP. it's good, but not a FP--Wladyslaw (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    I don't believe that this kind of shots can only be taken in the blue hour (actually, I have some for this cityscape, but prefer this version). Poco2 08:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    • depends on the scenery. A scenery with much water which becomes deeply dark and takes a dominant position in the composition is not beneficial IMO. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Caecilius Mauß (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Night is dark. The dark foliage on the lower left is balanced by the darker, shaper building on the lower right. This captures the ambience of the evening and makes me feel like I'm there. Kbh3rd (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg weak oppose Mmmh, I cannot really get enthusiastic about this photo. Level of details is quite good for a night shot. In direct comparison to the photo at blue hour one clearly gets the advantage of your careful HDR usages with this photo. From the technically side there are perspective issues at the very right (take a look in the verticals). But my main problem is the upper right part of the photo. There is a lot of fog and important details disappear in fog and darkness. The sharpening you've applied is also not beneficial there - sharpening areas with less details often result in sharpening artefacts. Probably an HDR at blue hour (a bit earlier as your nom beneath) with clearer air had been better. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


Alternative[edit]

High dynamic range night shot of Benidorm, turistic capital of the Costa Blanca (literally White Coast) in Land of Valencia, Spain. The shot was taken from the Cross of Benidorm, located on the summit of the Sierra Helada. Benidorm, is a town with 73,000 inhabitants throughout the year but with a peak of over half a million in the summer season. It's the third town with the most concentration of tall buildings in Europe, after London and Milan, whereas in Spain, Benidorm is positioned third, behind Barcelona and Madrid in the total number of skyscrapers. Nevertheless, Benidorm has the most high-rise buildings per capita in the world.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This one during the blue hour Poco2 17:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • for me better than the first nomination but nevertheless far away from FP. Compared to this cityscape-FP Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes this one is technical not so sophisticated. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support fp worthy to me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as already argued --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment again, this is NOT an alternative, but another picture.--Jebulon (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- In this case there is too much dark foreground lacking interesting detail and distracting from the main thrust of image. Kbh3rd (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Bananaquits.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2014 at 19:55:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Two bananaquits on a branch
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Leon-bojarczuk - uploaded by Tom-b - nominated by Arion -- User:ArionEstarArionEstar (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FP in English Wikipedia -- User:ArionEstarArionEstar (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment With its 2.25 Mpixels, just barely scrapes over the 2 Mpixel minimal resolution requirement. The file page could benefit from a proper {{Information}} template and a geolocation. I think the photo as such is very good, with a good timing. Focus is soft on one of the birds, but I think excuseable. Some concerns were raised about the authenticity of this photo in its EN:WP nomination back in 2009. It appears they were not completely resolved. I am in doubt if this gets over the bar for FPs of birds nowadays. --Slaunger (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Partial✓ Done@Slaunger.Added description and location -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 14:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Partial✓ Done@Slaunger.Indicated the probable author page(is not a Commons page) of the photography, see note on talk page -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 17:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info@Slaunger.I loaded a new image with larger size, based on the original as the quality of the original photo is good was possible to recover details and not just make a large copy devoid of value, please rate, if you disagree I revert the image. Please understand this issue as good faith, not dominate commons rules, do not know if I break something. -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 19:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment@Lauro Sirgado:See Commons:Overwriting existing files. It is very good that you have uploaded a photo of higher resolution, and it is certainly uncontroversial for this nomination as no-one has actually voted yet. It is a bit more controversial because the same file is promoted to featured status on both the English and Turkish wikipedias. However, as I see it it is clearly an improvement in this case and thus should not cause any problems with regard to the previous promotions. Overwriting an image with one of larger resolution is also mentioned explicitly as allowed, although one is cautioned when it comes to images with assessments that not other alterations are done at the same time. --Slaunger (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Since the creator is available for questioning: In the nomination at the English Wikipedia, an editor raised a concern/question if this was actually a staged shot? He also mentioned that the background appeared artificial. Could a little more details be revealed about the conditions of the shot on the file page (if this is still recallable, it has been some years :-) ) to shed some light on this? --Slaunger (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment@Slaunger:Do not know the author, and do not feel comfortable doing any inquiry, although we are geographically close. In the original I noticed a discontinuous and undefined boundary between the background and the motif, but does not progress on areas of detail of the barb of feathers, can be the result of image compression, but that's just a guess. -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 21:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral OK, thanks for all your hard work. I like the photo, but I am not fully convinced regarding the technical quality. --Slaunger (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The colour of the fake green background is too big a contrast to the birds I think. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The technical quality is not good and that branch on the foreground.. –Makele-90 (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination User:ArionEstarArionEstar (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Taiwanese Monk at the Salar of Uyuni, Bolivia.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2014 at 18:58:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Taiwanese Monk at the Salar of Uyuni
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jee 03:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 06:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. Yann (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Magic lighting and setting. Hopefully this picture won't get deleted. And yes, taiwanese people take pictures every 5 minutes ;) (no offense intended, just a reference to people I know). - Benh (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support magic mood! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Only fault I can find is the horizon goes through his head rather than, say, further down. But the lighting, scene and subject are all great. -- Colin (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I am willing to accept that this photographer has sufficient consent for hosting this on Commons and having it featured. Re-use would be a different issue. I think the personality rights template addresses those consent and re-use issues well enough for our mandate. Particulalry given this is such a lovely picture. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is fake Symbol support vote.svg Support I tried to make a joke, however, I am learning the meaning of English humor. Pardon the misunderstanding. Very nice work Christopher, Now, talking seriously. I hope to see future work with the same quality and effort, congratulations --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure to understand in what this link to my blog is meant to support your statement, so... I guess this is a joke, right? :) -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Wilfredo, Christopher's blog is a little confusing but I think he is saying the gradient in the sky and the perfect reflections in his photographs look like a faked Photoshop image. But they aren't (I trust). -- Colin (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Aaaah, the reference to the Photoshopped joke... I thought it was an obvious one :) -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Never easy to grab the specific humour of each, especially with a big scary red “oppose” notation, but that's all good with me. Thanks for the kind comment (as well as everyone else's)! -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am sorry, a hoax. I was hoping to see enough votes in favor to little influence over the ratings. If ever you are coming to take photos in Brazil, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technical image quality not convincing --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Uoaei1, Like for the picture below, would you develop? Especially, how is this picture (which you supported) better technically? - Benh (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Do I have to defend my vote?! Well, looking at the face it looks quite soft. And the noise in the homogenous areas is also significant. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You don't have to... it's counted anyways. But it's more of a courtesy, and "technically wrong" could mean anything (and so means nothing). When I'm yelled at, I like to know why. And I'm just surprised a 16mpix picture which isn't that soft (IMO, and nothing sharpening can't fix) isn't as good as a 3mpix. - Benh (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Despite my "bitching" regarding consent above I kinda agree with Saffron Blaze. --Slaunger (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Subject, composition, and color all work for me, though could wish for sharper detail on the monk. Is ISO 800 a bit high for that camera? Perhaps shutter at 1/60 with ISO 400 would have been better. Kbh3rd (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Fuji's X-trans sensors are pretty good at handling noise, even though there are some drawback like lost of details during demosaicing (which can be considered noise somehow...). ISO 800 is not a problem in my experience, but this was processed with Lightroom and author used default values, which are known to render soft. - Benh (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't have a tripod and therefore I have my camera hand-handled. When I used to shot with my Hasselblad 500 C/M, I didn't mind going as low a 1/30s since the body is quite heavy and hence more stable. But with this small and light Fuji X100S, I avoid as much as possible going slower than 1/125s or there would be too many chances for me to slightly move and get a blurry picture. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Neottia nidus-avis - Pruunikas pesajuur Keila.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2014 at 18:43:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Neottia nidus-avis
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Bird's-nest Orchid (Neottia nidus-avis). Created, uploaded and nominated by Ivar (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ivar (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral High detail level. Plant sharp. Quite good bokeh and light. Composition and wow does not quite reach FP level IMO (not that I can tell what could be done better for the particular plant). For such a relatively common orchid species, I expect a little more for FP. Had it been a rare orchid, I would have supported. --Slaunger (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support User:ArionEstarArionEstar (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer Talk 18:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dman41689 (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bokeh should remove the distraction of the background, but the bright disks orbiting above the plant in this image distract my eye too much. That bright dash behind the stalk also detracts – it appears to be a part of the plant until one looks more closely. Kbh3rd (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For such an image you have to select the best looking plant with complete, undamaged flowers, not the way it is here. The flowers are very much worn out, the cobwebs are distracting, and the stem is too bright. The bokeh is actually pretty good IMO, except for the white dash. Gidip (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Reflection on the Salar de Uyuni, bolivia.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2014 at 18:35:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sunrise over the Salar de Uyuni
  • Unfortunately I don't have any idea and I can't find any hint in the photos that I have, sorry. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I am confident that some other editor less ignorant about cars than you and me will pass by and help out with the model at least Smile. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Uoaei1, could you be specific about the technical flaws, bearing in mind this is a 16MP image from a 16MP camera. -- Colin (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Colin (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --P e z i (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- Would like to see the auto on the right side of the image looking into/across the frame to compare with this, with the car on the left looking out of the frame to the left. Or even see how it works centered, not being a slave to the rule of thirds. Kbh3rd (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Normally I would agree that having the car facing into the empty space would be preferable to having it facing away from it. But in this case I think it works exceptionally well, partly due to the fact that it is not moving. It looks a bit like it is resting after a long trip and the framing kind of emphasizes where it came from. --El Grafo (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know much about composition rules (and don't really care about them to be honest as I prefer spontaneity). Before I bought this camera for my current travels, I used to shoot only with films, which means that I would take only one shot of each scene/portrait. To maximize the chances to get a nicer result, and because of my lack of knowledge about composition, I would simply move around the subjet, move around the camera, and shoot the one variation that visually seemed the more right to me. That's what I did here as well. Also I won't crop it to a square format because I like the idea of seeing more of the horizon line in the background. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Changing to Support. Though curious about other composition possibilities, this is a striking image, and there's really nothing wrong with the framing. Kbh3rd (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Urmia lake drought.webm[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2014 at 14:26:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Monfie - uploaded by Monfie - nominated by مانفی -- Monfie (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Monfie (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question and Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is it correct that this movie has been created solely from the information in the three still images linked to from the file page? If so, I am impressed by how realistic the "interpolation" appears in the short video sequence. Anyway, I think it would be helpful and interesting to put quite some more details in the file page about how this video has been generated from the sources. --Slaunger (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. It has been created using this 3 images only. They are mixed using cross dissolve transition in adobe-premiere.--Monfie (talk) 06:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support well done! --El Grafo (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question would it be possible to upload the 3 aligned base images as separate image files? That way, one could load them into an image viewer and step forth and back as one wishes. (It's always nice to have the raw data.) --El Grafo (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
✓ DoneYou can check "other versions". Now you can also see how much "color correction" has done, to equalize them.Monfie (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Colin (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very instructive, and very convincing processing of the sparse material used for making the short sequence. Seems like you have extracted all the information that was there. --Slaunger (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Well done, and meets the criterion of value. Kbh3rd (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It seems to me as a very basic fading transition between the threes pictures ; and I'm not even sure the source material overlap nicely. To me it's more annoying than helpul to really judge and I'd rather have the three higher res pictures side by side. - Benh (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Changed my mind. Quite useful in the wiki article! - Benh (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Шаан-Кая в облаках.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2014 at 12:05:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mount Shaan-Kaya in Clouds
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Александр Черных - nominated by Ivar (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kikos (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Amazing composition. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, very Impressive, a little less vignette would also work. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 17:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer Talk 18:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support While I'd normally say that this could be cropped a little more at top and bottom, in this case I think the extra space makes the contrast between the detailed rock and the fuzzy clouds that much stronger. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Since support seems overwhelming I can voice my objections without ruining anyone's day. ;-) I was going to say that the lower clouds are too large and dense and serve more to obscure than to lend atmosphere, and that the extra space below the cloud in this crop is necessary in order to lend depth to the image. But I think that's actually what the problem with this image is. If the forest at the bottom was cropped out you'd have just this big rock floating in a sea of clouds, and that could be a stronger image. The current crop wants me to see more than the cloud allows -- more than I should want given that the subject is the rock and the atmosphere is the rock floating in the clouds. Kbh3rd (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Moedling1997 (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A crop of the bottom part would make it even more interesting to me Poco2 16:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Image:WikiGif.gif[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2014 at 20:01:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wiki Puzzle

Gustavo Girardelli (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support . Girardelli G. . . Escucho . 20:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Creative gif. User:ArionEstarArionEstar (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What shall be featurable here? Where is the encyclopedic usefulness, or at least the wow effect? Btw, you forgot (or didn't know) that the WP logo is protected; I've corrected the licensing now. --A.Savin 20:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice idea. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC) P.S.: we are here on Commons, not in a Wiki.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice but not FP - like A.Savin --XRay talk 07:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Far below the minimum size of 2 MPix. Nice idea, but by no means an FP. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment this is not a free image.--Monfie (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not freely licensed. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The size 600x600 (=360,000) is far below the required minimum of 2,000,000! And I don't see the idea of a logo "building" up and down, up and down, up and down... And by the way, animations can be very educational (e.g. File:CtVRvascRed.gif), but this one just looks stupid I think. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dman41689 (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Moedling1997 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:David - The Death of Socrates.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2014 at 12:24:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Death of Socrates
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jacques-Louis David - uploaded by Harpsichord246 - nominated by Nikhil (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Nikhil (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice painting, but I cannot really see the individual contribution of the photographer. Another problem: There is a lot of dust on the painting, most visibly on the darker areas. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tuxyso: Huh? There doesn't need to be spectacular photography for a painting to be featured. It is sufficient for the photography to be an accurate, detailed rendering of what the painting actually looks like, with all its quirks and blemishes. --King of ♠ 17:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Would prefer illumination for photography that didn't bring out the cracks in the paint, if that's even possible, but that's a minor issue and only at full resolution. It's a fine photograph of a very good painting that passes the value test. Kbh3rd (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Moedling1997 (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Botijo y pucheros de Extremadura.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2014 at 11:12:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pottery in Spain
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by doalex - uploaded by doalex - nominated by [[User:{{subst:doalex}}|]] -- Doalex (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Doalex (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice idea. But an important part of the pitcher at right is in dark shadow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cayambe (talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    • It's the problem when the natural light comes from left.--Doalex (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Which can be solved by placing something large and white right outside the frame, lightening the shadows a bit. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the idea is good, bud the technical quality is low: sharpness, DOF, color noise. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per user Cayambe's comment above. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dman41689 (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per the above objections, plus I don't see the value. Still lifes must meet a pretty high threshold in my opinion. Kbh3rd (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Doalex (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Gran Palacio, Bangkok, Tailandia, 2013-08-22, DD 20.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2014 at 09:42:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Yaksha (mysthical demon) "lifting" the southern of the Two Golden Phra Chedis (or pagodas) located on the Phaithee terrace in the Wat Phra Kaew (or Temple of the Emerald Buddha) in Bangkok, Thailand. The chedis were constructed by order of King Rama I in honor of his father (southern pagoda) and mother (northern pagoda) at the end of the 18th century. The structures are entirely covered with copper sheets, painted with lacquer and covered with gold leaf. The 20 demons and monkeys around the base were added later, at the end of the 19th century, by order of King Rama V.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Yaksha (mysthical demon) "lifting" the southern of the Two Golden Phra Chedis (or pagodas) located on the Phaithee terrace in the Wat Phra Kaew (or Temple of the Emerald Buddha) in Bangkok, Thailand. The chedis were constructed by order of King Rama I in honor of his father (southern pagoda) and mother (northern pagoda) at the end of the 18th century. The structures are entirely covered with copper sheets, painted with lacquer and covered with gold leaf. The 20 demons and monkeys around the base were added later, at the end of the 19th century, by order of King Rama V. All by me, Poco2 09:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 09:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 14:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Minor cloning wouldn't hurt (notes added). --Ivar (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done, thanks, Poco2 22:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 16:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Digitally removing items makes the picture fake I think. You can crop a photo but "cloning" out things to make the picture look more beautiful gives a picture that doesn't show how it looks in real life. I like the earlier version of the picture but not the currect one. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dman41689 (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The highlights are too washed out in the upper part of the image, and overall the contrast and saturation are just a bit too low. I see you adjusted curves, etc., in successive uploads. I like the exposure more in the first version than this. (Perhaps it's my monitor... or yours.) Kbh3rd (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer Talk 11:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A very eyecatching composition IMO - Benh (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Presqu'île du Rouens, Clermont-l'Hérault 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2014 at 08:04:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Presqu'île du Rouens, Lac du Salagou, Clermont-l'Hérault, France.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me. -- Christian Ferrer Talk 08:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer Talk 08:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too much uninteresting foreground, too bluish, and no wow. A simply not featured shoot for me. Sorry Christian, but I'm missing the special. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info New version less bluish. -- Christian Ferrer Talk 10:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This looks like it's one of those scenes that was much better in person than the picture shows. I agree with Alchemist-hp; this looks too much like one of my snapshots. Kbh3rd (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Vranov nad Dyjí (Frain) - panorama.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2014 at 13:54:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vranov nad Dyjí (Frain), Moravia

Alternative[edit]

Vranov nad Dyjí (Frain) - panorama crop.JPG

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Cropped version from User:Kikos --Pudelek (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I prefer this crop to the first. The subject is a castle on a hill overlooking a town. The large foreground houses of the town at the bottom of the first crop distract from and compete with the castle. I might crop a bit off of the left side so that the castle and the buildings on the right are more in balance, but don't lose the bridge over the river. I don't like how the house on the far right is chopped off by the edge of the frame. Kbh3rd (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • But looking at it again, I'm beginning to think that maybe the first image with a bit of a crop off the left would be better. Kbh3rd (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Toronto - ON - Humber Bay Arch Bridge2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2014 at 20:22:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Toronto: Humber Bay Arch Bridge
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the perspective and the overall framing of the topic. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the white arc is overexposed because the parapet wires are invisible before it. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
maybe you're right, i'll proof it soon. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The graffiti ruins it. Gidip (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It needs perspective correction on the left and is too bright and too unsharp in the middle. Sorry. --XRay talk 07:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Subject overexposed. The arch and sky are nice but other components not so great. -- Colin (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Gidip and Colin. Too much stark concrete in the foreground; try framing or cropping more tightly? Too bad about that graffiti. Kbh3rd (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Kreuzschnabel, Gidip, Colin, Kbh3rd, XRay. new version uploaded. Too much concrete? Not possible. I love concrete! :-)) --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is really a lovely composition, but the off-centered non-vertical line in the bottom of the file is really distracting for me. It is clear that perfect symmetry has been sought for in the bridge (and I like that a lot), but it is only half done. --Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but this image IS centered, adjusted on the arch bridge and not on the non symmetric road surface. Very creative argumentation but sadly not truth. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry you do not like my annotations. But I have added another to illustrate the symmetry is not quite there. --Slaunger (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Tulipa agenensis sharonensis 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2014 at 18:01:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Gidip - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 17:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't fully get the intended pattern behind the composition here. Missing wow as well. - Benh (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gidip (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good quality, but low wow. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The seascape takes up a majority of the frame, but it's all annoyingly out of focus. I think this is a case of too much bokeh that doesn't work with the composition. Needs to be framed or cropped differently. Kbh3rd (talk) 05:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Benh/Yann -- Colin (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others, Poco2 16:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Allium rothii 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2014 at 16:44:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Allium rothii 1.jpg

File:De fem søstre i århus perspetiv korrekt.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2014 at 18:59:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Villy Fink Isaksen - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I had noticed this photo as well and thought it was very good. --Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Nice sunset but unfortunately the main subject is in shadow. --King of ♠ 06:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is not a sunset the time is 21. nov 2008, 14:43 and the sun is behind the photografer behind a cloud, so the main subject is not in shade but in diffused light. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The top part of the sky looks massively oversharpened. I would suggest to apply masked sharpening (exclude the sky) and apply some selective noise reduction on the sky. There are also dust spots (see note). Composition is good. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thx for the reviews. I have removed the two dustspots and done a noise reduction on the sky. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It's remarkably better, but for my personal taste still too much sharpening artefacts / noise on the sky (also on the lower parts). --Tuxyso (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great detail and atmosphere. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition, and the sky cinches it. Kbh3rd (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 16:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

De fem søstre Alternative.jpg


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Industry
The chosen alternative is: File:De fem søstre i århus perspetiv korrekt.jpg


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]

Mon 28 Jul → Sat 02 Aug
Tue 29 Jul → Sun 03 Aug
Wed 30 Jul → Mon 04 Aug
Thu 31 Jul → Tue 05 Aug
Fri 01 Aug → Wed 06 Aug
Sat 02 Aug → Thu 07 Aug

Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)[edit]

Thu 24 Jul → Sat 02 Aug
Fri 25 Jul → Sun 03 Aug
Sat 26 Jul → Mon 04 Aug
Sun 27 Jul → Tue 05 Aug
Mon 28 Jul → Wed 06 Aug
Tue 29 Jul → Thu 07 Aug
Wed 30 Jul → Fri 08 Aug
Thu 31 Jul → Sat 09 Aug
Fri 01 Aug → Sun 10 Aug
Sat 02 Aug → Mon 11 Aug

Closing a featured picture promotion request[edit]

The bot[edit]

Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.

Manual procedure[edit]

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg)
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
    • Add the template {{Featured picture}} or {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessements template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
    • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
      • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
      • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
    • Add == FP promotion ==

{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.

  1. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 2014), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request[edit]

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
  2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
    delisted or not delisted
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
  3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 2014.
  4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
    1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
    2. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). Also, remove the image from all categories like Featured pictures of ....
    3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.