Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2007

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


This is an archive for Commons:Featured picture candidates page debates and voting.
The debates are closed and should not be edited.


Contents

Image:Leafydragon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Leafydragon.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Wendy Rathey - uploaded by A-giâu - nominated by 82.141.127.224 10:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --82.141.127.224 10:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)No anonymous votes! Log in to vote! --Simonizer 11:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The "leafy dragon" doesn't stand out as much as it should. --wj32 talk | contribs 10:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too small, resolution too low. Please read the guidelines, before nominating. --Simonizer 11:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because it is too small. I have another picture of a leafy seadragon that's higher resolution, but not good enough for a FP. I don't agree with the above that it needs to "stand out" more. Blending in is half the point of the animal. -- Ram-Man 13:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hugo.arg 21:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose very low res, one of his... leaves(?) is cut --Leafnode 06:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 19:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mexico-beach.jpg, not featured[edit]

A beach in Cancun, Mexico

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Flickr user Andrew Hitchcock - nominated by Thuresson --Thuresson 20:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thuresson 20:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Not an exceptional theme or composition, soft focus, overexposed, tilted and curved horizon. Alvesgaspar 21:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Alvesgaspar --Digon3 21:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Alvesgaspar. Ben Aveling 10:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Alvesgaspar --Leafnode 06:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor quality --Karelj 19:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I like the soft focus and overexposure. --Spundun 21:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Seems a bit kitschy to me (: -- AM 21:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just a vacation shot Nino Barbieri 16:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cambre Galicia 070330 12.jpg, not featured[edit]

Cambre, Galicia, Spain

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Lmbuga - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by --80.39.180.97 10:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)--
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it --Simonizer 11:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. I like it too. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Yes, I like so much.--Pedroserafin 12:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alvesgaspar 14:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - User:Vassil 17 April 2007
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --libertad0 17:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Belmonte77 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 21:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral {Oppose}} - nice enough pic, but rather low resolution, only 344 KB, with consequent jpeg compression faults; also top of bridge cut off - MPF 21:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC) -- changed to neutral as low res no longer applies - MPF 18:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Nothing special --Spundun 21:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not high res enough, 344 KB not enough for 1632x1224 --wj32 talk | contribs 05:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per MPF. --MichaelMaggs 06:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Looks better in thumbnail than in full view - Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 00:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Improved resolution version is even better --Tony Wills 01:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good tech quality, but compositionally narrow in terms of cut bridge & crop in general. Ziga 13:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jeses 22:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per MPF --Jklamo 19:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bateleur Eagle.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info An immature Bateleur eagle, created by "Frielp" (non-member) - uploaded by Raul654 - nominated by Anrie --81.171.1.194 12:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Anrie - I thought it the close up was very well done - very sharp with brilliant colours. 12:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Please log in to vote. Lycaon 05:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Belmonte77 - I like so much! 19:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Belmonte77 is a user --Digon3 00:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Anrie 06:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 18:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 20:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Very impressive (and for once the image is not too small...) --MichaelMaggs 14:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alvesgaspar 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - rather blurred apart from beak and eye; also lacking location, etc., information (flickr photo, so unlikely to be obtainable) - MPF 22:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Sharp where it has to be. But information needed. --Arad 01:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode 06:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Episyrphus balteatus - head close-up (aka).jpg, featured[edit]

head of a marmelade fly

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: created and uploaded by André Karwath aka Aka, nominated by --norro 20:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --norro 20:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DoF could be better, but I can omit this because it's a macro-photo, but it's low-res (2Mpix minimum) --Leafnode 05:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support true, resolution is not that bad, and shot is great --Leafnode 00:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour 09:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Even if it's small sized it's a very good picture. DoF is small indeed, but it's at F32, so it could hardly be bigger. --Atoma 10:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Stunning although smallish --Thermos 18:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 20:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This image is a 100% crop and not a downscaled version of a larger photo. The fly head has a diameter of only 2.5 mm (0.1 inch). -- aka 11:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What does it look like if you crop a little less? Ben Aveling 11:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Small, but this is exactly why we allow 'mitigating reasons'. --MichaelMaggs 14:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Belmonte77 14:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 'mitigating reasons' for size --Digon3 14:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry, I don't like the purple background and the picture looks oversaturated. Not enough mitigating reasons for me :) Alvesgaspar 14:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The purple background is Cistus incanus, which happens to be that colour ;-) Lycaon 16:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. -- AM 21:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - ditto to MichaelMaggs & Digon3 - MPF 22:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent --libertad0 00:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive ! Benh 16:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - wow Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 00:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ! Nino Barbieri 15:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love the pollen on its eyes and face. --Yarnalgo 05:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yeah, I hate the purple background too. :( --Spundun 19:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Amrum 19:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 19 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sneeuwschuiver.jpg, not featured[edit]

Snowwiper near Toronto, Canada

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jkransen - uploaded by Jkransen - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 14:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomer T 14:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --WarX 16:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Beautiful, but post stamp.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose quite low res, not enough space on the right. otherwise the photo is quite good. --che 18:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose low res, colors are not that good (but it's probably quite hard to get good exposure with the bright snow and the rather dark truck) and bad composition (too much space on the left and not enough on the right) -- Gorgo 18:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Gorgo --Leafnode 08:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This picture has little merit. 10:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dandelion clock.JPG, not featured[edit]

Dandelion clock of genus Crepis or Sonchus

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Fragile globe of seed-containning achenes of unknown species (probably Crepis or Sonchus), consisting of fine white filaments that will be distributed by the wind. I believe this is a better illustration than the existing featured picture . Created and nominated by Joaquim Alves Gaspar - Alvesgaspar 23:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alvesgaspar 23:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral photo overall is nice, but I can't find any sharp line in it --Leafnode 08:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - not a species of Taraxacum; note absence of stalk between seed and pappus. Possibly Crepis or Sonchus; more pics needed to identify it. - MPF 11:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Thanks for the information. As for taking more pics, we will have to wait a couple of weeks before I return to the same spot. In the meantime, I'll correct the caption. Alvesgaspar 13:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing interesting, there are thousands photos of plant in detail. --Karelj 19:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - And still many thousand of species (millions?) to be identified and illustrated. Wrong comment... Alvesgaspar 20:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed on the right filaments and the bulbs? on top are slightly distracting. --Digon3 23:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Taraxacum officinale (inflorescense).jpg, not featured[edit]

Taraxacum officinale (inflorescense).

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Lycaon - uploaded by Lycaon) - nominated by --Pedroserafin 15:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pedroserafin 15:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral nice, but is it outstanding? IMO not enough for FP --Leafnode 06:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
It's common for sure ;-)) Lycaon 07:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - but is it common? Is it known which of the 250++ species of Taraxacum it actually is?? ;-) - MPF 22:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm also not shure if this is really 'Taraxacum officinale' --Jeses 22:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lerdsuwa 14:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - nothing so special --Karelj 16:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Nice picture, but nothing stunning Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 00:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose just not special. sorry :-( Amada44 18:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It doesn't seem special, and I personally don't care for the chosen DoF at f/8. -- Ram-Man 23:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dragefestival.JPG, not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Carstenwm - uploaded by Carstenwm - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 09:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support special picture --Tomer T 09:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - messy; looks like a rubbish tip on a very windy day - MPF 22:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Pedroserafin 08:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lerdsuwa 14:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 16:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack MPF --Digon3 17:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - interesting subject, but composition makes it too chaotic and messy Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 00:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not a bad picture but it is possible to do a lot better with kite. Romary 13:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack MPF --Leafnode 07:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support changed my mind --Leafnode 08:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. To all people who said it is messy: it is merely accurate. Nikola Smolenski 19:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jklamo 02:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose messy -- Lycaon 18:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Abell S740.jpg, not featured[edit]

Hubble Illuminates Cluster of Diverse Galaxies (Abell S740)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by J. Blakeslee (Washington State University) - uploaded by WilliamKF - nominated by Winiar --Winiar 19:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 19:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lerdsuwa 14:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - There are hundreds of similar pictures on Wiki. --Karelj 16:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - nothing special --Leafnode 07:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nikola Smolenski 19:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not particularly beautiful --che 21:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are much better pictures than this from Hubble. -- Ram-Man 23:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cartesian Theater.jpg, featured[edit]

Cartesian theatre

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Reverie - nominated by Samulili --Samulili 21:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a technically great illustration which can also clearly convey the idea of Cartesian theatre. Philosophy as a subject of featured pictures is rare. --Samulili 21:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Pretty amazing, but shouldn't this be in SVG? --Spundun 22:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Nah, because there are photographs within the image you couldn't make it SVG. gren 08:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You can embed bitmaps in SVG files --Ogre 10:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry, I don't like it, looks like an illustration of the 70's. A lot more of sophistication is needed in my opinion. Alvesgaspar 10:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lerdsuwa 14:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Alvesgaspar --Digon3 17:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - a bit cheesy, but fun & useful.--21:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 00:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Alvesgaspar -- Lycaon 11:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The "retro" look is fine with me and I must disagree with Alvesgaspar on the lack of "sophistication". The sophiè clearly is there and so what if it is simple : the illustration serving its purpose. --Diligent 11:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ack Diligent --LuckyStarr 21:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Image: Black caterpillar1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Black caterpillar1.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Wippwapp - nominated by Vibeke --Vibeke 11:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Vibeke 11:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - It is a nice picture, but clearly underexposed. Also, a better crop is needed. Alvesgaspar 11:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Low noise but underexposure really hurts much needed contrast/apparent sharpness. An otherwise great picture! -- Ram-Man 12:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose underexposure --Leafnode 12:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - looks like a hawkmoth (Sphingidae) of some sort - MPF 20:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose underxposed and unnatural environment --Benjamint444 10:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like this picture, but the informations about this creature are missing. And these are very important for me. --Karelj 19:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Swifts creek 14-12-2006 1600 -2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Bushfire in Australia

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Fir0002 - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by Arria Belli --Arria Belli | parlami 18:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I look at it and can almost feel the smoke billowing around me. --Arria Belli | parlami 18:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like this picture a lot and would vote for it but Fir0002 has recently decided to upload only low resolution copies of his images, for commercial reasons, I believe. It's a shame, but at this resolution this image and other recent Fir0002 pictures are below the minimum size requirement (2000x1000) for FP status. --MichaelMaggs 20:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Recently? I've never uploaded above 1600x1200 (except for panoramas)! I've recently decided that some images will be posted at 1280x960! --Fir0002 www 08:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't like this picture a lot and its subject isn't clear at all. I wouldn't have guessed it was a fire if I haven't been told. So, for me there are no mitingating reasons for the small size. Alvesgaspar 21:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Alvesgaspar --Digon3 02:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition, size, subject... --Leafnode 08:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Karelj 19:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Coreus marginatus 2 Luc Viatour.jpg

Image:Nubian Ibex in Negev.JPG, not featured[edit]

Nubian ibex in Negev

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Little Savage - uploaded by Little Savage - nominated by B.navez --B.navez 18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --B.navez 18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - good pic of the animal in its natural habitat - MPF 20:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 00:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Little Savage 08:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - overexposed, there are several white spots in the picture (such as the rock on the bottom left) Alessio Damato 12:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because of the overexposure, otherwise it's really good --che 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed, unsharp even though it was artificially sharpened (or it looks like it was) --Leafnode 07:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above --Karelj 21:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 

Image:નળ સરોવર - દરિયાઇ પક્ષી.jpg, not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Divyesh Sejpal - uploaded by Spundun - nominated by Spundun --Spundun 06:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A Seagull just landed in Nal Sarovar... I'm glad to announce a rare FP candidate from India, from the Nal Sarovar Sanctuary for migratory birds. I hope it does well.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Spundun 06:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Oh and extra thanks if someone can ID the species. --Spundun 06:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great photo... Jacopo 06:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is a Larus ridibundus Nino Barbieri 10:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks --Spundun 09:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tony Wills 09:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Full size version certainly has some flaws, but a striking picture. --Tony Wills 12:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose purple fringing, lack of details caused by post processing and insufficient focus, and unfortunate file name. Lycaon 11:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Unfortunate in what way ? --Tony Wills 12:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentIf you are not able to see the name of the file properly, you should read en:Help:Multilingual support (Indic) --Spundun 23:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 11:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the gull is a bit out of focus; moreover I can see JPEG compression artifacts next to the gull. Plus a detail: it's better not to use non-ascii characters in the filename, it can cause compatibility problems. Alessio Damato 12:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose very nice impression of movement, but like Lycaon: lack of details caused by post processing --Packa 19:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed parts on the gull, unsharp. Nice capture otherwise. --Atoma 20:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed, unsharp, artifacts --Leafnode 07:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support When evaluated at approximately 11"x14" @ 100dpi at a 2 foot viewing distance it looks great. The artifacts and unsharpness listed above are only visible at extreme magnifications. I have to question the assertion that this image is overexposed. Check the histogram: the highlights are not clipping. The exposure is very good given the lighting conditions. You would need to shoot this in film or perhaps a FujiFilm S5 to get the kind of highlight dynamic range that is being complained about. We probably have too many black-gull featured pictures, such as this, this, and this but this is also pretty nice. Since it is not in flight (like the other FPs) it does add some educational value in addition to its artistic value. -- Ram-Man 17:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment overexposure is not visible on histogram because image was darkened, but it can be clearly seen on even 100% magnification. About your other comments - yes, downsized and seen from 2 feet it could be fine (but it isn't, because of overexposure), but it's FP, not "if we watch the image from proper distance, blurred, squinting at it etc. FP images should be outstanding from the rest, not "not worse than some other". --Leafnode 20:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    Darkened or not, there is pixel information above the threshold for the parts of the image that appear to be overexposed. The histogram is not clipped at those highlights. At 100% magnification the image would be 20"x30" at the 100dpi that I view at, which is of overly large size. Based on your comment, I looked at it at 100% and STILL think it looks pretty good at the same viewing distance. I think this image is good on its own, which is why I support it despite having others of the same animal (That was intended as a neutral comment). Let me clarify: the highlights could clearly benefit from more dynamic range or perhaps better in-camera contrast control, but determining proper exposure is much more complicated. Would exposing less result in more noise or a background that was too dark? I'm not denying the loss of detail in the highlights only that I don't think the image would be improved by lowering the exposure. -- Ram-Man 20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    It's very easy to determine whether it's overexposed or not: using any software select color range with zero tolerance using brightest pixels from gull's wing or stomach - it's not possible, that so many pixels would have identical color without being overexposed. Determining proper exposure is much more complicated - of course, but I'm not saying that some virtual photo would be good - I'm saying what's wrong with this picture. And to me this picture has technical flaws (visible from distance or using magnifying glass), which FP shouldn't have. For me - EOT. --Leafnode 06:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 21:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose purple fringing, overexposure, and non-ascii file name. --Digon3 16:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Larch.jpg, not featured[edit]

Larch

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mihael Simonič
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info pasted missing leave end
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mihael Simonic 09:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose in full size it's clearly visible that the picture got manipulatet... maybe you should blur the aera round the leave end a litte... --Jeses 11:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Err, how is that clearly visible? Please expand. Jon Harald Søby 15:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I see it now. However, no-one is going to notice it unless they are told about it and can watch the original as well. Jon Harald Søby 15:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • So, Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby 15:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. It's really nice, except for the same-color foliage in the background, which blends with the in-focus foliage.--Ragesoss 02:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK --sevela.p 14:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 16:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:- Schlumbergera trunctata -.jpg, not featured[edit]

- Schlumbergera trunctata -.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by - nominated by Nino Barbieri --Nino Barbieri 10:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentShot with a Canon 300D, maybe the best one can get with it. --Nino Barbieri 05:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp details, nice background. the preceding unsigned comment is by Jeses (talk • contribs) --22:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - MPF 00:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - --Arad 01:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Over exposed stamens and other parts - loss of detail. Also cutout background has resulted in fine details (that should be visible at this res) missing like little spiky hairs from those angular corners of the cacti --Tony Wills 11:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks, your critic is correct! --Nino Barbieri 13:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I totally like it, the background goes well with the main composition. I'd totally support a newer version without the overexposed parts. Good work. --Atoma 20:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Merci bien! Encourageant.--Nino Barbieri 04:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral great shot, but parts of flower are overexposed, other - too dark --Leafnode 08:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If this picture is not high enough quality for a featured picture, then our standards are much higher than is shown by previous featured pictures. Take beautiful flower pictures like this and this for example. In this image the highlights are not clipped and any less exposure would be too dark. If anything more dynamic range would be helpful, but I think it is excellent and looks fine at relatively large magnification of 11"x16" @ 100dpi and a 18" viewing distance. I don't know what kind of camera was used to take this picture, but I don't think we require the dynamic range or resolution of film to get a featured picture. -- Ram-Man 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You need to strip out the artificial background before examining the histogram to see what is clipped. But clearly there is a loss of detail, for instance compare the very nice detail on the lower petals to the white featureless areas on some of the upper petals and stem of the flower. I expect photos of stationary objects, taken under controlled conditions to be of very high quality :-) --Tony Wills 22:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I went back and looked at the picture again, and there are three or four discrete steps of tonal detail in the histogram in the blown-out white petal that would be considered "featureless". Not much, for sure, and there is a decent chunk of it that was a single tone, but it was definitely not clipped around the highlights. Notice in my comment that I was talking only about clipping, which did not occur, as there is brighter detail elsewhere in the image. The background was irrelevent as I was looking directly at the highlight threshold. Your assertion that images under controlled situations should be judged more strictly is interesting and I certainly respect that opinion, but I don't think it's a serious problem in this image. That's why we all give our own opinions. Perhaps I should be more strict. -- Ram-Man 00:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI thank you all for the all the many words, appreciative or not. Anyway the picture has stirred a little interest and discussion and that was my goal. It was taken with a Canon 300D, no tripod and window light, the background was done with a very simple graphic program. I don’t care if a line is slight tilt or if the corner of the leaves has not the little hairs, for me is more important the visual impression, the feeling that a picture awake at a first look. You are all very motivating people. So long --Nino Barbieri 04:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fake background and poor masking job. I might consider supporting the original or a better Photoshop job. ~ trialsanderrors 08:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Trialsanderrors. --MichaelMaggs 06:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Castanea sativa fredville.jpg, not featured[edit]

Sweet chestnusts (Castanea sativa) in Fredville Park, Kent

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Tbc - nominated by Tbc --Tbc 22:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tbc 22:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - MPF 23:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tony Wills 10:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose An interesting subject, to be sure, but not one of the best possible images of it. The picture has been taken in the middle of the day, which was presumably when the photographer happened to be there, resulting in harsh lighting and shadows. Early morning or late afternoon light would have been a considerable improvement. It's not asking too much for this type of subject to ask the photographer to get up early! I'd happily support another image with improved lighting, though, as the subject does have potential. --MichaelMaggs 21:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was there for three hours (there are also a number of magnificent oaks there). In the morning and evening it is, because of the position of the sun, not possible to photograph al three sweet chestnuts on a row with the light coming from the side. I prefer this, because then the gnarls and other irregularities of the impressive stems are stressed. Probably more ideal according to your taste would be a low sun, but from the midday position. I like the lighting as it is now. Tbc 14:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above, light is not ideal, tree is somewhat out of focus. --Karelj 22:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Out of focus? Maybe only in the upper branch, the picture is quite sharp! - Alvesgaspar 14:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Benh 18:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:USA monument valley UT.jpg, not featured[edit]

Monument Valley

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded by Dschwen - nominated by Arad --Arad 01:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Arad 01:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dramatic --Tony Wills 10:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support dito --Benjamint444 11:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - MPF 12:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 15:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry to spoil the party but this is not good enough. I love the composition and colours. Unfortunately the image quality is far from excelent: visible noise (and some artifacts) in the sky and dark parts, not enough detail. Alvesgaspar 21:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentAaah, but this is FP not QI ;-) --Tony Wills 23:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
What the??! Being FPC means that quality is even more stringently scrutinised! --Fir0002

www 06:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fir, I sometimes really think you take this whole FPC thing too seriously. He was joking! And please, fix your signing style. A link in your signature really makes it hard for other users. --Arad 20:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor lighting, fairly uninteresting composition, image quality problems. This is not anywhere near the best picture of Monument Valley available. The cloud formation is certainly impressive, but it's not that uncommon in the area. ~ trialsanderrors 01:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above and is too dark. --Fir0002 www 06:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with opposers. FP should have the quality of the QIs, and additional it should have artistic qualities. This one has artistic quality, but its not that good to slur over the technical flaws --Simonizer 08:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor quality picture --Karelj 22:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful landscape, nice colors! --Floflo 20:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per trials and Simonizer, with whose understanding of the QI/FP distinction I am inclined to concur. Jahiegel 08:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 

Image:Panorama of Edo.jpg, not featured[edit]

A Panorama shot of Edo (present day Tokyo)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Felice Beato - uploaded by Pinkville - nominated by Cat-five --Cat-five 04:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cat-five 04:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive, given the I guess ciconstances Benh 09:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Forgot to mention that this is a historical photo and one of the earliest example of panorama work which explains the spacing between the sections of the panorama and the fadeout, that and the original panorama was done about 150+ years ago. Cat-five 02:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'd like to note that I have also nominated this for a featured picture up on Enwiki. Cat-five 02:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it's a nice picture (I already added it about half a year ago to the german tokyo article), the historical value is really great, but given the really bad quality I don't think it should get fp-status. -- Gorgo 18:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If this were a present day shot I'd agree wholeheartedly with you but the fact that this is from so long ago should be taken into account as well as the method used to make the panorama which is really part of the shot. Cat-five 08:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - ditto to Gorgo - MPF 11:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - LuckyStarr 21:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Kulshrax 00:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support there are lots of old panoramic pictures, probably not the best one but nevertheless this is a good one.Romary 09:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The historical value is an overwhelmingly sufficient mitigating reason to support. If someone can provide a better equally historic panorama, then I'll consider withdrawing my support. -- Ram-Man 23:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - ditto to Gorgo -- Lycaon 17:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Priceless Masonbarge 19:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No evidence of historical value. For instance, this panorama is 15 years older, eons in early photography. ~ trialsanderrors 04:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Though it's many months later and the vote long ago decided, I'd like to point out that the historical value of this panorama is, in fact, exceptional. There are extremely few photographs of Edo (i.e. pre-1867 Tokyo), and virtually no other panoramas of the city from that time - let alone photographs of such high aesthetic and technical quality as this (and others) by Felice Beato. Beato's images of Japan are unique views of the country before Meiji and "modernisation". Pinkville 18:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pancreaticislet.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Masur --Masur 09:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I increased the contrast a little bit. Masur 09:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Masur 09:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSymbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Interesting, but a bit small and difficult to make out much. --Tony Wills 10:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
I do have some understanding of what it is and an appreciation for how much goes into producing such an image, but don't really see it meeting many FP criteria. But it seems to have a few enthusiastic supporters, so to give it half a chance, I've changed my vote to neutral :-) --Tony Wills 05:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - ditto to Tony Wills, also too dark - MPF 12:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As far as I can tell this is the maximum attainable resolution. And the people who know what is what will certainly see the point instead of a zillion colourful points. Wpedzich 12:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --WarX 14:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC) probably best available resolution ...
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Karol007 09:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC) beautiful, resolution hmmm... is good
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question OK. What is it? Something medical I guess, but what? Ben Aveling 09:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Everything is described on the image page. Masur 09:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support // tsca [re] 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Same vote as on polish wiki in Featured Pic voting. Herr Kriss 18:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Szczepan talk 18:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - First I must apologize for my ignorance: I don't know what the "Islet of Langerhans" is, as well as the "DAPI" and "Abs", which means that I cannot appreciate the scientific merit of the image. Aesthetically, the picture is not very appealing, so my "oppose" vote. - Alvesgaspar 23:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar. --MichaelMaggs 17:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose like Alvesgaspar, though I know about Langerhans' Islets. -- Lycaon 18:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ditto Alvesgaspar -- Gorgo 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Valuable image from the field of biomedicine exemplifying staining for cell structures and confocal microscopy - images like this that are fully freely licensed are pretty rare. Guidelines state - "our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures" & "beautiful does not always mean valuable" (the converse also being true). I would urge the opposes above me to reconsider based on the clear value that the picture has. SFC9394 19:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Unlike wikipedia, commons doesn't need an explicit encyclopedic value, but I think the opposite is also true (for fp-images): only encyclopedic value is not enough. It can (and maybe should) get featured on en.wikipedia though. -- Gorgo 23:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:MarseillesRade.jpg, not featured[edit]

Marseilles' Roadsted

This picture was taken about five years ago. This shot is a unique vue of Marseilles Roadsted that includes Vallon des Auffes and Frioul Islands. This point of view can only be obtained from a few privates appartments.

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but it is too small. It needs to be at least 2000 x 1000. Also, the horizon seems unnaturally curved and I don't like the perspective or composition. --Digon3 16:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality is not good either. Image is a little blurry and focus is quite soft (why this exposure choice?). Alvesgaspar 16:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The quality isn't perfect, I know. But this picture was taken with a now obsolete digital camera. The horizon is indeed unnaturally curved. The perspective is the only originality of the picture. It is taken from a private building about 60 meters above see level in the alignment of two major touristic sites of Marseille : Vallon des Auffes (the tiny harbour in front) and Chateau d'If (the castle on the island). I'm not a photogaph (as you may have noticed ;-)) and I wish I could take this picture again with a more modern camera, but unfortunately I no more live in that flat :-( I don't know either if retreatment can improve the quality of this original picture (for instance correct distorsion or focus).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Do I oppose because the camera isn't that good? Considering that film cameras are always theoretically available, one can't blame the camera for the technical problems. The photographer needs to choose appropriate tools. Not all pictures need to be featured pictures to be useful either. There are not enough mitigating factors to support. The perspective is the prime feature of this image, but the technical flaws would seem to overpower it. -- Ram-Man 03:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Marigold, Radovna valley.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by User:Mihael Simonič
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mihael Simonič 11:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Has a distinctive grainy, unsharp feel. It's not an exceptional macro shot. -- Ram-Man 03:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above + subject in shadow --Leafnode 09:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Karelj 19:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Piran street 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Piran street

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mihael Simonič
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Piran street
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Underexposed, visible noise in full resolution, needs geometric correction. Alvesgaspar 20:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above --Leafnode 11:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Río Ripoll Lluvia torrencial01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by--Xavigivax 09:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC) - uploaded by --87.217.249.129 09:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC) - nominated by --87.217.249.129 09:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC) --87.217.249.129 09:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pedroserafin 10:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overall quality --Leafnode 11:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The JPG quality and filesize are both low. Unfortunately this was taken with a 2MP camera, so there is not much that can be done. This is a nice picture of a waterway at storm or flood stage, but unless someone can assert the importance of this particular image, I don't see enough mitigating reasons to ignore the quality problems. -- Ram-Man 13:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed, low quality, and resolution. --Digon3 14:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above --Karelj 17:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't think it meets the guidelines but I wanted to say it's a really interesting composition. Masonbarge 18:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nakchivan Panoramic.jpg, not featured[edit]

Panoramic view of Nakchivan Mountains

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Fuad2006 - uploaded by Fuad2006 - nominated by Grandmaster --Grandmaster 13:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Grandmaster 13:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Nice composition and colours. Unfortunately it is not sharp enough and there are obvious stitching marks. Alvesgaspar 14:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Alvesgaspar. It also has some really blurred areas and the saturation is not consistant --Digon3 14:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Karelj 17:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for visible stitching error. --Jacopo 20:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)--Jacopo 20:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the colours, but the stitching are obvious --C·A·S·K 23:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Baha'i arc from archives.jpg, not featured[edit]

Baha'i World Centre in Haifa

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Tomhab - uploaded by Tomhab - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 14:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomer T 14:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Color fringing and slightly tilted --Digon3 20:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition, good focus; colors are lustreless, but it isn't a postcard.Vassil 29 April 2007
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because of the photoshopped, nearly lilac-coloured sky. It looks unnatural. --Simonizer 11:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition (lamp and postument on the right), colors make it look like a water colors painting. --Leafnode 06:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dallol-2001.jpg, not featured[edit]

Dallol, flaque d'acide et formation de sel, souffre et autres minéraux

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Herve-sth - uploaded by Herve-sth - nominated by Nikola Smolenski --Nikola Smolenski 19:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- excellently represented topic, high resolution, beautiful colors and composition. Nikola Smolenski 19:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because of noise, some artifacts, and the black bar at the bottom --Digon3 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Blurry, noisy, full of artifacts and strange marks, like it were a scan of an analog photo. Careless nomination. Alvesgaspar 20:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 22:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I'm puzzled. Is this picture really better focused than this one and better quality than this one? I don't use to comment on user's oppinions but sometimes I just can't keep silent. Alvesgaspar 14:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I believe, everybody has its preferences for classification. I prefer originality and estetic quality of photography, the technical features as size of sample or some small wrong focused parto f it are from my point of view on the second place. --Karelj 19:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Karol007 09:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question - What's that horizontal blurry line (not the black bar) across the pic on the lower part of the photo ? Benh 09:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Looks like a scanner fault; I suspect the pic is a scan from a slide, given the black edge at the bottom - MPF 20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - would support if the black bar was removed and the horizontal blurry line and other artefacts were edited to be less obvious. - MPF 20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Really nice view, would be very nice if the quality was better. I am mostly thinking of the horizontal lines and the blurriness. /Daniel78 15:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Alvesgaspar --Leafnode 06:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bryce Canyon Amphitheater Hoodoos Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Bryce Canyon Hoodoos Amphitheater Panorama

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This version was downsampled and a curves ajustment was used to pull out specific detail --Digon3 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice -- Gorgo 18:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - MPF 19:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support and we know it's been a lot of work behind :) In addition to the scaling down of the picture, I'm finding the curve adjustment greatly improves the previous nomination. Benh 22:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Digon3 has been struggling here for a long time with his Bryce Canyon photos. This time I believe he got it. Congratulations. Alvesgaspar 22:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yeah! I think the time has come to make some new pictures! ;-) --Simonizer 06:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 16:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Urban 16:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 21:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This would merit promotion as an FP even were there no associated history; that Digon3 was so diligent here makes one even happier to support. Jahiegel 08:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 20:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Giant Wild Goose Pagoda.jpg, not featured[edit]

Big Wild Goose Pagoda at China/Xi'an. Photo took at 2007-10-17 near sunset.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Citycat 08:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoBig Wild Goose Pagoda at China/Xi'an.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tilted, and not a particularly interesting composition. Where is the 'wow' factor? --MichaelMaggs 11:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree with MichaelMaggs - Alvesgaspar 13:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above --Karelj 20:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ack MichaelMaggs --Digon3 00:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ack MichaelMaggs --Leafnode 06:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:SecovljeSoline.jpg, not featured[edit]

Soline

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 15:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Georgia Aquarium - Giant Grouper edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

A giant grouper taken at the Georgia Aquarium

The orginal image. The fish at the right have been flipped and pasted over the rockthe preceding unsigned comment is by BenAveling (talk • contribs) . Do not vote for this picturethe preceding unsigned comment is by Digon3 (talk • contribs)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Taken by Diliff - Edited and uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 10:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomer T 10:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for original --Luc Viatour 12:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice one. --che 13:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice! -- Freestyle  nl (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Amrum 19:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - the original Image:Georgia Aquarium - Giant Grouper.jpg is already a featured pic. Not sure I see the value in putting up an edit as a candidate as well - MPF 19:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't see the point of having two versions of the same picture. We should be voting to replace the picture. In fact, the guideline say, "Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with the higher score of votes." So I guess if this one gets more than 15 support vote, we replace the current one, otherwise there is not much point in voting.--Digon3 01:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It certainly looks nicer for having the rock removed. I don't know if it increases or decreases the 'value' of the photo. Probably both to different people, for different reasons. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like neither this edit nor the original image. --norro 07:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I prefer the original with the rock - MPF 11:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Idem. Alvesgaspar 11:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see strong mitigating reasons for size for either version. --Digon3 12:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I prefer it with the rock; also, too small.--MichaelMaggs 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Urban 16:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If original picture is already a featured, I do not see any reason for discussion about smaller part of it. --Karelj 19:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The original picture is perfectly fine and there is no compelling reason for the rock to be removed, thus making the altered picture artificial. -- Ram-Man 21:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above: Both are small; but the original version looks better. --Javier ME 22:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lac de Roselend.jpg, not featured[edit]

Lac de Roselend.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Lake of Roselend, Savoie, France. Picture taken and uploaded by Floflo --Floflo 20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Floflo 18:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Colours are washed out and image looks posterized, lacking detail. Maybe the result of a heavy compression process. Alvesgaspar 22:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I can swear that this picture never knew any heavy compression process, nor any other changes since its exposure. --Floflo 20:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - With this dimensions and file size, it means that the picture was compressed by the camera. Try always to use the best possible resolution to avoid compression artifacts and other imperfections. Alvesgaspar 23:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice scenery, photography quality is not so excellent. --Karelj 19:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose More saturation please. ---donald- 21:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose technical faults, composition (if the lake is subject, it's not obvious) --Leafnode 06:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Particolare Colosseo.jpg, not featured[edit]

particular of the Colosseo of Rome

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Orroz - uploaded by Orroz - nominated by Orroz --OrrOz 12:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --OrrOz 12:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the composition is good but unfortunately is blurred and the size is under the requirements and there is non mitigating reason for this. Could you take another one with greater resolution and maybe a tripod? --Jacopo 15:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Jacopo. With no mitigating reasons, at 1280x1024 the resolution is too low for a FP. -- Ram-Man 23:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad focussed --Karelj 19:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small, should be at least 2000 x 1000. --Digon3 13:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too small, too blurry --Leafnode 07:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 06:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Furg citadel Darmian County birjand iran 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Furg citadel

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Nima Baghaei - uploaded by Nima Baghaei - nominated by Nima Baghaei --Nima Baghaei 16:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Nima Baghaei 16:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Please check the guidelines, the resolution is too low for FP. Also, the image is blurry and overexposed. Alvesgaspar 18:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Low resolution. Strange artifacts in the sky? Is this a scanned photo? -- Ram-Man 19:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Colours looks not natural, probably overexposed. --Karelj 19:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose low-res, unnatural colors. --Leafnode 07:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 06:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sweetviolet5.jpg, not featured[edit]

A sweet violet (viola odorata)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Thegreenj - uploaded by Thegreenj - nominated by Thegreenj --Thegreenj 21:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thegreenj 21:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Resolution is too low (less than 1600x1250). Please check the requirements for an FP. The new image is not as close a crop, but doesn't have enough detail IMO to be a FP. Sorry. -- Ram-Man 22:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • There - I re-uploaded it at 2 megapixels. Thegreenj 00:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Noise, purple fringing. Alvesgaspar 07:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above --Karelj 19:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noise, DOF --Leafnode 07:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 06:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Arena pula inside.JPG, not featured[edit]

Short description Arena pula inside edit.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Orlovic - uploaded by and nominated by --Orlovic (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Orlovic (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Harsh lighting and resulting blown highlights (and do I see a minute amount of fringing where the stone meets the sky?)--HereToHelp (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Uncorrected geometric distortion. Alvesgaspar 07:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
the stone pillar on the right is naturally inclined, if you meant that. --Orlovic (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - No, it isn't. Please check the corrected version at right (not a nomination). Alvesgaspar 12:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The right version looks sharper too, did you sharpen it also ? It would be good if the image page of edited versions specified exactly what kind of edits that was made to the image. Now it just tells me "Edited". /Daniel78 19:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The right version hasn't been nominated. I agree it looks sharper, but the only edit I made was the geometric correction. Alvesgaspar 20:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You were right, I disagreed in QIC, but you have indeed demonstrated it does need some correction --Tony Wills 11:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing work. --Mihael Simonič 14:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Alvesgaspar --Karelj 20:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per HereToHelp . --MichaelMaggs 12:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

AS THE NOMINATOR I retreat my nomination --Orlovic (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 06:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Japanese Stewartia Stewartia pseudocamellia Bud 2000px.jpg, not featured[edit]

Stuartia pseudocamellia

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 14:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Late winter/Early spring buds of Stuartia pseudocamellia
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 14:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not so wow a picture, although I don't see what is wrong with it. Perhaps I'm missing the lower part of the subject in focus. Benh 16:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is an extremely close macro, at close to 1:1 reproduction. The depth of field at that distance is only a few millimeters deep. This image is shot at f/11. Any higher would start to degrade sharpness due to light diffraction. I didn't see a good reason to degrade bud sharpness to increase the depth of field by perhaps a millimeter or two at the stalk. The point of this image is to show the two buds in high resolution detail. Everything is natural, this was not a posed shot. Just because it isn't a flower or a cone doesn't mean it isn't beautiful or useful. -- Ram-Man 18:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I don't know the exact conditions this picture was taken under and I'm pretty much sure you know about that, but there are other ways to increase DOF than using smaller apertures. You could have got closer and use a shorter focal length for instance. Framing would have been the same but with a greater DOF. And this picture is good, but not much above average and if I support this one, then I'd support plenty of others... Benh 06:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I couldn't have gotten closer. At 1:1 magnification, I was already at the limit of the lens. You'd need a micro lens (as in microscope, not Nikon) to get closer. Ignoring pupil magnification effects, if the image in the frame is held constant, the DoF is basically constant as well (see here), regardless of the focal length used. Shorter focal lengths wouldn't work here, even if you include pupil magnfication which gives additional advantage (if anything) to telephoto lenses. Increasing the depth of field further would have required work outside of pure photography, such as image stacking of different exposures in software or some other trick. -- Ram-Man 12:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This is getting far :) (and the DOF issue wasn't really my reason for opposing :)) but that's an interesting thing you tell me here. If I take the exemple described in the page you linked (paragraph focal length and depth of field), for a given framing DOF is, as you said, virtually constant but it seems the shorter focal length still have a few extra cm in DOF (up to 8cm which could have been enough for your subject). Wouldn't have this been sufficient (of course, this is given you have a (macro?) lens which can focuse at short distances) ? Benh 21:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, there is no such thing as a 1:1 magnification 10mm-20mm macro lens in the SLR format, although some point and shoots can do macro at that focal range, but most point and shoots suffer from severe lack of edge sharpness when that close and they suffer more quickly from diffraction degradation. Plus the table provided wasn't for macro. Apparently at macro settings the slight DoF advantage of wide angle lenses is lost anyway due to pupil magnfication. I realize that the reason this FP nom failed was not because of DoF but because of the other issues given. I've just noticed that in a number of situations there is a misunderstanding on how DoF works. Take this orange slug FP nom taken at 5mm with a small point-and-shoot. Even at only f/2.8 that image has almost the ideal depth of field/sharpness possible, due to the focal length of 5mm. -- Ram-Man 21:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The only potential way to make this picture sharper would be to take the picture at a different angle so that more of the stick lies in a single plane perpendicular to the camera lens, that is, put more of the subject in the DoF range. However, the twig was blowing mightily in the wind and this was the best of a whole bunch of pictures. -- Ram-Man 21:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 19:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- not bad, but not good enough. A bit flat light. Lycaon 19:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Karelj 19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC) as above
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Flat lighting, soft colours and a poor background (should be much lighter or much darker for the subject to come out) all contribute to a somehow boring picture. Alvesgaspar 22:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I withdraw my nomination. Please archive this request so it doesn't clutter the FP requests. -- Ram-Man 12:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 07:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:George Washington Carrier Strike Group.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description Version of image at left with no tilt

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pimlottc - uploaded by Pimlottc - nominated by Eyrian --Eyrian 19:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I uploaded a non-tilted version to a new name; if the non-tilted version is accepted feel free to upload over the original. I just didn't want to do this now as the original is up for FP and it should be available for comparison. -- Editor at Largetalk 16:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Original, not featured
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Eyrian 19:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice cemposition --Packa 19:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alessio Damato 22:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great --Jeses 22:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - tilted, and curved horizon - MPF 00:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Tilted. It can be fixed. I support when that's fixed. --Arad 01:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with MPF and Arad --norro 15:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cool. Hope the horizon will be fixed. --Atoma 20:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Trivial composition in naval operations, some ships not sharp enough. Alvesgaspar 22:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Not interesting--Pedroserafin 15:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral tilt. Otherwise I would vote pro. --Leafnode 08:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Fascinating view, even when technical quality of photo is not so excellent. --Karelj 21:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - tilt; support alternate version -- Editor at Largetalk 16:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support // tsca [re] 17:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - ack Alvesgaspar -- Lycaon 20:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Alternative, not featured
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - amazing symmetry, great composition with the skyline at top 3rd, middle ship at centre, and front ship at bottom 3rd; colours are decent (if very blue) and waves/lines in the water add to the effect. Overall very nice. -- Editor at Largetalk 16:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 19:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode 06:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 06:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support // tsca [re] 17:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - horizon still curved, not straight, and also the tilt is over-corrected, it is sloping nearly as much the other way. - MPF 22:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment check the image on its own instead of next to the tilted version; if you draw a straight line across the image you'll see that the two sides meet at exactly the same point. I used a guideline laid across the two edges where the horizon meets the sides of the image when rotating it, so unless the software borked it should be straight to within 3 pixels. Regarding the curve, that is to be expected when it is a picture of the ocean at that height/angle; the earth is curved, and an image of the ocean with nothing on the horizon to hide the curve/bring it closer is going to show that. I think the seeming tilt is an optical illusion due to the concentration of clouds on the right compared to the left. -- Editor at Largetalk 23:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment yes, the earth's horizon is curved, but with a radius of 6,370km . . . to all practical purposes, that's straight, unless you're viewing from a point several tens of km above the earth's surface (i.e., up out of the atmosphere). The curvature here is caused by the camera lens. And I did draw a straight line across the pic (or, to be exact, scrolled down the pic so the horizon lined up with the top of the computer screen), and the right-hand side is a mm or two lower than the left hand side. The rotation done was 1°CW from the original; about 0.8° would have been more accurate. - MPF 20:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment refresh your cache, second version was edited again. First rotation was 1°, second was only 0.75° as you said :) -- Editor at Largetalk 22:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Horizon is round-shaped, not tilted. --Atoma 08:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -For the reason explained in the previous version. Alvesgaspar 23:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - see Alvesgaspar Tbc 10:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - ack Alvesgaspar -- Lycaon 20:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - ack Alvesgaspar --Digon3 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jklamo 19:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:White osteospermum.jpg, not featured[edit]

White flowers of Osteospermum ecklonis

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info White flowers of Osteospermum ecklonis. Created and nominated by Joaquim Alves Gaspar --Alvesgaspar 00:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alvesgaspar 00:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The white petals seem overexposed (even though they are not). Maybe with different lighting? I really like the composition though. --Digon3 16:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - MPF 18:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing interesting, there are thousands photos of plant in detail. --Karelj 19:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - And still many thousand of species (millions?) to be identified and illustrated. Wrong comment... Alvesgaspar 20:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Anyway, it´s my comment. And you are supposed not to be the person who should decide, if it good or wrong. Its just comment!!! --Karelj 19:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If i am harsh i say that i am missing the "wow factor", but i do like the simplicity and "nun-like" beauty of the picture. --Diligent 13:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Another very tough one... but I have to be consistent with my votes on QI : subject is not sharp enough to me (it is enough, but not for FP) and background not blurred enough, although not very distracting to me. Lighting makes the subject flat, but maybe it couldn't have been better. Also, there are small parts of other flowers on upper left and upper right corners which annoy me a little. Benh 22:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:CH RHB Landwasser Viadukt.jpg, not featured[edit]

Landwasser viadukt

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Landwasser viadukt, swiss alps. created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dschwen 13:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 13:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the lighting or the viewpoint. Is it possible you can retake it more to the left? --Digon3 15:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • More to the left would be inside a tunnel. I have some other shots which I have not yet uploaded. Let me see. Whats wrong with the lighting? --Dschwen 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The lighting seems too harsh, which makes the picture less colorful (like the pine tree at the bottom). I think it would be better if taken at a different time of day. --Digon3 16:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
        • The image is geocoded now. If you follow the links to the satellite imagery you'll see that the rockface with the tunnel portal only receives sun in the afternoon. Any earlier and the wall would be in shadow. Any later and the su would have set behind the mountains to the west. --Dschwen 17:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - MPF 18:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice scenery, maybe contrast should be little bit sharper. --Karelj 19:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support wow --Leafnode 06:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Although the image in full size is nicer than the thumbnail, it doesn't in my view have the 'wow' factor needed for FP. --MichaelMaggs 06:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It just looks flat to me. Sorry. Ben Aveling 08:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Even assuming that this is the best lighting possible (how about an overcast day? different time of year?), not all best possible pictures of every subject deserve to be featured pictures. I agree it lacks a 'wow' factor. -- Ram-Man 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Ram-Man.Perhaps this place could't provide conditions to a very special shot.Vassil 28 April 2007
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like composition, despite the lighting and that the subject can blend into the background.--HereToHelp (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Slime mold grows on anything 001.JPG, not featured[edit]

Slime mold on a beer can

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by SB_Johnny - uploaded by SB_Johnny - nominated by SB_Johnny --SB_Johnny|talk|books 15:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - It's sort of a light-hearted photo... Slime molds really do grow on just about anything! --SB_Johnny|talk|books 15:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good composition, somewhat humorous, while still being useful. Do we have a scientific name for this particular variety of slime mold? Cary Bass demandez 16:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - huh --Karelj 19:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - yes I like this. It does what is says it does well (UK based but we have had an ad campaign with the tag line "it does what it says on the tin" - maybe Johnny could help them out!) --Herby talk thyme 11:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support - This is a great picture, but I'd feel better about supporting if the slime mold was species identified. -- Ram-Man 17:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it will get identified sooner or later, unless you need a microscope to tell... I'm a horticulturist, not a mycologist. The photograph is meant more as a demonstration of why slime molds aren't really something to worry about it they pop up in the garden (for use in a gardening Wikibook). "They grow on everything, so if you see them, just enjoy watching them and don't worry." --SB_Johnny|talk|books 18:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
A support is a support in my book. It's only weak because I personally like the species identified, but it's still a support because that personal reason is not sufficient to ignore a great picture. -- Ram-Man 23:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Idea is interesting, but I feel that it's not enough for FP --Leafnode 06:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Helios in flight.jpg, not featured[edit]

NASA's Helios high-altitude aircraft in flight.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by Sam916 - nominated by Kulshrax --Kulshrax 16:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kulshrax 16:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - some rather bad compression / fringing faults, most noticeable at top edge of right hand end - MPF 18:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent pic. --Karelj 19:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack MPF --Digon3 19:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral As per MPF. Is another version available without the compression and fringing problems? If not, this should probably be QI. But it isn't so bad that I'd oppose. -- Ram-Man 17:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:FringillaCoelebsFemale.jpg, featured[edit]

Fringilla Coelebs (Chaffinch), Female.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Thermos - uploaded by Thermos - nominated by Benh -- Benh 17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't understand why this is "only" a quality image candidate. Great capture with pleasant colors, good sharpness and nice composition -- Benh 17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - MPF 18:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 18:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It looks like the bird has 3 or 4 legs. Some shadows, or there is another bird behihd? --Karelj 19:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 20:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AngMoKio 20:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 04:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, do doubt about it, but please add pictures to relevant content galleries or categories. The photo is not of much use if it can't be easily found. --che 08:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support // tsca [re] 17:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great! Vassil 26 April 2007
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode 21:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It appears the nebulous oddity to which Karelj refers is simply detritus on the tree limb like that before the bird but covered in his/her/its shadow, and I don't think such item should really be construed as diminishing the quality of the composition; it's certainly not, at least to my eye, distracting or otherwise inappropriate. Jahiegel 07:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alvesgaspar 10:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 09:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Japanese Larch Larix kaempferi Cone 2000px.jpg, featured[edit]

Larch cone

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Cone of the Japanese Larch (Larix kaempferi)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ---- Ram-Man 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love it! :) --Leafnode 06:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice colors. --Atoma 08:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good! --Winiar 16:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - pic is up-side-down - MPF 22:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Chuckle! That's hilarious. The picture isn't upside down, I took the picture just a few weeks ago. It was taken on a tripod. Its not even physically possible for the tripod to tilt the camera upside-down. -- Ram-Man 22:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
OK then, the cone is held up-side-down . . . comes to the same thing! - MPF 20:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
well I suppose so. This cone was no longer physically attached (in a lifegiving sort of way) to the parent anyway. I suppose you could flip it upside-down if you wanted to. -- Ram-Man 20:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Romary 06:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good! --Diligent 13:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great image. --Yarnalgo 20:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice ! Benh 22:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice composition and detail. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 14:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I didn't quite understand the explanation: was the cone deliberately inverted or is it the result of some branch that colapsed? In my opinion the fact that the cone is not in its natural position takes away much value from the picture. Images in Commons are supposed not (only) to be beautiful but to be useful as encyclopedic illustrations. By the way, I like this picture a lot. Alvesgaspar 16:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neither? Both? I did deliberately pose this picture, but I was not trying to be deceptive. The cone was attached to the piece of twig that wasn't attached to the tree. I posed it to make the picture easier to take: I wanted the parent tree as the background. I've rotated this picture 90 and 180 degrees, and in either case the cone isn't pointing straight up and I don't know what the natural configuration might look like, not being an expert. It wouldn't be hard to rotate it though. My intention was to be descriptive of the cone itself through the detail provided by a macro shot. Since it was no longer part of the tree, I didn't pay it's orientation any consideration. Maybe MPF can tell me how many degrees to rotate the source image and I can replace this one with another one. Or perhaps this one is good enough for its purpose. -- Ram-Man 16:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • About 150°CW; unfortunately doing so makes the direction of the illumination (from below right) look rather odd. Would it be easy to take a new photo? - MPF 18:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It's theoretically possible, but it wouldn't be for at least a week at the bare minimum and probably more than that. I don't have immediate access to the site at the moment. Of course it would be different lighting, a different cone, etc. etc. -- Ram-Man 21:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Goe Platz der Synagoge Detail 2.jpg[edit]

Platz der Synagoge Platz der Synagoge, reduced purple fringing

Original (left)[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Monument at the site of the destroyed Synagogue in Goettingen, Germany. created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dschwen 13:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 13:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --libertad0 15:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good one. The square format really suits the image. --Thermos 16:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - I like the design, unfortunately the quality is not exceptional (purple fringing) - Alvesgaspar 16:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral ack Alvesgaspar on color fringing, otherwise I really like it. --Digon3 16:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - ditto to Alvesgaspar on fringing - MPF 18:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 19:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unsharp, fringing --Leafnode 06:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Unsharp? The DOF is not unlimited, but most portions of the structure are in pixel perfect focus. --Dschwen 06:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, unsharp. Chromatic aberation makes edges blurry. --Leafnode 13:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question would an edit adressing the fringing be worth the trouble? --Dschwen 06:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It would to me, maybe you could try your recently discovered lens correction module in Gimp ;) (actually I wonder how good the results would look like) Benh 07:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => Waiting for the result of the edit. Simonizer 07:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

reduced purple fringing (right), featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info manually desaturated edges exhibiting chromatic aberration (purple fringing) --Dschwen 10:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 13:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 15:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now I'd like to know how it looks like from a more "classic" point of view -- Benh 16:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Check the image description page under Other versions. --Dschwen 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Just for the beauty of it - Alvesgaspar 20:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good edit! - MPF 22:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support either. Amazing. Ben Aveling 08:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good now. --MichaelMaggs 11:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good! --Diligent 13:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tony Wills 13:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support This would have been better perhaps if taken at a time of day that wouldn't wash out the background and desaturate the colors, but it's still a nice picture with the fringing removed. -- Ram-Man 17:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Better than the original, I like the effect of the structure --C·A·S·K 08:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support This version is better. Also subject is very interesting. I still think that it could be better. --Leafnode 06:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Antennarius striatus.3 - Aquarium Finisterrae.JPG, not featured[edit]

Larch cone Larch cone

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by --Drow male 22:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Antennarius striatus (en: Striated frogfish; es: Rape estriado tropical)

Original, not featured[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Drow male 22:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small (needs to be 2000 x 1000), and the reflection of the camera is visible in the picture. On top of that it is overexposed and artifacts are visible. --Digon3 22:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition, size --Leafnode 06:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose clipping. Sorry. Ben Aveling 09:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Without reflection of the camera, not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I retired the reflection of the camera --Drow male 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Drow male 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Its still grainy, small, bad framing, has artifacts, and there are still reflection in the glass. --Digon3 23:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Leafnode 06:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The second is better than the first, but for reasons stated above it's not a FP. -- Ram-Man 12:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The clipping is annoying. /Daniel78 15:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Karelj 19:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --C·A·S·K 23:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Eta Carinae Nebula 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Eta Carinae Nebula

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by HST/NASA/ESA - uploaded by Digon3 - nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 23:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 23:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg NeutralSymbol support vote.svg Support This is an exceptionally beautiful image. My problem is that these types of shots become much like sunsets. They are all beautiful, but what makes this one stand out? Update: After looking at existing astronomy FPs given below, I've changed my vote. This is better than some of the existing FP nebulas.-- Ram-Man 16:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You said it yourself, it is an exceptionally beautiful image. Most sunsets look alike and are easy to take. If you look at FP Astronomy, they are quite varied, and only four pictures are of Nebulas. --Digon3 19:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp, detailed and not aliased, all at same time and above all beautiful subject. Benh 22:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support beautiful. Winiar 09:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportVassil 28 April 2007
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support One of the most beautiful HST images. /Daniel78 15:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as Ram-Man, whose thinking mirrored and mirrors mine. Jahiegel 17:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 21:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support exceptionally sharp. Too bad that zoomed looks much better - some people could skip zooming ;). --Leafnode 09:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree Hubble images are not so easy to take as sunsets, but this is not appealling. Let's keep room for really beautiful astronomic images. --Javier ME 09:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Karelj 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Shows that God is an abstract expressionist. ~ trialsanderrors 07:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack trialsanderrors Lycaon 20:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Sure? ~ trialsanderrors 07:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Sometimes I don't understand the FP process.... -- Ram-Man 12:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jklamo 19:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --C·A·S·K 23:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --KFP 11:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Er Komandante (messages) 18:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Brush tail possum 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

alternative 2

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by, uploaded by, nominated by --Benjamint444 02:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Brushtails are another animal which have no survival instincts, they become very tame in camp sites and national parks where they scavenge food off tourists and campers and I have always assumed that this is learned behaviour. But this (completely wild) one ended up letting me get so close that I could have touched it, they are inquisitive and quite inteligent and probably realised that I wasn't going to eat it.

  • They are nocturnal, and their eyes are red and the slightly glazed look seems to be natural as it was in all the photos I took of them
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info That glazed look gives substance to the expression "like a possum in the headlights" :-) --Tony Wills 12:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • self nom and Symbol support vote.svg Support --Benjamint444 02:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 19:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 03:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tight composition (ears almost cut), paw is cut in half --Leafnode 08:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose framing --Orlovic (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 19:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Colour of the animal doens't seem right. Please refer to the discussion in Quality Images Candidates - Alvesgaspar 23:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong color, tight framing --Digon3 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In the discussion of this and other images at Quality Images Candidates you said "I also had a powerfull torch for focusing, it's light would not show up in the photo but it's eyes would have contracted from having the torch shone in it's face". The glazed look is probably a fear reaction on the animal's part to the bright light. I can't approve of the lack of consideration given to your wild subjects in this and other photos, and I'm opposing on that basis. Your photos would in my view be much better if you kept well back and avoided stressing the subject. Any serious wildlife photographer will always take great care not to intrude, and I'm sorry that you seem to have no qualms. --MichaelMaggs 21:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I found a load of possums eating the garden and they had every opurtunity to run away as I was aproaching, or to climb higher up the tree, I only used the light while taking my photos, I sat with them for about 20 minutes without the torch on waiting for a clear shot of one and they came closer, not in any way disturbed or scared. when the torch was on you could say that it's eyes would contract and it couldn't see anything outside the beam,and so could not run away, but why then did it continue to eat while I was photographing it? and why did it not run away when I turned the torch off? because it was not scared. I think the best sign that an animal is not scared is if it will eat in your presence, it shows they're comfortable with you. I agree with you that animals should not be disturbed, I can see that in nest photography the animal is inclined to stay even when scared and I will not get so close to nests again. your concern for the animals is touching, but I think you have no understanding of these animals. They had every opportunity to run away when the torch was off and instead they inquisitively came closer (I had got my photos by then so I did't reward it with a torch in th face) even after the torch had been on. --Benjamint444 00:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Michael Maggs is of course quite justified in his concerns about disturbing the wildlife being photographed, but I think it is misplaced concern regarding brush tailed possums. Yes they are probably wondering what is on the other end of that torch, but they are rather robust beasts, not particularly afraid of people and have been known to make their homes in peoples attics or beneath their houses. If they're in a tree they're usually quite sure of their own security and aren't intimidated by people or dogs. If they get annoyed by you they'll stop eating, climb higher and screech and cackle at you. Theses ones don't look to be worried at all (ok, I'm a bit biased as they are introduced noxious animals around here, with tens of millions chomping their way through our forests every night ;-) --Tony Wills 12:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Just too good to pass up for me. The enormous humor makes up for some slight technical flaws. I would have marketed this to a greeting card company. Masonbarge 18:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vmenkov 22:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Palm tree.jpg, not featured[edit]

A palm tree.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by AndonicO - uploaded by AndonicO - nominated by AndonicO --AndonicO Talk 13:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AndonicO Talk 13:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no id, messy composition. Please categorize thanks Lycaon 09:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC). Lycaon 17:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is not a bad picture by any means. I've taken so many pictures of trees in contrasty daylight (like one of my favorite trees) that have looked far worse, so I appreciate the difficulty. That said, it's not the highest quality required for a FP. -- Ram-Man 20:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Karelj 21:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC) as above
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition --Leafnode 07:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wooden Metronome.jpg, not featured[edit]

A metronome from W. Germany.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by AndonicO - uploaded by AndonicO - nominated by AndonicO --AndonicO Talk 13:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AndonicO Talk 13:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment An alternate version is available here, with the inverted pendulum swinging; however, it is of lesser quality IMHO. · AndonicO Talk 13:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For Now. The image has good sharpness, but I don't like the lighting. The front flash creates hard shadows and hot spots. Diffuse lighting would be ideal. A better backdrop would be a plus too. I'd prefer a high quality version of the swinging pendulum image if this shot is going to be redone with better lighting, but either would have educational value. -- Ram-Man 13:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like how some of your shots use the wooden table. I'm referring specifically to the white wall, which detracts from this particular photo. -- Ram-Man 14:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Ram-Man. A good effort, but not enough care has been taken to get top quality lighting nor a good background. --MichaelMaggs 14:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Ram-Man on lighting, it could also be taken at a better angle and background --Digon3 14:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I only had 2 x 2 feet of table to work with, so I put a board behind it. I don't like the shadows either; perhaps an edit could fix that? (I don't know how to do that; does one of you?) AndonicO Talk 17:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The way to fix it is to take it again under different lighting conditions and perhaps a different background. If I was taking a shot like that, I'd put the table outdoors on a cloudy day (for diffuse lighting) and take it against a nice natural background or use a white bedsheet or even white printer paper. If I took it indoors, I'd try to put it where it gets indirect light from a window and take a long exposure. I'd always use a tripod. It gets much more complicated if you want to do it in a professional manner with full macro lighting (I wish I owned some!). Another good option is to turn down the power of the flash (if the camera allows it) to lessen the effect of the hotspots and increase ambient light input. It also occurs to me based on the question to another picture that perhaps this metronome is copyrighted (how old is it?) and the picture cannot be published here on the Commons. If that's the case, it may be allowed on En-wiki under fair-use. -- Ram-Man 17:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, I'll try to take another image today. I don't know how old it is; all I know is that I bought it about 8 years ago, and it says W. Germany on the bottom (so it's at least 17 years old). AndonicO Talk 18:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Perhaps we will get someone with more copyright experience to answer the question for us. My understanding based on Commons:Derivative works that this image is acceptable, but that's just my opinion. -- Ram-Man 19:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Maybe. By the way, I'll have to take the picture tomorrow, because there's not much light here at this time... AndonicO Talk 20:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I like the alternate version, with the suggestion of motion. Since you are going to shoot th metronome again, maybe you could repeat that version too with a better background. Alvesgaspar 23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Sorry, the pictures I took today were worse than this one (natural light, but the background was overexposed). Unfortunately, I'm leaving in a few hours, and won't be back until Thursday, by which time the nomination will be almost over (it's 1 week, right?). When I return, I'll take new pictures, and re-nominate. AndonicO Talk 15:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Elisenturm Wuppertal.jpg, not featured[edit]

Elisenturm in Wuppertal, Germany

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Atamari - uploaded by Atamari - nominated by --Atamari 19:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tower is tilted. You also might want to take it at a different angle so the tree doesn't hide part of the tower --Digon3 21:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose geometry --Leafnode 07:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Equus quagga boehmi 0006.jpg, not featured[edit]

Böhmzebra

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Atamari - uploaded by Atamari - nominated by --Atamari 19:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose centered composition, unnatural enviroment, just a zoo-snapshot with no wow-factor. Sorry! --Simonizer 08:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree with Simonizer. Also, the subject is not detached with such a dark background. Alvesgaspar 13:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above --Digon3 15:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition, light, setting --Leafnode 07:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cercocebus chrysogaster.jpg, not featured[edit]

Cercocebus chrysogaster

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Atamari - uploaded by Atamari - nominated by --Atamari 19:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose based on my evaluation criteria. The image is blotchy which appears to be due to aggressive noise reduction, even though it is still noisy. The image also has a strange color balance, probably caused by incandescent lighting. -- Ram-Man 20:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Ram-Man --Digon3 21:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg NeutralI like it too much to oppose, but not quite enough to turn a blind eye to faults, eg, cropped feet. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Karelj 21:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Colours seem to be not natural..
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Zoo pic + unfortunate composition (crop) Lycaon 21:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Leafnode 06:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Paperbark Maple Acer griseum Bark 3008px.jpg, not featured[edit]

#1Paperbark Maple Bark #2Bark Closeup

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Both images are of the same tree, but are not the same image. I think they are both beautiful but serve different purposes. One is a closeup showing extreme detail, the other provides more perspective. This image provides additional context. -- Ram-Man 02:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Picture #1, not featured
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support // tsca [re] 17:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator. -- Ram-Man 23:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Picture #2, not featured
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support // These two pictures are incredible. The detail... the vivid colors... and so life-like, it couldn't be more beautiful if you were looking at it in person. Well done. JL (UTC) Please log in to vote --Digon3 15:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is a vote from a friend of mine, User:Jina Lee, just learning how to use the Wikipedia/Commons. I didn't seek her vote on this and didn't want to push the issue to prevent allegations of ballot stuffing. -- Ram-Man 14:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - I would prefer another aspect ratio, with the larger dimension in the direction of the trunk development. Alvesgaspar 18:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have another vertical shot, but it's not nearly as good. The only other option would be to crop it. -- Ram-Man
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator. -- Ram-Man 23:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great close-up detail, you can clearly see the texture & structure of the bark --Tony Wills 23:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tawny Frogmouth 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by --Benjamint444 10:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC) The other one was only a few votes off being promoted, hopefully his one will do better. It has a richer colour and better composition than the first one Tawny Frogmouth 1.jpg.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Benjamint444 10:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 03:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 19:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too narrow cut, don't like the background and too small DOF. --norro 09:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 09:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. I would like to see more from the left and top and less from the right. --Digon3 17:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes he does like to do overly close-cropped shots, but look at the detail in that eye :-) --Tony Wills 09:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tano4595 03:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose harsh flash light --Simonizer 11:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack opposers Lycaon 09:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack opposers --Leafnode 06:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Muffin NIH.jpg, not featured[edit]

A blueberry muffin

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by National Cancer Institute, Renee Comet - uploaded by CatherineMunro - nominated by Kulshrax --Kulshrax 20:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kulshrax 20:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose QI, but not special enough to feature it. --norro 13:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No QI, I'am afraid, because not uploaded by copyright holder. --norro 16:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Doesn't look great at fullscreen resolution on my monitor. Not enough for FP anyway. -- Ram-Man 14:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Karelj 21:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Maybe picture for some advertisement brochure of supermarket.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Leafnode 06:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 11:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:7122 series train (9).JPG, not featured[edit]

Swedish-made train

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Orlovic (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Orlovic (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it lacks a "wow" factor and the lighting seems flat. I also do not like the angle the picture was taken at. --Digon3 14:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose My eye follows the side of the train and ends up at the billboard. Clearly the billboard is a distracting element. -- Ram-Man 14:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info de-flattened the colors a bit in the meantime. --Orlovic (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 11:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Irmscher 7.jpg, not featured[edit]

The Irmscher 7, created by Irmscher (de) Edit 1 by Digon3

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Stefan-Xp - uploaded by Stefan-Xp - nominated by the same Guy ;) --Stefan-Xp 17:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed. Oh, and Photographs of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (e.g. 1600 x 1250) are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons. --MichaelMaggs 21:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
You were absolutely right! Perhapps you could rethink your Opinion... BTW: Now it has 5.3MP --Stefan-Xp 23:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could you fix the image description page? Thanks. --Digon3 00:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? --Stefan-Xp 09:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is still underexposed. -Digon3 00:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info I uploaded a edit with a curves and lightness adjustments. --Digon 01:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow thats much better than my Edit :) --Stefan-Xp 09:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 21:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC) the second picture
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noisy and composition Lycaon 21:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noise, composition, background --Leafnode 06:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 12:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ice On Tree.JPG, not featured[edit]

Ice Frozen on Tree

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by StormyXXX - uploaded by StormyXXX - nominated by StormyXXX --StormyXXX 23:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --StormyXXX 23:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Aesthetically interesting but quality not good enough. Lack of detail (strong compression?) and foreground unfocused. Alvesgaspar 02:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It looks like an aerial image to me! --Atoma 20:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Alvesgaspar: interesting picture but unfocused.Vassil 21:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Alvesgaspar --Digon3 23:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chmee2 14:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC) agree with Alvesgaspar too
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With improved resolution and detail, I would really like this photo. --Thisisbossi 02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 12:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fall of a snowflake.JPG, not featured[edit]

snow in streetlight

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Christoph Michels - uploaded by Christoph Michels - nominated by Christoph Michels --84.75.77.249 12:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I like how the traces of the snowflakes become visible when entering the light cone. 84.75.77.249 12:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Please log in to vote. Lycaon 21:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Karelj 21:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Why???
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Leafnode 07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chmee2 14:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC) nothing special
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree that it is kind of neat: it looks like delicate wisps of hair; but it just doesn't seem like an FP to me. --Thisisbossi 02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 12:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Io from Galileo and Voyager Orbiters fig3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by Cool Cat - nominated by Cool Cat -- Cat chi? 17:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cat chi? 17:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    This is a surface map (seen from south pole) of Io based on multiple images taken by Galileo and Voyager probes. -- Cat chi? 17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Part of image missing, poor stitching, map projection unidentified. Alvesgaspar 22:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    This isn't a "single" image. It is made out of multiple images taken by two space probes. Anything "missing" was never photographed by either. Spacecraft that fly-by do not normally pass over the poles of the object in question. Image illustrates the characteristics of the satellite. I wager it is an polar-Azimuthal -- Cat chi? 23:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Alvesgaspar--Digon3 23:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 12:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Io from Galileo and Voyager Orbiters fig2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by Cool Cat - nominated by Cool Cat -- Cat chi? 17:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cat chi? 17:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    This is a surface map (seen from north pole) of Io based on multiple images taken by Galileo and Voyager probes. -- Cat chi? 17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Part of image missing, poor stitching, map projection unidentified. Alvesgaspar 22:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    This isn't a "single" image. It is made out of multiple images taken by two space probes. Anything "missing" was never photographed by either. Spacecraft that fly-by do not normally pass over the poles of the object in question. Image illustrates the characteristics of the satellite. I wager it is an polar-Azimuthal -- Cat chi? 22:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, it is an azimuthal projection, but which one? Probably an ortographic projection, by the spacing of the parallels. Alvesgaspar 23:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    Possibly, I know nothing about map projections. My lack of such knowledge shouldn't be a featured criteria. -- Cat chi? 23:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Alvesgaspar--Digon3 23:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 12:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Io from Galileo and Voyager Orbiters.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by Cool Cat - nominated by Cool Cat -- Cat chi? 17:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cat chi? 17:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    This is a surface map (cylindrical projection) of Io based on multiple images taken by Galileo and Voyager probes. -- Cat chi? 17:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I believe this might be a valuable image in the sense given by our guidelines. But not the way it is presented here, with no hint on the meaning of the various colours, on the surface relief or on the scale. Like this, it is just a pretty picture, not enough for a FP. Alvesgaspar 23:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    I am not a NASA engineer. Image description page explains you the details much better than I can dream of. It seems to be a true-color image based on other images at en:Io (moon). -- Cat chi? 23:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Alvesgaspar--Digon3 23:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 12:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Iorotateing1day.ogg, not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by Geni - nominated by Cool Cat -- Cat chi? 17:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cat chi? 17:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    This is a rotating globe of Io based on multiple images taken by Galileo and Voyager probes. -- Cat chi? 17:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - No animation shown. Alvesgaspar 23:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    Then you are doing something wrong. It works fine on my end. Are you familiar with .ogg animation? -- Cat chi? 23:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see an animation either (I'm using Winamp). --Digon3 23:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    I see an animation just fine with VLC player. I do not believe Winamp supports .ogg -- Cat chi? 23:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It plays audio in a .ogg format just fine. --Digon3 02:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
.ogg Vorbis (audio) support is fairly common. .ogg Theora (the codec we use for video) is less common winamp does not support Theora at this time.Geni 12:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad aliasing, and the rotation does not look realistic. ~ trialsanderrors 07:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 12:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

image:Mazagon Lighthouse 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Lighthouse Mazagón (Andalusia)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR --MJJR 21:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MJJR 21:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Even though its a lighthouse (I love lighthouses), I don't like the lighting, composition, or the perspective that it was taken at. The picture seems a little bland and doesn't have a "wow" factor for me (and could you edit out the tourist?). --Digon3 23:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - I'm with Digon3, the picture lacks magic maybe because of centered composition. But technical quality is very good, so my neutral vote. Alvesgaspar 23:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perhaps it could be a QI based on technical aspects, but it lacks the undefinable "wow factor" for a FP. -- Ram-Man 13:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose geometry, composition --Leafnode 07:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 12:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:NZ North Island Robin-3.jpg, featured[edit]

NZ North Island Robin

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Tony Wills - uploaded by Tony Wills - nominated by Tony Wills --Tony Wills 12:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tony Wills 12:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Orlovic (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 14:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very high quality picture, good angle. I don't like very much the rings though. Alvesgaspar 17:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Sorry, the rings don't come off until he dies :-(, but an essential part of the program to monitor their survival in the wild during the re-introduction program. --Tony Wills 23:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 19:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Orchi 23:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 05:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support in common to my evaluation criteria __ ABF __ 08:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 09:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral angle (makes bird shorter), cut leg --Leafnode 11:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Strange, I thought I already voted on this one. -- Ram-Man 13:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great quality, very good photo --C·A·S·K 23:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree. --Tano4595 03:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Anrie 07:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ack Alvesgaspar Lycaon 09:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great wildlife photo 18:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC) unsigned vote by Masonbarge
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Atamari 19:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 19:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC) nice one !
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree this angle makes bird look shorter, and I am not happy enough with the background, but I love this unusual perspective. --Javier ME 23:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info They usually feed on the ground inside the forest, so most often you see them from this angle anyway. This particular one was hopping from branch to branch (looking for insects) on cut down trees on the edge of the forest, so in good light for a change. --Tony Wills 12:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bastille 2007-05-06 anti Sarkozy 487623928 37656cd319 o.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mikael Marguerie - uploaded & nominated by David Monniaux
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is not robocop or a storm trooper, this is a real-life gendarme mobile (member of a French riot control force) in full riot control gear, who is shooting tear gas using his grenade launcher... in the middle of action, at night. --David.Monniaux 17:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The resolution is low (under guidelines) and the quality isn't great, but the composition and subject matter are very nice. Just my opinion, but I don't think there are enough mitigating reasons to overcome the problems. Perhaps a QI instead. -- Ram-Man 18:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Try en:, the subject and composition are very good, quality is not. Lycaon 19:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting picture, but the image quality is far too low. --startaq 19:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above --Digon3 20:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Do you have a larger version of this? If then you will have my support. Fantastic moment, very unusual compared with all the other pictures listed here. ---Bergwolf 18:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Erdfunkstelle Fuchsstadt, Antennenfeld zwei 1-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

#1A place where information are transmited via radio#2The orginal image. 32-Meter-Antenna and four 16,4-Meter-Antennas#332-Meter-Antenna and four 16,4-Meter-Antennas

Picture #1, not featured
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - Fixed by ABF - nominated by ABF --ABF 07:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ABF 07:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 800×526? Nice photo, but this size is disqualifying. --Leafnode 11:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small, otherwise very nice. -- Ram-Man 14:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It needs to be at least 2000 x 1000. --Digon3 17:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 17:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Too small --C·A·S·K 23:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Picture #2, not featured
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoTthe second picture has a much higher resolution. --Digon3 23:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice - Kulshrax 00:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice --C·A·S·K 23:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as well. __ ABF __ 14:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tight crop, lots of noise, high JPEG compression --Leafnode 06:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vmenkov 22:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Leafnode. My vote applies to picture #2 and #3. -- Ram-Man 22:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 18:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Nice as a thumb, quite poor quality in full size. Alvesgaspar 18:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'd like the bit of roadway at the bottom to be cropped out and, if possible, the sides extended slightly so the photo does not feel as constrained. --Thisisbossi 02:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fulmer Falls Closeup 3000px.jpg, featured[edit]

Fulmer Falls

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 14:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Fulmer Falls in the Pocono Mountain region of Pennsylvania near New York City. Middle of three falls (The other two: Deer Leap Falls and Factory Falls).
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support (as the nominator) -- Ram-Man 14:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 17:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Urban 18:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good size, composition, lighting, and beautiful. The only problems I see other people having is that there are two other FP like yours, here and here, and the long exposure time. --Digon3 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well the exposure time (~1/3 of a second) is stylistic, I won't disagree. If people don't like it for that reason, so be it. I probably have others with a faster speed. Update: I don't. If they don't like the long exposure, they can oppose, but it's the only one I have or can get. I would likely never be able to reproduce the exact conditions shown in this image: specific time of year, time of day, weather, naturalistic conditions in a failing Eastern hemlock forest. Within a few years, the hemlocks shown in this picture may all be gone due to the Hemlock woolly adelgid. It is not uncommon for dead hemlock trunks to clutter the image. See this image for an example. -- Ram-Man 12:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose only for exposure -- Lycaon 20:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose you're referring to the water being slightly overexposed? I did bracket the exposure and this one was the best. Any darker and you lose the detail in the darker regions. I even had ideal lighting to eliminate even more contrasty lighting: taken in the evening near sunset on an overcast day. If I put up a lower exposure shot, someone else would complain about the underexposure. I've made large prints of this waterfall and the white water looks more than natural in this case. The water of the falls already spans ~65% of the image's range. Perhaps I'll see if I can reprocess the image. -- Ram-Man 20:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually on a closer inspection, the picture looks quite noisy in the dark parts too. FP should be almost flawless. Lycaon 09:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Beatiful. I think this one is better than the other two. Alvesgaspar 21:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - too slow an exposure for a moving object (the water). Aim for around 1/50 or 1/60 second exposure for moving objects. - MPF 22:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Long exposure is beautiful, but the image suffers from poor image quality at full res (artefacting and chromatic aberration). A down sample of the image might fix this issue tho. --Fir0002 www 06:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you serious, what magnification are you looking at? Poor image quality? It's a 7MP image, and the minimum requirements are 2MP. If we applied this standard to all images, barely a one of them would pass. There is at most 1 or 2 pixel widths of CA anywhere in the image. This is invisible. You'd have to make huge prints just to notice what you are talking about. Maybe I should downsample to 1600x1200 and apply photoshop filters? At that resolution the CA wouldn't be visible because there wouldn't be enough resolution to show it, but the lost resolution would then be noticeable at the magnfications you're talking about. And what artifacts are you referring to? -- Ram-Man 12:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking at 100% which is what all voters should be doing. You are falling into the common error that more megapixels is more quality. Your image at 100% is poor quality. To illustrate the point, you can take a crop of a high grade image such as this and increase the res by 200% and you'll be getting similar quality to what your image is at 100%. That's not good. It's much better to resize it to a point where it is crisp and detailed at 100% - full res as I mentioned earlier of your current image has poor level of fine grade detail --Fir0002 www 06:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Not even slightly am I falling to that error: If anything, blaming the camera (cheap?) for the "problems" indicates a false belief that a better camera will yield better pictures. If there are flaws that actually matter, they are mine alone as the photographer. I'm referring only to the standards for an FP, which states that 2MP file resolution is sufficient (saying nothing about the effective spatial resolution). This image has more than 2MP of spatial resolution as you've proven here. It's great that some images have more resolution than others (for a number of technical reasons), but unless we've changed the FP standards, it shouldn't matter. I don't care what it looks like at 100%, because either you are looking at an image crop (which makes it a different image) or at a large print size at an unreasonable viewing distance. If I wanted a crop of the image to look good, I would have taken a different picture. If you want to view a large print size, you may be better off with the extra spatial information that you lose from resampling. At least users can make that choice for themselves. I strongly disagree that voters should use 100% crops as their viewpoint, as 99% of the time that is not how the end-user will view it. -- Ram-Man 12:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just to be clear, are you saying that a down-sampled image, that is then enlarged to the original size will be better quality than the original at that size? --Tony Wills 08:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Not at all!! Dunno how you came to that conclusion. I'm saying that the full 3000px image has very poor quality at 100% (a result of a cheap camera I suppose). I used the example of Big Ben to show what a high quality image is - not necessarily because it's high res, but because at 100% there is heaps of detail. So much detail, that I could blow up the image to 200% and get as good or better quality than this photo at 100%. I'm saying this image has to be downsampled to solve the problem of poor IQ at 100% --Fir0002 www 09:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It was not a conclusion, it was a pointed question :-). So we have established that down-sampling looses information from the picture that can't be re-gained. Yes, of course we can hide deficiencies by down-sampling, and get the image past the eagle eyed FP/QI analysis. But do we end up with a 'better' image file? As the guidelines say, we can't predict what people will want to use the file for, by down-sampling we have destroyed a little info and restricted how users view the file (What if they want to print out a large poster, are they not better off with the original? A solution is to upload two versions, one for long term use, one to pass FP/QI scrutiny - but that's a wasteful solution given that the wiki has adequate software for scaling the image on the fly. Perhaps a better solution is to just specify the optimum resolution for the image (and set the FP display pages to serve it up at that resolution). --Tony Wills 11:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I looked at that resampled image and find it oversharp with way too much contrast. I could take a similar picture with harsh contrast any day and adding photoshop sharpening later. However, getting a nice low-contrast image of a falls like that is very difficult without losing detail in the falls themselves or resorting to film or HDR/Photoshop tricks. Modifying it takes the photographer out of the photograph. I could have heavily post-processed the orginal image, but I don't like how that loses data through generational changes and restricts user's ability to use it. I don't see the purpose of tweaking an image to look good at an arbitrary resolution at 100%. Who even looks at images at 100%? The FP process is nice because it allows us to find and catalog some of the best looking pictures, but I'm not so obsessed that I will do anything I can for a FP. If it falls to been a FP, who cares? At least the picture is still useful. Also due to Bayer interpolation all digital cameras suffer from poor sharpness at 100% unless they are artificially sharpened or downsampled (possibly in camera). Some have slightly better spatial resolution than others, but they can never technically achieve 100% spatial resolution. -- Ram-Man 12:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Please do not down sample to hide minor artefacts :-) --Tony Wills 09:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd rather it not be an FP than degrade the resolution by downsampling. I'd oppose my own image in that case. -- Ram-Man 12:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful photograph. I like the colors. --Floflo 20:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --C·A·S·K 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I agree with Fir0002 when he says that downsample should be used to improve image quality, when necessary. As a matter of fact that is a common practise among our best photographers, like Dilif and Fir himself, and the only way I know to get the kind of detail and sharpness of images like this, when using digital cameras. If an image looks poor in the screen at full resolution, we may be sure it will look alike, or worse, when printed. Then, I believe that we won't loose important information when we downsample a picture in order to improove its quality. In my opinion, all pictures nominated for FP or QI should be reviewed in full size and declined whenever they don't look good enough at that resolution. Alvesgaspar 14:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You make so many points, it's hard to address them all. I'm going to ignore the fact that many monitors are so poor that photo-sensitive printing will always look better and assume that everyone has sharp, high contrast, high quality monitors. Even so, it is total nonsense that downsampling improves overall image quality. Perceived image quality depends solely on pixel density (dpi) at a specific viewing size and a specifc viewing distance. The reason that downsampling appears to work is because it takes information that is only visible at higher pixel densities and tries to cram it into a lower density to make it visible. This is great if you want to optimize for web viewing on a 72dpi to 100dpi monitor, but it is very bad if you want higher dpi photo-sensitive prints used in a hardcopy format. This is the reason that this image looks great printed at ~220dpi at 11"x14" (I have the print right here), but not as good at 11"x14" on my 100dpi monitor viewed from the same distance. If I printed that same downsampled image at the same print size, the quality would be no better than 100dpi on my monitor even if though the print medium is capable of 300dpi. There would absolutely be a partial quality loss and we should not mandate that for our users who may not use a monitor for image reproduction. Downsampling removes the subtle gradations between pixels by eliminating some of those pixels and introducing changes in contrast or sharpness, either more or less depending on the algorithm used. The other problem with reviewing at "full size" is that it isn't standardized. Unless you require a specific pixel density, viewing size, viewing distance, and identical eyesight, you can't compare them all the same way. Change any one of them and the evaulation criteria changes. It's not the fault of the image that a 1024x768 CRT display at 72dpi doesn't look very sharp, but you can downsample it to look great under those specific conditions. Viewing at "100%" doesn't mean the same thing for everyone just looking at one of the factors! Viewing at 100% is the same as cropping. You're not comparing what it would look like if it was printed at, say, 300dpi, unless you change your viewing distance accordingly. You're looking at a different image. If my image was printed at 3 feet wide and you viewed it from 6 inches away, sure you'd see problems, but who does that? I believe it is common practice because these photographers know that it is usually required to achieve FP status. It just makes it appear to have more image quality when viewed under certain specific conditions. Some are just unaware of the misconceptions. I suspect some professional photographers intentionally downsample their images to prevent commercial usage by not looking as good when sold as prints. -- Ram-Man 15:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice, I like the long exposure. /Daniel78 21:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Exposure is ok for me (it gives the picture a mystical touch), good composition --Simonizer 09:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gorgeous. I, also, like the misty quality of the waterfall. A bit corny but it works. Masonbarge 18:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose FP should be flawless in general, not flawless only if printed as a post stamp. And this photo has some faults - most notably motion blur on trees (!) on the left. --Leafnode 06:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The minor flaws are largely mitigated by the overall quality and beauty. Alvesgaspar 18:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Alvesgaspar, you voted already above. --Digon3 14:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong supportJina Lee 05:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Stacheldraht 05.jpg, not featured[edit]

Barbed wire

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Waugsberg - uploaded by Waugsberg - nominated by Tony Wills --Tony Wills 21:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tony Wills 21:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tano4595 23:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor image quality (soft and unclear) and dislike the strong background. Try shooting at a larger aperture --Fir0002 www 06:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, not sharp at full resolution. I think he's got the DOF about right and the striking strong contrast between the wire and the green country side is the main point of the photo. --Tony Wills 11:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per Fir0002, soft and unclear. Resolution is also too low for a FP, possibly due to cropping. However, I like the background. This is the case where strong contrast is a good thing. -- Ram-Man 23:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportRomary 09:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Effectively a little problem of sharpeness, but honnestly I would not have noticed it without the comments above. For me a good picture. Romary 09:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small with no strong mitigating reasons. --Digon3 18:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Digon3 --Leafnode 06:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Japanese car accident.jpg, featured[edit]

Car accident in Japan

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Shuets Udono - uploaded by Sandstein - nominated by Jacopo --Jacopo 10:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For the perfect framing of the crosswalks and the "Oh dear! My car!" atmosphere :) --Jacopo 10:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for same reasons as promoter --Diligent 17:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the perfect orderliness of this shot. Btw, there is a Toyota named Platz?!? ~ trialsanderrors 18:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like the picture a lot, but did those people give their permission to be 'featured' here? Lycaon 18:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
They don't have to. They are in a public place and have no expectation of privacy. Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. --MichaelMaggs 21:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support in that case (thnx for the explanation) Lycaon 09:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jklamo 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Indeed, good framing and timing. --Atoma 19:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 21:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alvesgaspar 21:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I like it --C·A·S·K 23:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 00:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode 08:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --che 13:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Great picture ! - Fabien1309 17:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Grey,black and white...Sometimes circumstances have a sense of humour ! Vassil 3 May 2007
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Highly amusing and graphically most interesting. --AM 16:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would reccomend a rename of the file to something less ambiguous -- Cat chi? 22:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Luc Viatour 13:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support At full size the man looks not so shocked as it seems to be at small size, but the image will work fine at a normal size; and it's very different from other FPs (neither a sunset, nor a flower, nor a wild beast, nor a NASA image...) --Javier ME 23:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe I'm biased as I'm a transport engineer, but I like it! --Thisisbossi 02:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 07:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. Simonizer 06:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rapsfeld 2007.jpg, featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Dschwen - nominated by Thermos --Thermos 10:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent colour palette and quality, a pleasent image Thermos 10:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support (short description is a bit un-original though ;-) --Tony Wills 10:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour 13:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 17:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jklamo 18:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Colorful landscape. --Atoma 19:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacopo 20:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 20:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alvesgaspar 21:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition --C·A·S·K 23:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tano4595 03:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode 08:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 10:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Er Komandante (messages) 18:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wonderful picture! Quite great! --Floflo 20:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An obvious FP. -- Ram-Man 23:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Ziga 07:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 19:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --CMBJ 05:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Kozák 11:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC) — Really great composition.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 19:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC) can smel it !
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please don't hate me for opposing :) It's just too plain-looking to me for an FP, though it'd make a nifty computer background and I must say that I'm now looking forward to holiday in Germany! If this were higher-res such that I could really zoom in and see those flowers, then I'd definitely lend my support. --Thisisbossi 02:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • LOL. This is why we should close these earlier, so people like you can't ruin perfection. Haha. Oh well, you won't sway too many people I think. -- Ram-Man 02:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --D-Kuru 09:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 22 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. Simonizer 06:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Equisetum fluviatile Luc Viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Equisetum fluviatile in Belgium

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Luc Viatour - uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by --Luc Viatour 12:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour 12:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 18:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice sharp wated drops. --Atoma 19:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent --Karelj 20:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacopo 20:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 21:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alvesgaspar 21:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent details. --startaq 22:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice --C·A·S·K 23:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sometimes a morning spent shooting gets the perfect shot. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 23:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 00:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tano4595 03:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Thermos 04:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode 08:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 10:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. -- Ram-Man 19:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 20:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 08:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow ! Vassil 3 May 2007
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow ! Mihael Simonič 14:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Romary 18:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support !!! --Nino Barbieri 08:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support W-O-W !!! Benh 12:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Orchi 22:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I was actually going to oppose this until I opened it up and looked at it at full-res. Those bubbles are alluring! --Thisisbossi 02:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. Simonizer 06:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tobey Maguire and Jennifer Meyer by David Shankbone.jpg[edit]

Tobey Maguire and his fiance Jennifer Meyer at the Spiderman 3 premiere in New York

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by David Shankbone - uploaded by David Shankbone - nominated by David Shankbone --DavidShankbone 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Tobey Maguire and his fiancé Jennifer Meyer at the Spiderman 3 premier in New York --Tony Wills 21:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --DavidShankbone 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like it, and it's quite rare to get good pictures of celebrities here, but the background is just too messy for me. --startaq 22:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Buena foto, pero no creo que sea el tipo adecuado para imagen del dia --C·A·S·K 23:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
esto no es imagen del dia --Jacopo 12:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not "amazed" by photo --Orlovic (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn: [1]. ZooFari 03:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Image:XN Leucorrhinia rubicunda couple.jpg, not featured[edit]

Leucorrhinia rubicunda - couple

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by XN - uploaded by XN - nominated by XN 08:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)]]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XN 08:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose messy and distracting background. --Jacopo 12:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Jacopo. -- Ram-Man 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Ram-Man /Daniel78 20:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fantastic motif and brilliant detail. --Curnen 22:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The picture really looks messy not only because the position of the insects but mainly due to the unsharpness of the subject and the colour/texture of the background. Alvesgaspar 22:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ack Alvesgaspar --Leafnode 07:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 19:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ritterstern weiß Blüte.jpg, not featured[edit]

Blüte eines weißen RittersternsAlternative

THIS IMAGE IS AN EXAMPLE ONLY
Fringing on the edges of the flower petals
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -donald- 10:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ---donald- 10:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The poor masking job is visible at my normal viewing distance. I'd consider the image against the real background or a modified image fixing the mask. The detail in the flowers is excellent. Update: Oppose only applies to the first image. -- Ram-Man 16:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info That was no masking job, that is the real black background. ---donald- 21:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If that is not masking, what is all that fringing on at the bottom of the middle flower? See the picture of the crop. -- Ram-Man 22:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You are right, this must be from RAW-conversion and contrast adjustment. ---donald- 07:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not focused --Karelj 22:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Added alternative with background remnants edited out --Tony Wills 12:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well it looked fine at quarter to one in the morning when I uploaded it, but yes it is a bit rough around the edges ;-(. The clarity of the flowers is great (I don't know what Karelj is looking at) and worth the effort of fixing the fringing, so either upload it with the background intact, or edit it out completely :-) --Tony Wills 11:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Whether or not this a masking job or not I don't care. Without the weird fringing it just looks better. The edges are a little choppy perhaps from the fringe fixing, but it's now acceptable. I love the detail in the flowers. -- Ram-Man 13:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor masking in version two: has got even worse now! (for masking, I normally cut away bit by bit at at least 1000% magnif.) Lycaon 19:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could the original uploader consider reprocessing this from scratch or someone else redo the mask? Perhaps you'd change your vote if the masking was improved? -- Ram-Man 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Masking --Digon3 13:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If he says he did not mask it you have to belive him. Maybe we are all trained on bad masking, sothat we no do not longer know how good low-key shots look like ;) Metoc 21:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
THIS IMAGE IS AN EXAMPLE ONLY
Crop with absolute black background colour filled
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perhaps it is a misunderstanding of terminology or methods, but I am surprised to see an absolute black background that isn't the result of editing. I have added a crop with the absolute black part replaced with another colour. Note things near parts of the flower, like a right angled edge and pockets of red. I am happy to accept the background was not removed with a 'mask', but I am convinced it was incompletely removed by a person or persons unknown ;-). Nothing wrong with removing it, but it needs to be done a little better :-) --Tony Wills 13:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 19:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Río Arazas y Monte Perdido.jpg, not featured[edit]

Río Arazas y Monte Perdido.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Willtron - nominated by Willtron
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Willtron 11:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Anuskafm 19:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lifeless and washed out Masonbarge 18:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 19:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fontaine-saint-genes-detail-clermont-fd.jpg, not featured[edit]

St Genes Fountain in Clermont-Ferrand

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Fabien1309 17:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Fabien1309 17:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 08:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition -- Lycaon 09:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Romary 11:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition and overexposed background. --Digon3 13:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor composition Masonbarge 18:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Messy composition --Leafnode 07:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor composition Metoc 21:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Call me crazy, but I kinda like it. -- Ram-Man 04:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:CH Landwasser 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Glacier Express with newly commisioned (2006) panoramic coaches on the Landwasser viaduct

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen. I thought I give this version a try, after some criticism about the other nom below.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dschwen 21:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support stunning! --Orlovic (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Better than the other attempt at a FP and clearly a QI candidate. It appears to be very good technically, but I don't like the harsh contrast caused by the sunlight. -- Ram-Man 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good composition and technical quality. This line is not very popular, is it?... Alvesgaspar 07:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The Albula line is part of the Glacier Express, which probably is Europe's most popular rail line. It follows the main ridge of the swiss Alps. The Albula line itself is considered to be one of the most fascinating rail lines in Europe with its several helical tunnels, the Landwasser viaduct (pictures above) and the Albula tunnel (the highest alp traverse in regular operation, and the second highest in total). That being said it is a great ride even for non-railfans like me. --Dschwen 08:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know how popular it is, but in France I never heard of it. I don't live near the Alps, so maybe when I'll go there I'll have the pleasure to ride this train. The photo was taken from the other end of the train ? --Atoma 08:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes it was, the bridge is bent in a 45° angle. --Dschwen 08:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great photo. --Atoma 08:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 08:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mihael Simonič 14:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jklamo 15:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Fabien1309 16:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 19:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 07:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Out of all the pictures of this series, this was my favorite. --Digon3 14:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Atamari 19:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Urby2004 09:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jeses 10:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --CMBJ 05:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I don't like one thing about this photo: I can't see neither front nor back of train. Rest is great. --Leafnode 07:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vmenkov 22:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Orchi 22:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support want to be there --Bergwolf 19:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 19:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Senj6.jpg, not featured[edit]

Senj, coastal town in Croatia, north Adriatic

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ziga - uploaded by Ziga - nominated by Ziga --Ziga 21:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ziga 21:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Willing to overlook the blurry trees on the left.--HereToHelp (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I think this last vote belongs to another picture... Alvesgaspar 07:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The resolution is too small. It needs to be at least 2000 x 1000. As for the picture itself, I think it lacks a "wow" factor for it to be a featured picture. --Digon3 15:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor composition Masonbarge 18:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition --Leafnode 07:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Zavratnica1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Zavratnica, bay near Jablanac, Croatia (Adriatic sea)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ziga - uploaded by Ziga - nominated by Ziga --Ziga 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ziga 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low quality, especially in the trees. Water has a "muddy" look. Note: This is technically less than the requiredrecommended 2MP (1600x1200 is less than 1600x1250). -- Ram-Man 22:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info There is no 'required' 2MP, it is a guideline --Tony Wills 10:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
My comment was intended to be a word of advice, not my reason for opposition. The reason it's a stated guideline is because many, including myself, will not support an image less than 2MP. It's a guideline, but it's one that people follow. I personally exempt 1600x1200, because it's such a common size and it is basically 2MP. -- Ram-Man 11:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 20:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hash lighting, and with no mitigating reasons for being below expected size.--MichaelMaggs 12:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack MichaelMaggs --Digon3 14:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor color and contrast. Composition and subject matter are marginal. Masonbarge 18:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overall quality - blurred. --Leafnode 07:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 19:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:AMX-10RC.svg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Rama - nominated by David Monniaux --David.Monniaux 14:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --David.Monniaux 14:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Schematic picture of army vehicle do not belong in FP (by my opinion) --Karelj 19:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Yes it might if it were extraordinary, which is not the case, though this is a carefully drawn illustration. Alvesgaspar 19:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - nothing impressive --Leafnode 06:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nothing special --Bergwolf 19:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This probably took a bit of effort to make and I don't want to downplay that, but there are a lot of illustrations that I like better than this. -- Ram-Man 04:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 20:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pula oldpostcard01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by unknown, uploaded, nominated by --Orlovic (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Orlovic (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope the size doesn't matter - see this photo --Orlovic (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Well, for an old image like this I'd expect a good quality scan at the highest resolution that the original print could stand. I'd also want to make sure the original was of a good quality. This image appears to have been taken from a poor quality copy of the original postcard and is to my eye nowhere near FP standards. Even if the scan had been taken from the original postcard, it probably would still fail as postcards of this subject matter are not that hard to find for a collector. --MichaelMaggs 17:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree with MichaelMaggs - Alvesgaspar 18:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above --Karelj 19:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with above. -- Ram-Man 11:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Digon3 14:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Bergwolf 19:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small and poor quality - Alvesgaspar 13:42, 17 May 2007 (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.
result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 20:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:SonykBelZkusebna.jpg, not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Multimotyl – uploaded and nominated by Martin Kozák. --Martin Kozák 16:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Kozák 16:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC) — Proper composition, proper lighting, very informative and illustrative, very good from creative view too.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much informative, illustrative and creative. --Karelj 19:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - It might well be a strong candidate if it weren't for the small size. Please check the guidelines.Alvesgaspar 22:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - please upload larger version. --Leafnode 06:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - size, vignetting, ... Lycaon 07:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it's a great portrait, and the vignetting is well to the point. However, the file size is too low, and there is rarely a mitigating reason for this in a studio portrait! Motion to close early, as per this discussion. -- Ram-Man 11:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question who is this ? --Bergwolf 19:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    Answer: Czech music group Sonyk Bel in studio of Otice (from the image page). Majorly (hot!) 19:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too small. Majorly (hot!) 19:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 2 much postproduction --Makro Freak 21:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 20:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Leonardo da Vinci 046.jpg, not featured[edit]

La dame à l'hermine

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 20:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Meister von San Vitale in Ravenna 008.jpg, not featured[edit]

Η Θεοδώρα από ψηφιδωτό του Αγίου Βιταλίου στη Ραβέννα. Eastern Roman Empress Theodora, in San Vitale in Ravenna.

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 20:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Raffael 030.jpg, not featured[edit]

Madonna in the green

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Raffael - uploaded by File Upload Bot (Eloquence) - nominated by Gryffindor --Gryffindor 20:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Gryffindor 20:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry, this is really to small, please check the guidelines on image size. Also, the quality of the scan is quite poor. Alvesgaspar 22:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose size --Leafnode 06:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Size, and thus quality, is too low. -- Ram-Man 11:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Size and quality — H92 (t · c · no) 15:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Size too small, quality too low. Majorly (hot!) 19:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because much 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.

--MichaelMaggs 12:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 20:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Panorpa communis 2 Luc Viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Panorma Cognata

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Luc Viatour - uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by --Luc Viatour 06:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour 06:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 07:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Certainly has the wow factor. An excellent shot. --MichaelMaggs 07:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ziga 07:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 08:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 09:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Could do with a deeper DOF, but great anyway --Tony Wills 10:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great pic, altough I didn't manage to find Luc Viatour in the picture. --che 11:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
t has just left;)--Luc Viatour 11:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
original file name should be showing. It is sometimes criticized when not appropriate (not here). Lycaon 19:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Romary 12:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I've seen Luc Viatour's website and his work is amazing, but I feel that this particular image falls just barely outside my standard evaluation criteria. At f/4.8, the DoF is just too shallow in this case. An oppose vote here would be injustice, as it is right at my evaluation threshold. It's a great shot. -- Ram-Man 13:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm too picky. -- Ram-Man 18:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mihael Simonič 14:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alvesgaspar 15:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thermos 18:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Another great work --C·A·S·K 19:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent picture!! --Karelj 20:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice --Digon3 14:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it ! And the light coming from the top adds a "don't know how to describe" atmosphere. Benh 12:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - This is a magic shot and a valuable picture for Commons, no matter the DOF is the perfect one or not. And I want to congratulate the author for it. Alvesgaspar 00:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode 07:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Orchi 22:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 19:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:38-Lotus.jpg, not featured[edit]

lotus seedpod

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by John D - uploaded by FlickrLickr - nominated by Shizhao --Shizhao 14:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Shizhao 14:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mihael Simonič 14:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 15:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The seedpod is cut off on all four sides of the picture. --Digon3 15:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Digon3. --MichaelMaggs 21:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the colors and structure of this image very much.--Christoph Michels 15:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Digon3 -- Lycaon 21:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Karelj 22:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC) As above.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Digon3 --Leafnode 07:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree with Christoph Michels. Vmenkov 22:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportJina Lee 05:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:USS Lake Erie (CG 70) missile test.jpg, featured[edit]

USS Lake Erie (CG 70) missile test

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by the US Navy - uploaded and nominated by --Orlovic (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Orlovic (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacopo 12:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice mysterious air about this. Masonbarge 18:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fire the missile!…in all senses of the phrase.--HereToHelp (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lycaon 09:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Illustrative and excellent quality. Alvesgaspar 16:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Digon3 16:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fire ze miszilez! -- Cat chi? 17:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Karelj 20:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour 13:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode 07:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Chmee2 14:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 19:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 04:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 23:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Eiffel Tower Keychain.jpg - not featured[edit]

A keychain of the Eiffel Tower.

Pictogram voting question.svg Question Could the keychain be copyrighted? --Digon3 14:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

    • I doubt it. It's a souvenir, but I don't remember if it was given to me by someone who went to Paris, or if I purchased it at Epcot... In any case, I don't think it's copyrighted. AndonicO Talk 17:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not of encyclopedic value, it's not even categorized. Also there's no "magic touch" for FP. --Orlovic (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
try with Quality images, I would vote it there --Orlovic (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Lacks relevance (the guidelines call it value), first of all because the subject is kitschy and trivial and second because it doesn't illustrate in a clear way any photographic technique. Also, quality is not good enough: the subject is not perfectly focused (a higher f-number would probably be required) and the "flou" in the background looks artificial and not pretty. In this case I think that our evaluation criteria are all we need to not promoting this picture. Alvesgaspar 18:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I won't try to convince you to change your mind, but it is used on this Wikipedia article: Keychain. -- Ram-Man 14:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
What's "flou"? Oh, French for "blur"--MichaelMaggs 21:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Alvesgaspar -- Lycaon 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question could you provide some lens info? --Leafnode 07:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'm back home. The background looks weird because a blue wall and a brown desk were both blurred by the camera, and the reflection of the wall on the desk as well. Also, what kind of lens info do you need? The lens is 18-55 mm, in case that's what you meant. AndonicO Talk 23:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:English Walnuts.jpg - not featured[edit]

A whole and shelled walnut. Edit by digon3 Edit 2 by digon3 Edit 3 by Ram-Man

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by AndonicO - uploaded by AndonicO - nominated by AndonicO --AndonicO Talk 13:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AndonicO Talk 13:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The composition is superb. This has great educational value and is already a FP on the English Wikipedia. It looks like this may have been taken with a front flash, but the hot spots are not that bad considering all the positives. -- Ram-Man 13:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too dark, not too sharp, red print on the right shell. Lycaon 16:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The red print could be removed in post-processing and some sharpening applied in the process. Perhaps I'll take a stab at that if you'd consider changing your vote. UPDATE: There is a lot of good data in this file. Even a simple unsharp mask and curve adjustment improves an already good image dramatically. -- Ram-Man 18:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Can you upload the new version please? Maybe it can replace the one on en.wiki too. AndonicO Talk 18:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I can only make simple changes on my current computer. I'll have access to a computer with photoshop in a few hours, and then I can hopefully fix the coloring issues. -- Ram-Man 19:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I uploaded two edits with a unsharp mask and a curve adjustment. Tell me what you think. --Digon 20:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I uploaded another edit which removes the red marks from the nuts. I also applied sharpening and brightened it up a little. My lightness/contrast changes are more conservative than the ones Digon performed. -- Ram-Man 21:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I personally think Digon's second version and Ram-Man's are the better of the four; let's wait and see. AndonicO Talk 22:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the setting on the wooden table-- Christoph Michels 23:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 3 support, 1 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Silvereye - juvenile.jpg - not featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by --Benjamint444 08:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC) I took this in an orchard where these birds were practicaly swarming over the ripe fruit, the white patch in the BG is netting over a tree to (unsuccesfully) keep them out, this is a juvenile which was being tended by several adults.--Benjamint444 08:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Benjamint444 08:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question The lighting is strange, was this taken with a front flash? -- Ram-Man 13:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 15:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Strongly pixelated at upper left corner, artifacts around bird, ugly background. The bird is cute though it looks unhappy... Alvesgaspar 16:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The lighting is too harsh and flat, probably because the flash was camera-mounted. --MichaelMaggs 21:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lighting -- Lycaon 21:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Choco chip cookie.jpg - not featured[edit]

A chocolate chip cookie.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info brainloc on sxc.hu (Bob Smith) - uploaded by Pathoschild - nominated by Kulshrax --Kulshrax 12:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kulshrax 12:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Did you read the Commons:Featured picture candidates#Guidelines for nominators? This is much too small. --MichaelMaggs 13:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small, too small DOF, ugly shadow --norro 13:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small and it shows. -- Ram-Man 14:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not up to FP standards -- Editor at Largetalk 04:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Karelj 21:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Maybe picture for some advertisement brochure of supermarket.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chmee2 14:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC) too bright
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Leafnode 06:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tasty but too small. It is also aggravating because now I want a cookie. :) --Thisisbossi 02:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support yum! Jina Lee 05:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 2 support, 7 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kostel Nejsvětější Trojice (Fulnek) – idt-003.jpg - not featured[edit]

Statue of St. Teresa of the Child Jesus in the Most Holy Trinity Church, Fulnek, Czechia

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Radim SCHOLASTER - uploaded by PAD - nominated by PAD --PAD 17:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --PAD 17:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition and poor lighting --Digon3 01:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 21:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Digon3 -- Lycaon 21:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Digon3 --Leafnode 06:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:NZ Red Admiral Butterfly (Vanessa gonerilla).jpg - not featured[edit]

Vanessa gonerilla

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Tony Wills - uploaded by Tony Wills - nominated by Tony Wills --Tony Wills 21:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tony Wills 21:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would support a Quality Picture nomination, but as featured picture you need a better background and non-distracting surrounding. --startaq 00:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 21:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 21:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Startaq --MichaelMaggs 07:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because of the ground around --che 14:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am surprised at the comments about the background. The whole point of interest about the photo, is the contrast between the beauty of the butterfly against the harsh clay ground covered with plant debris - not just another butterfly on flower cliché. --Tony Wills 08:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

hence the support ;-) Lycaon 22:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The butterfly is very sharp and I agree with Tony Wills that the background is part of the alure of this image. I don't know that butterflies on flowers are cliché though, because they spend so much of their lives on flowers. Still, many butterflies, like this Red Admiral, like to rest on the ground. I have an photo of an Eastern Tiger Swallowtail that has a similar type of background. I do understand opposing because of the blurred green piece of grass on the left side. -- Ram-Man 15:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Agree. Alvesgaspar 16:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yes to Quality Picture. Metoc 21:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose background could be better (and by this I do not mean it should be a flower) Tbc 11:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting question.svg Question Is it the blurred green & brown piece of grass coming in from the left side that annoys people most, or the short green piece on the ground beyond, or the whole stem of grass growing on the left? --Tony Wills 12:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

For me it is the very blurred green and brown piece of grass coming in from the left side and the whole stem of grass that "touches" the butterfly on the left. Tbc 07:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose technically yes but i dont like the scenario --Bergwolf 19:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 5 support, 6 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hurricane Isabel eye from ISS.jpg - not featured[edit]

Hurricane Isabel's eye

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by Nilfanion - nominated by Nilfanion --Nilfanion 00:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Nilfanion 00:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture! I like the structure/movement. It really sucks you right in. --Christoph Michels 15:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 21:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There appear to be grey circular smudges at various points in the image. They don't look like natural clouds to me and are distracting. -- Ram-Man 13:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Beautiful and scaring. I will support after the smudges (can't be water droplets, right?...) are eliminated. Alvesgaspar 20:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think those are either dust on the lens of the camera or the porthole of the space station. I personally do not feel comfortable carrying out the cleanup task, if someone else does much appreciated ;)--Nilfanion 23:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • But there are space suits on board, aren't there?... Alvesgaspar 00:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportJina Lee 05:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Ram-Man. --Digon3 17:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 4 support, 2 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Scatophaga stercoraria 1 Luc Viatour.jpg - featured[edit]

Scatophaga stercoraria

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Luc Viatour - uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by --Luc Viatour 14:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour 14:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 15:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Vassil 6 May 2007
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 21:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Excellent!
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 22:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yurk, scary... -- Benh 16:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow --norro 19:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Amazing picture, high value. Pitty the unfocused leaf in the first plan. Alvesgaspar 22:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode 07:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - nice picture Chmee2 14:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs 17:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Orchi 22:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bergwolf 19:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC) nice eyes !
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Er Komandante (messages) 19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 23:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 15 support, 0 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 10:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Water droplet blue bg05.jpg - not featured[edit]

A droplet of water.

According to the file history, it's by Fir0002. --MichaelMaggs 21:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
In fact, this picture is not mine. I have made other pictures of water droplets, but not this one. Roger McLassus
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kulshrax 15:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 21:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Yes, I like it.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose evaluating at my criteria, I noticed what looks to be bad noise. Upon more than 100% magnfication, that noise would seem to be jpeg artifacts. Considering the low resolution (< 1600x1200), there are not enough mitigating reasons to support. -- Ram-Man 22:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Ram-Man. Too small resolution. --Digon3 23:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --norro 07:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too small. Why? --Leafnode 07:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vmenkov 22:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jina Lee 05:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Ram-Man. Too small. --MichaelMaggs 17:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Beautiful image - it is Fir0002's style! Booksworm 19:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 6 support, 4 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 12:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:M82 Chandra HST Spitzer.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Messier 82. Composite of Chandra, HST and Spitzer photos. created by Chandra, HST and Spitzer telescopes - uploaded by Winiar - nominated by Winiar --Winiar 15:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 15:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Space pictures are a lot like sunsets. All very pretty. They have to be something special (like this one) to support. This one has banding and other issues. I'm sure there are good technical reasons for all of this, but I don't care for the quality and the content. I won't deny that it's pretty. -- Ram-Man 22:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    Excuse me, "space images" fall inside our project scope ten times better than your average sunset. -- Cat chi? 23:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    Either I misunderstand you or you misunderstand me. I'm referring specifically to featured picture requirements, not project applicability. There are many thousands of images that are not FP quality but are extremely educational and useful. I'm not worried about whether or not this image is educational, because clearly it is. In fact, project applicability should be a core/basic requirement for all FP candidates. The reason that guidelines discuss sunsets is because by their very core nature they are beautiful, so beauty alone is not enough for a FP. These "space pictures" are similarly almost always very beautiful. If beauty was the main reason to add them, then there would be no reason to vote. Just automatically make them FP. Looking at the technical quality of this image, there are defects, not the least of which is banding and streaking. The banding also distracts from the beauty. This is art and art is inherently subjective. Obviously people disagree with me, and that's fine. -- Ram-Man 01:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    There are many pictures of sunsets. Making all good ones as featured wouldn't make sense. This space object does not have another "Featured" version so your approach is flawed IMHO. -- Cat chi? 17:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    That's because my reasoning is not totally clear from the above statement. From my evaluation criteria: "Not all useful and thoeretically best images of a particular subject should or need to be featured pictures" (emphasis added). -- Ram-Man 17:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cat chi? 23:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Its large, its pretty, its special (IMO). --Digon3 23:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Luc Viatour 07:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support just for the beauty of it, and although I don't quite understand what this represents :) -- Benh 20:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Ram-Man -- Lycaon 07:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jina Lee 05:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Ram-Man --Karelj 20:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 6 support, 3 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 12:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:LantanaFlowerLeaves.jpg[edit]

Flower and leaves of Lantana camara Flower and leaves of Lantana camara

Original version - featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Macro shot of a flower and leaves of Lantana camara. The flower has a diameter of about 3-4 cm. Created and nominated by Joaquim Alves Gaspar -- Alvesgaspar 23:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alvesgaspar 23:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice, great colors, and good composition. --Digon3 02:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Digon. The colours are lovely. --norro 07:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support beautiful --Jacopo 09:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The colors are beautiful, but I'd like to see more definition and sharpness in the flowers themselves. It appears that the focus is on the leaf, not the flowers. The flowers appear slightly overexposed, only occupying ~12% of the tonal range, although they are not blown out. Maybe better focus would fix this. At f/4 on a 2/3" sensor, it is approaching defraction effects (~f/4.4), but perhaps a little more depth of field would have been nice, but this is a minor point as this is close to f/10 or f/11 on a DSLR. -- Ram-Man 13:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Winiar 14:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm finding this subject beautiful (and the nice composition certainly helps). I agree with Ram Man that it very slightly lacks sharpness, but I think it's a issue shared by all pictures from Alvesgaspar and not a misfocus problem. I don't think it's overexposed. Benh 16:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - I don't have a DSLR (yet) and my presente camera, although excellent in many aspects, suffers from some unsharpness and chromatic noise in full resolution, even with relatively low ISO settings. But I prefer to have soft pictures than artificial fringing or the presence of artifacts. It is an aesthetical preference, I suppose. I take this limitation as a chalenge, while I can't aspire to the equipment (and talent!) of Dilif and Fir... Alvesgaspar 21:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Many people are not skilled enough to exceed the limits of their equipment. Clearly you are. Non-SLRs tend to be sharp at macro only in the center of the frame, perhaps that is the issue here. -- Ram-Man 12:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the compliment, but you might well replace skill with patience, persistence and hard word. The nicest thing about digital photography is that it is now easy and cheap to shoot 100 times and chose the best one. Alvesgaspar 14:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer 08:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bergwolf 19:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC) really nice !
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Makro Freak 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Very good!
 9 support, 1 neutral, 0 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 12:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

New version - not featured[edit]

Pictogram voting info.svg Info - I'm adding a new version in which the leaves and buds are sharper. Not sure which one is best - Alvesgaspar 15:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The other one has better colours, but this one a better DOF. So Iam supporting both --Simonizer 08:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon 07:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 2 support, 0 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 12:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rana temporaria LC0030.jpg - not featured[edit]

Rana temporaria

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info First try: Common frog (Rana temporaria), female adult; created, uploaded and nominated by LC-de --LC-de 12:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LC-de 12:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's not a bad picture, perhaps a QI, but the front flash hotspots are distracting. Even though this was taken with a DSLR and downsampled to the minimum resolution, the background still appears noisy to me. -- Ram-Man 13:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small (1684 × 1248) and per Ram-Man. --Digon3 14:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    Why too small? 1684 × 1248 is over 2Mpix. --Leafnode 07:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj 19:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Ram-Man --Leafnode 07:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture of a shiny wet frog. Noise in an out of focus background is irrelevant to me :-) --Tony Wills 09:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral not bad but i saw some more interesting pictures of frogs in the commons --Bergwolf 18:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 3 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 12:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bigleaf Hydrangea Hydrangea macrophylla 'Tokyo Delight' Flowers 3008px.jpg - featured[edit]

Bigleaf Hydrangea

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 13:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ---- Ram-Man 13:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour 13:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice detail and composition. --Digon3 14:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XN 18:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wonderful --norro 18:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Karelj 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Nothing special.
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - Beatiful subject and nice quality. But I would prefer a framing not so tight. Alvesgaspar 22:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Kozák 11:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC) — Nice sharpness and nice detail. Not so well framing is IMHO compensated by great depth-of-field and focus shifted to left.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice, and very original subject to me -- Benh 21:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose framing -- Lycaon 22:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment With respect to framing, I intentionally try to fill the frame as much as possible to record as much detail of the subject as possible. Since this is about writing an encyclopedia, I prefer to maximize encyclopedic value at the expense of a little compositional value. According to the guidelines "Value" is the primary goal of this process. Technical aspects, like composition, are secondary. I do have another picture of the same subject taken from a step back, but of course it has less pixel detail dedicated to the flowers, and due to the different field of view has a more distracting background. -- Ram-Man 00:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thisisbossi 02:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice object, but the framing is to tight ---Bergwolf 18:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.