Commons:Featured picture candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search
This project page in other languages:

Alemannisch | Asturianu | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Lëtzebuergesch | Молдовеняскэ | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Português | Polski | Română | Русский | Shqip | Српски / Srpski | Svenska | Українська | 粵語 | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−
What is the purpose of Featured Pictures on Commons? Voice your opinion here.
Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates Skip to current delist candidates Skip to current delist candidates

Featured picture candidates

FPCandiateicon.png

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. Please note that this is not the same thing as the picture of the day.

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

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

[edit] Formal things

[edit] Nominating

[edit] Guidelines for nominators

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

  • Resolution - Images (save animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'. Note that a 1600 x 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level.
Graphics located on Commons may be used in ways other than viewing on a conventional computer screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible.
  • Scans - While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on preparation of various types of images that may be useful.
  • 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 provide 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 {{RetouchedPicture}} 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.
  • Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
    • almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
    • night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
    • beautiful does not always mean valuable.


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.
  • Well documented. For digital restorations, 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.

[edit] Adding a new nomination

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

Step 1: copy the image name into this box (including the File: prefix), 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.


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}}

[edit] Voting

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

The votes cast not only serve as a way to determine whether a picture will become Featured or not, but also as valuable feedback for the author/nominator, giving that person insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the work/nomination. For this reason, civic virtue demands that at least when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected for nomination by someone) a valid reason is given for doing so.

Unreasonable reasons for opposing are:

  • No reason given at all (obviously)
  • "I don't like it", or other empty assessments
  • "You can do better", or other reasons criticising the author/nominator rather than the image

Ideally, reasons are given in English as it is by far the most widely understood language on Commons, but of course, any language may be used to state a reason (therefore, language problems are not an excuse for failure to provide a reason for opposing).


Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Anonymous votes are not allowed.

[edit] Featured picture delisting candidates

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

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


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

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

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

[edit] Featured picture candidate policy

[edit] General rules

  1. The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination. After the end of this period the result will be determined. Votes added on day 10 and after are not counted.
  2. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome
  3. Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome
  4. Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  5. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated.
  6. Nominators can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the text {{withdraw|~~~~}}.
  7. Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.
  8. 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.
  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.

[edit] Featuring and delisting rules

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

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

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

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.

[edit] Above all, be polite

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

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

[edit] See also

[edit] Table of contents

Contents


[edit] Featured picture candidates

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page cache

[edit] File:P1160778 Melitaea athalia.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2009 at 19:50:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Heath Fritillary (Melitaea athalia)

[edit] File:Ocean Beach in San Francisco at sunrise.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2009 at 19:37:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would support if there was not that red thing (is it lens flare, I don't know) on the top of the image. As well, the sky shows some levels of posterization. Are you using your RAWs and converting to JPEG only at the last step, since it's not the first time I see this issue in your nominations, or it's only from post-processing?
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Nothing very distinct. Too dark. --— Erin (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Snowfall.JPG

Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2009 at 17:27:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Snowfall in Enäjärvi.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 17:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support —kallerna™ 17:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Almost nothing is in focus, and the composition is very very ordinary. --S23678 (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. As above.--— Erin (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Gaucho1868b.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 17:29:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by Courret Hermanos Fotogs. - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Gaucho 1868.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Argentine gaucho, photographed 1868. Durova (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Durova (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, looks good as always! –Juliancolton | Talk 01:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, GerardM (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support encyclopedic. Takabeg (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great portrait. -- JovanCormac 07:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cesco77 (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Berliner Olympiastadion night.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 10:36:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

panoramic view of the olympic stadium of Berlin
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Tobi 87 -- Tobi 87 (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tobi 87 (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Now, I uploaded a new full-resolution version of my picture. I tried to improve its quality by denoising some parts (e.g. sky, roof and field). Obviously, my picture arises a strong controversy. Thus, it is hard to please everybody. Please give me a chance, because as Calibas has already mentioned, it's quite frustrating. If you have other propositions how my picture could be improved, don't hesitate to tell me! Thanks:)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good to me. -- Petritap (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cesco77 (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 99of9 (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Most confusing nomination ever. --S23678 (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Why does this nomination keep jumping to the top of the list? -- JovanCormac 19:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think the quality problems have been solved. The bright part of the soccer field is overexposed, contrast in the crowd is low, and the whole picture suffers from extreme artifacts and noise. -- JovanCormac 12:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Jovan. —kallerna™ 16:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] first version

Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 20:33:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Olympic station in Berlin at night
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created and uploaded by Tobi 87 - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I know the too-much-noise-in-an-ISO100-image group will decline this pic for having too much noise. However this is an excellent composition and esposure is perfect under difficult conditions. Last but not least it is very informative. Because the brightest part is where action takes place I think this version is far better than i.e. this day shot. -- Ikiwaner (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Shows the atmosphere --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite a lot of quality issues (noise, moiré pattern on the track, very high pixel level defects), but these are almost invisible at 2 mpx downsample. As well, I would have liked to have the ring of flags not cropped on top, but, as for my final verdict, I can't help but really like this picture. --S23678 (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tolle Atmosphäre. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 00:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Cesco77 (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, great atmosphere and so on, but the noise is just too much. Noise removal & downsample? —kallerna™ 17:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Because of the size noise can be ignored. Great picture --Simonizer (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportI don't think we can obtain an image without noise in this extreme low light condition. The atmosphere is beautiful. --Cesco77 (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 21:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Compression is here really too much. And also, what’s the point in having that many megapixels, when the information simply isn't there? You can downsample this picture by 2/3 and still not loose any detail. -- Blago Tebi (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
How everyone can prove this is wrong:
  1. Use JPGSnoop to determine how the original image (18.7 MB big) was saved. Result: Adobe PS CS4, Quality 12
  2. Open the image and downsample it to 66%, Save as with quality 12. Result: 11.3 MB file
  3. Open the new file again and upscale it so it's 7149 pixels wide again. Result: 17.1 MB file
  4. Final result: We lost 1.6 MB or 8.6 % of information.
A few years back I was thinking like you Blago when I uploaded this file as a downsampled version to reduce noise. A few weeks later we had to upscale the same image because we needed a large format print for an exhibition in Berne. That was when I realized that downsampling images is not useful for pictures here on commons. Besides: Take your favourite pictres and make some large format prints yourself. You'll notice how much harder to see noise is on paper compared to screen. Some noise might even increase subjective sharpness. --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not care so much about the noise, but I do believe that the image will look better (both on the screen and on the paper), if it is downsampled.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, fine by me. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality problems are too big IMO. -- JovanCormac 07:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. At reasonable downsampled resolutions, it seems more than good enough quality. Some images should not be evalutated only at 100% size IMO. Diliff (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Petritap (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Blago Tebi. IMO the image will be better off, if downsampled.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Durova (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree with Diliff. --Lošmi (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Per Mbz1. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 05:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with the guidelines that this is the version to choose. --99of9 (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Please note, that the picture above is the new (third) version (and not the first!!). If you think that it is of inferior quality as the first, please tell me, so that I upload this edited version as independent file. --Tobi 87 (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] second version

Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 08:50:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

panoramic view of the olympic stadium of Berlin
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Tobi 87 -- Tobi 87 (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tobi 87 (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: As some of you proposed, I downsampled my picture. Is it now satisfactory for you?
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cesco77 (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please, do not erase previous votes when trying to nominate alternative. --S23678 (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Downsampling is not a way of enhancing quality, regardless of how bad it looks at 100% view. It sure look better, but this look can be recreated anytime using non-destructive downsampling (through software, not the image itself). In about 30 seconds, you can make your own non-destructive downsampling using the the wiki software, as I did in my previous vote. The old version should be the one featured. --S23678 (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it much better.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Original preferred per Diliff and S23678, but I support this too. --99of9 (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JukoFF (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not because it's not good enough for FP, but I prefer the full-scaled version. You can always downsample depending on the need you have for your image but not vice versa. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 13:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with H005 --Simonizer (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perhaps we should come to some conclusion about downsampling here. People are opposing the original because it isn't, and the alternative because it is. Not very fair for the photographer, and all this is going to lead to is people automatically downsampling without telling anybody to avoid oppose votes. --Calibas (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
It is impossible to come to some conclusion. Some like it better in full resolution, others prefer downsampled version. FPC process is not fair I am afraid, yet I believe one of the version will probably pass. Tobi 87, please revert the file you overwritten with the downsampled version, and let the first nomination to proceed. Please upload downsampled version as a new file. That way the reviewers will have a choice between the two versions, which will go parallel to each other, and you will have more chances that one of the two is to pass. Good luck :)--Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Calibas that having this debate here is unfair on the photographer. We need clear guidelines for if and by how much an image should be downsized, but lets establish them before we oppose images either way based on downsizing. 99of9 (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Given that the guidelines are clear, I think some votes need to be revised - even if both sizes are separate versions, the high-res version should be featured. Voting the way we are, there is a chance that both version could fail. 99of9 (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course it is not fair to oppose downsampled image. The passing size requirement is only 2 megapixels. The nominated image is much bigger. Some users claim that the image could always be downsampled as needed, but not the other way around, but I believe that Internet connection of some of our readers and reviewers might be too slow to load big resolution images. That's why I believe we should have both images as separete versions. Each will link to other version in the image's description. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • On image summary pages, it says something like this:

Size of this preview: 800 × 234 pixels
Full resolution‎ (15,150 × 4,430 pixels, file size: 25.28 MB, MIME type: image/jpeg)

In my opinion it would be nice to extend this to some common widths, heights, or percentages, so that the downloader could choose their own resolution. It seems odd to have duplicates with different file names. 99of9 (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
For me the guidelines are very clear :
  • Graphics located on Commons may be used in ways other than viewing on a conventional computer screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible.
  • Images should not be downsampled (sized down in order to appear of better quality). Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file.
I see nothing indicating to voters and nominators that their image should be downsampled. I especially like the wording "in order to appear of better quality", since it's clearly stating (and it's a fact) that downsampling is just an illusion of quality, and that voters should be aware of it. Since I've started contributing on FPC, I've always tried to upload my images at the highest resolutions possible, unless strong mitigating reasons (such as keeping uploads under 100mpx...). I would personally make it mandatory for FPCs to be at the camera's native resolution, with the evaluation of quality done at a standard resolution for all nominations. This would put all nominations at the same level, encourage nominators and alleviate a lot of problems such as right now. --S23678 (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
IMO that rule is all, but impossible to enforce. An image could be cropped, and one will never be sure, if it is downsampled or just cropped. The same with panoramas. Also, if that rule is enforced somehow, not only FPC, but Commons will loose some good and rare images IMO. Besides, if one would like to be consistent, one should oppose all downsampled images, and not only some of them. We have few that are nominated now, Would you like to go ahead, and to oppose all of them :)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Please note, that the picture above is the new (third) version (and not the second!!). So, please support the new version! --Tobi 87 (talk) 13:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sapona Panoramic.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 09:00:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Shipwreck panorama
  • Upon further examination, there are indeed many visible stitching seams that, at full resolution, detract highly from the otherwise excellent quality of the image. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I've marked some visible stitching seams. The ones in the water are almost unavoidable, but I'd prefer to see them blended more smoothly. The one on the top right of the wreck should probably be fixed before featuring. --99of9 (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
    • How on earth did I miss those? Would there be someone more adroit with image editing than me, willing to assist? I gave it a go myself, but it ended up worse. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk)
      • A proper job would probably require the original shots. Otherwise all I can suggest is blurring down the seam lines, which will look much better, but probably wouldn't get up to FP standard. 99of9 (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Stiching errors. —kallerna™ 16:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow, nothing extra. --Karel (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. --— Erin (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tasman Bridge Dusk.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 07:53:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: The Tasman Bridge crossing the Derwent River as seen from the North West of the bridge at dusk. created by Flying Freddy - nominated by AnonR -- 122.169.68.145 07:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm under the impression of already having saw this nomination before. I oppose because I feel the composition is not developed enough. The subject itself is quite ordinary as well. --S23678 (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Thanks for the nomination, but this was very early in my photography, and overdone hdr was very much overdone. + per S23678 Flying Freddy (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, composition could be better and it's bit overprocessed. Could be QI thou. —kallerna™ 16:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Oregon Convention Center Dusk 1.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 07:35:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: The Oregon Convention Center in Portland, Oregon, USA. Taken at dusk, 4x2 segment stitched image. created by Fcb981 - nominated by Anonymous -- 122.169.68.145 07:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That's insanely detailed. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've marked an apparent minor stitching error. The cable has a sudden kink in it. --99of9 (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong tilt on the right side of the picture (or a lot of wind). I'll remove my "oppose" if corrected. --S23678 (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I don't like the composition.--— Erin (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Rana esculenta on Nymphaea edit.JPG

Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2009 at 12:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A specimen of Rana esculenta (Common edible frog) on a nymphaea leaf. Location: garden pond in Brandenburg, Summer 2005.

[edit] File:Clifton Beach 6.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2009 at 11:25:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm not sure who constructed the bridge. It is made of two steel RSJs with chicken wire and a plank or two between them. The steel girders have corroded rather significantly. I didn't cross it. Seems to be the only way to reach the point however. --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, a bit on the small side, but highly impressive. Wolf (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive... romazur (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WoW --Tired time (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Grand-Duc (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC) . A beautiful picture.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Petritap (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:SydneyUniversity MainQuadrangle panorama.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2009 at 03:08:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Main Quadrangle panorama at The University of Sydney, with the jacaranda in bloom.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: all by 99of9 --99of9 (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator -- 99of9 (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality is very high. But composition is not optimal IMO for such a perspective. A panorama where the clock tower would be in the middle would be more appealing. --S23678 (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Now that you say so, it seems so obvious. I've put up an alternative. You'll have to excuse the shadow - it is not possible to have 3 sides of a quadrangle lit while the jacaranda is in bloom :-). I'm switching my support to the alternative. --99of9 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative: File:SydneyUniversity MainQuadrangle panorama 270.jpg

Main Quadrangle 270 degree panorama at The University of Sydney, with the jacaranda in bloom.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator -- 99of9 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Much better. Not perfect at full zoom, but a 1000 px high downsample shows that this is a non-issue. As an advice, I would suggest some HDR post-processing (enfuse) could be done to reduce contrast with the shaded area, but this could lead to bad results as well. --S23678 (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The whole thing looks slightly tilted (the bottom edge of the left wing is lower than that of the right one). -- JovanCormac 06:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very high quality, but I agree with JovanCormac. --Cesco77 (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done How did you know I was equidistant from the two wings? Anyway, you're right, the correct rotation was 0.26 degrees - good eyes! I'd been lining up the verticals, but this horizontal is a much more accurate measure. Thanks for helping improve it. 99of9 (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, now is perfect! --Cesco77 (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice image --Herby talk thyme 16:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Petritap (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perfect now. -- JovanCormac 16:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I don't like the strong crontrast. The left corner is very dark. Too much sky. Too bumpy.--— Erin (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3444-7 Begrafenis bij plantageslaven2.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 23:02:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

[edit] File:The Gypsy Girl Mosaic of Zeugma 1250575.png

Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 14:51:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Gypsy Girl Mosaic of Zeugma
Cropped
Original

Tineye search

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by Nevit - uploaded by Nevit - nominated by Nevit -- Nevit Dilmen (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Nevit Dilmen (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Normally, PNG format for a photograph is no-go for me (9 MB for 4 MPx), but the transparency is put to good use here. I can see a lot of interesting ways this photo can be used in print media. Reproduction quality is quite high. -- JovanCormac 18:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good work. Thanks... --.dsm. 21:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good image but the trimming isn't successful. Takabeg (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question: I wonder your trimming idea Takabeg. What should be done to do better? --.dsm. 18:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Shapes of mosaic have to be kept in edge part. In short, this is Mosaic and its characteristic features must not be destroyed. Takabeg (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Trim parts of photo aren't included in mosaic. The original parts are missing. I think the picture is sufficiently characteristic and succesful. --.dsm. 01:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Takabeg. Would love to support this with a better edit. Durova (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Changing to full oppose; see below. Durova (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Offtopic: What is it Zeugma? Please write it in image description. --Umnik (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done, link added. Wolf (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't a perspective crop have been preferable? Durova (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wolf (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportWhat's wrong with the trimming? I'm supporting until someone can show me something wrong. 99of9 (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is Mosaic and its characteristic features must not be destroyed. Takabeg (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I did notice that! It's in the filename. I can't see any tesserae that have been deleted. So which characteristic features were you referring to? By "original parts", are you talking about the mortar behind where some of the original tesserae were originally in place? --99of9 (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Durova's lighting argument. I still prefer the idea of transparency where there are no tiles, but it's nice to have Durova's natural colours as a more accurate base from which the erasing begins. --99of9 (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Petritap (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kjetil_r 12:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Re-edit from the original with perspective cropping, very extensive brightness and contrast corrections, and curves adjustment.
  • Comment Seeing the original and the nominator's crop makes a big difference. There are several problems with the nominated version in addition to Takabeg's comments above. Uncorrected perspective distortion is worth noting, but more important is the failure to correct for uneven and highly directional lighting. It stands to reason that the background tiles above the subject's head ought to have been made from the same stone as the background tiles behind her hair at far left, yet in the nominated version the former are nearly blown whites while the latter are quite dark. Also there's an unexplaned overabundance of red in the balance on the version nominated (no edit notes at all were provided on the hosting page, although significant digital edits to historic artwork should always be annotated). Here's hoping it doesn't offend the good intentions and hard work of the nominator to say that the result is not very successful: it really is necessary to correct for perspective and lighting before attempting that sort of edit. Have uploaded an alternate (displayed at right) which endeavors to address those issues. Over 100 layer masks were used to create this re-edit; could possibly tweak it further if people agree with this assessment. Durova (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the version by Durova only.--— Erin (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Su-27UBM Radom 2009 b.JPG

Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 14:41:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Su-27UBM
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by Łukasz Golowanow & Maciek Hypś, Konflikty.pl - uploaded by Airwolf - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sad fate for this airplane. I have no comments about the quality, but the composition feels too simple, not developed enough for FP (slightly rotated CW, slightly off-center - but still too much centered). --S23678 (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per S23678--Tired time (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:View over haifa-other.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 13:29:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by Photos.com - uploaded by Lê - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, I thinks it perpect. Big, no noise, no exposure, excellent color, have focus and depth, with some my edit by MS Paint. I hope I understood Image guidelines. -- Lê (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Aqwis, I need your help here as well. --S23678 (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, the noise in the upper part of the sky is really weird. Is this a composite of two pictures? Otherwise it's a good picture; I don't think the slight overexposure in the lower part of the picture is a major problem. --Aqwis (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image isn't bad, but not FP. Too noise in the sky, overesxposure in the lower part. And in image like this the resolution is too low. --Cesco77 (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful oppose This brings back wonderful memories of my visit to the Baha'i Gardens 5 years ago, but the resolution is much too low for such a shot. -- JovanCormac 18:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise and overexposure --S23678 (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. —kallerna™ 14:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose looks like leaning to the right --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Exército no Rio.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 10:39:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The military occupied the Complexo do Alemão, a Slums in Rio de Janeiro, 1998
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by Wilson Dias/ABr - uploaded by Rafamaxpires - nominated by Econt -- Econt (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Econt (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I nominated this image because it haves a important social contest in Rio de Janeiro.--Econt (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hey Econt, I can tell you right away that the tilt will need to be fixed. Aside from that, it looks good, and yes, the contrast is quite interesting. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'll oppose based on what I saw on travels. This is indeed an impressive sight based on a western country point of view. However, it's extremely common in a lot of latin american countries I went to. I did not went to Rio, but I saw the armoured vehicles guarding the Peruvian president's palace in Lima, I got searched at military checkpoints in Colombia, etc. Being such a common sight for that region of the world, I would expect more from such a FPC, in composition and people's visible emotions for example. --S23678 (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment People's visible emotions? You don't go see this in Brazil, sorry. It is only appearance, the army of Brazil never can react. Even when attacked by criminals.--Econt (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Good try, but... a simple search through google can easily contradict you claim... --S23678 (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
        • You are right, but I was talking about the army of Brazil, different of Colombia and Peru.--Econt (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Read again, I'm not talking about Colombia and Peru for Google search. As well, I personally remember sharing some common facilities with brazilian military members, and I can assure you they were not emotionless robots. --S23678 (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The composition is really good (though it would be even better if the civilian was wearing red clothes), but quality problems are there (noise and sharpness mostly), which makes it difficult for me to support this. I cannot say how common such a sight is in Rio, but S23678 does have a point in that this isn't a war photograph and can probably retaken. -- JovanCormac 12:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much going on. —kallerna™ 15:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per Econt. Yann (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm with Jovan, great composition. I love the fact that there is too much going on - this kind of image always has hidden treasures if you scour it. However the people's faces have defects in them, and there are other minor quality issues that stack up against promotion. --99of9 (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:F-16 refuelling, Exercise Green Flag East - 081201-F-3071N-235.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 09:20:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

F-16 refuelling
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by Master Sgt. John Nimmo Sr. - uploaded by Alaniaris - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, this is excellent! -Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 09:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FP --Cesco77 (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Umnik (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great quality, interesting composition --Leafnode✉ 10:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great quality, great composition, high resolution. -- JovanCormac 12:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, now this is the shit. --Aqwis (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support —kallerna™ 15:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wonderful capture of a difficult operation. Durova (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- High guality and I have no chance to take it. Takabeg (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Great, but, I think it could even be better by cropping the foreground element, which has some sort of bizzare double-edge in the top right corner. --S23678 (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wolf (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --NEURO ⇌ 21:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Petritap (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:PalenqueAc.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 02:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Not for voting: Comparison of the relief today and sketch showing significant differences between the two; this is a combination of loss of detail and addition of detail, causing the sketch to be idealized by the artist.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by Ricardo Almendáriz - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:PalenqueA.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Detail drawing of a Mayan ruin at Palenque made at the time of its original excavation in 1787.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Durova (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Another perfect restoration. -- JovanCormac 12:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg A favore --Phyrexian (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Detail drawing and useful for related articles. Takabeg (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment uploaded an image to show the differences between the actual relief and the sketch, which turns out to be idealized and contains artistic liberty from not one, but two artists (see the en.wiki nom for more info on the history of the artwork and archeological dig), limiting its accuracy. Take it or leave it. upstateNYer 06:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
    • IMO the fact that the artist who drew this picture in the 18th century took some liberties adds value to the picture, rather than taking it away, by showing that "reproductions" back then sometimes were inaccurate - probably on purpose (omission of the bosom). If someone today wants to see how the actual relief looks like, he or she should look at a photograph rather than a sketch. -- JovanCormac 12:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
      • And that's quite fine; I just wanted to give everyone the heads up. upstateNYer 17:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Stanley Steamer at 2009 Newport Hill Climb 1.png

Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 23:42:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stanley Steamer
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by Huwmanbeing - uploaded by Huwmanbeing - nominated by Huwmanbeing -- Huwmanbeing ☀★ 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Huwmanbeing ☀★ 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing to see one of those in running condition. Durova (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great image! Quality, composition, the mood of the people. Especially the queen. :) --Lošmi (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Could you please explain why you're using PNG format? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Just for its losslessness, particularly when performing successive edits on a photo (generation loss). Thanks ~ Huwmanbeing ☀★ 12:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Omnedon (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Somehow I fail to see how this image is special. The quality is good, but not stellar, composition is mediocre at best (several heads cut off in the foreground), and the use of the PNG format appears nonsensical. It just isn't made for photos, results in a ridiculously high file size, and given the average image quality is simply unneccessary. -- JovanCormac 13:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Thanks for the comments. I see what you mean about the heads; however, in dense crowd shots such as these it can be impossible to find a crop that doesn't cut through at least a few individuals, so I chose to give precedence to the placement of the central subject. As for filesize, it could be reduced as a JPEG, but it didn't strike me as ridiculous or prohibitive given that other featured images and candidates in JPEG format range much larger (some above 10-15MB). Thanks! Huwmanbeing ☀★ 14:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much going on. —kallerna™ 16:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Stadtkirche VIT (3).jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 19:18:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Altar of the catholic church in Viechtach, Bavaria.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by Mike aus dem Bayerwald - uploaded by Mike aus dem Bayerwald - nominated by Mike aus dem Bayerwald -- Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good quality, but needs perspective correction. -- JovanCormac 20:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Per Jovan, plus needs a slight CW rotation. As well, is this a downsample ?(seems to me, from the corners resolutions) If yes, why not upload the full size version? Maybe the alternating red and green artifacts seen on the tagged window would disappear at full resolution. Finally, could you explain a bit the HDR processing done here? Thanks --S23678 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hello. No, this is no real downsample, the original resolution was 3872x2592, but I rotated it to correct the perspective and lost some pixels. I also tried to remove the purple CAs at the windows, but its not perfect, unfortunately I am not a photoshop freak. And Jovan, how should it be corrected? My eyes don't see the distortion and thus I can't improve it, sorry. And: The HDR is made out of 5 pictures, (from Pentax PEF to JPG) and then with Photomatix 2 combined to the HDR. -Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, obviously the vertical lines (window edges and benches) should be vertical, but in the picture they are leaning towards the center. This is what needs to be corrected. -- JovanCormac 12:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: I just tried a new version, now the CAs are smaller i think. I also could save some pixels and now it is the highest quality. -Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose washed-out colors, some strange artifacts and CA on windows, perspective, overexposed windows (if it's HDR, this problem should be fixed by making additional exposures), the altar is unsharp. As this is a static setting, it is possible to make this photo again, and I'd support improved version :) --Leafnode✉ 09:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment
    retouched version
    I've played a bit with curves and saturation and uploaded a retouched version - I think it's a bit better. --Leafnode✉ 10:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, but this version is not what I wanted to intend. Nobody wants to know, what's behind the church windows. The point of interest is just the altar and the interior, and from my point of view, focus and exposition are just right and create a certain ambiance. We can talk about aberrations and perspective correction, but not about the image itself. -Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Your new version is better than the first one, but my eye is drawn more on Leafnode's version, which is even better IMO. Still, I' m not convinced that I would support that version, so, I will not nominate it as well. --S23678 (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think retouched version is better... --Phyrexian (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dammit... this means I have lost, righto?! -Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've taken the liberty of perspective-correcting the retouched version (automatically using ShiftN) --99of9 (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I love this shot, but it's hard to not see what it could be. Here's my take. --Calibas (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    by Calibas (talk)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This really looks quite nice, but if we go on doing this, we will soon have trillions of versions ;) What shall we do now to get a fair result, everyone is happy with? -Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:天安门夜景.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 06:42:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gate of Heavenly Peace, Beijing.2009-11-1
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by Charlie fong - uploaded by Charlie fong - nominated by Charlie fong -- Charlie fong (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Charlie fong (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Only one, redlinked category. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose High image noise. HDR can do wonders for shots like these. -- JovanCormac 10:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Look at the haloing, it has either had tonemapping or perhaps a highlight reduction (which is a form of tone mapping). Noodle snacks (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Interesting, I didn't realize that at first. But still, better results can be created by mapping multiple exposures rather than reducing the highlights on a single shot. -- JovanCormac 14:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment On a side note, it would be helpful if you used latin characters only in the file name, since older non-Chinese systems cannot display Chinese characters correctly, while all computers worldwide can handle the latin alphabet. -- JovanCormac 10:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - noisy and blurry.--Avala (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing bad composition-wise, but nothing exceptional as well. The light trails would look better if they were longer. But mainly quality issues as above. --S23678 (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Image motion. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 05:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very noisy. Takabeg (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Along The Riverwalk.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 04:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by Corey Leopold - uploaded by Lê - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, I think it is very clear, with the light river, but too dark, I think, but it is not opaque when I zoom it. -- Lê (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of low quality (heavy noise, low amount of details) and composition (intrusive foreground elements). Overall snapshot feeling. You obviously did not understood. You should ask advice from regular contributors BEFORE nominating further images. Next time, I might be a little less polite. Google translate : Bạn rõ ràng đã không hiểu rõ. Bạn nên xin lời khuyên từ những người đóng góp thường xuyên TRƯỚC cử thêm hình ảnh. Tiếp theo thời gian, tôi có thể là một chút ít lịch sự.--S23678 (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Doesn't look like a snapshot to me. And what exactly "Next time, I might be a little less polite" means? --Lošmi (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Means I was very polite to take him by the hand another time, as it has been done numerous times in the past by me and other contributors. Mr Lê has difficulties understanding FPC quality concepts, but doesn't seems to learn from his mistakes. So if the childish way doesn't work once again, I might be tempted by a more direct approach next time. --S23678 (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree that it's not as bad as previous candidates, but still quite far from FP quality. -- JovanCormac 10:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice image, not even close to a snapshot, should not have been FPXed.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, S23678, your impoliteness is far more damaging than Lê's nominating a few pictures that may not be of the quality you expect of an FP candidate. --Aqwis (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Aqwis. It is impolite to bite newbies, who have difficulties understanding English.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the noise isn't the only problem here, low details for me --Cesco77 (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad quality. —kallerna™ 15:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Subpar. Takabeg (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Notting-Hill Carnival-Beauty.JPG

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Romazur

12:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2009 at 21:50:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Notting Hill Carnival Beauty
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by Romazur - uploaded by Romazur - nominated by Romazur -- romazur (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality isn't perfect, but resolution is high and the colors are striking. -- JovanCormac 06:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, first of all for honesty! romazur (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Petritap (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose she is a beauty, no question, and the colors are nice too but I don't like the extreme tilt. Really too bad bcs the scene in general has the potential for a great shot. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thank You for above opinion, too - I accept Your point of view. romazur (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Econt (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad crop and too extremly tilt. Typical for the Notting-Hill Carnival are the afro-caribbian members and mainly their fancy costumes, but you reduced it to a nice face. What a pity... -- Ra'ike T C 09:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, typical for present NHC parades is almost everyone, probably from the whole world. Watching it live you may find out it's already transformed into a multicultural event. So, one is able to take a lot of extremely different pictures... Nevertheless, Your undoubtedly important remarks are being appreciated. romazur (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Ra'ike and AngMoKio. Maybe you have some other pictures like that in your collection? --Leafnode✉ 10:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've got few more, but in my opinion this one is the most interesting... Thank You for Your point of view - of course - too. romazur (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg A favore Little quality problems, just too little for me to oppose. I very like the child looking in camera. --Phyrexian (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I ought to say... at last! Little girl is cute, isn't she? When I discovered her on this picture, looking stright at camera, I started to think it is the best actress in supporting role I've ever seen. Pretty and misterious, as well. And what caused it? Tilt! :) romazur (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilt, bad quality. —kallerna™ 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Tlit was essential... Quality is everything what my compact camera can offer - I am only amateur in photography. Thank You for not long but concise statement, indeed. romazur (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Took me quite a time to think about it (tilt or no tilt?), and now I think the tilt is artistically valid here. But it's quite subjective. Overall, I feel it's an awesome picture (and model...!). --S23678 (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank You very much for deep insight into the picture... romazur (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I want to see full costume. I think that a nice face is not enough for FP, especially with her eyes being closed (sadly, it makes the pic less interesting and lively for me). Also background could be better. And quality... Nice try though :)--Tired time (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Undoubtedly You have a full right of expecting to see nothing more but each one imagination of Yours. To be honest, this year there were parading several adult women I would be glad to see without any piece of costume... Unfortunetaly rules of the reality are heartless for daydreams :( Nevertheless, above expression of Your thoughts is important for me, too. romazur (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per kallerna. --NEURO ⇌ 21:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
If "Per kallerna", ok - "Per kallerna": "Tlit was essential... Quality is everything what my compact camera can offer - I am only amateur in photography. Thank You for not long but concise statement, indeed." + I appreciate You were so kind to express some opinion. romazur (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sometimes a bit of tilt does an image the world of good. In this case, it adds a dynamic feel, making you feel as though you're right there shimmying alongside her. Well done! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
That's right - in relation to the facts: this is a picture with content focused on the one particular moment of the NHC, and I was not going to "photoshop" it to get anything more but real portrait of true beauty. So, thanks for wide reflections on this "raw"... picture! romazur (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much like a snapshot IMO, sorry. Distracting background, tilt etc --Muhammad (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thank You for Your opinion, too. In fact it is not graphics, so... romazur (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:P1150918 Cantharis livida.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2009 at 16:39:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Soldier beetles (Cantharis fusca). Mating.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created, uploaded, nominated by Darius Baužys → talk 16:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Darius Baužys → talk 16:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, definitely! --Aqwis (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, idem ! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WOW --Cesco77 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lack of detail, noisy. inisheer (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good composition, bad quality --Muhammad (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per inisheer. -- JovanCormac 06:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but this one cant be a FP imho! My last try wasn´t even voted because of not such obviously failures! The magnification is fine but the beetle is nothing than unsharp mush! Sorry. --Leviathan (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Awesome capture. Quality is not so good on full view, but it's still very good. Downsampled to 1700 x 1200 (minimum size) looks perfect. --Lošmi (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Hey, thats the worst argument I´ve read here for a long time! So we take, for example, a little unsharp 40mp (10000x4000) panorama and downsample it to 1700x1200 so it looks perfect?! The loose of quality is uninteristing or what??? Sorry but voting like this is pure nonsense!! Why should we upload the highest possible resolution if you vote by downsampled pictures? Cant understand... --Leviathan (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Leviathan, you said "Sorry but this one cant be a FP imho! My last try wasn´t even voted". Do you think this is a right argument to oppose? --Cesco77 (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
        • "...wasn´t even voted because of not such obviously failures!" That was what I've written. And the next sentece tells why I think so. The link to my nomination is only an example. --Leviathan (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
          • This picture may be "blurry and noisy", but it's not overexposed and its composition is, frankly, a lot better than that of your candidate. --Aqwis (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Actually it does make a sense. Images for web are usually in resolution of 72 px/inch, and for printing are in 300 px/inch. Thus, size of downsampled image and printed image might look similar. Full resolution of printed image won't be that big as full resolution on the web. That's what I taught. --Lošmi (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad quality. —kallerna™ 13:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The thing is that, if the image was just a little bit better quality, and had just a little bit more details, it would not have been safe for the kids to look at Smile--Mbz1 (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, in my opinion very good shot --romazur (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose perhaps oversharpened, not convinced about quality inspite of the excellent composition --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per inisheer. Our FP standard for macros is quite high. --NEURO ⇌ 21:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:San Antonio Christmas.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2009 at 04:32:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by Corey Leopold - uploaded by Lê - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this image very beutiful and clear (and big too), so I nominate it. Sorry if I wrong. -- Lê (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Everything but clear. Heavy image noise, extremely blurry. You could try denoising & downsampling, but then I would probably oppose it for its small resolution. -- JovanCormac 07:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too many quality problems. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Better composition and colors, but it's still snapshot quality --S23678 (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, I subscribe to the previous arguments. --Vprisivko (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Paradiesbrücke.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2009 at 00:17:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Paradiesbrücke über die Zwickauer Mulde
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by je-str - uploaded by je-str - nominated by je-str -- Je-str (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Je-str (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Up to the task quality-wise, but problems with composition (that left handguard should be cropped, and it's shade is creating a non-pleasant straight line where there should not be). As well, a bit more color saturation would make this fall scenery look a lot better --S23678 (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per S23678. -- JovanCormac 07:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as S23678 --Leafnode✉ 09:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose there are some strange unsharp areas in the photo. Composition is imho quite nice. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - It has some blurry parts, and the red colors on the left part seem a little bit strange. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 05:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Confederate 5 Dollars.png

Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 23:40:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confederate 5 Dollars.png
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by Swtpc6800 and edit by Wilfredor - uploaded by Wilfredor - nominated by --190.136.165.178 23:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment --Scan (= photograph) => Inappropriate PNG format (especially made from a JPG). Sting (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposePictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's a transparent image, What do you prefer? GIF ? --Wilfredo Rodríguez (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Inappropriate file format. -- JovanCormac 07:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why not sticking to the original file: File:Confederate_5_Dollars.jpg? Seems to be much clearer. --Andreas 06 (talk) 09:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Vineyard in Napa Valley 4.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 19:59:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vineyard in Napa Valley
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the vibrancy of the colors, but the composition is messy :branch on the left, line of horizon right on top of the trees, background trees blending with the "main tree". --S23678 (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I might agree with branch on the left, but what could have been done to avoid "background trees blending with the "main tree""? I wanted to show the hills behind the vineyard, so I could not play with the DOF.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe a different perspective would have worked, but as a personal opinion, I think a shallower DOF would have had more advantages than disadvantages. --S23678 (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, interesting and really visually appealing –Juliancolton | Talk 02:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as S23678 - there's no one focus point. Everything blends together making this picture very messy. Here shallow DoF would be appropriate. --Leafnode✉ 09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose cluttered composition --AngMoKio (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edit 1 (cropped out branch on the left)

Vineyard in Napa Valley

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as with original one --Leafnode✉ 09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose cluttered composition --AngMoKio (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per top discussion, less the branch --S23678 (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative 1

Vineyard in Napa Valley

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as with original one --Leafnode✉ 09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose cluttered composition --AngMoKio (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per top discussion again, less the branch --S23678 (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please, try some self-criticsm before nomination. Just look to number of your nominations! Images are good, but do you really think, that every of them should be FP. --Karel (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Pilatus Agusta A109 Flug.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 19:21:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A rescue helicopter type Agusta A109K2 leaves Mount Pilatus after recovering a patient
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created uploaded and nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --NEURO ⇌ 20:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice shot -- Tobi 87 (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice --Cesco77 (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode✉ 22:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This picture could use a denoise IMO. -- JovanCormac 07:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support some minor quality issues. But still a nice shot. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Peripitus (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --S23678 (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great composition, but needs denoise before I can support. —kallerna™ 15:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Chrysopa sp. AF 1.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 06:14:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the fpc category: Animals/Arthropods

[edit] File:Vatican angle° 0.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 03:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vatican angle° 0
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by juanRubiano - uploaded by Lê - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lê (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of quality (overexposure, noise, resolution) and composition (tilt and crop) problems --S23678 (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support and be it only to remove that once again precipitate FPX by S23678. Where is your problem? Resolution is many times higher than required, can't see any noise, overexposure only in few spots, tilt is hardly noticeable and can be fixed, and after all, even if these were issues, they can't really destroy the excellent atmosphere in this picture. I'd really like to see more constructive criticism here than to piss of anybody who nominates pictures that just don't meet your personal preferences when it comes to technical standards. FPX is for clearly insufficient pictures, that's it. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 22:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Overexposure masks all details on both sides of St-Peter's basilica, noise is very visible on the out-of-focus areas, image resolution (the amount of detail in an image) is very low on the sides, tilt is very visible and the cross on the top of obelisk is cropped. You may think it deserves to be FP because of it's atmosphere, and I respect your choice, but given what I said, FPX was clearly sufficient to me. About personal preferences, I'm wondering what's FP is, if not a bunch of personal preferences... Your support is as much a personal preference as my FPX is. As for constructive criticism, Mr Lê has some difficulties understanding FPC rules, as it's suggested by his nomination history and some votes about it's nominations. There's some limit at holding someone by the hand, hence the lack of constructive criticism in my comments. --S23678 (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I've never heard or read of Lê but can't see any evidence from this nomination that he/she "has some difficulties understanding FPC rules". It's a nice image with IMHO only minor technical flaws, and I value the mood and content of an image higher than technical perfection to a level that only enthusiasts like us here see who inspect every single pixel, but not all those millions of Wikipedia users who just will see a nice image. Sorry for being a bit harsh with my comment, no offence intended, I just found it very annoying to see repeatedly what in my humble opinion is a misuse of FPX. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per S23678. -- JovanCormac 07:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because of an unbalanced composition. Takabeg (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing can fix or make up for the crop at the top. --99of9 (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Morning after Halloween.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 02:24:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Morning after Halloween
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • What is that, exactly...? –Juliancolton | Talk 02:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
It is exactly what the image's name explains: "Morning after w:Halloween" :) The girl is still wearing a costume (horns on her head,and something on her legs), the guy has special shoes. IMO this image is like a story with no beginning and no end. We do not know what happen on Halloween party and why they were sitting like that for half-an-hour (I found them like that and went for a walk. When I came back half an hour later nothing changed in their position). We do not know how it will end up.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Have you read that recent news article (can't find the link) about an old man who was laying dead for 3 days in front of his house, with his neighbours thinking it was an Halloween decoration... Were this couple breathing? --S23678 (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
No, I have not read the story. Let's hope my image's story is a happy one :)--Mbz1 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
link --S23678 (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Subject too dark, not particularly interesting --Leafnode✉ 22:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh... I didn't see the guy at first. Thought it was someone peeing in the bushes... :-) --Dschwen (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, Daniel, I would have never allowed myself to upload image of "someone peeing in the bushes" leave alone to nominate it for FP :) --Mbz1 (talk)
Well, users have asked for more nominations of people... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too hard to see what is going on. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm undecided on this one. I'll think about it a bit more. Also, thanks for trying something different; we need more photos like of interesting things like this. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
You mean something different from Golden Gate Bridge :) Thank you for your comment! --Mbz1 (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Not just that, but yes. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's an interesting composition. I'd love to know what their story was. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agreed. What an interesting composition. JalalV (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great confusion. --Karel (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fisherman at Lake Merced.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 01:59:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

fisherman
  • Everything by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice ambience for fishing. Excellent photo -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Nice, but you've done it many times. New style? ;) (but I admit, this one is eye-catching :)) —kallerna™ 17:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Kallerna, it is the very first time I nominated an image of a fisherman. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kleiner Fuchs bmn3.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 20:24:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aglais Urticae


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Anser Anser Domesticus.JPG, featured

Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 11:24:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portrait of white goose (Anser anser domesticus)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by Cesco77 - uploaded by Cesco77 - nominated by Cesco77 -- Cesco77 (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cesco77 (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Anser is good, but background is noisy. - Darius Baužys → talk 13:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WOW! Amazing --Muhammad (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise is not an issue here, but white should be white and not grey. I'd support a version edited in such a way. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 17:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info:Modified, is it better now?--Cesco77 (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
      • IMHO no, to the contrary. White balance was quite well in the original photo and should remain unchanged, I'd rather add some light to the image, either as a whole or selectively via gamma curve. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 18:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Upload original image but I've corrected the light a little --Cesco77 (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jep, that's much better, great photo now! -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 20:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Darius Baužys → talk 21:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. —kallerna™ 17:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Petritap (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kjetil_r 13:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the fpc category: Animals/Birds

[edit] File:Trieves from hauts plateaux du Vercors IMG 0002-IMG 0027 v2 fused.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 09:49:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chichilianne, the Trièves and the Écrins seen from the eastern edge of the high plateaux of the Vercors
Uh. There is a weird image bug in the middle of the sky - weird pixels. I'm regenerating the JPEG file. In the meantime, can you please evaluate the picture apart from this bug? Thanks. David.Monniaux (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Bug fixed. David.Monniaux (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support oh wow, pretty :o DarkoNeko 10:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, the tone mapping effect makes parts of the image look really weird (see: the plants to the right). --Aqwis (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You can clearly see the transition between pictures. Either vignetting was not eliminated, or each section of the panorama was tone mapped individually and then assembled. --S23678 (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As aqwis and S23678. /Daniel78 (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
For some reason Hugin is giving me weird tone/fuse bugs... David.Monniaux (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Create a panorama with each exposure then use enfuse (either with hugin or as a standalone). Hugin is doing the opposite when creating HDR panoramas (tone mapping then assembling frames). It's faster but not ideal. --S23678 (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose stitching 99of9 (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Olympic Bobsled Run Lake Placid2.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 05:22:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by Works Progress Administration - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Olympic Bobsled Run Lake Placid.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Created circa 1936-1938. Lake Placid, New York hosted the 1932 and 1980 Winter Olympics.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Durova (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGreat work --Cesco77 (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. Mer30 (Mersī). Takabeg (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The restoration is good, and the image itself may be valuable, but there's no wow for me. It's just an advertisement? 99of9 (talk) 11:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • As a Works Progress Administration poster it is technically a public service announcement. An editor had requested a historic featured picture that pertains to the Winter Olympics, to run for next year's games. This was the only available file that was public domain and high enough resolution to restore for featured candidacy. A blog post explains the technical challenges. Durova (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Obviously just because we (someone) *want* a FP on a particular topic that doesn't argue for or against support of any particular image. Nor does it increase the wow. I don't doubt that there were technical challenges, or that you've done a good job. It's just that you're restoring a fairly unimpressive original. --99of9 (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support GerardM (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Great work
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As 99of9. --Karel (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Chalciporus piperatus LC0182.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 00:48:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

PEPPERY BOLETE
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LC-de (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice work, but it is unnecessary objects (look a note). Some of the mushroom cap is a local overflow. Can You fix it ? - Darius Baužys → talk 07:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please don't place quality comments on the image description page. Use the candidate page instead. They are for the world to see, and only confuse users who don't know about FPC. -- JovanCormac 07:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support works very well for me --AngMoKio (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kosiarz-PL 10:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Light reflection spoils it. Yann (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality image, but don't have nothing special to be considered FP --Cesco77 (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I rather enjoy the simplicity. --Calibas (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Two extra objects distract me in this photo. The little stick on the top right of the cap, and the background feature at the back left of the cap. --99of9 (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Valby Kirke 01-09-07 01.jpg

Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 22:14:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A small village church on a bright day.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by Broadbeer - uploaded by Broadbeer - nominated by Broadbeer -- Broadbeer (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Broadbeer (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Quality issues : artifacts in the almost blown white wall. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not special enough for FP. And the wall in front of the church is a bit annoying when it blocks the lower parts. /Daniel78 (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mainly composition (the white wall cutting the bottom of the picture) and colors. --S23678 (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very visible JPG artifacts. --NEURO ⇌ 17:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Feijoa sellowiana .jpg

Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 17:17:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

feijoa sellowiana (or acca sellowiana) - Myrtaceae
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by Didier Descouens - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great DOF, illustrative, black background accentuates the subject --Ikiwaner (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Beautiful flower. I think it worthwhile to remove the twig in the right side. - Darius Baužys → talk 07:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: I did it, but there was then too dark. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Darius Baužys → talk 13:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice, but IMHO technically not perfect enough for FP: seems to have lost quite some detail due to noise reduction plus there's a little chromatic aberration on the right side. --NEURO ⇌ 18:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too stark contrast and sharpness problems around the petals. -- JovanCormac 07:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Seattle Columbia centre.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 15:35:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Perspective view of Seattle Columbia Centre
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created uploaded and nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I love the composition, but I think the picture could benefit from some noise reduction (mostly sky). Would support if done. --S23678 (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Denoising done. However the difference is only seen in magnifications not in full screen. --Ikiwaner (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm taking a look at this just before going to bed, and I see no differences between the 2 version. I may be tired (or my screen may be dirty), but are you sure you uploaded a denoised version? --S23678 (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The new version is now showing denoising --S23678 (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Anonymous votes are not allowed. /Daniel78 (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support works very well for me --AngMoKio (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good perspective --Cesco77 (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support excellent point of look --George Chernilevsky talk 12:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode✉ 22:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Great composition, but heavily pixellated (noise?) near the top of the tower. -- JovanCormac 07:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer (talk) 08:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Petritap (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:91 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.jpg

Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 01:34:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Machu Picchu
Original image
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: All by me -- S23678 (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: HDR image of a small water canal going through Machu Picchu's ruins, taken with ND filter. I'm using this HDR nomination as testing grounds for recent Machu Picchu HDR images (heavy link, may freeze computers) I want to nominate as FPC. Given the general opposition (including mine) to HDR images that don't look natural, I tried limit the saturation and contrast. Hope you think I did a good job.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- S23678 (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Sharpness is borderline (roof), but at the image's high resolution that can be forgiven since downscaling sharpens the image. -- JovanCormac 09:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for noticing that no downsampling has been done to "increase quality". As mitigating factors for the (small!) quality defects, there's quite an important NR done, the DOF required is very large, the lens themselves are very large as well, AND I had to hurry-up to avoid pissing off more people by completly monopolizing the stairs ;) but that's not a REAL mitigating factor I think...! Downsampled versions are available here to compare with standard lower resolution FPC. --S23678 (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition - not enough space --Leafnode✉ 22:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Your argument is valid (I can't convince you about liking the composition), but I'll just point the large FOV (14mm on APS-C) and the fact that moving back was impossible --S23678 (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I know that what I will say might sound like a profanity, but with a crop like this, at the first sight it looks to me like an ordinary pile of rubble. And I understand that there might be no space to move back. And while I'm very sorry, in my struggle for better FP level, which recently deteriorated, I can't vote "yes" :( --Leafnode✉ 14:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good for a HDR image. I'm glad you tried to make it look natural. -- Petritap (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Leafnode. Maybe it's not possible to take a FP of this object. --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Surely not a "pile of ordinary rubbles", but the composition does not convince me.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Almost perceptible! romazur (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. --Karel (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't know much about HDR, but it seems to me that the shadows are just as dark as the original. The main difference to my eyes is a yellow cast on the stones, and a more blue sky. Is this the intent of the HDR work? --99of9 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • HDR is a very wide field, just as a photoshopped image isn't just an optimized image of a girl in a magazine. I used HDR here to get more color saturation, more local contrast and more details. Having put the shadows less dark would have created an image too far from reality, and while it can be pleasing artistically, it would not have stood a chance in FPC. Verify for yourself and check the difference in details in dark areas. As for the yellow tint, while playing with the levels in photoshop, I got this pleasing golden color and I decided to keep it, since the Incas are associated with gold. --S23678 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Water Dolphin.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 23:51:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the fpc category: Natural phenomena

[edit] File:Fredmeyer edit 1.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 23:38:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Supermarket overview
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by lyzadanger (Flickr) - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment An interesting study of your typical supermarket; notice the huge amount of food, and the 2 people in there. A comment on our wastefulness? Jovan, I'm happy to say this is 5.12MP. Is that enough? :P
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit of noise, but great composition. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover, didn't you saw the third person? --S23678 (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No, I didn't. I spotted the wet floor sign, but not the third gentleman. It's like a giant version of 'Where's Wally?'. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes! Great picture (even though sharpness could be better; most of the labels are barely legible). -- JovanCormac 06:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Althought there is small quality problems. —kallerna™ 11:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice idea, but too noisy and a bit too blurry. --NEURO ⇌ 12:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Actually the idea is plagiarized from [1].franklin.vp (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose- Nice shot, but far too much going on, and there's no defined subject. It's an odd angle as well, so at thumbnail (and indeed at full-resolution as well) all I can see is a mess of different colors. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    • which is exactly the point of this picture, isn't it? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps. But it still isn't fit to be recognized as an FP in my honest opinion. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this image can give a false impression that en:Andreas Gursky has donated his internationally acclaimed photo[2] to Wikipedia for free--Caspian blue 15:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question: How is that a concern? Simply because someone else has photographed a similar subject, we can't promote it? I'm not liking the slippery slope here... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Plagiarism concern, not a slippery slope--Caspian blue 00:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The composition and subject mitigate for some minor technical flaws. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 23:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Blurry. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As other opponents. --Karel (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg A favore Quality problems are too small for me to oppose. --Phyrexian (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose People on the right and blurry (maybe cut, smaller version will be better). D kuba (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JukoFF (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Early morning fog over San Francisco and Golden Gate Bridge.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 17:31:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fog over San Francisco
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There's a CW tilt that should be corrected before voting starts. The disruptive foreground elements (some grass and a small tree) could be cutted away at the same time. --S23678 (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I just brought the image to PS and placed a grid over it. I could not see the tilt. Vertical lines seem to be vertical. If you would like to correct the tilt, please do, but I am afraid I cannot do it because I do not see it. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll do it tonight, I don't have the tools right now --S23678 (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
During this time, could you upload the original image to limit multiple JPEG rewites? --S23678 (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: The image was rotated by S23678. The voting may go on now :) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now that's fog. I'm assuming all the little yellow dots are streetlights? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Most of them are, but not all. Some are traffic lights, while others are lights at the structures. BTW did you see Golden Gate Bridge? It also has a light on.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I must be blind today. :P Are you planning on nominating any images in future without the Golden Gate Bridge? :D Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I nominated an image of Bay Bridge down below. The image is getting opposed, and the bridge got so upset that part of it colapsed It has been clossed for few days already. The traffic is horrible. I asked the folks to support the image (not for me for the bridge :)), but so far nobody did...Smile--00:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Distracting foreground. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not a bad picture but not enough for FP imho --AngMoKio (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess the image is "not just enough for FP", it is the worst image from current nominations because you bothered to vote only on that nomination today, angmokio :)--Mbz1 (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fog. Wow. --Leafnode✉ 22:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because of the fog in the foreground (lower left corner). Otherwise it's great. -- Petritap (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Great! Why not to oppose an image of the fog because of.... the fog :)--Mbz1 (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I take it back. It's not great. It's awful. -- Petritap (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
And who is the judge?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, interesting... romazur (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tanner scale-female.svg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 14:16:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tanner scale - female
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by/uploaded by M•Komorniczak -talk- - nominated by -- M•Komorniczak -talk- 14:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- M•Komorniczak -talk- 14:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This makes an excellent Valued Image with its high EV, but it just isn't special enought for FP. -- JovanCormac 15:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposePictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Per JovanCormac, it should be posted in wikipedia, in the valued pictures (instead of here). - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, --Vprisivko (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:011218-N-9769P-047 F-A-18 With Weapons Ready for Mission.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 13:12:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

F/A-18 Hornet armed and ready
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by Jayme Pastoric - uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by User:Diaa abdelmoneim -- Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This may be one of the best images we have of the F/A-18 Hornet on Commons giving the front of the jet in a great composition. -- Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, I couldn't resist: http://leafnode.soup.io/post/21983647/o :D --Leafnode✉ 13:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Dynamic range is excellent, as is composition, but resolution is too low. -- JovanCormac 15:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The Resolution criteria is over 2 MP. This is 2.6 MP... I know it's close to 2 MP but if the criteria has changed this should be stated in the guideline. How large should it be? 3MP ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
      • That issue has been discussed to death (I don't even know which one of the numerous related threads to link to here; this is a recent one), and it appears to be the opinion of a vast majority that the guidelines are non-binding (compare the repeated refusal of the community to delist File:Evstafiev-bosnia-cello.jpg, which has 0.3 MP only). Everyone seems to apply his or her own guidelines (otherwise we'd just purge every single image on this page from FP); therefore, so do I. My opinion is that a Featured Picture should be of sufficient quality to be printable at a reasonable size (say, an A4 page). I will still decide on a case-by-case basis, but in general anything below 5 MP is insufficient for me. -- JovanCormac 16:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The composition and lighting are spectacular enough to ignore the regrettable resolution. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support GerardM (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As per anon dissident. -- Petritap (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per AD. --Lošmi (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Black Panther convention2.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 03:42:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

[edit] File:GIB 2007-09-18.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2009 at 21:47:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gibraltar Airport
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by Nervousenergy - uploaded by Nervousenergy - nominated by Avala -- Avala (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nicely done and it is a very interesting panorama for a change, not just many images stitched together for no reason -- Avala (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks cool, the resolution could have been higher though. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, very different from the usual panoramas. --Aqwis (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love this. The angle, the setting, the crisp detail and of course, the unusual sight of a plane taking off in 5 stages...it's exactly what I want to see in a panorama. Great work Nervousenergy, and a nice find Avala. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral This panorama is awesome. I'd support if there was a higher resolution (not downsampled), which is probably easily achievable given the very low vertical size (800px) -S23678 (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting at first look, but resolution is too low and crop on top too tight IMO. -- JovanCormac 07:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very interesting time-lapse. Great picture. I don't think there is any resolution problem. There is not need of artifical addition of pixels where they don't exist (which is the case of many photographs here) -- Blago Tebi (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive! Diti the penguin — 14:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question: - It has some over expsure / apperture in the most left part (not the sky, but in the buildings below). Can that be fixed without the need to retake the picture again? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think that retaking the image would give you any different results. It is the combination of sea fog and sun that creates haze and if you want to include that part of the city in an image I doubt you would ever have different results at this time of the day. Maybe it wouldn't be noticeable if there wasn't for the part of panorama on the right, but these are essentially different images as they were taken under different light and geographic conditions.--Avala (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great view, high quality --Cesco77 (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode✉ 22:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 05:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gorgeous. 99of9 (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great idea to make such a picture. Grand-Duc (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the fpc category: Objects/Vehicles#Air

[edit] File:SkansenSeptember2007 2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 05:40:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: View from Skansen in Bergen, Norway, in September 2007. created by Aqwis - nominated by Anon -- 122.169.86.252 05:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just a random snapshot. -- JovanCormac 07:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, as the creator, I can confirm that it was, indeed, a random snapshot. ;) --Aqwis (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above --Leafnode✉ 22:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Prang's Valentine Cards2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2009 at 03:17:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by L. Prang & Co. - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova Restored from File:Prang's Valentine Cards.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Durova (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love you, Durova. -- JovanCormac 06:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support GerardM (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Terrible. --Karel (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Alright, that's it. I'm getting pretty sick of your one word image reviews; they contribute nothing to the discussion, tell the creator/restorer nothing about what's wrong with the image and how they could improve it. That's just downright rude, but 'terrible'? That's just going too far. 'Terrible', you say? 'Great' I say. Durova is one of the most talented people I've ever had the pleasure of meeting, so the next words you type had better be 'sorry' and 'it won't happen again'. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm wondering whether we should consider (i.e., tally) these kind of votes. It does not contribute at all, imho. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but this is great missunderstandg on side of Lover of Waves. I did not mean, that Durova is terrible. I have never seen her, so maybe is, maybe not. And this is not important in this age of plastic surgery possibilities. But what I really claim is, that this image is one of most ugly kitsch I have ever seen and we should vote about it´s deleting from Wiki instead of FP nomination. --Karel (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
And since my potential need for plastic surgery has come under discussion, here's a portrait. In future, please refrain from this level of personal commentary during reviews.
        • Kitsch of a certain age becomes historic; this example is from 1883. Louis Prang was an important publisher. Durova (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, forget about surgery, please. But IHMO kitsch is kitsch and if this image is old, it is just only old kitsch. --Karel (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As per Jovan. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Durova's work is very good, but I don't like the card. --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, Durova's work is so good, card is "terrible" maybe, but is a historical document --Cesco77 (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg A favore Yes, really terrible :-D --Phyrexian (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Bravo Durova ! Takabeg (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the fpc category: Historical

[edit] File:Jan Garbarek-2007-2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 21:38:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jan Garbarek Group Athens concert in Lycabettus theater, July 10th, 2007
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created by Dimitris Papazimouris from Halandri, Greece - uploaded by Jocian - editing by Carschten – nominated by Jocian -- Jocian (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jocian (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment /me is puzzled by the horizontal banding in the noise in the background. What is it ? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice work correcting the exposure, but the extreme image noise is a no-go for me given the low resolution, and it also looks like the color balance is off (red). -- JovanCormac 07:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Not the best quality (see JovanCormac), but the way you look at the musican in action is imo so brilliant that i would Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn 21:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much overexposure and noise. --Korman (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neu