Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:Featured picture candidates(Redirected from Commons:Featured pictures candidates)
[edit] File:Yiddish WWI poster2.jpg
Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2009 at 07:34:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info: created by Charles Edward Chambers - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Yiddish WWI poster.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)- Info: World War I era poster in Yiddish. Translation: "Food will win the war - You came here seeking freedom, now you must help to preserve it - Wheat is needed for the allies - waste nothing".
Support -- Durova (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)- Support -- Of course. Takabeg (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good restoration work. Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Buteo magnirostris -Goias -Brazil-8.jpg
Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 20:00:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by Wagner Machado Carlos Lemes - uploaded by Snowmanradio - nominated by - Snowmanradio (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Snowmanradio (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support nice hawk, nice colours -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support I wish that there weren't so many distracting elements in the bottom-left, though. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Durova (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support, Nixón〃 00:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support WOW. Takabeg (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Darius Baužys → talk 10:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Woodbridge isothermal chart3.jpg
Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 18:43:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by William Channing Woodbridge - uploaded by Jujutacular - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Woodbridge isothermal chart.jpg by Jujutacular and Durova -- Durova (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Historic map of the world that shows Alexander von Humboldt's isothermal lines. Published 1823.
- Support -- Durova (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good job. Takabeg (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Happy to support the restoration of this map :) Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support It's fascinating to see that even in 1823, there were "white spots" on the map, and Canada was largely unknown as well. -- JovanCormac 07:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:House wren - food drops.ogv
Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 17:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by qmnonic - uploaded by Kozuch - nominated by Kozuch -- Kozuch (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Kozuch (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Pity for the resolution, but the quality, educativeness and rarity of this free video gets my support! Diti the penguin — 19:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment I intentionally uploaded the lower resolution even as HD is available (because of people with low bandwidth). There is no problem to upload the HD version, you can watch it on Flickr for now. As there are close to no official rules for video now, I just did not know how to behave, whether to do low-res or high-res. --Kozuch (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Low resolution (of course: low to a reasonable scale) is better, because of the bandwith. Remember that you aren't very likely to put an 800px wide video into an article. And even if you insert it as, say, 480px, it won't increase the speed of loading anyway. Wolf (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- I suspect in the long term we'll want high res, just as we do for photos. It can't be that hard to produce scaled down versions, but it's impossible to scale up. 99of9 (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support It's a rare sight that someone dares to nominate anything but a static picture here. Great quality! -- JovanCormac 07:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Belgian F-16 Radom.JPG
Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 14:06:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by Łukasz Golowanow (User:Airwolf) & Maciek Hypś - uploaded and nominated by Wolf (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment If you have the impression that this picture has already been nominated, you're almost right, this one has and now that I think of it, its failure was justified. The one here has a slightly lower resolution, but is definitely less blurry and I really like the diagonal composition (a rarity in aircraft photography) and the shadows which prevent a feeling of flatness. Wolf (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Wolf (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Spider internal anatomy-en.svg
Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 09:36:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Pbroks13 -- Pbroks13 (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pbroks13 (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support I cannot speak for the accuracy, but the illustration looks clean, and all text is embedded as SVG text objects, allowing for easy translation of the labels. -- JovanCormac 11:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support just as Jovan said :) --Leafnode✉ 14:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good job. Takabeg (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:RhB Bernina-Express am Lago Bianco.jpg
Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 22:09:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Two multiple units hauling the narrow gauge Bernina Express over the alps, at Lago Bianco. The picture was taken more than 2200 meters above sea level.
- Support -- Kabelleger (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wolf (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Julian Alps with Prisojnik and Razor.jpg
Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 13:54:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Oversaturated, also resolution is too low for a landscape shot IMO. -- JovanCormac 15:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Jovan, this image has the colours and the saturation of the former Kodachrome 25 film. I worked with Kodachrome 25 in the years 1974–2001 and know what I say. Kodachrome 25 has been one of the best films with great sharpness, and I try to bring the Kodachrome 25 feeling into the digitally world. Maybe you worked in the past with other films and likes therefore another feeling with soft colours and saturation, but that is your own window to the world of photography and is ok for your own images. - This image has the resolution 2,602 × 1,645 pixels (4.28029 pixels), that's more than the double of the needed 2 million pixels. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, after seeing this Kodachrome picture I'll have to say you're probably right, the saturation seems to be a feature of that specific film, though I would consider that image on the verge to being overexposed as well. Nevertheless, I believe that photography (especially landscape photography) should mirror reality as closely as possible, and I've certainly never seen grass as green as it is in your candidate shot. If I understood you correctly, this is a digital image that you edited to look like it was taken with the Kodachrome film. If that is the case, it should be clearly marked as auch ("retouched" template).
As for the resolution, this is a matter of personal taste; I myself believe that landscape shots should have at least 6-8 Megapixels unless they are absolutely spectacular. -- JovanCormac 08:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, after seeing this Kodachrome picture I'll have to say you're probably right, the saturation seems to be a feature of that specific film, though I would consider that image on the verge to being overexposed as well. Nevertheless, I believe that photography (especially landscape photography) should mirror reality as closely as possible, and I've certainly never seen grass as green as it is in your candidate shot. If I understood you correctly, this is a digital image that you edited to look like it was taken with the Kodachrome film. If that is the case, it should be clearly marked as auch ("retouched" template).
Neutral Actually leaning toward oppose due to the tight crop, but I do have an unhealthy-powerful zeal for giant photostitched landscapes, so I think that's probably influencing my opinion too much. —Notyourbroom (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)- Oppose composition --Leafnode✉ 14:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Leafnode, what is your problem with my composition? Please see this Featured picture. It has the same composition. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- And as it could be expected, I don't like the composition of the second photo either. And now why - horizon is in the middle, and as a consequence in this particular shot there's too much of the bottom part - even grass is rather boring. IMO this picture would be better with some cropping. --Leafnode✉ 12:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Leafnode, what is your problem with my composition? Please see this Featured picture. It has the same composition. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:CoA Città di Milano.svg
Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 09:13:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by Fale - uploaded by Fale - nominated by Fale -- Fale (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Coat of Arms of Milan city (Italy)
- Support -- Fale (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support – Molto ben fatto. --Ernie (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose A valued image for sure, but not nearly as spectacular as this recent nomination. -- JovanCormac 15:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Etna eruption seen from the International Space Station.jpg
Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 07:21:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by NASA - uploaded by Bricktop - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Simply amazing.
- Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
Whoops, forgot to denoise first. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I have to disagree. Looking at the noise I am quite sure a lot of detail will be lost due to noise reduction. The picture is fine the way it is and noise is just natural. --Ernie (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Okay, I'll let the nomination run it course. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support A lot of educational value in a difficult photo to reproduce. --99of9 (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Like Ernie, I think that denoising would only hurt this picture. -- JovanCormac 13:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Ultra-rare shot! --George Chernilevsky talk 21:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Durova (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Kralicky-Sneznik-03.jpg
Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 06:25:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: Kralicky Sneznik mountain, Czech Republic. Author - Marek Stránský - nominated by Anon
- Comment I know the size is small but this picture just can't be ignored.
- Oppose Sorry, no chance with me at that size (1.6 Mpx). Also, color balance is off to put it mildly. -- JovanCormac 06:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. It looks oversaturated and, whilst it is nice, it isn't exceptional. Also the quality. --Silversmith Hewwo 06:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Oversaturated --AngMoKio (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 |
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because size is below guidelines without mitigating reasons --Leafnode✉ 15:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
[edit] File:Pabellon Mudejar.JPG
Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 22:05:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Grez -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The image quality is mediocre, the composition has some problems (I would like to see more space on the right-hand side), and there is a tree blocking part of the subject. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Put differently: judging from the composition and the portrait orientation, this is a photograph of a building and some trees; but to be a featured picture, it should really just be a photograph of the building itself. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose composition, cut-off tree.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Un-refined composition. The scene has potential for FP (warm tones, nice building), but this picture left it un-exploited. --S23678 (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as Mbz1 --AngMoKio (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't know what's the object of this picture - trees? Building? Both? Now both of them are presented badly - trees cut, building obscured. --Leafnode✉ 15:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Oliviers Andalousie.JPG
Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 21:37:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Grez -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose For me, this lacks the value of a closeup shot (not enough detail) while also lacking the value of a landscape shot (not enough context). Because it falls into the middle ground and does neither of those things well, it's an unexceptional image. There are also distracting elements in the bottom-left of the image. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Not sharp enough IMO, also lower left corner does not look good IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Notyourbroom --S23678 (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Notyourbroom wrote everything. --Leafnode✉ 15:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Flags of Europe Andalusia and Spain.JPG
Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 21:33:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Grez -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment So if I understand right, these are all flags which apply to the autonomous community of Andalusia, because it is a part of Spain, which is a member nation of the EU. I'll annotate to clarify which flag is which. Is there any special significance to this image beyond its ability to demonstrate the political hierarchy (for lack of a better phrase) of Andalusia? —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Request: Please add a geolocation tag to this image's info page if possible. Thank you.—Notyourbroom (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)- Comment A majority of official buildings (administration, town council, etc) and castles in Andalusia have in front of them (or on them) these three flags. These ones are on top of the Alhambra, in Granada. Geoloc :
Done --Gregory Zeier (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC) - Comment should be de-noised --S23678 (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality problems (looks like a mixture of noise and JPEG artifacts). Good composition, though. -- JovanCormac 06:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose this picture has potential, but apart from the aforementioned quality problems, front-most flag IMO is too dark - maybe other environmental conditions (different hour, other wind) would make it better --Leafnode✉ 15:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Jardines de Murillo 1.JPG
Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 21:30:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Grez -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The palm in foreground, and the tree in background are cut-off, and nothing special IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The palm trees are nice, but foreground elements are distracting. --S23678 (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose – One thing I often recognize is the yellow cast Nikon Coolpix cameras and digital SLR's produce by default. Just by looking at the image I could tell it was Nikon. --Ernie (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose composition - highest palm is cut, as well as right side column --Leafnode✉ 15:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Inname van Godesberg - Capture and destruction of Godesburg in 1583 (Frans Hogenberg).jpg
Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 21:59:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
.jpg)
- Info: created by N/A - uploaded by Kweniston - nominated by Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Encyclopedic, and possibly feature-worthy if a higher resolution version becomes available. Not quite up to par as nominated. Durova (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Resolution is far too low. | 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. |
-- JovanCormac 06:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:A surfer in the air.jpg
Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 20:49:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Impressive, and much better post-processing than the other similar nomination. I would still like to see full resolution, if this is a downsample. --S23678 (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support quite a capture. Durova (talk) 06:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral great capture, but I don't like the composition. --Leafnode✉ 15:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support excepionally! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Macaca sylvanus feet and hands.JPG
Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 19:56:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by Grez - uploaded by Grez - nominated by Grez -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 22:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Decent level of quality, but if it's meant to illustrate the feet and hands (per the image's title), it does a relatively poor job due to the way the monkey is positioned. On the other hand, this is a photograph of a wild creature which is an understandably difficult subject. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Nk1046349362-20061210-hd.jpg
Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 11:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by Stougard - uploaded by Stougard - nominated by Erin Silversmith -- Silversmith Hewwo 11:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Silversmith Hewwo 11:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice! -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support WOW --Cesco77 (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Tiny resolution, but what a picture! -- JovanCormac 12:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Well captured dramatic action. --99of9 (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 15:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Request: Could geolocation of the image be provided please.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- And it could be renamed. —kallerna™ 16:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Don't forget about the {{Geo}} template ;) —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support, but it has to be renamed. Wolf (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose for the file name and the poor quality of the description page. It would be great to have a species name and a geolocation tag, and why is there essentially an extra license in the "Permission" field? —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Question: Also, what's happening here? Has the pelican just landed? It is flying away? Is it just flapping while floating in the water? This would also be nice to know on the description page. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Path on water Nanjing.jpg
Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 09:18:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by Stougard - uploaded by Stougard - nominated by Erin Silversmith -- Silversmith Hewwo 09:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Silversmith Hewwo 09:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support – Over-sharpened! I doubt I would vote for it if it was in color. --Ernie (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't support desaturated color pictures. Post the color picture instead; if someone wants to see it desaturated, he or she can to so with a single click in Photoshop. But posting desaturated already simply robs the picture of color information without giving anything back in return. -- JovanCormac 12:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Harsh contrast (left-hand side), confusing composition, bad crop.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose This one would benefit from colours. Oversharpened. —kallerna™ 15:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per the several above points. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Very ordinary picture IMO, sorry. --S23678 (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose poorly desaturated picture, also bad contrast and composition. --Leafnode✉ 15:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:CVW-5 Apr2007.jpg
Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 08:05:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by Jarod Hodge (US Navy) - uploaded by Cobatfor - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I like this picure. But the resolution is too low. Takabeg (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment What? It's over 12Mpx! How much larger do you want it to be?! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- And you supported this one, which is one third the size! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I sopport Spider Nephila clavata 0911.jpg. The resolution of that picture is enough. Bu in this picture the shapes of planes aren't sharp. Takabeg (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- And you supported this one, which is one third the size! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Resolution is low or file size? --Muhammad (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice --Muhammad (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wow! Quality is not ideal, however as a whole it is fantastic view. Rare shot -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Weak SupportMaybe Takabeg is talking about the fact that none of the planes is very focused and there are also a lot of artefacts, especially in the sky.--Silversmith Hewwo 11:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Suggestive and rare image --Cesco77 (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Great picture, but spoilt by overzealous JPEG compression. 1.22 MB for 12 Mpix is simply ridiculous, and it shows. JPEG artifacts are all over the picture. -- JovanCormac 12:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Nice composition, but too much JPEG artifacts and noise IMO. —kallerna™ 15:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition is great of course, but the quality is really bad due to the high compression. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great combination --JuergenKlueser (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality issues, per Daniel, especially in the top portion of the sky. Given this was a photo ops, I see no mitigating reasons for the quality not being better. --S23678 (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose due to the quality related compression. Even at reasonable resolution (screen size) the clouds above Mt Fuji just look wrong with what looks like lots of posterisation. - Peripitus (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose with heavy heart, but I have to oppose because of a poor quality --Leafnode✉ 15:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wow. --Lošmi (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Cathedral of Learning stitch 1.jpg
Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 02:52:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by User:Notyourbroom. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info: This is the current valued image of the Cathedral of Learning, a Great Depression-era Late Gothic Revival skyscraper in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
- Support as nominator. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment There are only perhaps two angles from which a relatively-unobstructed shot may be obtained- remember, this is a skyscraper in an urban environment. Also, when the building is uniformly well-lit, it appears exceptionally bland and "flat." For comparison on these points, see this alternate version. My intention with the submitted shot was (1) to illustrate the structure in a way which would not confound the viewer with other buildings in the frame, as well as (2) to use the angle of lighting to my advantage to reveal the volume and ornamental nuances of the building, rather than leaving it to appear homogeneous and flat. In a sense, I am not attempting to photograph a structure, per se, but an art style or a design philosophy, and I am trying to do so in a way that will not confound the viewer with extraneous details. (Crazypaco, an expert on this structure, articulated a similar analysis in his review of the photograph for valued image.) I hope that this helps to clarify my decisions. —Notyourbroom (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for these details and explanations. I agree that the alternate view you provided almost looks like a cardboard cutout of the building itself, whereas this view actually shows the intricate volumes that comprises this tower. Is it one of the best views one can get of this structure? I'm willing to think so. Is it superior to many others we can see on Commons and elsewhere? Once again, I'd think so. Is it thus a featured picture, a valuable picture, or something else ? Well, I don't know... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support per the explanation provided by Notyourbroom --Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Voters may also find it instructive to see more of Crazypaco's assessment and comparison of these two images (stitch 1 and stitch 2) here on my talk page. And for fun, here is what it looks like in typical rainy Pittsburgh weather. ;) —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support I really do like the contrasts in the composition : that imposing, grey, and, to some extent, scary architecture presented in such a vivid and empty blue sky, and surprisingly green surroundings (very cartoon-like). Everything fits in place. Bravo. --S23678 (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Avala (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Just barely acceptable quality in my view, but the lighting leaves much to be desired. Return just before sunset (or just after sunrise) for a better picture. I'd keep the same composition. Noodle snacks (talk)
- Thank you for the suggestion—I may try that. I believe that sunset would be better than sunrise for this angle (because sunrise would provide almost full front-lighting), but in either case, it is now too late in the year to capture the lawn and trees in a non-dormant state. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --George Chernilevsky talk 21:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Apophysis 3D fractal ball.jpg
Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 22:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Garden Garden. 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Garden. 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Durova (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Request: This is a beautiful artificial image, but would you please elaborate on why it is a valuable addition to Commons? I do not know much about this area. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell it's the only example of a 3D Apophysis flame (i.e. one made with that program) on this website. Garden. 10:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great educational image since it shows that the concept of a fractal is wider than the Mandelbrot set and Sierpinsky triangle laymen typically associate with the term. -- JovanCormac 07:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Request: None of that theoretical context and detail is present on the image's description page. Would you (or George) mind adding more information to help a layperson such as myself? Maybe a few well-placed wikilinks, too. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have added a few words (in English) highlighting the two fractals shown in the image. The parameters given on the description page didn't work for me, though; therefore, I cannot give detailed information on the projection that links the surface of the sphere and the plane. It looks deceptively like a stereographic projection but I don't think it is, since the tiles are not evenly spaced on the surface of the sphere. -- JovanCormac 07:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice picture. Also i support it as an mathematician, per JovanCormac -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support For Jovan Cormac. Jacopo Werther (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Per others --Cesco77 (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent image. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3348-19 Huizen aan het water in Coronie, vermo2.jpg
Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 22:13:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by unknown - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3348-19 Huizen aan het water in Coronie, vermo.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Nineteenth century watercolor of a coastal settlement in Suriname.
- Support -- Durova (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Garden. 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Fine. But I've never been to Coronie. Takabeg (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful. -- JovanCormac 07:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Blonde Woman.jpg
Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 17:04:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
I withdraw my nomination Barun (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
. Sorry. I think I made a mistake. I was a bit hasty in selecting the picture. I concentrated more on the person than the picture.
- Info: created by
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edbrambley/ - uploaded by Barun - nominated by Barun -- Barun (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Too noise on background and on hairs, jpeg artifacts. --Cesco77 (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose – White balance, ordinary fill flash. Nothing special. --Ernie (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose snapshot, boring composition --Leafnode✉ 18:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:A pond with reflection in Golden Gate Park 2.jpg
Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 16:11:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info:everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Leafnode✉ 16:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Please provide a reason for opposing.--Moise Nicu (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. There's no clear subject of this picture. Most of the picture is blurry. Duck is underexposed, apart from the places, where it's overexposed (just like the rock in the bottom-right). Sorry, but I don't see any single feature of this picture that could fit in featured picture guidelines. --Leafnode✉ 19:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Duck is underexposed, apart from the places, where it's overexposed" Hahaha. It is really funny :), and I cannot agree more, I really mean it
. Yet I still like the image because it is all about shadows and light, and the light was really amazing! About the sharpness. Of course the image is not sharp because it is reflection, yet it is a rare reflection because one could see every individulal leaf.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Duck is underexposed, apart from the places, where it's overexposed" Hahaha. It is really funny :), and I cannot agree more, I really mean it
- Sure. There's no clear subject of this picture. Most of the picture is blurry. Duck is underexposed, apart from the places, where it's overexposed (just like the rock in the bottom-right). Sorry, but I don't see any single feature of this picture that could fit in featured picture guidelines. --Leafnode✉ 19:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice shot. --Moise Nicu (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Durova (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- OpposeBlurry and nothing exceptional. --Silversmith Hewwo 06:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Erin. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is reflection. Have you ever seen a sharp reflection? Not all images should be sharp. Some just should be beautiful.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think this is beautiful as it is rather murky. Also, the leaves which aren't reflections are blurry. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you think a reflection can't be sharp? --AngMoKio (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Because the water should be absolutely still in order for the reflection to be sharp, and it is really rare. Please take a look at that image (not mine) [1]. See how sharp the mountain is and the reflection is not so. If you have a sample of the image with a sharp reflection in a natural body of water I'd be interested to see one please. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- This has to do with on what you focus and the shutter speed you chose. Right now i don't have such a picture at hand but I am sure a google search can give you a lot. Your photo was made with a shutter speed of 1/20, this way the reflection can't get sharp. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Because the water should be absolutely still in order for the reflection to be sharp, and it is really rare. Please take a look at that image (not mine) [1]. See how sharp the mountain is and the reflection is not so. If you have a sample of the image with a sharp reflection in a natural body of water I'd be interested to see one please. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- NeutralQuality is good, but chaotic composition for me. --Cesco77 (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Cross sections of teeth ru.svg
Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2009 at 11:33:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
[edit] File:Map-Novi Belgii Novæque Angliæ (Amsterdam, 1685).jpg
Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 11:33:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
.jpg)
- Info: created by Nicolaes Visscher II - uploaded by Moyogo - nominated by Polca -- Polca (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Polca (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose could do with a restoration to remove stains and some restoration in the top left hand corner. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Agreed with the above: this is a good candidate for restoration. —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Family George V of Hanover.jpg
Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 22:15:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by Julius Giere (1807-1880) - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Durova (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Thank you, Notyourbroom, I removed the illegible inscription. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I strike my opposition. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mer30.Takabeg (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Ice cream truck beach.jpg
Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:25:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen (talk)
- Support --Dschwen (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose composition doesnt convince me --Simonizer (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - composition - There is too much space behind the truck and not enough for it to drive into. Would have been also good to have the hint of icecream on the beach...visible icecreams, children queuing to buy and so on - Peripitus (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Leafnode✉ 16:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Sean Astin 1.jpg
Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:19:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: Actor Sean Astin (Rudy, Lord of the Rings, The Goonies etc.). Photo created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen (talk)
- Support --Dschwen (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It's true that we don't have enough good portraits, but the quality is everything but stellar. Even the face isn't entirely in focus, and there is significant image noise in the background. -- JovanCormac 10:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Significant image noise in the background? That's a bit too picky in my opinion. Noise/grain has always been a part of photography and always will be. Even high-end digital cameras produce noise at their lowest ISO/ASA settings. Personally I prefer noise over any smeary NR. Noise reduction always means some detail and color will be lost. Demanding noise-freeness is simply unrealistic. --Ernie (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral – I like it, but it really is slightly out of focus. Or is it motion blur from shooting at 1/50 sec. when zoomed in to 150mm? --Ernie (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support (weakly) I agree that it looks slightly out of focus. Otherwise, it's excellent. —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Peripitus (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Raindrops on grass.jpg
Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:16:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created, uploaded, nominated by Dschwen (talk)
- Hooray, water droplets! Dschwen (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose – In my opinion the best light of the water droplet series. The composition is a no-no if you ask me. --Ernie (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:ComputerHotline - Water droplets (by) (1).jpg
Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:07:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
_(1).jpg)
- Info: created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral It's a beautiful image, but I don't like the fact that the lighting is artificial. (Full resolution shows a rectangular light source reflected in the droplets) —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Flash-gun or not. I have to oppose the composition. It simply does not strike me as a featured picture. --Ernie (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Easy target, not the best result. —kallerna™ 15:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Water droplet-5 (by).JPG
Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:00:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
.JPG)
- Info: created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose – I think considering all the water drop pictures there are one has to be extra picky on featuring them. What I really like about this picture is the green background – nicely done. I guess the goal was to frame the string in combination with the plant and thats where the picture does not succeed imho. The focal plane is not aligned to the plant too well, which renders most of it out of focus. Not a featured picture to me. --Ernie (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Water droplet-6 (by).JPG
Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 16:56:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
.JPG)
- Info: created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Question: Could you please describe what this is exactly? Wolf (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info: It's some water droplets on spider web. --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wolf (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose not much stuff in focus. --Dschwen (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Vineyards of Napa Valley panorama.jpg
Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 13:22:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Anything could be done to bring up the color saturation a bit (sky, foliage) without bringing quality down? Mid-day shots bring hard light on scenery.--S23678 (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Do you mean to change the color of the sky without changing the color of the hills? One should also remember that so-called "mid-day" shot in November are very different from "mid-day" shot in June. The sun never goes high up in mid November (of course I mean Northern Hemisphere :))--Mbz1 (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support, please don't alter the colours. --Aqwis (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support I agree that the hard light generates some white spots in the foliage which make it appear less colorful when seen in smaller sizes. Yet, when seen in full resolution, the picture appears saturated enough and seems realistic (well, i've never been there, otoh. ) So, I support this version and I'm not convinced it'd benefit from an increased saturation. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict with Aqwis, with whom I agree).
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Admirable --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --George Chernilevsky talk 20:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support – Hooray, the colors work this time! Nicely done. How about putting scrollbar around the image? I guess not every screen is 1881 px wide ... --Ernie (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info:file:Vineyards of Napa Valley panorama - levels edit.jpg This is not an alternative version open for voting.
- Comment This is a quick edit about possible modifications. The entire image was darken a bit, then the sky alone got it's levels adjusted (darker, again). As you see the sky quality is now terrible from posterization, but such problems should not be visible if done from original RAW images. --S23678 (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I think your edit is a bit too saturated – especially the sky. --Ernie (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that darkening the land part of the picture makes it appear less sun-drenched and thus less compelling. As for the sky, well... I truly prefer the "natural" version over this one, per Ernie. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Diti the penguin — 08:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very good quality and high resolution. -- JovanCormac 10:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support with both hands up - great! --Leafnode✉ 16:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support the current version 99of9 (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support knapp, aber ok. --High Contrast (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 22:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support - One of your best, nice work! –Juliancolton | Talk 14:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Avala (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wow2! Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Lagoon Nebula (ESO).jpg
Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 10:10:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
.jpg)
- Info: created by the ESO - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info: The location of the image in relation to the rest of the galaxy.
- Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Very subjective but, while the quality is gorgeous, the position of the nebula in the frame is not optimal (bottom center), and the nebula's shape is too vague, not "charming" enough --S23678 (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- A favore amazing quality, I like the vague nebula shape --Phyrexian (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great quality. -- JovanCormac 10:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as it is with sunsets, almost every image from space telescope is beautiful. Just two days ago we've featured other skyscape, which I find far more interesting than this one. And just basing on a comparison - I vote no for this image --Leafnode✉ 16:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Yes, all telescope images like this are beautiful, but all beautiful images, I suppose, can be featured. --Cesco77 (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Kozuch (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Millesgården 2009.jpg
Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 09:22:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by Holger Ellgaard - uploaded by Holger.Ellgaard - nominated by Lidingo -- Lidingo (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Lidingo (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Urbourbo (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Hard contrasts (under and overexposure), noise, CA, low details, messy composition (sculptures + tree + clouds all mixed up)... Wished I could FPX... --S23678 (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Contrario Too noisy --Phyrexian (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose FPX. —kallerna™ 15:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per others (noise, lack of sharpness, cluttered composition). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose but cannot be FPXed. It was supported, by an user other than the nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Laughing Kid.jpg
Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 06:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by http://www.flickr.com/photos/vatobob/ - uploaded by Barun - nominated by Barun -- Barun (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Barun (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Great expression, colour and lighting. My regrets are the big white scarf label, and the fact that you can see the shape of the flash umbrella reflected in his eyes. --99of9 (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Question: I have the feeling that this picture got nominated before. Most likely with another filename. Is my mind tricking me or am I wrong? Does someone else has the same feeling? :) --AngMoKio (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- See Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Well-clothed baby.jpg. Ayack (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose unfortunatelly the photo has the same problems as 2 years ago. I like the photo but the PS-work on the skin of the baby is really too much. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as per AngMoKio GerardM (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as per AngMoKio --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Spider Nephila clavata 0911.jpg
Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 03:50:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by 池田正樹:池田正樹 - uploaded by 池田正樹：池田正樹 - nominated by 池田正樹：池田正樹 -- masaki ikeda (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- masaki ikeda (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Clever angle which gives a great view of the spinning. Obviously full DOF is consequently impossible, but the main body is sharp. None of our current FP spiders show this educational aspect of web production. --99of9 (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Unexpected shooting angle, excellent color, deep enough DOF. - Darius Baužys → talk 06:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Unique foto from a different perspective. Nice colours. --Korman (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Excellent! Per Korman --George Chernilevsky talk 12:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support I find most insects images to be quite boring, but this one is really interesting! I would like to have this in full resolution however. --S23678 (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- A favore Really intresting and beautiful --Phyrexian (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice! —kallerna™ 15:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --je-str 19:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Durova (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mer30. Masaki Ikeda ? Takabeg (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Inflatable structure in Bad Schallerbach.jpg
Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 00:12:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very good. (I hope the license is not a problem here)--Mbz1 (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support very well seen. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral. There are things I like, like the colours and quality, but I'm not sure about the composition. I appreciate the cleverness of the children running towards the castle, but I think the castle isn't made a big enough feature of the picture. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Erin Silversmith. —kallerna™ 15:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose composition feels very lopsided. —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Ahh, Notyourbroom has hit what I was trying to figure out about this image. Otherwise I liked it. --99of9 (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:M-nikita-kolokolna-1.jpg
Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2009 at 15:20:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC) - uploaded by PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC) - nominated by PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Overexposed (I believe) and the buildings detract from the main feature. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per foreground issues stated by Silversmith --S23678 (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support as nominator. There is no extra exposition, as a bell-tower is white itself. The foreground roofs help to see the belltower in its historical context — as the monastery was always surrounded by village.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Katholische Kirche Werdau.jpg
Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2009 at 12:14:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by je-str - uploaded by je-str - nominated by je-str -- Je-str (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Je-str (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose obscured view --Leafnode✉ 13:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Many tress in picture. The foto should have been taken closer to building. --Korman (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Leafnode --S23678 (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Cerkiew w Zabludowie obraz 2.jpg
Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2009 at 11:15:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created and uploaded by Polimerek - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose An interesting image, good quality, but no wow for me, sorry. Would benefit from perspective correction (right side vertical is not vertical). --99of9 (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Polish victim of German Luftwaffe action 1939.jpg
Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2009 at 02:22:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by Julien Bryan - uploaded by Jarekt - nominated by NormanB (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Please read the full description of the picture to understand its horific context and historic relevance. --NormanB (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- NormanB (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunately this is too small. Can someone access a high-res scan? --99of9 (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Silversmith Hewwo 10:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Yes, it is quite touching. But it's quite small. Chinmay26r (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
{{FPX|Size below 1Mpix --Leafnode✉ 13:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)}}
- The image was supported by an user other than the nominator. It might be a good idea to read the rules before using the template.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Size. —kallerna™ 15:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Neutrale This is one of the best pictures we have, and one of the best I've ever seen, but I can't support it for the size --Phyrexian (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support I agree with NormanB. High horific context and historic relevance. Jacopo Werther (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support From FP guidelines "A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph" --Cesco77 (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Resolution (VI) /Daniel78 (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Too small & low resolution. Takabeg (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Yes it is small, but the artistic and historical value is exceptional.--Korall (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Orsopapera-cigno 013.JPG
Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2009 at 15:32:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by Orso della campagna & Papera dello stagno - uploaded by Orso della campagna & Papera dello stagno - nominated by Dom De Felice -- Dom De Felice (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dom De Felice (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment unfortunate crop... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad crop and background.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose unfortunate crop --AngMoKio (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Crop and background as mentioned. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose crop, background --Leafnode✉ 13:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. —kallerna™ 17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Compliant Guantanamo captive is allowed to stroll the exercise yard.jpg
Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 23:30:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Patrick Thompson - uploaded by Geo Swan - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment As Jovan said, "...unlike the infamous "Camp X-Ray" pictures showing people in orange suits gagged and tied up, this one presents a much more balanced view of the subject. IMO, it is definitely not a propaganda picture; it shows a pretty ordinary scene, while not attempting to hide the fact that the Guantanamo issue is far from overcome. Also, the fact that we cannot see the man's face takes all emotion out of the picture, which is a good thing in this case as it allows the viewer to deal with the subject as objectively as is possible when dealing with a controversial subject like Guantanamo. With a hard-to-take picture like this, the blurriness can easily be excused."
- Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose poor quality, Multichill (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality issues are too important IMO for FP. Unrelated to my oppose, but, as for the propaganda issue (or non-issue), I think it's a little bit simplistic to view this as candid snapshot, made and published in order to present a balanced POV rather than being a subtle but possibly efficient counterweight to the enormous controversies surrounding this detention camp. I am not against featuring shots that can be considered to be propaganda (this one is, IMO), since they can "have a life of their own" and can even be used against their publishers once released, but I don't buy into this "more balanced view of the subject". Sorry Jovan to hit on your citation that may be taken outside it's context (didn't found the source), but since it was used here as an argument, I am just offering the counter-argument. --S23678 (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Hehe . Even the Guantanamo pictures released by the mainstream press were of worse quality than this one mostly. Add to that the fact that this photo, to my knowledge, hasn't even been published in the press before. This picture is so valuable and unique that I am more than willing to overlook almost anything in order to proudly present it as one of our best. -- JovanCormac 07:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It's originality vs quality decision. I like the idea, but when looking at photo without context I see just blurry, out of focus image. --Justass (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The quality is not good enough. /Daniel78 (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Quality is not there but this is not QI and exceptions can be made. I love the DOF effect and the man holding the rosary walking away. --Muhammad (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose nice composition...but the quality is really problematic --AngMoKio (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Composition. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Very poor quality. —kallerna™ 15:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Contrario Quality --Phyrexian (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.--Ankara (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Winterthur Stadthaus.jpg
Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 15:49:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk)
- Support One of very few pictures here taken with a shift lens. -- Ikiwaner (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Logical, they cost too much! Good. :) Diti the penguin — 17:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- But also, in this age with good panoramic stitching software and panoramic heads, there's little reason to use one for architectural photography IMO, unless you absolutely have to capture the image with a single exposure or you want to use the tilt/shift for creative DOF. Diliff (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment IMHO, it is overexposed, and thus displays a very harsh contrast. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 18:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral The sky is stunning, the building may well appear over-exposed - or it may be that ashen, the foreground is (to me) incomplete. L-Bit (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- It's true the generousity of the 19th century is partially lost today. Just on the left there is now an ugly bus station and the garden on the right adjoins a not less ugly footpath. Seee street view or this commons image. --Ikiwaner (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support very nice colours -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Reluctant Oppose. Perspective distortion is rather severe. Durova (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're right there is some left over perspective distortion. However just because you have a shift lens or a panoramic software that doesn't mean you have to correct it fully. Nothing looks worse than an over corrected perspective. For my pictures with a natural distortion of 10-15° I will leave about 1.5°. This avoids that not perfectly staight lines are tilted the wrong way round. --Ikiwaner (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support 99of9 (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Kjetil_r 11:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Diliff (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- A favore --Phyrexian (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As Durova. --Karel (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality is high, and the use of shift lens is interesting, but the overall feeling I get is a normal picture, not exceptional. Hard light and not very appealing composition in the foreground detracts me from supporting. --S23678 (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose – The 24mm T/S really is exceptionally sharp and at f/13 the usual light fall-off is not too harsh. On the other hand there really are some composition issues in my opinion. I think the wide angle look cries for more depth, but the building is pretty much the only object standing out. --Ernie (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Avala (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Buchenwald-bei-Weimar-am-24-April-1945.jpg
Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 12:31:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: Senator Alben W. Barkley of Kentucky, a member of a congressional committee investigating Nazi atrocities, views the evidence at first hand at Buchenwald concentration camp. Weimar, Germany. Source- US Gov. Archives - nominated by Anon.
- Oppose Mainly the composition. Maybe valued image? --Ernie (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I think the composition is great and interesting, but this needs to be restored before I support. -- JovanCormac 14:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Lest we forget L-Bit (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good heavens this deserves to be featured, restored or not. Thank you very much for one of the year's most important nominations. Durova (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose When there are obvious ways to improve the image, it should not be featured yet. --99of9 (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Needs restoration. —kallerna™ 15:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- A favore I support it now. If a restored version will uploaded I will support it and we can delist this. --Phyrexian (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support I'd prefere a restored version of this important image. --Cesco77 (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very important historical image. Can't expect the best quality for a 1945 foto. --Korman (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support - What a stunningly moving image. Even with worse quality this would be a great featured picture - Peripitus (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support - GerardM (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC) I love the composition, the man has to realise what happened before he can more further .., yes, a higher resolution would be good, but is not essential ... this is not a digital snapshot ...
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Historically precious. It is a valued picture, but it needs restoration for being a featured image. --High Contrast (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Kozuch (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:99 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.edit1.jpg
Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 08:42:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: All by me -- S23678 (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I'm nominating 2 versions of the image, since I think the larger version (which I prefer by much) may get opposes from 2 reasons : quality problems on the left tried, but can't get rid and shade from the Wayna Picchu, on the right, hence the smaller second version. A third version, getting rid of only the left side, is also available, but I'll bring it up only if necessary. Both images were uploaded at full resolution and do suffer quality problems when viewed at 100% zoom, so they should be viewed with some downsampling. To do so, or if the image is crashing your browser, please view downsampled versions here. Some flare got removed on the left side by cloning as well. These are HDR images taken from the small ruins on top of Wayna Picchu, looking down on the Lost City of the Incas.
- Support -- S23678 (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Both versions could use a denoise IMO. -- JovanCormac 11:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I've uploaded denoised versions, and they are shown on the downsampling page. I'll replace them in the nominations if people think they are better versions. Beware as well, on the downsampled version, of trees in the shade that may look like noise. --S23678 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like that you provide "fake downsampled" versions. That's enough to be seen how the image will look if it's downsampled, so there's no need for actual downsampling. --Lošmi (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Excellent quality. --NormanB (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- A favore I prefer this not cropped version --Phyrexian (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support I prefer this version. The visible sun makes it more dramatic/exciting --Simonizer (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Crop
Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 08:42:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Support -- S23678 (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbz1 (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --NormanB (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --99of9 (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like this one. --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great quality foto of Macchu Picchu. --Korman (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --George Chernilevsky talk 07:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support, --Böhringer (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Sandsculpting, Frankston, Vic jjron, 21.01.2009.jpg
Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 08:07:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by Jjron - uploaded by Jjron - nominated by Jacopo Werther Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Stunning --99of9 (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wow! Excellent -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Beautiful subject, but crop should be wider and resolution higher. -- JovanCormac 12:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment-Isnt this a derivative work? Is this pic OK to upload on commons? Cause if it is a have loads of similar pics.--Korall (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you think so, of course you can nominate this pic (and others) for deletion. Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- OR start uploading and see if thay stay? =)--Korall (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- This image was taken in Australia which allows freedom of panorama in its copyright law. Other similar images would depend on the local copyright law in the location where the photograph was taken. Durova (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- It depends on if the sculpture is a permanent installation or not. Im not sure I would see a sculpture made out of sand as a permenent installation, because it will fade in much shorter time than something made from a more time-consistant material.--Korall (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Good point. Perhaps this nomination should be suspended? We actually can't promote if this has licensing issues. Durova (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ok! I think is just the time to suspend this nomination and nominate this file for deletion. Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I thought we all had a big fight over any potential licensing issues at WP:FPC at some point. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ok! I think is just the time to suspend this nomination and nominate this file for deletion. Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Good point. Perhaps this nomination should be suspended? We actually can't promote if this has licensing issues. Durova (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- It depends on if the sculpture is a permanent installation or not. Im not sure I would see a sculpture made out of sand as a permenent installation, because it will fade in much shorter time than something made from a more time-consistant material.--Korall (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- This image was taken in Australia which allows freedom of panorama in its copyright law. Other similar images would depend on the local copyright law in the location where the photograph was taken. Durova (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- OR start uploading and see if thay stay? =)--Korall (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
It's interesting to read the previous deletion debate: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sandsculpting,_Frankston,_Vic_jjron,_21.01.2009.jpg and: en:Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Sandsculpting,_Frankston,_Vic_jjron,_21.01.2009.jpg -- Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Jovan, plus, high levels of noise in the sky. --S23678 (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful ! I like the "mise-en-abime" effect (sculptors in sculpture). Ceridwen (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Jovan. —kallerna™ 15:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Sturnus vulgaris in Napa Valley.jpg
Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 01:49:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. The crop, the quality and the small section of plant on the bottom edge. --Silversmith Hewwo 04:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- What about the crop, if I may ask?--Mbz1 (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't like that you can't see all of the birds in the flock. I appreciate, since it was obviously a large flock, that it probably wasn't possible. The photo to me just looks like lots of dark flecks on blue and even the largest birds aren't clear when zoomed in. For me, I'd either like a picture with beautiful composition where you can see an entire flock but not make out the birds clearly, or a small flock where, when you zoom in, you have great focus on at least some of the birds. --Silversmith Hewwo 23:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This is a beautiful image that I'd love to support, provided that the plant is cropped out and maybe a gentle denoise is done. -- JovanCormac 12:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support But it would be better without the plant. --Lošmi (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition is messy, which seems to be a deliberate choice by the
authornominator (same thing). Evaluation of this scene is therefore very subjective. I praise the composition for being somewhat against the norms, but I don't consider this picture to be exceptional. --S23678 (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- My deliberate choice???? What in a world do you mean?For everybody else here's how those birds are flying In my situation that "bird cloud" just happened to be all around me, so I guess it really was my "deliberate choice" . I wish I had many more choices like that one, I really do because it is a sight to behold--Mbz1 (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- To answer to the points you've added after my answer below, even though you do not control the birds, you do control the composition to a large extent, and you are the nominator of this FPC, which makes the choice of such a composition for FPC to be deliberate (or, in other words : calculated, advised, intentional, well though out...) --S23678 (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- These thousands of birds fly in a somewhat chaotic way, which is expressed in the composition. It seems to be deliberately chaotic, a picture nominated for it's absence of apparent order. --S23678 (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Oppose --Leafnode✉ 13:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, --Vprisivko (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Alt 1
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Perfect now. Great picture. -- JovanCormac 15:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Some of the birds has been cloned. I don't get why... Plus, I like natural sky color more. --Lošmi (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like this a lot. can you point out the cloned birds? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Okay, here's the original File:Sturnus vulgaris in Napa Valley original.jpg. As you could see there was not just one plant, but two plants in the image. I did not want simply to cut the the plants off because then some nice birds would have been cut off as well. So I removed the plants using cloning. Of course I added "retouched" template to the edit.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per my comments above. --S23678 (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as Lošmi. *sigh* A typical Mbz picture... --AngMoKio (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Leafnode✉ 13:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, --Vprisivko (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Fjærlandsfjorden2.jpg
Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2009 at 21:12:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Aqwis -- Aqwis (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Aqwis (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Looks good. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment There are some blown areas (see image notes). Maybe they can be corrected with Photoshop. Besides that the picture is of great quality. -- JovanCormac 22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- The only parts of the picture that are blown are the window frames of the green house. Neither the boat (whose brightest spots have the RGB values 248/248/235) nor the roof of the brown building are blown. If you see them as blown, you may need to calibrate your monitor. Also, this is not a tone-mapped HDR picture, so it is only natural that the picture has both bright and dark parts. --Aqwis (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Aren't the colors a bit off? The image could use some cooling if you ask me. --Ernie (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to suggest an alternative white balance, but I think the current white balance corresponds approximately to how I saw the scene when I took the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Really nice!--Mbz1 (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I've uploaded a version with better WB IMO. I simply used the mountain's snow as a neutral color. I encourage you to do the same with the original file (IOT avoid multiple JPEG rewrites) --S23678 (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support nice shot --AngMoKio (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Karel (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment, I've replaced the picture with a slightly adjusted version; thanks to S23678 for suggesting the adjustment. --Aqwis (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --S23678 (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Ružomberok - Hrabovo pano.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2009 at 10:00:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support nice landscape -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad crop on the left and overexposed (see image note). -- JovanCormac 12:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Crop --S23678 (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support The crop should have been made somewhere :)--Mbz1 (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Karel (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support, good composition. --Vprisivko (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Avala (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Baha'i House of Worship, Evanston.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 22:15:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by karaian - uploaded, nominated by JalalV -- JalalV (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- JalalV (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support There is some red CA at the right-hand side snow and blue CA at the right-hand side of the dome, but I could live with it :) --Mbz1 (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Peripitus (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The building is leaning very slightly to the left. I will only support if this is rectified. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Strong image noise, blurry, composition slightly off-center in a strange way, harsh contrast with the left hedge. -- JovanCormac 09:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Not a bad image at all, but not FP standards in my opinion. --Ernie (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I hate to use that argument, but the scene is missing a wow. While a simple and symmetric composition can work well on some pictures, the surroundings here lacks the grace and refinement I would expect to go with such a building. Different atmospheric/weather conditions and foliage could drastically improve the scene IMO. --S23678 (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Contrario I love the simple and symmetric composition in this case, and I realy like the building, but the image is too noisy and yes, very slightly to the left... --Phyrexian (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Zlin Żelazny Góraszka 2.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 21:32:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by Łukasz Golowanow (User:Airwolf) & Maciek Hypś - uploaded and nominated by Wolf (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Wolf (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support, very good. I love the composition. --Aqwis (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Thierry Caro (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Je-str (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 23:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Good composition, but the main subjects are tiny indeed. -- JovanCormac 08:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support I agree with JovanCormac, but it is nice for me --George Chernilevsky talk 11:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support The size of the aircrafts is what makes it look beautiful. Chinmay26r (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose IMO the main subjects are too small, sorry. —kallerna™ 15:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Karel (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support. The trails behind the planes show their paths, which is an important part of the composition. Durova (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support You're making quite an art form of these. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Kozuch (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Proskowski-Lobkowitz CoA.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 15:49:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sharpness problems, lots of JPEG artifacts, awkward lighting. -- JovanCormac 17:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as I voted on pl.wiki - this shot is about details, and harsh lighting hides the details. --Leafnode✉ 07:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. --S23678 (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Napa Valley.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 08:26:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: Vineyards in Napa Valley. created by Mila Zinkova - nominated by Anon
I withdraw my nomination thank you for nomination
--Mbz1 (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Is it really appropriate for you to withdraw the nomination when you are not the nominator? I am aware that you created the picture, but still... --Aqwis (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Where were you when we discussed this? I do agree that author withdraw is nonsense, and really could have used your support in the discussion. You should check out FPC/talk more often. -- JovanCormac 13:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am sorry I believed that the rule was voted for and added to the gudilens. I guess I am mistaking. Please acept my apology, everybody. Go ahead with the votes. One more humiliation one less, who cares --Mbz1 (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are quite right, it was, and you won't see me saying otherwise. What I am saying is that this rule shouldn't have passed in the first place (which I already argued for during the voting process) and that I could have used Aqwis' support for my position then, rather than now when it's all over. -- JovanCormac 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is funny. I thought that "Where were you when we discussed this? " was addressed to me :). So, I thought to myself that some users are unhappy, when I nominate my images, others are unhappy, when I withdraw nominations of my images :) I kind of got lost in translation :)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are quite right, it was, and you won't see me saying otherwise. What I am saying is that this rule shouldn't have passed in the first place (which I already argued for during the voting process) and that I could have used Aqwis' support for my position then, rather than now when it's all over. -- JovanCormac 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't read FPC talk very often anymore. --Aqwis (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am sorry I believed that the rule was voted for and added to the gudilens. I guess I am mistaking. Please acept my apology, everybody. Go ahead with the votes. One more humiliation one less, who cares
- Where were you when we discussed this? I do agree that author withdraw is nonsense, and really could have used your support in the discussion. You should check out FPC/talk more often. -- JovanCormac 13:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Fantastic colour. Very nice -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support, amazing. --Vprisivko (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Farbharmonie --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose too much contrast. To much details are lost in the black/dark parts of the picture --Simonizer (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose As I said over at Wikipedia, it would be nice to have a shot without a line of power pylons ruining the view. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Simonizer -> another case of excessive Photoshop use. Furthermore i think there is not enough space above the hills. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Overprocessed —kallerna™ 11:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC){{Support}}See below. --Aqwis (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)- Oversaturated – An hour or two of editing (or damage repair?) might make it work. --Ernie (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Mila, I sincerely believe you are doing more harm than good by the extensive postprocessing (although the support votes seem to send a different message...). The colors are indeed fantastic, but rather as in fantasy ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Daniel, please take a look at the image my husband took with his point-and-shot Nikon File:Napa valley vineyard 10.JPG. I am sure,some users would say it is "Oversaturated", except... the image is the original one not post-processed at all :) --Mbz1 (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Mmmh, ok. I'm not quite sure I trust the color reproduction of a coolpix, but I trus you if you say the colors really were this vivis. The grass looks a bit iffy and there is a red blot somewhere in the right half of the frame. But it has been a while since I saw grapevines in fall. --Dschwen (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)s
- Daniel, please take a look at the image my husband took with his point-and-shot Nikon File:Napa valley vineyard 10.JPG. I am sure,some users would say it is "Oversaturated", except... the image is the original one not post-processed at all :) --Mbz1 (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support natural colors -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral The scene is magnificent, but the crop is too tight (bottom and top). As for the colors, they are on the limit of being too saturated, but it would still probably get my support if it wasn't of the crop --S23678 (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose crop. Alternative looks much better. --Dschwen (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- And how that one File:Napa Valley vineyards 8.jpg looks to you, Daniel :) --Mbz1 (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --High Contrast (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative 1
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. The colours are better, and in general I prefer this version, but it still has power pylons in the skyline. Could they be cloned out, or would people object to that much alteration of reality? --Silversmith Hewwo 04:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Magnifique --S23678 (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great! Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support The image made a great progress since the first version uploaded. Colours look more natural now and composition of the alternative 1 is much better than the original nomination. --Ikiwaner (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support per Ikiwaner, excellent -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support, very good. --Aqwis (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oversaturated – The colors still don't work for me. Distortions. Yes, I work on a calibrated screen. --Ernie (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support, very good. --87.90.98.111 17:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support We say: "Goldener Oktober" - this is it. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Thank you! ;-) --Simonizer (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support much better...i really don't know why you didn't nominate this in the first place --AngMoKio (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Of course you do not know because ... I have never nominated the virst image myself :)--Mbz1 (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Overprocessed —kallerna™ 15:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support - processed - yes, overprocessed - not to me. --Herby talk thyme 17:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support, --Böhringer (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:I35W Collapse - Day 4 - Operations & Scene (95).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 08:24:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
.jpg)
- Info: Submitted Photo - nominated by Anon
Cars rest on the collapsed portion of I-35W Mississippi River bridge.
- Neutral – It sure is a story-telling picture with lots of value. On the other hand it does not strike me as an image with FP photographic quality. Maybe valued image? --Ernie (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral as above --Leafnode✉ 12:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, grainy and blurry. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative
_edit.jpg)
- Info: Nominated by H005
23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC) - Support I think this edit has better photographic quality. Not excellent, but the subject is intriguing enough to mitigate for that issue. -- H005 23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Better indeed. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Alternative. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose this edit fixed only white balance/levels, while generally its quality is bad. Very blurry, lots of strange purple haze (CA?) --Leafnode✉ 07:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose CA. —kallerna™ 11:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Paulrudd (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality issues as mentioned. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support The composition (size and shape of rubbles) and the very dramatic scene are mitigating reasons IMO against the numerous quality problems --S23678 (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral, purple haze / all around --Aqwis (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose – as per others. --Ernie (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support per S23678 --Jklamo (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Love What is It.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 22:08:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by and uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment A delightfully poignant picture, in these days of strife and fear.
- Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - image as image is nothing special and the inscription is not universal, it bears some meaning only for English language speakers.--Avala (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Agreed with Avala. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others --Cesco77 (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Just leaves me emotionless as a question. --S23678 (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- A favore Contrario As Avala --Phyrexian (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Lettering is quite out of focus and the image doesn't really have the "wow" factor. Compostion and position of lettering could be better as well (a crop here would work a treat). Garden. 14:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Pilsudski 1910 1920 LOC hec 14263 restored.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 12:33:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by someone named K. Pęcherski - restored, uploaded & nominated by -- Wolf (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info: on the picture itself, today is Independence Day in Poland, so I'm nominating a portrait of the man to whom we - i.e. Poles - owe the independence to a large extent. I chose this particular picture for two reasons. 1. It was most probably taken some time during World War I, so Piłsudski was soon going to become the architect of Poland's liberation from over a century of partitions. 2. I simply like the mood of the picture and his appearance here, it perfectly corresponds with how he wanted to be percieved.
- Info: on the restoration, this is my very first attempt at it so I'm not going to mind even strong crticism providing that it's backed with some feedback about what I should've done better. Thanks in advance.
- Support -- Wolf (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support Good restoration. My only complaints are relatively low resolution and the tight crop on top. I'm sure this great man deserves a little more headroom ;-) -- JovanCormac 15:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not know why you cropped the top so tightly; I see that there was an inscription near the top in the original image, but if you had wanted to remove that, I suppose you could have cloned it out. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Question: And if I left more headroom with the inscription? Wolf (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Inscription is very small, it should be easy to remove it. If you want, I can do it. But on the other hand, the writing itself is quite interesting. --Leafnode✉ 12:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good. Takabeg (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Ehre, wem Ehre gebührt! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:The burning of Columbia, South Carolina, February 17, 1865.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 09:51:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by William Waud - uploaded by Adam Cuerden - nominated by Pmlinediter -- Pmlineditor ∞ 09:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pmlineditor ∞ 09:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support - delirious & lost ☯ TALK 17:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral- doesn't really strike me as amazing.-- † CR90
- A favore --Phyrexian (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support H. valuable. Takabeg (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support It is an highly detailed image with historical significance. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] File:Horse market in Lorenzkirch.jpg, featured
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 00:59:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: created by an unknown German photographer around 1900 - restored by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very interesting and valuable. I'd appreciate it if you could upload an unrestored version as well for comparison. -- JovanCormac 09:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info: This is the unrestored version: File:Horse market in Lorenzkirch (Scan of the photography).jpg. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support per Jovan. Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support GerardM (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Info: Thanks, I made an update with lower contrast. By the way: this file is large and optimized to the resultion of 1600x1200 on the screen for the best view on the highly detailed and sharp image. It is a picture story with many freeze frames of the life in Germany 110 years ago. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment – one of Wikimedia's finest? To me it seems more like a valued image. --Ernie (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think it is more a valued image than a featured one too. It's very difficult to make out anything as it's so far away, it's also very ugly and I don't like the glare. I'm also not sure the house is correct perspective-wise but I could be wrong there. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Not thrilling at first look, but very good in full size. Quality adequate to its age --Jklamo (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. /99of9 (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the fpc category: Historical
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. /99of9 (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the fpc category: Historical
[edit] File:Ocean Beach in San Francisco at sunrise.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2009 at 19:37:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info: everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I would support if there was not that red thing (is it lens flare, I don't know) on the top of the image. As well, the sky shows some levels of posterization. Are you using your RAWs and converting to JPEG only at the last step, since it's not the first time I see this issue in your nominations, or it's only from post-processing?
- I cropped out the red thing. If you add notes to posterization I will try to fix it, but I am not sure where it is.Is it all over the sky or only in a few places? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't remember how large my previous note was, but that red flare (I'll call it flare, without knowing exactly what it is) is still very visible below the sky/mountain transition on the red side. As for the new crop, from comparing with the previous image, I feel something important is missing in the composition of the image. Rather than being part of the scene as previously, the cliff is becoming more an intrusive element in the picture. For posterizating, I don't consider it a "pass or fail" issue here since it's barely visible, but it could be a point to improve on for future nominations. As for where it is, it's all over the sky. Just more the image from left to right at full zoom to see some Colour banding where we would normally see a nice gradient (and I'm not talking about the clouds themselves). Finally, is this a downsample or a crop? --S23678 (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I tried to fix it once again.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Editing has been well done at some places, but not at other, as per the new notes. The darkening of the sky caused the picture to lost a lot of it's charm as well. Fixing a problem creates other ones, I'll make you stop doing edits, and I'll just abstain from voting. --S23678 (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I tried to fix it once again.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't remember how large my previous note was, but that red flare (I'll call it flare, without knowing exactly what it is) is still very visible below the sky/mountain transition on the red side. As for the new crop, from comparing with the previous image, I feel something important is missing in the composition of the image. Rather than being part of the scene as previously, the cliff is becoming more an intrusive element in the picture. For posterizating, I don't consider it a "pass or fail" issue here since it's barely visible, but it could be a point to improve on for future nominations. As for where it is, it's all over the sky. Just more the image from left to right at full zoom to see some Colour banding where we would normally see a nice gradient (and I'm not talking about the clouds themselves). Finally, is this a downsample or a crop? --S23678 (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nothing very distinct. Too dark. --— Erin (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose could be agreat image but the left dark side spoils it --Simonizer (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as Simonizer - probably this scene can't be taken properly from that position. --Leafnode✉ 08:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
[edit] Edit 1 cut off "the left dark side"
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Muhammad (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Now the aspect ratio is improper imo --Simonizer (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice scene. However, either way the beach is cut in half, so I can't vote to feature either composition. --99of9 (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Between vote to feature and oppose is still a choice not to vote at all :). Both images provide a very good idea how the Ocean Beach looks, but who cares...--Mbz1 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MtHood_TrilliumLake.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(1).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(1).jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
