Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2009
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
This is an archive for Commons:Featured picture candidates page debates and voting.
The debates are closed and should not be edited.
[edit] File:Currier and Ives Liberty2.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2009 at 02:58:17
Info: created by Currier & Ives - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from 
by Durova -- Durova (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)- Info: Published one year before the statue was erected. Depicts it facing southward instead of eastward, with Manhattan and the Brooklyn Bridge in the background.
Support -- Durova (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)- Support Thank you for this image!--Mbz1 (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Neutral You did a wonderful job with stitching. But i don't like too tight crop. I would prefer and support original framing. --Lošmi (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Cropping tight on large borders makes the image display better in thumbnail at articles. Durova (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know, this one looks ok in Statue of Liberty article. The Commons isn't only a storage for pictures that will appear in Wikipedia articles. It's also an image archive. For example, if someone would print this he wouldn't have thumbnail restriction. --Lošmi (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Cropping tight on large borders makes the image display better in thumbnail at articles. Durova (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very high quality. —kallerna™ 19:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Crop and colours per Lošmi. Lycaon (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)- Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Combestone tor edit1.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2009 at 04:01:14
- Info: created by Herbythyme - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good mood --Muhammad 07:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose centered composition doesn't convince me. Sorry. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose centered composition and unfortunate crop left. Lycaon (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Per Muhammad --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support I guess - it catches the place quite well. --Herby talk thyme 17:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. —kallerna™ 19:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As other opposers! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support per Herby -- Klaus with K (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition and quality --S23678 (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as others Dcubillas (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Anopheles albimanus mosquito.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2009 at 11:39:09
- Info: Anopheles albimanus mosquito feeding on a human arm - created by James Gathany - uploaded by Fireice - nominated by Pruneau -- Pruneautalk 11:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pruneautalk 11:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Oversharpened, noisy and focus not right. --Muhammad 11:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment I agree with Muhammad, but it is an impressing image too. --S. Martín (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)- Support Correct exposure, DoF and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy. —kallerna™ 19:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Technically rather poor; composition great. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose composition AND image quality should be "great" for FP... -- Dcubillas (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose like before --Doucus (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Great Egret strikes for a Fish c.JPG, not featured
Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2009 at 17:05:24
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support I really do not like of this one, but for some reason, it's very hypnotizing. —kallerna™ 19:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Mainly composition. Moreover, there is one thing (that I believe to be a leaf) on the top right which is distracting. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above, mainly composition. I understand you may have waited a long period to capture this image, but the only clear thing from this image is the oval body of the bird. The rest of the bird is underwater, and the rest of the picture is feature-less water. The water splash is nice, but can't compensate for the rest. Sorry --S23678 (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Palo blanco 1.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2009 at 18:15:42
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support This is called a Palo Blanco, native to the coastal areas of the Sonora Desert, Mexico. If you can identify it by scientific name, feel free to do so... Nothing stops you... it would be appreciated. I take the picture, you identify it and everybody benefits... -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Very good colours but I find the cutoff branch disturbing. --Muhammad 04:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose "This media file is uncategorized.", more info needed, crop (whole tree isn't in the picture), something wrong with quality... —kallerna™ 19:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Un-interresting subject --S23678 (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose same as others Dcubillas (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Beggar Saint Elisabeth Group.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2009 at 20:55:42
- Info:Woodcarved statue of beggar 1900 created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Moroder -- alpinus5 (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- alpinus5 (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The picture cuts off another statue, unbalancing the image. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Starscream (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC) average quality.
- Oppose Agree with Sarcastic ShockwaveLover. —kallerna™ 14:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:F-22 Raptor.JPG
Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2009 at 10:57:22
- Info: created by Andy Dunaway - uploaded by High Contrast - nominated by High Contrast -- High Contrast (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- High Contrast (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment -- Super! Could you remove vignetting? It also seems underexposed a bit... --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Wow, really cool photo. If you remove vignetting as mentioned by Dmitry A. Mottl and the dust spots (I have counted three already), you get my approval. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Great picture, but the vignetting and dust spots are a problem. I'd correct them myself, but my experience in that particular arena is limited. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I tried to remove the vignetting but the result unfortunately did not convince me. Does anyone have any improvements for this image, please upload. Thanks and greets, High Contrast (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment COMPETITION! How about the competition? The best edit of this picture --85.140.175.143 17:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Edited version, featured
- Comment Please separate nominations not to invalidate later vote count. Lycaon (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support edited version --Karel (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support F-22 Raptor edit1.jpg --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support edited version --ianaré (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose very plain (!) composition. Lycaon (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support For edit version --Jagro (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Still quite boring. —kallerna™ 18:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good job editing this excellent photo. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Macro shots of insects are boring. Not this! --Phil13 (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- +1 :) --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- +1.5 - While they're not 'boring', they're less interesting to me than this. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- +1 :) --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Cantharis livida 2.jpg, withdrawed
Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2009 at 03:53:22
- Info: created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Soldier Beetle (Cantharis livida) bottom view
- Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Richard, what is this thing at his head that looks like a dew?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Richard bought a Swarovski Crystal for his little friend ...that's how he convinces those little creatures to pose for him ;) --AngMoKio (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Clear case of bribery :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Richard bought a Swarovski Crystal for his little friend ...that's how he convinces those little creatures to pose for him ;) --AngMoKio (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --S. Martín (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Have to think about it...I wish the Beetle would be a bit brighter. --AngMoKio (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Another good one --Muhammad 20:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Correct exposure, DoF and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
In favour to the edit below. --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Cantharis_livida_2_edit1.jpg, featured
- Info: Lifted shadows to brighten the beetle.
- Support --Muhammad 20:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Correct exposure, DoF and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Better. —kallerna™ 19:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Better than the one above. Ps.: I think the yellow background is the weakest part of this photo. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Info: I have recovered the colors --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support now it is perfect :) --AngMoKio (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Starscream (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:CRT color enhanced.png, not featured
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2009 at 11:35:04
- Info: created by Grm wnr - uploaded by Grm wnr - nominated by Vaan -- 87.78.189.9 11:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Good image, but should be in SVG --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule 5 days). --Karel (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:House at Eaglemont1.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2009 at 17:33:34
- Info: created by Ottre - uploaded by Ottre - nominated by Ottre. Ottre 17:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Having photographed the area on a couple of occasions, in my opinion this image is paticularly striking. The sunlight hitting the building more than makes up for the slight lack of sharpness in the foliage/overgrowth. Ottre 17:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The lack of quality is too important, and the composition/colors are rather ordinary. --S23678 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad quality, nothing outstanding. —kallerna™ 18:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Starscream (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Unsatisfactory quality.
- Oppose --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Oriental Pearl Tower Reflection.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2009 at 01:30:18
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by ZHart -- ZHart (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- ZHart (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Starscream (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC) De trop of elements round the building.
- Oppose --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose "This media file is uncategorized.", many distracting elements. —kallerna™ 19:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As per Kallerna. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Ruines-fort1 (by).jpg, not featured
.jpg)
- Info: created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose snapshot --Andreas 06 (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. The green barrier is disturbing. Tiago Fioreze (talk)
- Oppose That rail ruins it. —kallerna™ 19:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Hokanji Kyoto01n4272.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2009 at 15:19:14
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by 663highland -- 663highland (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- 663highland (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, bad quality. —kallerna™ 19:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition and serious noise problems in the shadow areas of the building.--PieCam (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:NYPDNYCUnitedStatesofAmerica.jpg, withdrawed
Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2009 at 23:01:19
- Info: created by, uploaded by and nominated by Massimo Catarinella -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Technically very good, pinkish glow of the neon signs by night well rendered. Yet, it's more of a poster and less of a featured picture to me... --JY REHBY (discuter) 23:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
-
- Isn't it the purpose of FP's to have the quality and appearance of a poster, since posters are often regarded as great pictures? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support I would have loved to take that shot! --Phil13 (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Although neons probably were pink, I think, white balance should be in each case slightly colder. In combination with very hight contrast it's a little problematic. But nice composition and quality. --Martin Kozák (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've created a new version with a different color balance. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful shot ZHart (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose EDIT: Per other opposers + composition (too much of that road). —kallerna™ 13:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Could you provide a reason for opposing? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
I've nominated a new (hopefully) final version. This version deals with the white balance problem and it is sharper. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Withdrawed by author
[edit] File:JamesJoyce1904.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2009 at 10:28:07
- Info: uploaded and nominated Paris 16 (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support Face, stance, and context all interesting, for an important subject. Dcrjsr (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Claus (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support Freedom to share (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 18:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Improper licensing; no documentation that this is public domain in Ireland (hence may be an invalid Commons upload), and the source link returns a 404 error. Durova (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Before officially listing this as featured, can we be clear on the licensing? (otherwise I believe it needs to be deleted, sigh.) It seems to be PD in the US. As far as I can tell, the PD status in Ireland depends on whether the current 2000 law (70years after death of author) is retroactive in Ireland. I had a quick look, and it looks like "Constantine P. Curran" died in 1972. (oops, forgot to sign comment) --JalalV (talk)
- see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#.7B.7Btl.7CPD-US.7D.7D
- this voting will be closed if the discussion on COM:AN is done
- --D-Kuru (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Kuvaly (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose JukoFF (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Constantine P. Curran (1880-1972) : not in the public domain yet... --Diligent (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
RESULT: => not featured. It is clear that the image received enough votes to be featured. However, we cannot feature images that are not properly licensed. There is significant doubt about the license here, and this concern has not been addressed in any satisfactory way, despite several weeks have passed. I decided, knowing that there was no editor willing to close it as "promote", it is best now to close this nomination as "not featured". We can always vote again when we are sure about the license.
--- Crapload (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Golden Mantled Ground Squirrel Sulphur Mountain Banff.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2009 at 00:01:21
- Info: A pair of golden mantled ground squirrels created by Cash4alex - uploaded by Cash4alex - nominated by Staka -- staka.talk 00:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- staka.talk 00:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Karel (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Really great picture! they seems to be the cousin of Chip 'n Dale? Otourly (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Serbish (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a pretty ordinary picture of a squirrel. I like the current FP better.-- Crapload (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Not that good of a composition or light. --Dori - Talk 00:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunate light. Lycaon (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Light. --S. Martín (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC).
- Oppose Very well done, but the current featured picture is better. —kallerna™ 19:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Starscream (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Dori. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose because the current featured picture is better --Doucus (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose not quite there... agree with others Dcubillas (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 supports, 8 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Early flight 02562u.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2009 at 04:56:38
- Info: created by Romanet & cie., imp. edit.- uploaded by Trialsanderrors - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I have to admit I was quite surprised this wasn't featured already - I would have sworn it was - but as it's not... Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Karel (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --S. Martín (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC).
- Support —kallerna™ 19:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Unsharp; technical inaccuracies. See comments here.[1] Durova (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
-
- The comment you link to is about a picture which is not part of this sheet as far as I can see. What is your point then? In any case I see the candidate picture rather as a piece of art than an exact depiction in all detail. It is sufficiently sharp in my opinion. bamse (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Starscream (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support bamse (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Question: What does the "02562u" in the filename stand for? bamse (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Library of Congress reference number. If you downloaded it from the Library of Congress, at http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.02562 the filename would be 02562u.tif. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see. On the loc-site I get a "No records were found for the search." message though. Maybe a temporary problem. The candidate image could have a more descriptive filename. bamse (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- There's a lot of sections on the LoC site - it may be that the tag's linking to the wrong one. I'll poke into it later on. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see. On the loc-site I get a "No records were found for the search." message though. Maybe a temporary problem. The candidate image could have a more descriptive filename. bamse (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Library of Congress reference number. If you downloaded it from the Library of Congress, at http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.02562 the filename would be 02562u.tif. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Hřib hnědý 1.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2009 at 10:55:56
- Info: created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karel (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Karel (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice colors, sharpness and depth. --Lošmi (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Don't like the flash and the stick in the foreground. Also composition is kind of boring. bamse (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Correct exposure, DoF and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Contra composition is a bit confusing also the harsh light of the flash is problematic. Sorry. --AngMoKio (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per bamse. —kallerna™ 19:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As other opposers. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as other opposers. --staka.talk 23:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Starscream (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC) insufficiently sharpnes of image.
- Oppose because a bit confusing --Doucus (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 supports, 7 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:PragueFromPetrin.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2009 at 15:10:45
- Info: created by Aqwis - uploaded by Aqwis - nominated by Aqwis -- Aqwis (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Aqwis (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very good, might be enhanced by a slight recropping at the bottom. --JY REHBY (discuter) 18:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition is not interesting enough. Crapload (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Interesting enough. —kallerna™ 19:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --S23678 (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Starscream (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Too much skies The light from the sky spoils the view of buildings.
- Pretty difficult to crop away any of the sky without cutting the cathedral in half, hmm? --Aqwis (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose not very interesting Dcubillas (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose not spectacular like other panorama FPs. --Estrilda (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per previous --Pom² (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Mt Misery cross & view.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2009 at 17:22:01
- Info:The cross at Mt Misery, w:Dartmoor probably marking the route for monks travelling between Buckfast & Tavistock. In the background the basin is Fox Tor mire, a peat bog. It may well have been the inspiration for Grimpen Mire in the "w:Hound of the Baskervilles"
- Info: created and uploaded by Herbythyme - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The picture looks underexposed to me, the focus is drawn to the background, rather than to the cross. Lycaon (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose the cross and the landscape in the foreground appear underexposed to me --Cayambe (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
result: Withdrawn => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Scatophaga stercoraria 3 Luc Viatour.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2009 at 05:14:13
- Info: created and uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 05:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Muhammad 05:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Love it.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wow -- Man On Mission (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Correct exposure, DoF and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Richardesque. --norro 10:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Fancy --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Check the name: + "h": w:Scathophaga. -- AKA MBG (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 19:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Excellent picture. Superb when drastically cropped (two drops of dew are enough). --Cayambe (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Outstanding! Tiago Fioreze (talk)
- Support --staka.talk 23:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Starscream (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Doucus (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support →Diti the penguin — 12:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dezidor (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Estrilda (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Male elks in Yellowstone NP.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2009 at 05:14:50
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support good - Man On Mission (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Correct exposure, DoF and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Quite ordinary photo, bad quality. —kallerna™ 19:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As Kallerna, very poor quality. Lycaon (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry, technical quality not excellent --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality (looks oversharpened) --S23678 (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Starscream (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC) The very not sharpnes of image.
- Oppose- ordinary -- Dcubillas (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Ranch house in Canela.jpg
[edit] Original, not featured
Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2009 at 20:59:55
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice place.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not a member here, but just thought I would comment - This image has had some pretty wonky editing done to it, easily noticeable at full size. Probably shouldn't be featured. 76.11.35.34 23:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, you are right. I've done some editing... to remove the noise. I gotta say I'm tired of getting my photos declined cause of noise, that's why this photo was heavily edited. I may upload the original one in a couple of days for you to judge it. I appreciate your observation, though. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Contra agree with 76.11.35.34. But it has a nice composition...maybe you try again with a less edited version. --AngMoKio (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Noise reduction ≠ detail reduction. Lycaon (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose –From the exif info: " Contrast : Hard - Saturation : High saturation - Sharpness : Hard ". That explains almost everything: bright halo around highly contrasted areas, over-saturated colors, unnatural colors, etc. Plus chromatic aberations. Sting (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per other opposers. —kallerna™ 19:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Ranch house in Canela - Original version.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- weak Support as I like the composition but dislike i.e. the lack of focus at the right. Might be a camera issue, misadjusted optics. -- Klaus with K (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Unfortunately, it is a camera issue :( I've got a Pentax K10D, which is known by having an image sharpness drawback when shooting at JPEG format.
- Oppose Looks slightly too much out of focus --S23678 (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Pectoral Sandpiper3.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2009 at 19:10:58
- Info: created by Merops - uploaded by Merops - nominated by Merops -- Merops (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Merops (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good DOF, nice background, excellent light, a tad over-sharpened. --Dori - Talk 19:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great picture. Please add the locality where the shot was taken. --Cayambe (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Geolocation would be nice. —kallerna™ 19:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Geolocation is added Merops (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Excellent shot, very sharp. →Diti the penguin — 21:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --staka.talk 23:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support - great! -- Man On Mission (talk) 07:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Avala (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Starscream (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Doucus (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Villa16 (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Neutral Background is
fakepoorly processed --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC) - Info: The background is not a fake. Sorry I'am to tired to explain it again. You can read my german explanation here Merops (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Granville-Paris Express Replica.JPG, not featured
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2009 at 21:36:23
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Starscream (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Admirable. Not trite.
- Support A lovely example of a en:Folly. -- MartinD (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Clear (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Regardless of the technical quality, I find the topic to be in bad taste. It was an accident that made at least one casualty... --JY REHBY (discuter) 23:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment With all the respect Sir/Madam, if that is a criterion to oppose my photo, then photos of the Roman Coliseum should be opposed as well, since thousands of people died in there. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Neutral I like the subject (I didn't even know a replica existed) but there's too much chromatic aberration to my taste (pink/blue contours everywhere). →Diti the penguin — 11:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Well seen it! I've done some chromatic aberration reduction and uploaded a new version. I think it looks rather better than the original version. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, the subject makes it look a little like a tourist photo to me, and it's got a weird sawtooth effect on it (see the red parts of the train) which might be do to the chromatic aberration removal. And the composition could be better with things being cut off on the top and sides of the image. --IG-64 (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As per IG-64. --PieCam (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Technically not perfect, but somehow I like it. —kallerna™ 14:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - really needs perspective correction (see the building verticals) - Peripitus (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think this replica has sense, without the correct context around (the train station should be Montparnasse train station in Paris, and that one doesn't look like it at all). Benh (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose: Agree with IG-64. Maedin\talk 12:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Hiroshige II - Kishu kumano iwatake tori - Shokoku meisho hyakkei.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2009 at 22:12:26
- Info: created by Category:Hiroshige II - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Info: The streaky appearance is caused by paper texture, and is normal for ukiyo-e prints. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Question: The date, 1860, is the year of the printing, the year of the (pre-woodblock) drawing or both? bamse (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- The year of the printing, as far as I'm aware - I'd be extremely surprised if it referred to anything else, given the Ukiyo-e print is the "finished" work; most preliminary work, is, as far as I'm aware, done as a sketch directly on the uncarved woodblock. That said, the date is specifically the one given by the Library of Congress for the image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. Still a general question to "Featured picture candidates": the voting in such cases is for the scan, not the original piece of art, correct? In any case I vote with Support bamse (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it's a mixture - if the scan and/or restoration was terrible, you should probably oppose, but the art itself should also be of historic, artistic, and/or encyclopedic merit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- In that case I'd like to give two support votes: great restoration/scan. BTW, the (png version restored) you linked to in the image description does not exist (yet?). 00:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Drat! Thought I got all of them. I'll upload that now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- In that case I'd like to give two support votes: great restoration/scan. BTW, the (png version restored) you linked to in the image description does not exist (yet?). 00:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it's a mixture - if the scan and/or restoration was terrible, you should probably oppose, but the art itself should also be of historic, artistic, and/or encyclopedic merit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. Still a general question to "Featured picture candidates": the voting in such cases is for the scan, not the original piece of art, correct? In any case I vote with
- The year of the printing, as far as I'm aware - I'd be extremely surprised if it referred to anything else, given the Ukiyo-e print is the "finished" work; most preliminary work, is, as far as I'm aware, done as a sketch directly on the uncarved woodblock. That said, the date is specifically the one given by the Library of Congress for the image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Starscream (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 14:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Actually a very nice print (and scan), but unfortunately you've cropped the lutescent frame. It would be okay, when the corners weren't rounden, but in this picture the corners look very unaesthetic. --KaterBegemot 15:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Metal gear.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2009 at 23:38:01
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support an exercise on rythm and contour -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Durova (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Starscream (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It's a good quality picture but I question its value as FP. I think there should be a wow factor somewhere.--Phil13 (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Phil13. —kallerna™ 19:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Background noise ZHart (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support I see no noise and I like it.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I think what's missing here is context. It might be more interesting if you could see the rest of the gear, and what it was connected to. --IG-64 (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose "Quality Image" perhaps? Dcubillas (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose: Agree with IG-64. Needs more context. Maedin\talk 13:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Juvenile red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2009 at 19:14:47
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Something annoys me.. is it blur? --staka.talk 03:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor composition. (e.g. tail is cut) Lycaon (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Lycaon. —kallerna™ 13:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose not sharp in detail.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It's so fuzzy. --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Sonora sunset.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 22:37:33
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - nothing special, a lot of JPG noise, not sharp enough. --Yerpo (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy. —kallerna™ 14:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per kallerna.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:The Journey2.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2009 at 03:31:44
- Info: created by Elizabeth Shippen Green - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:The Journey.jpg. Lower resolution version for slow connections at File:The Journey2 courtesy copy.jpg. -- Durova (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Durova (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Starscream (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC) The picture as many other.
- Support--Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow. —kallerna™ 19:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Clear (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Dezidor (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support A nice watercolour by a noted children's book illustrator. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per other opposers Lycaon (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support: What Adam Cuerden said. Maedin\talk 13:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Sao Paulo Railway.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2009 at 06:05:23
- Info: created by Silvio Tanaka - uploaded by Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton - nominated by Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Starscream (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC) De trop of the light in the central part of the photograph.
- Support Superbe! --Luc Viatour (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support very nice b/w picture --AngMoKio (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --StaraBlazkova (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Might be artistic, but too processed to me. —kallerna™ 19:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Fantastic! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 07:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support technically not perfect but great composition --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support--João Felipe C.S (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --staka.talk 04:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Just railway station photo... --Karel (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's like saying this picture is just a tower. They're both exercises in perspective, and they both succeed, at least to my thinking. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like unnecessary desaturated (and so not real) black and whites. It serves no purpose but to hide flaws in a colour version IMO. Lycaon (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Maybe not perfect and no special encyclopedic value, but great --Pom² (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support: I think some of the effect would be lost if this weren't black and white. Maedin\talk 13:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Gaspra-AiPetri.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2009 at 15:41:04
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by User:Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wow! —kallerna™ 15:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Kind of cool! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Definitely a beautiful panoramic picture. --JY REHBY (discuter) 23:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wow indeed. --Yerpo (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Pretty high technical quality, but not enough wow. -- Crapload (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -I agree with Crapload----- also... The side of the mountain is in shadow (50% of the image which is also the foreground), so most of what's interesting in this shot is poorly illuminated leaving it flat and boring. ... maybe If the light came from the opposite direction, or with the sun seen on the horizon and the light hitting the snow on the mountain at an angle... basically, a different light would be better. Im sure it is quite a breathtaking place... just not captured very well in this shot. It might make a good Quality Image candidate though. - Dcubillas (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Karel (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support: Maedin\talk 13:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 07:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Canon MP-E65mm.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2009 at 23:17:48
- Info: created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Info: The MP-E 65mm Macro f/2.8 is a 5x loupe lens manufactured by Canon for use on the EOS photographic system.
- Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Question: What's this white spot in the back? bamse (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- In the background ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, behind what I believe is the lens mount. Also if you look in the upper left corner of the picture there is some distracting pattern. Are those shadows or caused by the lighting? I checked that it is not dirt on my screen. In the picture of the Agfa Click, the background is uniform. bamse (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Could you make the foreground totally white as well? --Muhammad 03:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- As well ? Is there a rule for bright backgrounds ? I prefer this style / aesthetic --Richard Bartz (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- The background seems flawlessly white. With the foreground white as well, it easier for designers who want to use the picture. I will support a white foreground version, Neutral on this one --Muhammad 14:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support for "white" --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- The background seems flawlessly white. With the foreground white as well, it easier for designers who want to use the picture. I will support a white foreground version,
- As well ? Is there a rule for bright backgrounds ? I prefer this style / aesthetic --Richard Bartz (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Same thing as here (no wow). —kallerna™ 14:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose should be nominated for "Quality Image"... not FP Dcubillas (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As per Dcubillas again. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Lophophanes cristatus Luc Viatour 5.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2009 at 10:56:40
- Info: created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support I have already presented a similar picture HERE, but I prefer the latter-- Luc Viatour (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support →Diti the penguin — 11:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Love it... Why? 1) Lighting is just about perfect, giving good texture and volume to elements. 2) Texture of branch. 3) The diagonal makes it dynamic visually and 4) The bird is just plain cool. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support agree ... The bird is just plain cool. --norro 21:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Durova (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great shot --Cayambe (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Doucus (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 14:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support The bird's forelock is just great :P Tiago Fioreze (talk)
- Support great -Theklan (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support difficult subject - good result. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. →Diti the penguin — 18:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Mens' ballroom shoes, Eurodance CZ.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2009 at 03:17:28
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Martin Kozák -- Martin Kozák (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Martin Kozák (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support —Jagro (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose A good picture but I do not see anything special that can make a pair of shoes featured, sorry :( --Muhammad 16:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support I don't see anything to convince me to vote for oppose. --Aktron (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Muhammad (no wow). —kallerna™ 14:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The shoes could be used to throw at important politicians I guess, but otherwise, lets leave this one out. Zul32 (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Not bad, but nothing special. --Dezidor (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose should be nominated for "Quality Image"... not FP Dcubillas (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As per Dcubillas. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose badly arranged, I would say that laces should be arrange better. Even the left shoe is quite damaged--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC).
- Oppose: I think an image of ballroom shoes could be featured, if they were being worn and on a dance floor and perhaps with the woman's shoes as well. The footwork involved in ballroom dances like the foxtrot or quickstep is quite complex at competition level and I imagine would make an interesting picture. As it is, there isn't enough interest here for a FP. Maedin\talk 13:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --staka.talk 20:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:La Defense - Stairway to Heaven.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2009 at 08:22:20
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Dmitry A. Mottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral I really like the composition. But I think sth is not right with the white balance. Am I right? Maybe this should get fixed. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- The composition is quite good, but is really flawed by that pole there. Just behind the escalator. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 13:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support An interesting shot--Mbz1 (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Villa16 (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Karel (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Rare shot, if you're not paying a model in a business suit! --Specious (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Yes! I have paid him fifty bucks, a beer and a hamburger --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Conan (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Hey, thats cool. Next time I will support your nomination for a cheeseburger and beer too.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment sorry, support only for coca-cola --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Parque nacional del Teide edit.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2009 at 13:30:21
- Info: created by kallerna - uploaded by Richard Bartz (edited version) - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 13:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 13:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Conditional Support. Excellent composition marred by artifacting. Is a better version available? Durova (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose ordinary, bad image quality Dcubillas (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose: I think it could be a great subject, but unfortunately this picture has caught it looking foggy and non-descript. Maedin\talk 13:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Porsche race car Verschuur amk.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2009 at 16:25:13
- Info: created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Panning shot of a Porsche racing car --AngMoKio (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- AngMoKio (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Question: Could you crop it? —kallerna™ 14:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice --Muhammad 15:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Only image of car race, nothing special. --Karel (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
-
- The difficult thing about such shots is that this car is maybe 200 km/h fast, which wouldnt be a problem if you chose a shutter speed 1/800 or shorter. But you want to capture the motion too so you chose a shutter speed of 1/100 or longer. This way it is not that easy anymore to get a clear shot of a car. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good dynamic & technical execution --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the composition. --Dori - Talk 22:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 2oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Motor cycle stunt2 amk.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2009 at 16:26:08
- Info: created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Info: I give it a try with another panning shot - this time of a motorcycle stunt show. --AngMoKio (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- AngMoKio (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support. Excellent use of panning on a well executed sport stunt. Durova (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 09:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 14:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wow! --Karel (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Estrilda (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Coles Phillips2 Life.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 00:45:29
- Info: created by Coles Phillips - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Coles Phillips Life.jpg. -- Durova (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Coles Phillips was a U.S. illustrator whose most influential innovation was the "fadeaway girl", in which foreground and background color match to create an impression of negative space. Cover art for Life Magazine, 27 January 1910.
- Support -- Durova (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice job!--Mbz1 (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- GerardM (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Coyau (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support: Maedin\talk 19:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Refraction of GGB in rain droplets 2.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 02:07:39
- Info: created, uploaded by and nominated by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Info: The image is not downsampled. It is cropped.
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great eye! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
* Neutral I don't know what to do. Its quality isn't that good, but it isn't the point in the photo. Confused about the whole purpose of the photo. —kallerna™ 14:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
-
- The purpose of the image was to show w:refraction of GGB in rain drops that act as lenses. The image has high EV and educational value. The similar image, but of a smaller resolution, is used in 4 Wikipedia articles, and is FP on English Wikipedia. Please take a look at discussion page for the image. I got many requests for a higher resolution image, so I tried to do my best. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Ok, I see. —kallerna™ 20:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Cool idea, but I don't see the quality in it. The blur does not look cool here. It is high EV, so it may be a good VI candidate. If it's FP somewhere else, my $0.02 is it shouldn't be for quality. Not saying it's an easy shot. Thanks for taking it. --Specious (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
-
- It is not a blur, it calls distortion. In some of the droplets you could actually see the cables of the bridge. Just think about this such a huge structure as a bridge's tower and its cables fit in a rain droplet... Anyway thank you for the vote. I did enjoy reading your oppose reason.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I can see the bridge in the drolets, and it's fine. But the droplets themselves are blurry everywhere by the centre. The image is particularly blurry towards the corners. I understand that achieving a deep enough DOF may be impossbile. Sometimes, it's impossible to make a quality image. So, I'm not bashing the execution. --Specious (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Of course it is a macro shot of windshield of my car. It is all, but impossible to have all droplets sharp. First of all because it is a macro and second of all because the windshield has some lean of course. It might be interesting to know that depennding on the angle of that lean, one might see droplets in some cars models, while in others there are no droplets seen. Please feel absolutely free critique the execution. I do not consider myself to be a good photographer, but sometimes I take rather interesting pictures IMO. Anyway thank you for your interest in my image.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, my Jeep Wrangler had a flat windshield. So did the Hummer I stumbled upon today. Not criticising your car, but perhaps it wasn't the best instrument to use here. A set-up could be constructed. We're talking about featured pictures here, the best of the best, cream of the crop. --Specious (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Of course it is a macro shot of windshield of my car. It is all, but impossible to have all droplets sharp. First of all because it is a macro and second of all because the windshield has some lean of course. It might be interesting to know that depennding on the angle of that lean, one might see droplets in some cars models, while in others there are no droplets seen. Please feel absolutely free critique the execution. I do not consider myself to be a good photographer, but sometimes I take rather interesting pictures IMO. Anyway thank you for your interest in my image.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I can see the bridge in the drolets, and it's fine. But the droplets themselves are blurry everywhere by the centre. The image is particularly blurry towards the corners. I understand that achieving a deep enough DOF may be impossbile. Sometimes, it's impossible to make a quality image. So, I'm not bashing the execution. --Specious (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is not a blur, it calls distortion. In some of the droplets you could actually see the cables of the bridge. Just think about this such a huge structure as a bridge's tower and its cables fit in a rain droplet... Anyway thank you for the vote. I did enjoy reading your oppose reason.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice idea, good execution :-). @User:Specious I will vote on that hypothetical better execution when it is submitted ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support. Your cleverness in composing this photo was extraordinary. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose A photography that isn't really featured picture quality. --staka.talk 04:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support It's an interesting effect; beats another bug picture. I'll support until a better one comes along. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Tomás on the 'eye': the effect is cute, but unfortunately execution is poor. Lycaon (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support I agree with Fioreze Conan (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support It shines out --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Goosta (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Support Great
but not valuable--Pom² (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC) - Oppose I'm not too keen on abstract photos when I don't see any meaning to it (Do not take it personaly though, just a personal understanding of it). Benh (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- and I think there are better ways to show refraction phenomena. Benh (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Benh, your oppose is fine. If you opposed for quality or no wow, I would not have said a second word, but...I like to point out that the similar, but lower resolution image has been the top image in w:refraction for a year. Do you really believe, that if there was a better way to show refraction, the image would have been allowed to be there for such a long time? It is also used in three other articles. You know how much I like atmospheric optics. May I please ask you to share with me what are better ways to show refraction phenomena that it would be both beautiful and scientific? Please do not take it personaly, but I believe, if you said that there are better ways, you should have had something in mind? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Support I like the mood. --Lošmi (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry - not enough in focus. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:George Romney - William Shakespeare - The Tempest Act I, Scene 1.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 11:05:40
- Info: created by George Romney et al. - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- GerardM (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very interesting subject. The photo enables to see a lot of details. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:KK Boat Drop-Off.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 11:38:12
- Info: created by Dcubillas - uploaded by Dcubillas - nominated by Dcubillas -- Dcubillas (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Messy composition. —kallerna™ 14:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Well captured complex scene. --Specious (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As per Kallerna. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Jerusalem Oesterreichisches Hospiz.JPG
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 14:45:59
- Info: created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Jerusalem, View from the roof of the Austrian Hospice towards the Dome of the Rock
- Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose What is the subject of this image? A single building or site? Jerusalem? Relationships between Austria and Israel? Samulili (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Samulili + that fence ruins the photo. —kallerna™ 20:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with others Dcubillas (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Chicken February 2009-1.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 18:46:49
- Info: After a long FPC pause, let's slowly re-start... with a joke. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- We sure can use a good joke ... GerardM (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment welcome back...and welcome to the "panning shot business". Panning shots of chicken is a whole new area of photography that has to get explored. Now I wonder why I only focused on cars. :) --AngMoKio (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral I really like the picture. I am just not sure if it needs a crop....have to think about it. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Only about 2% of the photo is clear. —kallerna™ 20:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good!!! --Karel (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Lovely image!--Mbz1 (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great picture! I love chickens too. Zul32 (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Run, baby run .. wifey is already waiting for you --85.181.41.89 00:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)- Support good one -- Dcubillas (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Love it! Is the chicken running away from the KFC guy? :P Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not too keen on poor quality war propaganda. --norro 19:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment You gotta be kidding it! How does a chicken running identify with war propaganda? Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm assuming it has soming to do with this nomination. That was Lyacon's oppose to my nomination, though I fail to see the relevance here. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Did the commons community lose its sense for humour? Hope not :) --AngMoKio (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Question: - I don't think norro is kidding, otherwise he wouldn't have insisted on the oppose vote. Could you please explain? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I capitulate. Yes, of course I was kidding. But since even you as the one who initially started this nomination as a joke also didn't get this joke, I think I have to reset my sence of humour. *sigh* --norro 16:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Did the commons community lose its sense for humour? Hope not :) --AngMoKio (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm assuming it has soming to do with this nomination. That was Lyacon's oppose to my nomination, though I fail to see the relevance here. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Well, I don't usually intrude like a party pooper, but for me the picture has next to nothing regarding a wicked panning shot, sorry. --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment its not a chicken but hen.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support nice. Well, light conditions are a little bit strange.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: - Please notice the time, the hen is running to the sunset... Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose: I don't like to oppose, because I couldn't do a panning shot if my life depended on it. But there just isn't enough bird in focus. I agree with Kallerna. Maedin\talk 13:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- I guess I just like the picture.;) MartinD (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Kicks ass! --Aktron (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support /Daniel78 (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Impressive control --Dori - Talk 22:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Neutrophil with anthrax copy.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 20:29:42
- Info: created by Volker Brinkmann - uploaded by Tim Vickers - nominated by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Neutrophil engulfing anthrax bacteria. Scanning electron micrograph. The bar represents 5 micrometers.
- Support -- Durova (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- WoW GerardM (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice, thought it was a macrophage, but I'll take your word for it ;)--PieCam (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support wow :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 11:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 14:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support ummmm, could be featured.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Muhammad 02:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:NYC CentralStation amk.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 22:21:17
- Info: created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Info: View on the busy central station in New York City. --AngMoKio (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- AngMoKio (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow. —kallerna™ 14:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it has unsuitable composition, noise, wobbly perspective, lack of "wow" factor. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- unsuitable composition?! wobbly perspective?! Could you elaborate on those topics? I don't really know what you mean by this. You are aware that this picture was meant to be a longtime exposure (relative to the conditions) photo. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it seems that others think that I am wrong. Consider me in opposition, though. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Just to eliminate the FPX thing, which seems poorly applied. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I cannot help disliking the overexposed central window and the central bluish area in the hall. --Cayambe (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I think I've seen a far better picture by Diliff, here, which could be nominated instead - Benh (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I like the motion effect in this picture. I do not know why, but I just do.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The long time exposure is the main positive here - good idea, and it solves the identifiable person problem as well as giving an impression of activity which creates a "story-line". But I think it should not have been taken on the centre-line, which is why I rejected a dead-centre version of Wrockwardine Church in favour of this off-centre version. Plus there are some lens colour fringes, which would be reduced with a smaller lens aperture. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:ManhattanNYPDNewYorkCity.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 22:38:48
- Info: created by, uploaded by and nominated by Massimo Catarinella -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support very nice composition. Colour balance is better now. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I've uploaded a final version in which I've improved the color balance even more. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral I think high size is unsuitable, makes the car look like a accessory. --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Pitaya skeleton.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 22:50:49
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment As I'm not familiar with Pitaya, I think I'd have liked to see a somewhat wider view. Is this possible? Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Adam, I posted other pictures of pitaya for FPC... this was inside one of the plants, and it is a nice abstraction... interesting texture, shape... all other parts were nice and healthy... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Question: Could you add the geolocation? —kallerna™ 14:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Interesting subject! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support A bit scary… that's why I like it. →Diti the penguin — 23:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --staka.talk 04:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Karel (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose not sharp in detail, no wow effect, the date is not set, the location is not set, further description of morphological object missing.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Water Taxi Passenger.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 23:21:45
- Info: created by Dcubillas - uploaded by Dcubillas - nominated by Dcubillas -- Dcubillas (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral why was the head cropped off? So you can´t see the whole subject in the picture. --Andreas 06 (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special, bad crop. —kallerna™ 14:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great lines! I don't think the man is the main subject in the picture... bamse (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As per Andreas 06. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - the man is more like a prop, rather than THE subject... he's the "supporting actor"... have another look. can a picture "work" if the supporting actor's head is chopped off? at least in this case. also, the headless man makes this shot more "usable"... no personalty rights issues. so... is it FP material? or just Quality Image? ..or neither. does the crop really kill its harmony? I dont think so... but then again, it is my shot. what do you think? - Dcubillas (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Tragic composition, person with head missing!!! --Karel (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose good shot BUT the head is missing --Cayambe (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose poor composition.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Rio de Janeiro 2016 Ferris wheel edit.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 23:36:14
- Info: created by Rodrigo Soldon - uploaded and nominated by João Felipe C.S -- João Felipe C.S (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- João Felipe C.S (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good shot. Good graphic elements. Rythm, perspective, contour... good job. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose CA, it isn't sharp, the whole wheel isn't in the photo. —kallerna™ 14:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment But this is the special thing, the harmony between the sky and the wheel. João Felipe C.S (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Mainly composition. I would recommend you to retake this photo during nighttime (use a tripod, btw). I believe it may look better. The current sky as your photo background simply spoils it, IMO. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I am not the author of this picture, I just upload that. João Felipe C.S (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As above, composition. --Karel (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Quality isn't the best but could be fixed (at least the CA) otherwise per Tomascastelazo. --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the composition, but it's not sharp and there are chromatic abberation issues. --Yerpo (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Lomatium parryi.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2009 at 01:17:39
- Info: created by ZooFari - uploaded by ZooFari - nominated by ZooFari -- ZooFari (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- ZooFari (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition. —kallerna™ 14:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose the flower(s) need more breathing space. --Estrilda (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I was considering cropping a bit less inward. However, it made the background more distracting with the unneeded extra materials (sticks, large rocks, etc.) ZooFari (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose poor composition, no biotop description.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'v added detailed description in 3 languages. The composition, however, was the best I could do. ZooFari (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the problem is that it is too cropped and not in golden angle. Thanks for the further description. Could you offer also the description of w:Biotope? It means if it grew in the water, wood, grassland, desert and what were the plants around. thx.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps you are right, and the reason it's cropped like that is because I removed the disturbing items (rocks, sticks, etc). Unforunatly, I don't have the original anymore. Also, the golden angle wasn't suitable for this flower, as it is an umbel flower. By the way, its a desert parsley and originally found in high altitudes of the deserts. I will get that added shortly.
- Thank you very much for that editional information! Well, maybe you are right it could not be in the golden angle, but I think this couldnt be FP. But try to nominate it to Quality Picture.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review. Regardless of the nomination, I would like to hear your opinion on whether I should keep the most cropped one or the alternative. After some consideration, I like it uncropped even though it can be a little more distracting. I might replace it, but I'd like to here from you. Also, for some reason the alt has better lighting (???) Maybe I made an editing misglance. Thanks ZooFari (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the new one is quite distracting, errr worse quality. What about to replays the bacground by black in the nominated one. I dont think so the first one nor the second one are good enough for FP at this time. Sorry.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the problem is that it is too cropped and not in golden angle. Thanks for the further description. Could you offer also the description of w:Biotope? It means if it grew in the water, wood, grassland, desert and what were the plants around. thx.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Petronas Towers at Night - from the base upwards.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2009 at 02:30:56
- Info: created by Dcubillas - uploaded by Dcubillas - nominated by Dcubillas -- Dcubillas (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support A great shot. Nice technical execution, very, very graphic, dynamic, colorful.... just really nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support, but i think f/9 and iso 100 would be better --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good perspective for wow, though not much EV in this position --Muhammad 08:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support, fortunately, this is not Wikipedia. --Aqwis (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I just wanted to note that the night sky looked a lot like that flag today. Very nice timing for the nomination. -- carol (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Quite lot of noise, but nice composition. —kallerna™ 14:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - and I know I'm in the minority. I like the perspective, but, in spite of everyone else, I don't like the composition. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support I fully oppose the previous comment. I think the composition is fantastic and photo was well taken. Great job!!! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --staka.talk 03:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support I would doing the photographer a great disservice if I did not Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Not bad! --Karel (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support as Karel. Lycaon (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support two thumbs up --Jeses (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great picture ! -- Neef - 2 (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- MartinD (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Jon Harald Søby (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support: Superb! Maedin\talk 19:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Kosiarz-PL 17:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Mango hanging.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2009 at 08:24:33
- Info: Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 08:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Muhammad 08:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose boring composition --Andreas 06 (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 14:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. The long grass that extends from the soil passing behind the mango spoils even more your composition. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per other opposers; this "mango" looked like a grape at first. --staka.talk 03:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - agree with others - Dcubillas (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per other opposers --Cayambe (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose bad composition, confused with licensing.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Licensing? --Muhammad 16:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well I have to tell you I am sorry. But you are right. It is not a file competition. It is image competition. So to say "license" here. It is irelvant. But yeah GFDL is a problem it is not the good license for the media, even I am not sure you are using it well.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- How am I not using it well (here it comes..) :) --Muhammad 07:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly let me explain, why GFDL license is usuitable for media. GFDL calls that all people who want to redistribute it and/or modify it, they should mention original author(s), link to the source and attached the license itself. This is OK in electronic version, but it is not OK in printed version. Imagine someone will like your pictures and they would like to make a calendar, book, whatever. Than GFDL license conditions are quite complicating it. So I am wondering why you are obdurately licensing GFDL 1.2 only?!
- And now anlaise your summary (which is quite confusing): "In using this image or any subsequent derivatives of it, you are required to release the image under the same license." - this is partly incorect and partly not necessary. The requirement to realease it also under GFDL 1.2 is done by the license itself, so there is no need to have here this phrase. More over "using this image" might be confusing. I can use this picture as a desctop of my personal computer and I dont need to credit you nor attached the license, because I am not redistributing it or its derivate. "As such, any reproduction of this image, in any medium, must appear with a copy of, or full URL of the license." - here I am not sure, if you can create your own conditions wich are colliding with the license itself. I can have a reproduction on my computer if I am not showing it to other people and I dont need any URL. That is something extra from you. According the license, if you distribute this work on electronic media, the GFDL license should stay on that server, where this work is placed. --Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well I have to tell you I am sorry. But you are right. It is not a file competition. It is image competition. So to say "license" here. It is irelvant. But yeah GFDL is a problem it is not the good license for the media, even I am not sure you are using it well.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Licensing? --Muhammad 16:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Landscape of science fiction Luc Viatour.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2009 at 09:43:44
- Info: created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 11:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Question: Impressive picture. Can you give some info about how you made the picture? --AngMoKio (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- (sorry for answer in french) C'est deux photographies faites au Nikon D300 le même jour. Une avec 45mm de focale pour les nuages et une avec 1000mm de focale pour la Lune, les deux sont assemblées avec le logiciel GIMP et transformées en noir et blanc. --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC) •
Translation: Those are two photographs I took the same day with the Nikon D300. One for the clouds with a 45mm focal length, and another one for the Moon with a 1,000mm focal length, the two photos being merged with GIMP and transformed into black and white. →Diti the penguin — 16:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Very noisy, can't understand french. —kallerna™ 14:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment very impressive work. But before I support you should add the retouched template to the description of the picture --Simonizer (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Interesting post processing.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support →Diti the penguin — 16:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Pour merci beaucoup pour les informations :-) --AngMoKio (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great work! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --staka.talk 03:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support We're probably going to see lots of these images now ;) --Muhammad 06:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy and I don't see the value of this 'personal artwork' for any Wikimedia project. Lycaon (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I oppose since it's a composition that is done for achieving an artistical purpose. As said in the guidelines: Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provide it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive. Typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. ... Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. Therefore I am against the nomination. But the picture is still amazing. --Henrik (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As per the pertinent photography magazines, science fiction mashup's are the big trend for 2009. It's nice and would suit for Flickr .. but per Lycaon. --Richard Bartz (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose What Henrik said. Samulili (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral it is a good work, which can find its use in project. Lyacom forget, that there is not just Wikipedie. But I agree with him, that is noisy.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Lycaon, but it's a really beautiful picture --Pom² (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Jon Harald Søby (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Beautiful composition but poor image quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Land on the Moon 7 21 1969-repair.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2009 at 12:55:51
- Info: created by Jack Weir - uploaded by Rufus330Ci - repaired and nominated by carol. This is the year 30th anniversary of the first landing on the moon. I would like for this image (or even perhaps a nicer restoration of the original to be considered for POTD for July 21 this year, the 30th anniversary of the day after. -- carol (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support On the chance that there are people who are so old as to have been alive in 1969 who are involved on the internet and view the commons POTD, I suggest that there are very few images available here that will have the same impact and emotional "Wow" as this one. Heck, even the conspiracy people who think that the moon wasn't landed on should not have a problem with this image and also have the same set of memories of what was one of the coolest days shared by so many that year. -- carol (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support - recognisable and considerable historical significance. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support and agree with POTD idea.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality. It's old picture and I understand that, but it isn't that historical. —kallerna™ 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I think this photo perfectly fits as a Valued Image candidate rather than a featured one. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
-
- You might think so, but it fails at so much of the actual criteria to be a Valued Image. It is not the best in its category, for example. Familiar with all of the review mechanisms here, I nominated it here because there is no other photograph here at commons that provided this much WOW. I am also curious which photograph you would consider to be the best POTD for the day after the 30th anniversary of the first space walk? -- carol (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree with Tiago Fioreze -- Dcubillas (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Because it is so rare. --Muhammad 06:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support I think we need to get away from promoting commons as just a place to find eye-candy (high quality eye-candy ;-). I regret that my comments (quite a while ago), that standards for FP images were not up to the standard of QIs has contibuted to an over emphasis on the technical merits of FP images rather than an emphasis on their content. What is the FP historic category for, if not for images like this! :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 09:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support For the POTD idea. --Estrilda (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It is entirely unclear to me why the uploader thought he has the right to release a photo taken by his grandfather to public domain. So, the image can be non-free, actually. What is the best way address this concern? Should I nominate it for deletion and see what happens? Is there a better way? Thanks. -- Crapload (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- Quite conceivably because he owns the rights, who do you think owns the rights to this image? --Tony Wills (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I do not know who owns the rights. I would not ask the question if I knew. I do not want to guess. Where is proof that the grandchild owns the rights? He did not take the photograph, obviously. I am puzzled. Are there precedents or procedures for this kind of situation when one claims the rights on another's work? Crapload (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Quite conceivably because he owns the rights, who do you think owns the rights to this image? --Tony Wills (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Per the nominator. I find absolutely ridiculous the arguments concerning the rights, given the circunstances. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- I would like to know why. Crapload (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- There is the appearance that you simply want the image to be deleted, I apologize for my lack of imagination to determine other reasons. You can change this by explaining who you consider to be the owner of the copyright of this image. -- carol (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not really. I would like the image to stay, properly licensed beyond reasonable doubt. I already said above that I do not know who the owner of the copyright is. I already said that I do not want to guess. Don't you think if I wanted to delete the image, I would simply nominate it for deletion, instead of asking questions here? I know fully, that people raising copyright concerns are not popular here (save for blatant copyright violations). I also know, seeing several images with questionable status here, that Wikimedia Commons would be my last choice should I need images for my printed work, for instance. Precisely because issues like this one and the stance taken by the majority here. Please, do not misunderstand me. I like the project and I like the idea. The idea is brilliant. Still, I think use of Commons images outside outside of Wikipedia and personal blog is too much legal risk, generally speaking. I understand, there will always be people willing to take that risk. Now, this discussion here is so far fruitless in clarifying the copyright status in question, instead carol questions my motive, and no better alternative is offered, I will nominate the original and derivative for deletion and hope it will work out one way or another. You can see I was hesitant (and still am), but no better way has been offered. I wish there was a better way. Thank you. Crapload (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- There is the appearance that you simply want the image to be deleted, I apologize for my lack of imagination to determine other reasons. You can change this by explaining who you consider to be the owner of the copyright of this image. -- carol (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to know why. Crapload (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support — Also support the POTD idea --Goosta (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support even not sharp, I can supported. Document value.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Karel (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support This restoration is really good. Support POTD also. Regarding all excitement and disbelief that that event cause, I think this one fits the best ;) --Lošmi (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support, --Tintero (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice historic document, perfectly retouched. --AM (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - wow. I can even read some of the small newsprint. Jonathunder (talk) 03:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 17 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Christ the Redeemer.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2009 at 16:36:23
- Info: created by LASZLO ILYES - uploaded and nominated by João Felipe C.S -- João Felipe C.S (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- João Felipe C.S (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose There are some lens flares in this photo. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I liked the lens flares. João Felipe C.S (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Vignetting. →Diti the penguin — 23:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Vignetting? João Felipe C.S (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per other opposers. --staka.talk 03:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Is almost impossible take a sun-front picture without vignetting. João Felipe C.S (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - not the sun's fault... poor optical quality - Dcubillas (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Christ the Redeemer edit.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2009 at 04:08:01
- Info: created by LASZLO ILYES - uploaded and nominated by João Felipe C.S - I tried to meet the requirements above with picture editions. --João Felipe C.S (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- João Felipe C.S (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad quality. —kallerna™ 13:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Mauntain Chapel, not featured
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2009 at 22:38:41
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Böhringer (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't really like this photo, and think this one would be better. →Diti the penguin — 23:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support, a lot better than the other one. --Aqwis (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support better than the other one, great composition. —kallerna™ 13:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose very bad composition (i.e. there are big white cells), not sharp in detail.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Also same as above.--PieCam (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Jon Harald Søby (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:67marlinFastback wet hood ornament.jpg, not featured, FXP
Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2009 at 00:04:20
- Info: created and uploaded by CZmarlin - nominated by Easyas12c -- Easyas12c (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Easyas12c (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Does not even meet the guideline, starting with the size issue. --staka.talk 03:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 |
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because image is too small | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Lycaon (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured, FXP. --Karel (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Mesquite Sand Dunes in Death Valley.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2009 at 00:24:58
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice!!! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --staka.talk 03:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor quality (lack of details) and unnatural colours (oversaturated). Lycaon (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wow! --Karel (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Lycaon. —kallerna™ 13:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Lycaon --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Info: The colors are due to sunrise. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Cosmic colors! Conan (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support - For the composition and colours, and despite the downsampling (or crop?) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose strange colors. --Estrilda (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I have to agree, the color of the sky isn't consentaneous. It looks like the sky was colored afterwards . Otherwise a nice composition --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question: could you offer the date, when it was taken?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- Comment The colors are consistent with the area. For some reason the sky comes out just plain cyan. I´ve had this happen throughout the California and Baja California desert. The mountains and sand are right on in color also. My opinion is that it is unfair to disqualify a great picture based on a color interpretation because really there is no "right" color for anything. Too many variables affect color, starting with time of day, camera, monitor, interpretation of color, etc., etc. What I see in this picture is texture, color, and an informative picture with regards to a particular location. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- Without commenting on this picture, I think that the color balance is an important point of evaluation. With an incorrect WB, the tone can be strange; the difference may be subtle but it will show colors that aren't real, so yes, there is a “right” color, at least if you want to show the reality. Imo the < Auto WB > on Canon cameras is pretty imprecise and it's better to select the WB corresponding to the light condition of the moment or, if possible, a gray card. Mbz1, what about trying to modify the WB for < Daylight > when developing the RAW file in Canon's Digital Photo Pro? Sting (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment, Sting. I am afraid you think about me too good. I rarely take raw imagws (too laizy I guess).--Mbz1 (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Debate on colours comes up from time to time, for example on snow pictures - "too blue", etc. When we are at the scene, our eyes compensate for colour balance so we always see snow as white even if it is not because of reflected light from coloured objects, or intensely blue sky. Assuming that colour balance on the camera at the time of the photo is correct, we need to remember that the camera sees what is really there, not what we think should be there. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- And that's the problem: with AutoWB you don't know if the camera doesn't choose a weird temperature. I played with mine in a standard sunny afternoon outdoor scene, and if most of the colors looked acceptable (understand: close to reality), there was one (a green wall in my case) completely unreal, while a setting on Daylight was able to show the correct colors in the whole picture. Maybe it's what happened in Mbz1's picture. Sting (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Debate on colours comes up from time to time, for example on snow pictures - "too blue", etc. When we are at the scene, our eyes compensate for colour balance so we always see snow as white even if it is not because of reflected light from coloured objects, or intensely blue sky. Assuming that colour balance on the camera at the time of the photo is correct, we need to remember that the camera sees what is really there, not what we think should be there. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support good, the sky is not a problem in this case.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support On reflection, and checking that there is, for example, natural gradation in the sky colouring, I rate this as useful for encyclopaedic content, and generally good enough for FP. Taking the picture at around sunrise avoids the flattening efect of overhead sun and shows the dunes as 3-d objects. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Golden Mosque.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2009 at 06:46:04
- Info: created by Dcubillas - uploaded by Dcubillas - nominated by Dcubillas -- Dcubillas (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment please rotate counter-clockwise --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks cool as a thumbnail, but unsharp and noisy at full-resolution. →Diti the penguin — 10:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy. —kallerna™ 13:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose CW tilted and a bit noisy. Lycaon (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree. Conan (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Kallerna.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Nantes - Saint-Nicolas.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2009 at 10:27:32
- Info: created by Eusebius - uploaded by Eusebius - nominated by Eusebius -- Eusebius (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Eusebius (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Conan (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Estrilda (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - pure perspective. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Thierry Caro (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose not sharp in detail.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special, no wow at all. --Karel (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Karelj --Pudelek (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose no wow --Nillerdk (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Raminus (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as others -- Dcubillas (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 07:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --staka.talk 22:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Latvian sauna house.jpg, withdrawn
Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2009 at 19:24:33
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor composition: everything is dead centred. Needs also a bit more contrast. Lycaon (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I see no problems. Conan (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Lycaon.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow. —kallerna™ 14:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Latvian sauna house II.jpg, withdrawn
Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2009 at 16:09:08
- Info: created, uploaded, nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Alternative photo for the nomination above.
- Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose not sharp in detail (
work more, to be able to buy a better camera, sorry), no wow effect.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)- Question:
How about you to be less arrogant instead?Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) - yea, what a mindless comment! please do not pollute the world with stuff like that. thank you! Amada44 (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am sorry, didnt want to be arogant.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Apology accepted! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am sorry, didnt want to be arogant.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow. —kallerna™ 14:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment --Tiago, imo you shouldn't use the sharpness setting at < hard > in the camera: put it at a softer level and improve the sharpness later on the computer using the software delivered with the camera or a third-party one because their processing will almost always be better than the one from the camera. In this picture you can see very well along the vertical posts in front of the house (and in other places too) the artifacts due to the over-sharpening setting. Sting (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I may say something that I'm not completely sure about it. I always thought (correct me if I'm mistaken) that camera settings for sharpness, saturation, and contrast are only relevant when you shoot at JPEG format, not for RAW format. In the case of the photo above, I took it in RAW format (
.PNG.DNG) and I performed a post-processing using Aperture 2.1. The post-processing consisted of performing some edge sharpening and increasing contrast. Am I doing something wrong? Thanks in advance!- I don't know how it works with Pentax cameras and how far you processed the image, but if the exif says that the sharpness was set to < hard > I imagine that you didn't modify it when you developed the RAW file, so this setting from the camera was applied. Take a look at the original file: if the artifacts along the posts are present, it comes from the original settings in the camera. If not, it comes from the post-processing. In this case, try to hide the areas where the artifacts appear using a mask, for example in Photoshop or The Gimp, with the original image as background layer and the post-processed one as a layer above. Sting (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- The camera seems to export the settings into the EXIF data even though the photo is in RAW format. Maybe the artifacts you saw was due to my post-processing settings. I've uploaded a new version of this photo, in which I believe to have done a more "gentle" sharpening. Could you give me your 2 cents about this new version? Tiago Fioreze (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- When shooting in RAW the settings of the camera are kept (sharpness, WB, saturation, etc.), like in JPG. The advantage of the RAW format is that these settings are only informations embedded in the file and you can cancel/modify them without loss of quality. When developing the RAW file with the dedicated software, make gentle corrections: for example with this image, a WB put on < Daylight > or < Mountain > might give an even better result than the < Auto > one (not really precise, at least on Canon); make the corrections of the lens, the vignetting, the chromatic aberrations if your software has these settings; adjust slightly the contrast, etc. For harsher post-processing I would recommend to use a specialized software like The Gimp or Photoshop because it will be much easier with their layers to control each area of the image and apply the modifications only where they are needed. I know this will take more time and work than using the RAW-developing software solely, but the results will be optimal and you should be able to rescue more problematic photographs. Well, this is only my POV, each one works the way he feels it better. About your image, yes I prefer much more this second version as the artifacts disappeared. Compare both versions side by side and you will see that the first over-processed upload didn't make you gain anything in sharpness (imo), only artifacts. Sting (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your time and explanations. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- When shooting in RAW the settings of the camera are kept (sharpness, WB, saturation, etc.), like in JPG. The advantage of the RAW format is that these settings are only informations embedded in the file and you can cancel/modify them without loss of quality. When developing the RAW file with the dedicated software, make gentle corrections: for example with this image, a WB put on < Daylight > or < Mountain > might give an even better result than the < Auto > one (not really precise, at least on Canon); make the corrections of the lens, the vignetting, the chromatic aberrations if your software has these settings; adjust slightly the contrast, etc. For harsher post-processing I would recommend to use a specialized software like The Gimp or Photoshop because it will be much easier with their layers to control each area of the image and apply the modifications only where they are needed. I know this will take more time and work than using the RAW-developing software solely, but the results will be optimal and you should be able to rescue more problematic photographs. Well, this is only my POV, each one works the way he feels it better. About your image, yes I prefer much more this second version as the artifacts disappeared. Compare both versions side by side and you will see that the first over-processed upload didn't make you gain anything in sharpness (imo), only artifacts. Sting (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- The camera seems to export the settings into the EXIF data even though the photo is in RAW format. Maybe the artifacts you saw was due to my post-processing settings. I've uploaded a new version of this photo, in which I believe to have done a more "gentle" sharpening. Could you give me your 2 cents about this new version? Tiago Fioreze (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know how it works with Pentax cameras and how far you processed the image, but if the exif says that the sharpness was set to < hard > I imagine that you didn't modify it when you developed the RAW file, so this setting from the camera was applied. Take a look at the original file: if the artifacts along the posts are present, it comes from the original settings in the camera. If not, it comes from the post-processing. In this case, try to hide the areas where the artifacts appear using a mask, for example in Photoshop or The Gimp, with the original image as background layer and the post-processed one as a layer above. Sting (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I may say something that I'm not completely sure about it. I always thought (correct me if I'm mistaken) that camera settings for sharpness, saturation, and contrast are only relevant when you shoot at JPEG format, not for RAW format. In the case of the photo above, I took it in RAW format (
I withdraw my nomination Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Patron Saint Feast.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2009 at 18:54:15
- Info: created by Goran Andjelic - uploaded by hrast - nominated by hrast -- Hrast (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Hrast (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support, waaaaaant:) --Aqwis (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Lovely atmosphere, but too noisy. :) →Diti the penguin — 00:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Umnik (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose bad composition (i.e. too many things), bad light conditions (i.e. there is a light of candle mixed with the light of sun).--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Juan de Vojníkov + no wow, noisy. —kallerna™ 14:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Pro2 (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like the composition. --Aktron (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Probably you like the taste. Not composition.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm I am quite sure what I like. The taste might be, but this is not Flavoured picture candidates but, Featured. This picture is about a feast. Such a feast has own icons, clearly can be seen here. Reducing the number of objects here would make this picture not accurate and useless. --Aktron (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Probably you like the taste. Not composition.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as others -- Dcubillas (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - lighting, composition. Jonathunder (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Tony Wills (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Georges Bizet - Rosabel Morrison - Carmen poster.png, featured
Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2009 at 01:37:37
- Info: created by Liebler & Maass Lith. - restored, uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- La fleur que tu m'avais jetée / dans ma prison m'était restée... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 07:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Tony Wills (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Jeanne d'Arc Joan of Arc at San Francisco's Palace of the Legion of Honor and crepuscular rays.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2009 at 04:48:18
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Downsampling, nothing sharp and we have better FP's already of crepuscular rays. Lycaon (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- Comment With regards to downsampling - I think this is has been done the right way: full resolution version uploaded, then the 'improved' version over top. It is not as though the downsampled version was provided in an effort to retain a high res version for sale etc. People are then free to use the 'improved' version or the original. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment, Tony. The only purpose of the downsampling was to reduce vignetting of the sky (Diti got it right) and downsampling did achieve the intentend results with no loosing any information in the process. It is hard to impossible to avoid vignetting while taking an image of the fog, as well as it all, but impossible to get sharpness in the fog.The mystic of the low fog, where nothing is sharp, where the shapes are disappearing, slowly dissolving in the fog until nothing, but the fog is seen, it is what makes the images beautiful. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- weak Support concerning sharpness I agree with Lycaon. But this time the mood and also the composition convince me. Though I would even suggest a tighter crop without the statue of Jeanne d'Arc. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- The image is not about crepuscular rays, and the image is not about the statue of Jeanne d'Arc. When I was photographing the scene, it felt somehow symbolic.Jeanne d'Arc points her sword to the heavens, and the heavens respond to her with the rays. It was absolutely beautiful. It was a man made statue and the rays that the sun painted over the low fog. I guess next time I need to ask the sun to do a better job and make the rays sharper. :) That's why I cannot cut out the statue. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Atmosphere. --Lošmi (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral A bit of vignetting, and I'm personally not a fan of the photo exposure (although I like the composition). →Diti the penguin — 00:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Conan (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question: could you explain the composition? It looks like to be a little bit difficult. Maybe cropping the picture on the sun, getting Joan of Arc out, would be better.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your question. The image is not about crepuscular rays, and the image is not about the statue of Jeanne d'Arc. When I was photographing the scene, it felt somehow symbolic.Jeanne d'Arc points her sword to the heavens, and the heavens respond to her with the rays. It was absolutely beautiful. It was a man made statue and the rays that the sun painted over the low fog. You could see the fog onle, when it lit by the sun, but there was fog everywhere there. I was standing in fog, as well as the statue was. That's why the shapes of everything looked rather mystic then sharp. I hope this answered your question why I cannot cut the statue out. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thx, now its cleare to me. Maybe you could offer this explanation in the picture description.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your question. The image is not about crepuscular rays, and the image is not about the statue of Jeanne d'Arc. When I was photographing the scene, it felt somehow symbolic.Jeanne d'Arc points her sword to the heavens, and the heavens respond to her with the rays. It was absolutely beautiful. It was a man made statue and the rays that the sun painted over the low fog. You could see the fog onle, when it lit by the sun, but there was fog everywhere there. I was standing in fog, as well as the statue was. That's why the shapes of everything looked rather mystic then sharp. I hope this answered your question why I cannot cut the statue out. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Very, very impressing, I'm just worried about the quality. —kallerna™ 14:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Karel (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support now, when I understand its commposition, I can support it.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --staka.talk 02:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Fly Agaric mushroom 04.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2009 at 10:15:38
- Info: created & uploaded & nominated by Tony Wills -- Tony Wills (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Our only featured picture of this archetypal poisonous mushroom has just been delisted, so I present to you a replacement, complete with raspberry topping with dobs of cream and dark chocolate crumbs for the fairy's to eat. -- Tony Wills (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very, very nice.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment there is not license tag. I would recomend to release it under CC-BY-SA 3.0--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- Argghhhh, the errors caused by cut and pasting from a previous upload! A bot usually screams very quickly at me when I do that :-(. Thanks :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Distracting background, composition. —kallerna™ 14:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like it. --Karel (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support mycologicaly, the same as technicaly pefrect. Distracting bacground is not a problem - better to see, which species where around.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - per Juan de Vojníkov; I don't think the background is a problem here. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As per —kallerna™. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good colours, quality and background is informative. --Muhammad 05:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose no wow at all --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- I couldn't find one with a handsome prince disguised as a toad sitting on top, so I took this one with the invisible fairy on top instead :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- I think the fashion on en.wikipedia FP of having the subject completely out context (might as well cut-out, or paint-in the background) makes for pretty pictures of less practical use - beauty beyond usefulness. This is not a photographic competition just to provide pretty pictures. I go to a lot of trouble to get maximum depth of field so that I can see all the details of the subject, in this case the texture of the stem (stape), the ragged edges of the ring (annulus), the sticky surface of the cap with the debris and 'scales' and finally a hint of the gills relating it back to its taxonomic family.
- So of the images you submitted for critique ;-), both are beautiful, [1] only has a small amount of the subject in focus and the background draws your eyes from the subject, [2] is much more useful showing the stem and cap well, plus some of the context (pine needles) and there is a hint of the surrounding trees whose roots it grows on. But have you any examples of mature Amanita muscaria in which all features are all clearly portrayed? (A challenge :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- :-) Gee! there is no photographic competition --> but <-- a technical demand (dof, exposure, sharpness, colors, composition ... ) There are different views in how to make subjects important and different bars how to make people impressed by that execution. I showed you (or allways showing) the pictures in the hope that they maybe will inspire you, like they do for me and not for a competition or a challenge because that thought never crossed my mind. Quite the contrary I try to share the fascination of macro photography with you. For me a good still-life-macro fades out all the unnecessary things and focus on the subject with all the technical possibilities we have nowadays. Your picture shows plants and grove in the background which are hardly recognizable - so why showing disturbing and semiblurry plants when you can fade them away with a different aperture or a different point of view. Strategies for getting razor sharp images or good exposure exist for DOF, too as example Focus Stacking when you have a difficult environment where you could use a apperature of 3.5 --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- That got you excited :-), you may have missed the ;-) and :-) in my comments above :-). Thanks for the photography 101. DOF stacking is probably the only way I could achieve the background blurring you prefer (apart from the obvious - simply blur it with a photo editor as some others do ;-). I think the colour and composition seperate the subject from the background very well :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- :-) Gee! there is no photographic competition --> but <-- a technical demand (dof, exposure, sharpness, colors, composition ... ) There are different views in how to make subjects important and different bars how to make people impressed by that execution. I showed you (or allways showing) the pictures in the hope that they maybe will inspire you, like they do for me and not for a competition or a challenge because that thought never crossed my mind. Quite the contrary I try to share the fascination of macro photography with you. For me a good still-life-macro fades out all the unnecessary things and focus on the subject with all the technical possibilities we have nowadays. Your picture shows plants and grove in the background which are hardly recognizable - so why showing disturbing and semiblurry plants when you can fade them away with a different aperture or a different point of view. Strategies for getting razor sharp images or good exposure exist for DOF, too as example Focus Stacking when you have a difficult environment where you could use a apperature of 3.5 --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Richard Bartz + others -- Dcubillas (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support invisible fairy photos define FPC "wow" for me. -- carol (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support When there are invisible fairies then it has magic enough --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured.
[edit] File:Lantana November 2008-2.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2009 at 12:44:39
- Info: Flowers and leaves of a Lantana camara. Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support This photo got my support mainly due to its composition. It seems that the plant is opening its "arms" welcoming any admirer around it. It's a pity however that the two blooming flowers are not totally in focus. It's very nice photo in spite of that. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful!--Mbz1 (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It's a pity that the focus is on the leaves and the blossoms are OOF - and why are the leaves are not shown completely ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question: could you offer, how big the leaves are? GEO or description of the biotop, where you found this species? What about to change its background using black?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per R. Bartz. —kallerna™ 14:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: - This is a garden shrub, found in Lisbon, Portugal. The flower has about 3cm in diameter -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as others -- Dcubillas (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Richard --Dori - Talk 22:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - per others. -- Pro2 (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sunset dorum.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2009 at 14:47:13
- Info: created by, uploaded by, nominated by Pro2 -- Pro2 (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pro2 (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question: It's a beautiful picture, but what is with the tilt on the right hand side? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe someone else can remove it please.-- Pro2 (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I tried it but it doesn't work. Further denoising caused posterization. Reason ? It should be done on uncompressed source - there was 2 many edits and recompressings IMO. Sorry, I gave my best --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, but i think your second Version was good. -- Pro2 (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC) (Ansonsten ist die 1. Version vom Bild eigentlich unbearbeitet, und meine letzte Version ist auch nicht viel dran. Das einzige was ich wirklich gemacht hab, ist die Vignettierung entfernt. Komisch, vielleicht kannst du es ja mal mit der 1. probieren. Danke trotzdem)
- I tried it but it doesn't work. Further denoising caused posterization. Reason ? It should be done on uncompressed source - there was 2 many edits and recompressings IMO. Sorry, I gave my best --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Really, really enjoy the composition and setting. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support technically not perfect, but very good composition --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice atmosphere. --AM (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC) PS: Remove distortion! Done. --AM (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 07:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:El pensador-Rodin-Caixaforum-3.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2009 at 16:20:04
- Info: created and nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Kadellar (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The clock in your camera appears to be wrong, the photos EXIF data shows it was taken in the year 2067!. Is there a time of day when there is more light on this side of the sculpture so we can see details more clearly (that time traveling camera might help achieve this ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's gone back this time; I'm seeing 1st January 1970 in the EXIF. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose bad composition.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, noisy. —kallerna™ 14:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as above too. -Theklan (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as above --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Tegenaria sp.jpg
Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2009 at 02:20:28
- Info: created by mvuijlst - uploaded by mvuijlst - nominated by mvuijlst -- mvuijlst (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- mvuijlst (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Medium Support. I would rather the whole spider on focus. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Tfioreze and needs species name (description says common, so must be doable). Also mention that this is a male in the description please. Lycaon (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Lycaon. —kallerna™ 13:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as others -- Dcubillas (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: added description (male Tegenaria parietina). Note that I could've made a focus stacked image to get more parts of the animal in focus, but that would've been cheating. And the DOF makes for a more dramatic picture, I think. -- 84.198.249.162 16:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Nah, its not cheating. Its a common practice and if you can do it, I suggest you should --Muhammad 17:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Atmosphere just a teensy bit too abrasive for me here. Ta! :) -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Yep... there are some people here who have forgotten to read the section "Above all, be polite". Just quoting it:
-
- "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 elses. Choose your words with care." Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- If I was the impolite one, my apologies. --Muhammad 20:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- "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 elses. Choose your words with care." Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn by nominator, not featured. --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Midnight at the glassworks2.jpg
Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2009 at 02:07:14
- Info: created by Lewis Wickes Hine, restored by mvuijlst - uploaded by mvuijlst - nominated by mvuijlst -- mvuijlst (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- mvuijlst (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose poor quality. Lycaon (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, could you expand on that? Is the image restoration (original here) not to your taste? Or the image itself? The photo is over a hundred years old, it's bound not to be sharp as a tack everywhere. -- mvuijlst (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn by nominator, not featured. --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Sortie de l'opéra en l'an 2000-2.jpg
Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2009 at 02:05:17
- Info: created by Albert Robida, restored by mvuijlst - uploaded by mvuijlst - nominated by mvuijlst -- mvuijlst (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- mvuijlst (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Ps.: It reminds me The Jetsons somehow :) Tiago Fioreze (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn by nominator, not featured. --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Sint-Niklaaskerk, Gent2.jpg
Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2009 at 02:02:34
- Info: created by unknown, restored by mvuijlst - uploaded by mvuijlst - nominated by mvuijlst -- mvuijlst (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- mvuijlst (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Rather a poor quality reproduction for an image of that date. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn by nominator, not featured. --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Oglala girl in front of a tipi2.jpg
Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2009 at 01:57:17
- Info: created by John C.H. Grabill, restored by mvuijlst - uploaded by mvuijlst - nominated by mvuijlst -- mvuijlst (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- mvuijlst (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor quality. Old ≠ automatically featurable. Lycaon (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn by nominator, not featured. --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:T-45A Goshawk 03.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2009 at 23:25:48
- Info: created by Lt. j.g. John A. Ivancic - uploaded by User:tm - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice --norro 08:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose White clouds and white plane. --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Quite lot of noise or something expecially on clouds, but I love airforce-pictures. —kallerna™ 18:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support →Diti the penguin — 21:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very good shot. Looks like a painting at first glance :) --KaterBegemot 18:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Impressive photo. The weakest point is the considerable amount of noise, but the composition and "wowness" compensate that. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --staka.talk 02:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Tight crop. Lycaon (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Ack ComputerHotline and Lycao --Dori - Talk 22:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Karel (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support crop a bit tight, other than that great photo.. -- Dcubillas (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- Comment I'm not sure if the Navy cropped it, or if that's just the way the photo was taken. Considering the resolution, I'm guessing the latter. 203.35.135.133 14:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Featured picture candidatesFile:Gephyrocapsa oceanica color.jpg
[edit] File:Graugans Detailaufnahme Kopf.JPG, not featured
Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2009 at 01:46:56
- Info: created and uploaded by :3268zauber - nominated by D-Kuru -- D-Kuru (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- D-Kuru (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question: could you offer English description and GEO. I can see you in the dugs eye:-)--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad quality. —kallerna™ 14:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It's little fuzzy. --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as others -- Dcubillas (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tree Canyonlands National Park edit.jpg
[edit] File:Tree Canyonlands National Park.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2009 at 02:14:23
- Info: created & uploaded by Flicka - nominated by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma)
- Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose
to much light, not sharp in detail,GEO missing.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC) - Question: good job. Are we able to take a sharpe picture in detail?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question: Should we add bit color to the photo? I think it needs it. —kallerna™ 14:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question: I like it (but with more saturated colors like in the edited version below), but there's a weird thing at the fringe of the leaves of the whole tree where there is like a gray fog at the transition sky/leaves. This can also be seen in several places where there are holes in the leaves and where in some places the background is blue and other gray (and it's not the trunk). Any idea about that ? Sting (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ask Flicka --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, blue sky appears to be artificial, and it's not very sharp. --Aqwis (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I think it's not very important and the photo it's not well balanced. -Theklan (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Picture is sharp enough. The colors are not missing or pale, but pictures in deserts like this one are naturally not such colorful as other ones - I suggest you should see some movie where such deserts are seen as well as normal countryside. And the composition looks also nice. --Aktron (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Interesting. Looks nice. --Lošmi (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC) natural bonzai.
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vista panorâmica CP.jpg
[edit] File:Montana state capitol 2.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2009 at 23:25:29
- Info: created by Geo. R. Mann restored, uploaded & nominated by Jake Wartenberg — Jake Wartenberg 23:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support — Jake Wartenberg 23:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I think its perfect.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support The sky is cool and the composition is not bad also. --Aktron (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- It is a colored print.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 07:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Smoke from wildfire on Angel Island blankets San Franciscon.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2009 at 02:02:26
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info:w:Smoke from wildfire on Angel Island blankets Downtown San Francisco, Bay Bridge, w:San Francisco Bay and the rising w:sun. Please click the word wildfire to see the fire itself.
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question: - why this picture: [4] is uploaded just on English Wikipedia and not here at Commons? All usefull files should be uploaded here. Could you ad in GEO location, please?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your question, Juan de Vojníkov and for calling my images usefull. The imageFile:Wildfire on Angel Island com.jpg was uploaded to Commons. Geotag is added.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: please notice the color of w:sun glitter. Thic colors are very unusual because of the smoke. BTW IMO sunglitter by itself is interesting enough for the picture to be considered for FP. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support looking on the picture its strange, unnatural, but of course its a smoke. The picture is pefect then.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 07:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Support Miusia (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Reichstag building Berlin view from west before sunset.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2009 at 19:29:03
- Info: created and uploaded by JürgenMatern - nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Nice shot of this important building in Berlin. FP in German and Turkish wikipedias. Kadellar (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support very nice --AngMoKio (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pro2 (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Theklan (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- just Support Impressive picture - the only thing is that I have the feeling the right side is slightly underexposed and in general there is too much black level. There is only little drawing/detail in the blacks - as example the pedestrians with dark clothes or some shadows. And I think I found a less than little-bitty stitching error - look at the cars roof :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Good eye, I missed that. Also, is it just me, or does the right tower look a little stretched? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 12:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice Twin.priyanka (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Fantastic lighting, however this composition would be much nicer if both corners are in the same distance. They are not. Well it is maybe a small inacurracy, but it can be seen clearly :-( --Aktron (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Doucus (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- --Lapost (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --staka.talk 02:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support wirklich gute Details --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:01 eibar.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2009 at 01:13:13
- Info: created by Indalecio Ojanguren - uploaded by User:Xeskisabel - nominated by User:Theklan -- Theklan (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Theklan (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image is too small and needs restoration. MER-C 08:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
-
- It´s not too small, but has more than two megapixels, so I removed FPX. And I don´t think, restoration is a constraint for featuring historical images. --norro 08:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Full of scratches. —kallerna™ 12:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad quality and needs restoration… →Diti the penguin — 14:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Please add english description. ■ MMXXtalk 20:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset on Pines Island 1.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Campanula-Barbata-su-Pietra.jpg
[edit] File:Natural Love.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2009 at 19:36:01
- Info: created by Calum.redhead - uploaded by Calum.redhead - nominated by Calum.redhead -- Calum.redhead (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Calum.redhead (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: - You should indicate the species, otherwise the chances of success are almost nul -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Unaware of species becuase I simply took this photograph of a flower that was growing in my garden. Would love some help from anyone to find out what type of flower it is. --Calum.redhead (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose For now. No identification, poor - respectively no image description. Geo location would be great. Here is a example of a good/ideal image description, regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Where's info? —kallerna™ 15:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Info and license added. Yet to find species. Request FPX removal. --Calum.redhead (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the species is not identified and there is no licensing information. MER-C 08:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: it is Dicentra sp. I've got answer here [5]. It looks like Dicentra spectabilis
- Support Basik07 (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Ferry Instabul.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2009 at 20:33:18
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Lapost -- Lapost (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Quite lot of noise. —kallerna™ 15:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Blackcap in net.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2009 at 20:40:14
- Info: created by Xenus - uploaded by Xenus - nominated by Xenus -- Xenus (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Xenus (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Obelix (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support →Diti the penguin — 23:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Less than 2mp and needs a crop which would reduce the res even further. --Muhammad 03:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As per Muhammad --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per R. Bartz. —kallerna™ 15:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The 2.0 Mpx is more a recommendation than an absolute limit. I wouldn't say 300×300 pixels less than this limit (1.9 Mpx < 2.0 Mpx) is bothering. :) →Diti the penguin — 22:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose photo has wow, but compression artifacts are too strong (especially in the cropped editions) Nillerdk (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Mérignac.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2009 at 21:08:01
- Info: created by Alexandre Duret-Lutz - uploaded by Zil - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXXtalk 21:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- ■ MMXXtalk 21:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral as I am not sure what the purpose of this picture is. bamse (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Very good example of stereographic projection, unfortunately the optical quality is really bad near the borders of the photo (chromatic aberration, unsharpness, and the like). →Diti the penguin — 23:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose No usage, CA, unsharpness. —kallerna™ 15:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:2007 FoC, Abelard Giza (Gęba).jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2009 at 14:56:07
.jpg)
- Info: created by Marcin Gierasimowicz - uploaded by odder - nominated by odder
- Overview. It is one of over 300 photos uploaded from the 2007 Festival of Cabaret in Zielona Góra, for which I have been given an official press accreditation as a Wikinews reporter. Marcin Gierasimowicz is a friend of mine, interested in photography, whom I have asked for help. He has been told about the whole licensing matter and agreed to accompany me as a photographer. This picture has been taken in a student's club Gęba (English literary translation would be Mug, I guess), near here, the place where almost all of Zielona Góra's cabarets were founded and have been performing in. The subject of the photo is Abelard Giza, a Polish actor, director, scriptwriter, but he's mostly famous as a cabaret artist, member of Kabaret Limo, a Gdańsk-based cabaret that took part in the 2007 Festival. This picture is really valuable for our projects, and I feel it also meets the technical side criteria. odder 14:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- odder 14:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question: Could you reduce noise? —kallerna™ 15:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I'll try to when I get home (around 19:30 UTC). odder 08:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose dont see anything special about it... technical side ok... why not nominate it for QI instead? -- Dcubillas (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition good but not sharp in detail. --Aktron (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Glockenturm mit Glocken.svg, not featured
Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2009 at 16:47:40
- Info: created by Niabot - uploaded by Niabot - nominated by Niabot -- Niabot (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral since it is my own work -- Niabot (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. --norro 20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Paris 16 (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment English description for the Commons reviewers would be nice --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree it is a nice illustration, but not sophisticated enough to reach feature status. All we can see is four bells. What about the rest of the mechanism? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --staka.talk 02:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar. --Karel (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose If you are unable to show the mechanism, at least show where the bats "hang out". -- carol (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per other opposers. —kallerna™ 07:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:RailRunner loco SFSR loco and observation car.JPG, not featured
Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2009 at 18:16:27
- Info: created by Sunil060902 - uploaded by Sunil060902 - nominated by Sunil060902 -- Sunil060902 18:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Sunil060902 (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It has good sharpness + exposure - but - the composition doesn't convince me, sorry. The sudden cut on the right side is interrupting the dynamic of the scene. The bend of the platform and the passengers would have given some space to bring the trains more to bear and a better idea of their dimensions. Only 20-30 feet more space on the right to bring the New Mexico Railrunner's flank (with the doors) in the optical third and it would be perfect IMO . --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. --staka.talk 02:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. —kallerna™ 13:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: I added the geocoordinates to the image description --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as above also -- Dcubillas (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Unique composition needs support. I like this image, it is original, it shows trains, it is not underexposed, nor overexposed, not noisy and quite sharp. --Aktron (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:RailRunner loco SFSR loco and observation car2.JPG, not featured
- Comment well, the nearest I got was the above, Sunil060902 (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I notice you included some rather detailed information about the trains. You can see the station in that image, so why not add geocoordinates as well? Ottre 11:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I see, the angle is different and by far not that impressive than the original nomination. I had something like that in mind :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Were you there in Santa Fe the same exact day? Sunil060902 (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, it was just a idea - sketch -> photomontage --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- D'Oh! I see it now! Sunil060902 (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, it was just a idea - sketch -> photomontage --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Florida topographic map-en.svg, featured
Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2009 at 19:30:29
- Info: created by Sting - uploaded by Sting - nominated by le Korrigan →bla 19:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: One of these wonderful maps created by Sting. Also exists in JPEG version for easier browsing: File:Florida topographic map-en.jpg, and there is a translation in French as well. le Korrigan →bla 19:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- le Korrigan →bla 19:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- --Lapost (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Looks like professional work. →Diti the penguin — 22:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great job! —kallerna™ 13:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --norro 09:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose A QI candidate rather than a FP one. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Coyau (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Quebec province topographic map-fr.svg, featured
Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2009 at 19:34:53
- Info: created by Sting - uploaded by Sting - nominated by le Korrigan →bla 19:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: A very detailed map of Québec, in French, created by Sting. No English version yet, but as it is SVG, anybody (means YOU !) can translate it. le Korrigan →bla 19:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- le Korrigan →bla 19:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- --Lapost (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Looks like professional work. →Diti the penguin — 22:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --staka.talk 02:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Well done. —kallerna™ 13:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support // tsca [re] 11:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wow. --Kosiarz-PL 17:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --norro 09:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose A QI candidate rather than a FP one. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Coyau (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I wanted to do this map for a long time. Too late ! Sémhur (talk) 11:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Bracadale07 2007-08-22.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2009 at 20:24:36
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Klaus with K -- Klaus with K (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support as nominator-- Klaus with K (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Uninteresting, noisy. —kallerna™ 21:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral I'am uncertain, for me the image details are a bit too crude and somehow it looks underexposed but I could be wrong.. Otherwise nice. --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- Info: Any brighter and the intensity histogram would clip. Regarding noise - no, I do not paint the sky from a bucket of blue paint (aka noise reduction) -- Klaus with K (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - agree with kallerna- Dcubillas (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose No WOW. I mean the grass colors are quite dumm compared with other nominations with light haze and nice sun reflections :-) --Aktron (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Kazakhs.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2009 at 21:49:41
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by User:Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Forestry officers in Markakol reserve, Altay Mountains
- Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Something's bad here.. maybe the shine on the waters. --staka.talk 22:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I think this is an outstanding image, the two riders facing each other offer an interesting opposition to the copse of wood on the right, the mountains in the background provide a good context that this is a wilderness image and is not one taken close to town; and the river in the foreground shows an aspect of life we all require; water. Together it shows that even in the most remote of places, life is not only possible, but that it thrives. I agree that there is a shine off the water in the foreground, but I think this actually adds to the image in reflecting the sky. Together the composition is wonderful and balanced, left-right; top-bottom! The snow in the foreground reflects the snow on the mountains; bringing to mind both the summer that is coming and the winter that was, and that will later follow. Excellent image! fr33kman -s- 22:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Then probably the officers should be in focus rather than the stream in the foreground. Colchicum (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I must travel there someday. Could you add date to infobox? —kallerna™ 16:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Interesting composition. The only weak part I see it is the under exposition of the riders. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support although I second Tiago Fioreze's concerns. Notyourbroom (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support: Maedin\talk 19:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lapost (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like it.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Villa16 (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Dori - Talk 00:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Cattle call2.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2009 at 18:56:31
- Info: created by Marion Post Wolcott - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Cattle call.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Durova (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good restoration. Notyourbroom (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Interesting composition and good restoration. --Ronja (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Very poor quality (not judging restoration attempts). Old ≠ automatically featurable. Lycaon (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose- Poor quality not mitigated by any relevant historial value. As Lycaon, restoration job not evaluated. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. —kallerna™ 17:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose not nice --Faigl.ladislav (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Dori - Talk 00:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Image:HePa Colossos Panorama.jpg, withdrawn
Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2009 at 18:41:02
- Info: created by Sarion - uploaded by Sarion - nominated by Pro2 -- Pro2 (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pro2 (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Very visible stitching errors on at least 3 locations. Possible to eliminate with the latest version of Hugin if source images are still available. -- Peipei (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Stitching errors. —kallerna™ 16:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Ah, ok i see. Pro2 (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Stitching errors, not complete on right side, the lantern on the left side is lopsided. MatthiasKabel (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment There's no need to kick him when he's down. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Mill Pond, Monroe County.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2009 at 17:31:57
- Info: created by Nicholas_T - uploaded by User:Neurolysis - nominated by 86.96.229.85 17:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Miusia (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Oversaturated --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)- Oversaturated -- Pro2 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oversaturated --staka.talk 22:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support While it is true that this image is oversaturated we have to consider the viewer, not the average one of us who understands f-stops, ISO, color formats, images and photography. This image is interesting to the general public; it's far oversaturation is actually what makes it a good image. It offers an ethereal quality to the pond and brings the clouds into the image in an also ethereal manner. We have to ignore the technical qualities of this image and just simply look at it. In this regard it is outstanding. Who cares if it is artificial looking?! It is also wonderfully composed! I'd urge those above who oppose to reconsider it with the eyes of the viewer, not those of the photographer! It's the sort of image that would find a great home in the press, and in the photo-books! fr33kman -s- 23:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Whatever the other views, the picture is still oversaturated and thus doesn't deserves the FP status for me. →Diti the penguin — 23:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as above - also, FP images need to have certain "technical qualities" that cant be ignored - besides, the content/composition not spectacular... so cant justify overlooking its flaws in any way. -- Dcubillas (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oversaturated —kallerna™ 16:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose great composition, bad execution. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oversaturated Hmm I like such fancy colors, why not. But this is definitely not a place where they should be --Aktron (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support that picture is THE exception where oversaturation is valuable. looks artistic here. --Jeses (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oversaturated --Doucus (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Dori - Talk 00:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Murnauer Moos with horse.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2009 at 02:55:40
- Info: created, uploaded & nominated by Richard Bartz (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Based on the northern edge of the bavarian Alps and south of the city Murnau, the Murnauer Moos forms with 32 km² the biggest connected bog of Central Europe
- Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Could you correct the date (3 September 2009 (2009-09-03))? —kallerna™ 07:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support MartinD (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support hypnotic. Samulili (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support great pic. Tipp: Setze das nicht bei de:KEB rein. Ich kann die Schreie nach Hufen schon hören ;) --AngMoKio (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wieher, schnaub, stampf ! --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I´m really impressed. --norro 11:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- great colors, but don't like composition --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Too "photoshoped" for my taste. The photo looks quite artificial. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support- Better if the horse wouldn't be there, only that great landscape. --Cayambe (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Miusia (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral I think the composition could be improved with more of the animal showing. --Muhammad 18:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think nobody want to see a electric fence. So it is what it is - a nice window where a horse is looking in --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As D.A. Mottl, mainly composition. --Karel (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --staka.talk 22:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support meets criteria. very humorous! :) fr33kman -s- 23:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Unbalanced composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice scene, but the depth of field is way too deep. The horse and the background could hardly be sharp enough at the same time anyway, but now the picture looks flat, a contrast between the horse and the grass is lost. And the image doesn't really fit the description. It looks more like an ordinary horse with some distracting background rather than Murnauer Moos with a horse. Sorry. Colchicum (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Looking good --Aktron (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose An ordinary horse? Are they so ugly? Perhaps it would be a good picture of the Murnauer Moos, if there were not the horse. A wide angle lens is not the way to take a good picture of a horse in that position. The nose is almost as big as the rest of the body and the ears somehow remind me of the easter bunny. It's a joke, isn't it? --wau > 20:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support- very good --Pudelek (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry, in my opinion the flash doesn't look good. it gives it a very artificial look. Amada44 (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose unfortunate crop, centered horizon. --Base64 (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Interesting and unusual--Mbz1 (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Though interesting DOF technique, I don't like the artificial result. Lycaon (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Cool photo, technically sound! --Specious (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Though I'm sure that it hasn't, the sharpness of both the foreground and background make it look Photoshopped. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 16 support, 10 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Dori - Talk 00:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Wintry sunset.JPG, not featured
Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2009 at 14:55:16
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Too sharp, gray colors. —Jagro (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support It isn't easy to take a picture like this with even higher quality. --Aktron (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Like it. --Lošmi (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Dull boring colours, underexposed --Muhammad 02:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per other opposers. —kallerna™ 07:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as above -- Dcubillas (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as above - --Cayambe (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose poorly exposed, not overly interesting; like the starburst the sun creates however. fr33kman -s- 23:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Dori - Talk 00:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:FA18 faster than sound.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2009 at 12:23:49
- Info: created by Photographer's Mate 3rd Class Milosz Reterski - uploaded by User:Denniss - nominated by User:Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, there a better illustrations of this phenomenon. --norro 13:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- Neither of the above would have a hope of passing the FP process; both are below resolution, grainy and blurry. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I have the same judgement about them as you. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- Support --Karel (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support With wow efect. —Jagro (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I have to agree with norro. --Aktron (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per norro. Lycaon (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per norro. —kallerna™ 07:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support imho, none of those illustratons is better than this picture. I vote for picture, not for perfect ilustration of phenomenon. Basik07 (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't oppose as per norro (who should provide visual proves of his statement, btw), but by the fact the photo itself is too flat. The airplane is rather underexposed, (which is explicable by the fact the sun was at its left side). Maybe another shot taking into account that the FA18 is illuminated by the sun (rather than darkened) would get better results. So far, I keep my opposition based on that. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- You make a good point; I'll have a look through the Navy web archives and see if I can find something else. In the meantime though, this is the best we've got. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Well, exposure in this picture is relative. The image should be viewed as a whole. This picture is definitely not about the underside of a plane, but rather, about a plane and a visual effect, composition, etc., etc. While the underside may be underexposed, that does not diminish the other visual elements, such as movement, countour, color... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 5 oppose, x neutral => not featured. --Dori - Talk 00:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Kamp Vught.JPG, not featured
Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2009 at 12:12:06
[edit] Black & White
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question: I really think it is a thought-out and nice composition. But why did you use f/19 and as a consequence of this iso 800? --AngMoKio (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- My idea was to bring details beyond the barbed wired fences in order to lead to a feeling of being imprisoned there (as if you would be standing right next to the fence). That was the main reason for a narrow aperture (f/19). My personal opinion is that the noise produced by the high ISO sensitivity (800) just creates an old atmosphere (let's say back to the 40's) for the scene. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much noise, and oversharpened. Good idea on the composition, but I think you've taken it too far with trying to make it look old. I'd prefer good quality. --Dori - Talk 15:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Same photo with colours and better quality would get my vote. —kallerna™ 07:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose flat B/W -- Dcubillas (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as others. --staka.talk 22:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Colors
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Tiago Fioreze (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose overexposed sky, noisy, CA --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose overexposed sky. --staka.talk 22:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Come on just a sky like here is on 40 % of commons images. --Aktron (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Chiang Kai-shek memorial amk.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2009 at 12:06:40
[edit] left version, featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: The picture shows the Chiang Kai-shek memorial hall in Taipei. --AngMoKio (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- AngMoKio (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment How would you feel about cropping to remove some foreground? Fg2 (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like this one better. Although the crop looks good also, I find the wide long path to the memorial more impressible. --Lošmi (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Per Lošmi. —kallerna™ 07:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 10:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support As per Lošmi. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Dori - Talk 00:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] right version, not featured
- Info: Fg2s suggestion with less foreground. --AngMoKio (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Either version, but prefer the cropped one Fg2 (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - this one --Pudelek (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Dori - Talk 00:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Gambia girl.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2009 at 08:02:06
- Info: created by Ferdinand Reus - uploaded by Mangostar - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXXtalk 08:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- ■ MMXXtalk 08:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Some moiré correction to do. →Diti the penguin — 10:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wow! --Aktron (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 07:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Assar (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support interesting hands --Jeses (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful picture --Hrast (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 10:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Despite the unfortunate crop. Lycaon (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - We need good photographs of people -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Dori - Talk 00:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Photographing sunrise 1745.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2009 at 00:32:15
- Info: created, uploaded, nominated by -- --Dori - Talk 00:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: A photographer capturing a sunrise image. --Dori - Talk 00:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- --Dori - Talk 00:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support A nice twist on an old favourite. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support /Daniel78 (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--libertad0 ॐ (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I have no objection about personal rights --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Hmm. Most Interesting. I mean the composition and colors :-) --Aktron (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I agree with Richard Bartz -- MJJR (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 07:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - --Cayambe (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --staka.talk 22:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Lookatthis (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Nice mood and composition (though a tad too classic, we can almost calibrate our ruler by the thirds of the image...) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Dori - Talk 00:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Bregenz pano 1.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2009 at 22:02:20
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Böhringer (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral I think the picture should be a bit hmm.. closer. But it is not bad. --Aktron (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose not bad... but not great -- Dcubillas (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Grudziądz Granaries 2009 .JPG, not featured
Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2009 at 17:52:52
- Info: created by Kosiarz-PL - uploaded by Kosiarz-PL - nominated by Kosiarz-PL -- Kosiarz-PL 17:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Kosiarz-PL 17:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment, rather good, actually, but I think the white balance needs some tweaking. The sky and water are too red-ish, I think. --Aqwis (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose same thought as above. --staka.talk 20:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose ordinary - bad composition -- Dcubillas (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose no wow. Also, I agree with the above comments. Anonymous101 talk 10:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as others above --Cayambe (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Aqwis and Dcubillas. —kallerna™ 07:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Republican presidential ticket 1864b.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2009 at 17:19:51
- Info: created by Currier and Ives - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored version of File:Republican presidential ticket 1864.jpg; smaller version for slower connections available at File:Republican presidential ticket 1864b courtesy copy.jpg. -- Durova
- Info: Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson as candidates for the United States presidential election, 1864. Lithograph with watercolor tint by Currier and Ives.
- Support -- Durova (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --staka.talk 20:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great restoration, excellent work. Anonymous101 talk 15:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 07:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Muhammad 18:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice restoration work. -- Notyourbroom (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Dori - Talk 00:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Democratic presidential ticket 1864b.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2009 at 17:17:32
- Info: created by Currier and Ives - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored version of File:Democratic presidential ticket 1864.jpg; smaller version for slower connections available at File:Democratic presidential ticket 1864b courtesy copy.jpg. -- Durova (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: George B. McClellan and George H. Pendleton as candidates for the United States presidential election, 1864. Lithograph with watercolor tint by Currier and Ives.
- Support -- Durova (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --staka.talk 20:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 07:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a bog-standard example of the genre and provides nothing extra from the nom for this type of image; it also has no real relevance for today's average viewer fr33kman -s- 23:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Peripitus (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice restoration work. -- Notyourbroom (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I can't find a single reason to support. Sorry. Lycaon (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Dori - Talk 00:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Canthigaster valentini prg1.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2009 at 14:43:17
- Info: created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karel (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Karel (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Lovely, but there is lack of sharpness. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Looking good, but not very sharp. --Aktron (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Lack of sharpness. —kallerna™ 07:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Tavurvur volcano 5.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2009 at 13:44:26
- Info: created by Taro Taylor - uploaded by Sadalmelik - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXXtalk 13:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- ■ MMXXtalk 13:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Dori - Talk 00:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Tavurvur volcano edit.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2009 at 13:54:58
- Info: created by Taro Taylor - uploaded by Richard Bartz nominated by Richard Bartz / Mmxx
- Info: Version with fixed tilt, noise removal and location template
- Support Good find. -- Richard Bartz (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support impressive shot --AngMoKio (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Impressive, indeed. I'm wondering what it is the object floating on the sea (see bottom right). Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe the remains of Chuck Noland after unsuccessfully searching for Wilson ? :-) Joke apart .. I think it's flotsam --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wow! —kallerna™ 15:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --staka.talk 20:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 21:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice --Böhringer (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Impressive --Dori - Talk 22:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Impressive --norro 23:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Miusia (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Assar (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Pile-on Support Wonderful. Durova (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Background info To the right of Tavurvur is Turangunan, and party visible behind Turangunan is the highest peak of Rabaul Caldera, Kabiu. Behind Tavurvur is another vent of Rabaul Volcano, Rabalanakaia - I think that's the side peak just to left of the ash pillar. Turangunan and Kabiu were formed before the caldera forming eruption, while Rabalanakaia erupted in the 15th century. Few kilometers to the west of Rabalanakaia is another vent, Sulphur Creek, which erupted ca. 1850 -- it's too low to be visible. Tavurvur has been spewing ash for most of the last 15 years, and there are couple of active volcanoes/vents on the other side of the 10 km caldera. And there are few other volcanoes within 25 km of Rabaul caldera, including another 10 km undersea caldera. – Sadalmelik ☎ 16:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Not the best quality mitigated by colours and wow. Lycaon (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Dori - Talk 00:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Munchen 421.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2009 at 02:18:45
- Info: created by Biser Todorov - uploaded by Biso - nominated by Biso -- Biso (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Biso (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support OK. I remember I have nominated 2 pictures like this one (one from Berlin, one from Bratislava) but all failed. But this one is looking good. --Aktron (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose uninteresting composition -- Dcubillas (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Dcubillas. —kallerna™ 17:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose uninteresting --Faigl.ladislav (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Dori - Talk 00:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Clouds over the Atlantic Ocean.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2009 at 11:16:44
- Info: created, uploaded, nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - composition that I regard as close to immaculate. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Yes, too much imaculate. Dead centered, I would say. Also, the image quality is far from the desired excelence, with visible artifatcs, loss of detail and posterization in the sky. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality isn't enought because of ordinary subject (quite noisy). —kallerna™ 15:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - ordinary - Dcubillas (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per other opposers. --staka.talk 20:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose not nice --Faigl.ladislav (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Dori - Talk 00:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Dornbirn pano 1.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2009 at 21:11:00
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice photo… if there hadn't had this tree (bad composition). →Diti the penguin — 01:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose To dark in the right area, tree, nothing special. MatthiasKabel (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Mir gefällt das Bild eigentlich sehr gut. Es ist links schon etwas dunkel aber das ist noch ok. Ach ja...im rechten oberen Bereich hast du ein paar Staubflecken. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support English description would be nice. —kallerna™ 15:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose ordinary, not FP material Dcubillas (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As Dcubillas. --Karel (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Unfortunately it is dark, however, lighter picture would make the snow overburnt so I think it is good as it is :-) --Aktron (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Dori - Talk 00:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Hole Haven and British Falcon.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2009 at 17:26:11
- Info: created by Oneblackline - uploaded by Oneblackline - nominated by Oneblackline -- Oneblackline (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Oneblackline (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing extra, composition is a bit messy. /Daniel78 (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose- as above -- Dcubillas (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Daniel78. —kallerna™ 13:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:E-2C Landing.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2009 at 00:40:40
- Info: created by MC3 (SW) JOHN HYDE (USN) - uploaded and nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --staka.talk 02:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Template:Strong Oppose The composition could be much better. I mean, half of the focal point of the image is missing.128.135.88.184 06:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)-- anonymous vote --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)- Oppose composition. --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The picture seems to me a bit like a snapshot, bcs I can't really see a convincing composition. But maybe I miss the point... --AngMoKio (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I would like to see whole plane in the photo. —kallerna™ 13:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose tilt --Jeses (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Only part of the planes are visible, dark, horizon. MatthiasKabel (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral- the plane is fine as is... its just that tilt -- Dcubillas (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Significant part of the plane is not a part of this image :-( --Aktron (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great, dynamic image. Those who wanted to see "the whole thing" probably did not think that it would make the plane much smaller within the frame, and the wings are not all that interesting here. Tight crop really works here. ZhiraeerMkrtchan (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Dori - Talk 00:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Phalacrocorax-auritus-020.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2009 at 00:46:53
- Info: created by Mdf - uploaded by Mdf - nominated by Richard 00:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Portrait of Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus)
- Support -- Richard (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wow --Muhammad 06:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - --Cayambe (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Amazing quality. —kallerna™ 16:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wow... really impressive quality. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The most amazing thing, I think, is it was taken at 700 mm with a 1.4 teleconverter. I wonder if he is using Image Stabalization (or if that would just interfere with his apparently perfect setup) and if he is actually pressing the camera shoot button. On another note, I have given up supporting and opposing a while back when people weren't agreeing with me. Tomfriedel (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Mdf quality. Tom here's one of his setups. --Dori - Talk 04:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support really good --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great colors and picture. --Korman (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Porte Saint-Denis, intrados.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2009 at 00:52:30
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Coyau -- Coyau (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Coyau (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Paris 16 (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose more like a QI candidate than FP -- Dcubillas (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice, but a bit grainy. --Aktron (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Agree with Dcubillas. →Diti the penguin — 00:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 17:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Done A little denoised. --
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[2]](http://www.makrofreak.de/ID/1_148.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.makrofreak.de/ID/fliegenpilzbaby_153.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[6]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SonicBoom.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F-18-diamondback_blast.jpg){kind=link}
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Thomas Keene in Macbeth 1884 Wikipedia crop.png, not featured
Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2009 at 05:05:31
- Info: created by W.J. Morgan & Co. Lith. - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Excellent restoration work as always. :) Notyourbroom (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support High quality and somewhat unusual subject - artistic, historical and information value --Ronja (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Pbroks13 (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Sea kayaking from Coles Bay.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2009 at 06:19:44
- Info: created by Tirin - uploaded by Tirin - nominated by Aaroncrick -- Aaroncrick (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Aaroncrick (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Unsharp. →Diti the penguin — 08:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose ordinary - bad composition -- Dcubillas (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question: Could you fix CA? —kallerna™ 16:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor composition --Korman (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2009 (
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Wineglass bay.JPG, not featured
Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2009 at 08:43:57
- Info: created by Aaroncrick - uploaded by Aaroncrick - nominated by Aaroncrick -- Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 08:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 08:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose ordinary subject/composition... also, too flat -- Dcubillas (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I rather your other version of this photo File:Wineglass_bay-edit.JPG Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Quite ordinary. —kallerna™ 16:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Quite ordinary. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Skydive runaway.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2009 at 10:02:59
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by User:Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose photo "ok", but not spectacular... might of been better had the photo been a close-up taken just as the
planesskydivers where braking formation... in a way that you can see theplanesskydivers better and still see the smoke trails -- Dcubillas (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)- Comment Sorry, I don't see any planes in this photo :) --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Some people don't even display the full-res picture before voting! :D →Diti the penguin — 17:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment yeah, some people! :) ....... initially they looked like "planes" in the larger thumbnail (after seeing the full res photo, they obviously dont anymore)... but to have to see the full-res photo to make out what the black spots are (and to have to findout what the photo is about), to me, defeats the candidate. It was clear from the larger thumbnail (and the mistake) that the "subjects" where too small and I felt I didnt have to see the full-res image to make up my mind in this case. Reading the name would have been a nice hint though! sorry about that ---- so yes... I maintain my oppose -- Dcubillas (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question: Could you add english description? —kallerna™ 16:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support English description added. —kallerna™ 17:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Same thing as Tiago's comment below, I didn't know how to put it. →Diti the penguin — 17:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Your photo gets only interesting when magnification is used. Otherwise, it's hard to tell what the photo is about. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support These pictures are designed to be used at their full resolution. It's an exciting image. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support "Hm, let's see what so special about those plains?" --> full size --> wow! --Lošmi (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Remarkably low noise, good composition, and clear details. Notyourbroom (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor details, completely devoid of wow. Lycaon (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Fort-monceau-1 (by).jpg, not featured
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2009 at 12:54:00
.jpg)
- Info: created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose uninteresting composition -- Dcubillas (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, that tree on the bottom left is distracting. —kallerna™ 16:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, that tree on the bottom left is distracting.--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Refuge des Aiguilles d'Arves, Savoie.jpg, withdrawn
Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2009 at 16:28:10
- Info: created by Yann - uploaded by Yann - nominated by Yann (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Yann (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad composition, very noisy. —kallerna™ 16:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose composition is not really exiting. Amada44 (talk)
- Oppose as above -- Dcubillas (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As per Amada44 (talk). Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
Yann (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose uninteresting --Faigl.ladislav (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Australian Brush-Turkey Telephone.JPG, not featured
Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2009 at 14:26:14
- Info: Created, uploaded and nominated by Quartl (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Australian brush-turkey standing on a wooden bench in a public picnic area waiting for the right moment to steal some morsels from unsuspecting picnickers... --Quartl (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Disturbing backgroud, pretty bad quality. —kallerna™ 12:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- The image is used to illustrate the behaviour of the brush-turkey in civilization (see en:Australian brush-turkey), so the background is somewhat necessary. I do not know how to improve the quality apart from downsampling, the image has 9 mpix after all. --Quartl (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- The photo does not show much "interaction" of the turkey with civilization (well, with the phone maybe)... not the best background to illustrate this. Perhaps if more of the bench and a few picnickers where visible... or better yet... a shot of the turkey caught in the middle of a robbery. This is just a photo of a turkey, and the background is distracting. -- Dcubillas (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- The Australian brush-turkey is normally quite shy and only seen burrowing the undergrowth in forests under bad lighting conditions. What is remarkable about this image is that the shown specimen is a wild animal, albeit used to people, boldly standing there in broad daylight. I could crop or edit away the phone and the contents of the display window, but I'm not sure that this would improve the value of the image. --Quartl (talk) 05:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- The photo does not show much "interaction" of the turkey with civilization (well, with the phone maybe)... not the best background to illustrate this. Perhaps if more of the bench and a few picnickers where visible... or better yet... a shot of the turkey caught in the middle of a robbery. This is just a photo of a turkey, and the background is distracting. -- Dcubillas (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- The image is used to illustrate the behaviour of the brush-turkey in civilization (see en:Australian brush-turkey), so the background is somewhat necessary. I do not know how to improve the quality apart from downsampling, the image has 9 mpix after all. --Quartl (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support A bit noisy on full resolution, but I like overall look. --Lošmi (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Poor composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support For overall look.--Adi (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as above -- Dcubillas (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Cool shot, but full resolution quality is so low! Post-processed too aggressively? --Specious (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Well, it cannot be said that it is a pretty bird, nor a wild life photo. However, the juxtaposition of the wild bird and urban setting, and the ugliness of the bird itself make it an interesting picture. I sure hope that being a turkey, it tastes better than it looks! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Karel (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Estrilda (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 4 oppose => not featured. Pbroks13 (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:NYC Panorama edit.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2009 at 06:53:13
- Info: created by Jnn13 - uploaded by Jnn13 - nominated by Jnn13 -- Jnn13 (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jnn13 (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Minimum size for panorama is 800px height --Muhammad 11:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently tilted. --norro 16:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I can't see anything excepted a skyline. Commons has a limit of 100MB for files. A good reason to upload a panorama with real-size photos. Panoramic images need to have a minimum height of 800px. →Diti the penguin — 12:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Tilted. —kallerna™ 16:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Diti -- Dcubillas (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question: There's what appears to be a stitching error in the far right of the picture, visible in the water. Is this a stitching error or something else? -- Peipei (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Fair enough. I'm working on a larger panorama of the same, per comments above, and will address the issue. Jnn13 (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I made a new panorama: File:NYC Panorama edit2.jpg with original (23,268 × 1,580 pixels) height. LiveChocolate (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose => not featured. Pbroks13 (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:NYC Panorama edit2.jpg, not featured
- Support the new version. --Aqwis (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support →Diti the penguin — 01:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 07:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 13:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- This version has more noticeable vignetting effects visible in the sky, the first version - although containing other errors - did not suffer from vignetting problems. -- Peipei (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Curvy horizon --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Maybe it could look nice on the wall, but on computer screen is image with this dimensions ratio for nothing. --Karel (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- Comment - Karelj: FP guidelines state: "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."
- Comment, this is an invalid oppose reason. --Aqwis (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support what do you expect from panorama, 4:3 ratio!? --LiveChocolate (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment As much as I would like to support this picture, there are bands in the sky where colour changes are very apparent. --Muhammad 11:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Horizon is not straight and the banding in the sky is too visible. Lycaon (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Please note, I finally uploaded an update to the original panorama. Jnn13 (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose => not featured. Pbroks13 (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Praha, Holyně, strom a vedení.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2009 at 20:21:54
- Info: created by Aktron - uploaded by Aktron - nominated by Aktron -- Aktron (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Aktron (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Very bad quality. Non interesting shot. -- Peipei (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose CA, not that interesting. Sry. —kallerna™ 12:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose While not necessarily a bad shot, particularly within the limits of your camera, unfortunately it is in no way unique. --Specious (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Praha, Řepy, západ slunce nad Zličínem.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2009 at 20:21:54
- Info: created by Aktron - uploaded by Aktron - nominated by Aktron -- Aktron (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Aktron (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Those roofs disturb me. —kallerna™ 12:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Panorama Jerusalem Tempelberg JPEG.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2009 at 12:42:08
- Info: created by 365grad - uploaded by 365grad - nominated by USERNAME -- 365grad (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- 365grad (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Quite noisy, very foggy. —kallerna™ 14:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy, smoggy, and heavy chromatic abberation in top left corner. -- Peipei (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as above -- Dcubillas (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose like the others --Doucus (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Cathédrale de Nantes - nef.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2009 at 10:57:49
- Info: created by Eusebius - uploaded by Eusebius - nominated by Eusebius -- Eusebius (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Eusebius (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support "no" -- carol (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment nice photo... but it begs for more detail. Is a larger file available? -- Dcubillas (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Doucus (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice work!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lookatthis (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support atmosphere is great --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good image and composition. --Korman (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 13:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support bit small but ok for FP. Lycaon (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Like the photo... but still think needs more res. -- Dcubillas (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Wonderful nave and good picture but the subject deserves more detail -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Pbroks13 (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Luxembourg Fortress from Adolphe Bridge 01.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2009 at 23:19:36
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Cayambe - -- Cayambe (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Cayambe (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Posterization visible on clouds - uninteresting composition -- Dcubillas (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow. —kallerna™ 12:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose composition --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:A Swift's Call To Prayer.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2009 at 22:55:25
- Info: created by Dcubillas - uploaded by Dcubillas - nominated by Dcubillas -- Dcubillas (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question: Could you add species information to the image description? bamse (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question: Where is EXIF-data? Could you reduce noise? —kallerna™ 14:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Ive just added species information to the image description as best I could. also... Where is the noise?? To say that this image is "noisy" would be "spliting hairs"... over doing it. Mind you that the walls of minaret have a "rough" finish, and the golden part is made of tiles... both things may be mistaken as noise at first glance. The sky has VERY fine grain... barely noticeable at 100%. reducing this "noise" would also reduce fine detail elsewhere in the image... a bad compromise IMO for removing barely noticeable "noise". And the EXIF-data? well... gone. Lost somewhere along my post processing workflow. I switch between 2 programs and 2 image formats... I convert my original JPGs to TIFF, work on them till Im happy, then convert back to JPG. Working with TIFF allows me to go back and work on the image as many times as I want without worrying about losing image quality every time its saved. The EXIF-data gets striped somewhere along the line... When I found out, I was quite pleased as I was trying to find A way to remove the EXIF-data from most of my photos (for all uses other than commons, as I didnt mind leaving the exif on photos used here)... a welcomed accident. Of course, now all of my photo lack EXIF-data. Never bothered looking for a solution to something that I didnt see as a problem. Besides I dont think its a requirement for FP. -- Dcubillas (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- So you switch from a lossy format (where information has been lost because it was saved in this lossy format) to a lossless format (where nothing is lost, except of course that what was lost before is still lost) and then back to a lossy format again (losing even more)? Plrk (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- ---If you are not shooting RAW and you want to process your images, you dont have a choice to "losing even more"--- As far as Im concerned (for my purposes), no information is lost in the original JPG files (the ones created by the camera) since no saves have been performed (although "technically"... the camera has 'saved' the file as JPG). In a way, I treat my "original JPG files" as if they where RAW files. There is clearly no comparison, but (for several reasons) I unfortunately cant shoot other than JPGs for the time being and have to settle for this (the original JPG has to be my starting point for now). In the end the outcome is exactly the same with or without the TIFF step in between, but TIFF gives you flexibility (the whole point your missing). I just want a file with the exact image quality as the JPG produced by my camera, but without its limitations. So unless you shoot RAW or dont touch the JPGs produced by your camera... You will loose some more quality... You will need at least a second JPG save. Not that these files arent any good... they are more that good enough for the majority uses... besides, you'd be hard pressed to see any difference between a JPG saved once and the same one saved twice.. IMO the visible losses come with further saves (something TIFF and other lossless formats help avoid). -- Dcubillas (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- So you switch from a lossy format (where information has been lost because it was saved in this lossy format) to a lossless format (where nothing is lost, except of course that what was lost before is still lost) and then back to a lossy format again (losing even more)? Plrk (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Could you please geotag it? --Dori - Talk 03:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done
- Support --Dori - Talk 12:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lookatthis (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Phil13 (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Ignoring the technical talk above, I support simply because I enjoy the image. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose due to composition and perspective issues. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nice picture but not special enough for reaching FP status. I don't care for the perspective either. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I think this image is technically excellent (no issues with DOF or CA) and very well framed and timed. Noise is minimal. Honestly, I love this shot! --Specious (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 2 oppose => featured. Pbroks13 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Abkhazia map-fr.svg, featured
Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2009 at 18:47:54
- Info: created by Sémhur - uploaded by Sémhur - nominated by le Korrigan →bla 18:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: A topographic SVG map of Abkhzia in French.
- Support -- le Korrigan →bla 18:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose A QI candidate rather than a FP one. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe, but... why ? le Korrigan →bla 23:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Because these maps, no matter how good they are, lose their wow after a while. After you see 20 or so maps that look like this come through here, it's not so special anymore. Quality on the other hand never goes away. (I'm not saying these aren't FP-level quality, but it seems QI is better suited for most maps nowadays. And don't forget VI either.) Rocket000(talk) 05:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- My answer is per Rocket000(talk) Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- To be honest, insects pictures lose their wow after a dozen too :-) (and there's currently less than 30 maps featured, not much to get bored from). My point, by promoting maps, is that they take days to create (I just did one: find and extract public domain data, vectorise it, adjust it, check it, colour it, extract more data...), and that they have very high encyclopedic value (they can be used on hundreds of articles, can be translated easily, serve wide educational and promotional purposes...). The maps I am trying to promote also quote all their references (like a good Wikipedia article). I can ensure you that creating any of these maps is a different process and requires as much devotion as writing a Featured Article ! And finally... have you seen any free replacement maps anywhere on Internet for these maps? There you go: quality + value = FP. le Korrigan →bla 08:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I agree that this
skillfulprofessional level of map-making is definitely worthy of any praise or recognition it gets. And then some. It's a lot different than having a fancy camera and happening to press a button at the right time. I'm definitely not suggesting it's somehow less important or less valuable then another insect or bird. IMO, maps like these are usually way more important then some pretty picture (not that your map is ugly, but you know what I mean). I just think it progressed beyond the point of more FP nominations. But, hey, if FP is by any means a motivating factor for you to continue making awesome maps, then by all means, nominate away! :) Cheers, Rocket000(talk) 10:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)- Oh, now I see what you mean. Actually for me, FP promotion is more a way to promote the Graphic Lab (from which these maps are coming - none are mine) and their standards, and to encourage others to join in. Better visibility through FP / QI promotion is a way to do it. But, sure, there's no point in flooding FPs with them either :-) Thanks for your comments, le Korrigan →bla 10:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I agree that this
- To be honest, insects pictures lose their wow after a dozen too :-) (and there's currently less than 30 maps featured, not much to get bored from). My point, by promoting maps, is that they take days to create (I just did one: find and extract public domain data, vectorise it, adjust it, check it, colour it, extract more data...), and that they have very high encyclopedic value (they can be used on hundreds of articles, can be translated easily, serve wide educational and promotional purposes...). The maps I am trying to promote also quote all their references (like a good Wikipedia article). I can ensure you that creating any of these maps is a different process and requires as much devotion as writing a Featured Article ! And finally... have you seen any free replacement maps anywhere on Internet for these maps? There you go: quality + value = FP. le Korrigan →bla 08:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe, but... why ? le Korrigan →bla 23:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Mapmaking is difficult. Commons' privary purpose is to host images that can be used on all the Wikipedias. While this is just one language, SVG is designed to be particularly easy to translate into other languages, so that's not a problem. I vote to support this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support per Adam Cuerden. Notyourbroom (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Very seldom I vote for, or even make comments about maps here. The reason is one of the main qualities (i would rather say requirements) of any map is accuracy: postional accuracy as well as thematic accuray. And the truth is we have no means of evaluating accuracy here. The only things we really can assess in FPC are the beauty, the rarity or extraordinary interest of the theme and the 'way it looks'. Yes, a map may look 'professional' and yet be cartographically useless because of its errors or poor conception. In this case, there is an obvious technical imperfection (only visible in svg format), which is the fact that several objects (linear and areal objects) extrude to outside the neatline. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- you are right: a map is only as accurate as its sources. Just like any Wikipedia article. This is why I try to promote maps where the author has written the sources of data he has used, so that the reader can see where all come from, and assess by him/herself whether the map can be deemed accurate. Just like for any Wikipedia article. Regarding the objects "extruding" from this map, it comes from the fact that source data covers a greater area originally and nodes outside the area are deleted, but without affecting data within the map area. It can sometimes leave extruding elements though, without affecting accuracy. le Korrigan →bla 13:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Coyau (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 14:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support making SVG maps is difficult, and this map is excellent quality. Also, this image is clearly useful for Wikimedia projects (and, as someone said above, can easily be translated as it is SVG) Anonymous101 talk 20:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Doesn't render properly (e.g. scales have no numbers, fonts messed up) and has overlapping labels. Lycaon (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- No problem on my computer. Could it be a problem on your side ? le Korrigan →bla 14:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, I see it too (Firefox 3). They're over lapping in the PNG thumbnail also, which means it's MediaWiki. Rocket000(talk) 14:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- I may have fix it. The PNG here looks fine, but the image page isn't updating yet (not even when I view the SVG itself). Rocket000(talk) 15:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- No problem on my computer. Could it be a problem on your side ? le Korrigan →bla 14:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 2 oppose => featured. Pbroks13 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Topographic map of Gabon-fr.svg, featured
Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2009 at 18:43:48
- Info: created by Mysid and Bourrichon - uploaded by Bourrichon - nominated by le Korrigan →bla 18:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info: A topographic map of Gabon in SVG format, with French labels (see also the English version. le Korrigan →bla 18:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- le Korrigan →bla 18:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose A QI candidate rather than a FP one. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support As above. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support again per Adam Cuerden. Notyourbroom (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Coyau (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Peripitus (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question: Why is there miles? Why not kilometres? —kallerna™ 14:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- There's both, in the bottom-left scale. le Korrigan