Commons:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Diese Projektseite in anderen Sprachen:

Shortcut:
COM:FPC

Springe zu den aktuellen Kandidaten

Springe zu den aktuellen Abwahl-Kandidaten

Dies sind die Kandidaten für die exzellenten Bilder. Beachte, dass es sich hierbei nicht um das Bild des Tages handelt.

[edit] Formalien

[edit] Nominierung

[edit] Leitsätze für die Nominierung

Bitte lies alle Leitsätze (Englisch) vor der Nominierung.

Dies ist eine Zusammenfassung von Kriterien, auf die du bei der Einreichung und Bewertung von Exzellenz-Kandidaten achten solltest:

Auflösung – Fotografien mit einer Auflösung unter 2 Millionen Pixel werden in der Regel abgelehnt, außer unter „stark mildernden Umständen“. Beachte, dass ein 1600 x 1200 großes Foto 1,93 Megapixel hat und damit weniger als 2 Millionen.

Grafiken auf Commons können auch in andere Weisen als zur Anzeige auf einen herkömmlichen Computerbildschirm verwendet werden. Sie können auch als Ausdruck oder zur Anzeige auf hochauflösenden Bildschirmen verwendet werden. Man kann nicht vorhersagen, welche Geräte in Zukunft Anwendung finden, deshalb ist es wichtig, dass die nominierten Bilder die höchstmögliche Auflösung haben.

Eingescannte Bilder – solange es keine offizielle Richtlinie gibt, findet man unter Help:Scannen für verschiedene Typen von Bildern Hinweise für die Vorbereitung, die hilfreich sein können.

Fokus – jedes wichtige Objekt im Bild sollte normalerweise scharf sein.

Vordergrund und Hintergrund – Objekte im Vorder- und Hintergrund können stören. Kontrolliere, ob etwas vor dem Motiv des Bildes wichtige Elemente verdeckt. Auch soll nichts im Hintergrund die Komposition verderben, zum Beispiel eine Straßenlampe, die über dem Kopf einer abgebildeten Person „steht“.

Allgemeine Qualität – nominierte Bilder sollten von hoher technischer Qualität sein.

Digitale Manipulationen betrügen nicht in jedem Fall den Betrachter. Digitale Nachbearbeitungen, um Fehler von Fotografien zu korrigieren, sind allgemein akzeptiert, vorausgesetzt, sie sind begrenzt und gut gemacht, ohne dabei betrügen zu wollen. Akzeptiert werden normalerweise Beschneiden, perspektivische Korrekturen, Schärfen und Verwischen sowie Farb- und Belichtungskorrekturen. Umfangreichere Korrekturen wie das Entfernen von störenden Hintergrundobjekten sollten in der Bildbeschreibung mit Hilfe der Vorlage {{RetouchedPicture}} klar beschrieben werden. Nicht oder falsch beschriebenen Manipulationen, die dazu führen, dass das Hauptmotiv falsch dargestellt wird, sind unter keinen Umständen aktzeptabel.

Wert – unser Hauptziel ist das Hervorheben der wertvollsten Bilder von allen anderen. Bilder sollten irgendwie etwas Besonderes sein. Darum sei dir bewusst, dass:
- nahezu jeder Sonnenuntergang ästhetisch ansprechend ist und die meisten keinen wesentlichen Unterschied aufweisen zu anderen,
- Nachtaufnahmen hübsch sind, aber dass man normalerweise mit Aufnahmen bei Tag mehr Details zeigen kann,
- schön nicht immer wertvoll bedeuten muss.

Auf der fachlichen Seite gibt es die Belichtung, die Komposition, die Bewegungskontrolle und die Fokustiefe zu beachten.

Belichtung bezieht sich auf die Verschluss-Blende-Kombination, die ein Bild mit einer Tonkurve wiedergibt. Idealerweise bildet diese Tonkurve in akzeptabler Genauigkeit Schatten- und Spitzlichtbereiche im Bild ab. Dies nennt man „Belichtungsspielraum“. Bilder können im niedrigen Teil der Tonkurve (unterer Bereich), im mittleren (mittlerer Bereich) oder hohen Teil (oberer Bereich) liegen. Digitale Kameras (oder Bilder) haben einen engeren Belichtungsspielraum als Fotofilme. Fehlende Genauigkeit im Schattenbereich ist nicht unbedingt ein Nachteil. Tatsächlich kann dies ein gewünschter Effekt sein. Eingebrannte Spitzenlichter sind dagegen ein störendes Element.

Komposition bezieht sich auf die Anordnung der Elemente im Bild selbst. Die „Drittel-Regel“ ist ein guter Grundsatz für die Komposition und ein Erbe der Gemäldemalerei. Die Idee ist, das Bild mit jeweils zwei horizontalen und zwei vertikalen Linien zu teilen. Dadurch wird das Bild in horizontale und vertikale Drittel geteilt. Das Motiv im Zentrum des Bildes zu platzieren, ist oft weniger interessant, als es auf einem der vier Schnittpunkte der horizontalen und vertikalen Schnittlinien zu platzieren. Der Horizont sollte eigentlich niemals in der Mitte des Bildes liegen, wo er das Bild in zwei Hälften „teilt“. Die obere oder untere horizontale Linie ist oft eine gute Wahl. Der Hauptgedanke ist, den Raum zu nutzen, um ein dynamisches Bild zu schaffen.

Bewegungskontrolle bezieht sich auf die Weise, wie die Bewegung im Bild abgebildet wird. Die Bewegung kann stillstehend oder verschwommen sein. Weder das eine noch das andere ist besser; es kommt auf den Zweck der Aufnahme an. Bewegung ist relativ innerhalb der Objekte des Bildes. Zum Beispiel vermittelt uns das Fotografieren eines relativ zum Hintergrund stillstehenden Rennwagens kein Gefühl für das Tempo oder die Bewegung. Also zwingt uns die Fototechnik, das Motiv stillstehend vor verschwommenem Hintergrund abzubilden, wodurch ein Gefühl für die Bewegung entsteht. Dies nennt man „Schwenken“. Andererseits kann eine Aufnahme eines im Vergleich zur Umgebung stillstehenden Basketballspielers während eines hohen Sprunges das „Unnatürliche“ der Natur dieser Pose sichtbar machen.

Fokustiefe (DOF – Depth Of Field) bezieht sich auf den Fokusbereich vor und hinter dem Hauptmotiv. Die Fokustiefe wird abhängig von den spezifischen Erfordernissen jedes Bildes gewählt. Große oder kleine Fokustiefe kann auf die eine oder andere Weise die Qualität der Aufnahme vergrößern oder schmälern. Geringe Fokustiefe kann die Aufmerksamkeit auf das Hauptmotiv des Bildes lenken, das Hauptmotiv erscheint dadurch von seiner Umgebung gelöst. Hohe Fokustiefe bringt Abstände zwischen Motiven zur Geltung. Objektive mit kurzer Brennweite (Weitwinkel) ergeben eine hohe Fokustiefe, umgekehrt haben Objektive mit langer Brennweite (Teleobjektive) eine flache Fokustiefe. Kleine Aperturen bringen große Fokustiefe, und umgekehrt große Aperturen bringen flache Fokustiefen.

Bei den grafischen Elementen gibt es Form, Volumen, Farbe, Struktur, Perspektive, Balance, Proportion, usw.

Form bezieht sich auf den Umriss des Hauptmotivs.

Volumen bezieht sich die dreidimensionale Qualität des Motivs. Diese wird durch Seitenlicht herausgebildet. Im Gegenteil zum allgemeinen Glauben ist Frontbeleuchtung nicht die beste Wahl. Frontbeleuchtung lässt das Motiv abflachen. Das beste Tageslicht hat man am frühen Morgen oder nachmittags.

Farbe ist wichtig. Übersaturierte Farben sind nicht gut.

Struktur bezieht sich auf die Oberflächenqualität des Motivs. Diese wird durch Seitenbeleuchtung verbessert.

Perspektive bezieht sich auf den „Grad“ zusammen mit Linien, die in einen Fluchtpunkt innerhalb oder außerhalb des Bildes enden.

Balance bezieht sich auf die Anordnung der Motive innerhalb des Bildes, die entweder das scheinbar gleiche Gewicht haben oder schwerer auf einer Seite erscheinen.

Proportion bezieht sich auf die Größenunterschiede der Objekte im Bild. Normalerweise tendieren wir dazu, kleine Gegenstände klein im Vergleich zu anderen darzustellen. Eine gute Methode kann aber sein, kleine Objekte groß im Gegensatz zu wirklichen Größenverhältnissen abzubilden. Zum Beispiel: Eine kleine Blume überwiegt gegenüber einem großen Berg. Dies nennt man Maßstabsinversion.

Nicht alle Elemente müssen berücksichtigt werden. Einige Fotografien können anhand individueller Eigenschaften beurteilt werden. Für ein Bild kann die Farbe oder die Struktur wichtig sein, oder Farbe und Strukur, usw.

Symbolische Aussage oder Relevanz…. Der Meinungskrieg kann hier beginnen…. Ein schlechtes Bild von einem sehr schwierigen Motiv ist ein besseres Bild als ein gutes Bild von einem gewöhnlichen Motiv. Ein gutes Bild von einem schwierigen Motiv ist ein außergewöhnliches Foto.

Bilder können kulturell beeinflusst sein durch den Fotografen und/oder den Betrachter. Die Bedeutung des Bildes sollte vor dem kulturellen Hintergrund des Bildes beurteilt werden, nicht durch den kulturellen Hintergrund des Betrachters. Ein Bild „spricht“ zu Menschen und hat die Möglichkeit, Emotionen auszulösen, wie zum Beispiel Zärtlichkeit, Zorn, Ablehnung, Heiterkeit, Traurigkeit usw. Gute Fotografen sind nicht darauf beschränkt, gefällige Emotionen zu provozieren.

Um die Chancen für einen Erfolg deiner Nominierung zu erhöhen, lies vor der Nominierung alle Leitsätze.

[edit] Eine neue Nominierung aufstellen

Wenn du glaubst, ein Bild mit passender Bildbeschreibung und Lizenz gefunden oder geschaffen zu haben, das als wertvoll erachtet werden könnte, folge der anschließenden Anleitung.

Schritt 1: Kopiere den Bildnamen in diesen Textfeld (einschließlich des Zusatzes Image:), hinter den schon im Feld stehenden Text, zum Beispiel „Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:DEIN-BILD-DATEINAME.JPG“. Danach klicke auf die Schaltfäche mit der Aufschrift „neue Nominierung aufstellen“.

Schritt 2: Folge den Anweisungen der geöffneten Seite, und sichere sie.

Schritt 3: Füge manuell einen Link zu der erstellten Seite oben auf der Seite mit der Kandidatenliste ein: Hier klicken, und füge folgende Zeile OBEN bei der Nominierungslist ein:

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:DEIN-BILD-DATEINAME.JPG}}

[edit] Abstimmung

Du kannst folgende Vorlagen benutzen:

{{Support}} ( Support) (Stimme zur Unterstüzung des Exzellenz-Status'),
{{Oppose}} ( Oppose) (Stimme gegen den Exzellenz-Status),
{{Neutral}} ( Neutral) (neutrale Meinung, keine Stimme),
{{Comment}} ( Comment) (es folgt ein Kommentar, keine Stimme),
{{Info}} ( Info:) (es folgen Informationen, keine Stimme),
{{Question}} ( Question: ) (es folgt eine Frage, keine Stimme)

Du kannst angeben, dass das Bild keine Chance für eine erfogreiche Kandidatur hat. Benutze die Vorlage {{FPX|reason}}, wobei reason angibt, warum das nominierte Bild klar unakzeptabel für die exzellenten Bilder ist.

Bitte füge ein paar Worte an, warum dir das Bild gefällt oder nicht gefällt, insbesondere wenn du dagegen stimmst. Bitte denke auch daran, zu unterschreiben (~~~~). Anonyme Stimmen sind nicht zugelassen.

[edit] Abwahlkandidaten der exzellenten Bilder aufstellen

Mit der Zeit ändern sich die Standards für die Exzellenten Bilder. Es kann entschieden werden, dass Bilder, die vorher „gut genug“ für die Exzellenten war, es nicht mehr sind. Dies ist zum Aufstellen eines Bildes, welches deiner Meinung nach es nicht mehr verdient, exzellent zu sein. Dazu wähle mit {{Keep}} Keep (das Bild verdient es, exzellent zu sein) oder mit {{Delist}} Delist (das Bild verdient es nicht, exzellent zu sein).

Wenn du denkst, dass ein Bild nicht mehr den Exzellenz-Kriterien entspricht, kannst du es für die Abwahl nominieren, indem du den Bildnamen in dieses Textfeld (einschließlich des Zusatzes Image:) hinter den bereits stehenden Text im Feld kopierst:

In der eben erstellten neuen Seite für die Nomination des Abwahlkandidaten solltest du einfügen:

Informationen über den Ursprung des Bildes (Ersteller, Uploader),
Einen Link zur originalen Exzellenz-Kandidatur-Seite (es erscheint unter „Links“ auf der Beschreibungsseite),
Deine Begründung für die Nominierung und dein Benutzername.

Danach musst du einen Link zu der erstellten Seite oben auf der Seite mit der Liste der Abwahlkandidaten manuell einfügen.

[edit] Richtlinien für Exzellenz-Kandidaten

[edit] Allgemeine Regeln

Nach dem Ende des Abstimmungs-Zeitraumes wird das Ergebnis am Tag 10 nach der Nominierung festgestellt (im Zeitplan weiter unten gezeigt). Also dauert der Abstimmungs-Zeitraum 9 Tage, plus die Stunden bis zum Ende von Tag 9. Stimmen, die an Tag 10 oder danach abgeben wurden, werden nicht gezählt.
Nominierungen von anonymen Mitwirkenden sind erwünscht.
Mitwirken bei Diskussionen von anonymen Mitwirkenden sind erwünscht.
Stimmen von anonymen Mitwirkenden werden nicht gezählt.
Die Nominierung zählt nicht als Stimme. Unterstützung muss explizit angegeben werden.
Nominierungen können vom Einsteller jeder Zeit zurückgezogen werden. Dies geschieht einfach durch das Schreiben von „I withdraw my nomination“ (eng. Ich ziehe meine Nominierung zurück)
oder durch Hinzufügen von {{withdraw|~~~~}}.
Denke daran, das Ziel von Wikimedia Commons ist es, einen zentralen Speicher für freie Bilder, genutzt von allen Wikimedia-Projekten, bereitzustellen, einschließlich für mögliche zukünftige Projekte. Dies ist nicht einfach ein Speicher für Wikipedia-Bilder, deshalb sollten hier die Bilder nicht danach beurteilt werden, ob sie zu diesem Projekt passen.
Bilder werden vorzeitig am Tag 5 (fünfter Tag nach der Nominierung) von der Abstimmungsliste genommen, wenn sie keine Unterstützung erhalten, die Einsteller nicht mitgezählt („Regel des 5. Tages“).
Bilder, welche durch die Vorlage {{FPX}} markiert wurden, können 48 Stunden, nachdem die Vorlage gesetzt wurde, von der Liste entfernt werden, vorausgesetzt, das Bild hat außer von den Einstellern keine positiven Stimmen (Unterstützung) erhalten.

[edit] Regeln zur Wahl und Abwahl

Ein Kandidat wird in die Galerie der exzellenten Bilder aufgenommen, wenn folgende Bedingungen erfüllt sind:

Passende Lizenz (selbstverständlich)
Mindestens 5 positive Stimmen (Pro-Stimmen)
Das Verhältnis von unterstützenden zu ablehnenden Stimmen ist mindestens 2/1 (eine Zwei-Drittel-Mehrheit)
Zwei verschiedene Versionen desselben Bildes können nicht beide exzellent werden, sondern nur das mit der höheren Zahl an Stimmen.

Die Abwahl-Regeln sind dieselben wie zur Wahl der exzellenten Bilder bei gleichbleibenden Abstimmungs-Zeitraum. Die Regel des 5. Tages gilt für Abwahlkandidaten, die keine Stimme für die Aberkennung des Exzellenz-Status' bis zum Tag 5 erhalten haben, außer die des Antragstellers.

Ein erfahrener Nutzer kann die Anfrage beenden. Für Anweisung, wie man eine Anfrage beendet, siehe Commons:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder/Was tun wenn der Abstimmungszeitraum zu Ende ist.

[edit] Vor allem sei freundlich

Bitte bedenke, dass das Bild, das du beurteilst, das wohlüberlegte Werk von jemandem ist. Vermeide Phrasen wie „it looks terrible“ (eng. sieht schrecklich aus) oder „I hate it“ (eng. Ich hasse es). Wenn du dagegen Stellung nehmen musst, tu dies bitte mit Rücksichtnahme. Bedenke außerdem, dass deine Englischkenntnisse nicht die gleichen sein müssen wie die eines anderen. Wähle deine Worte sorgfältig.

Viel Spaß bei Bewerten …, und denke daran: Alle Regeln können gebrochen werden.

[edit] Siehe auch

Zum Bearbeiten der Liste mit den Nominierungen klicke auf: Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list
Für eine chronologische Liste, siehe Commons:Featured_pictures/chronological
Für ein Archiv vergangener Nominierungen, siehe Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log
Für eine Anleitung wie man Nominierungen beendet, siehe Commons:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder/Was tun wenn der Abstimmungszeitraum zu Ende ist

[edit] Inhaltsübersicht

[edit] Exzellenz-Kandidaten

Seite erneut laden für neue Nominierungen: den Cache-Speicher der Seite löschen

[edit] File:Kardo-lenin-kopia.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2009 at 15:09:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dmitry Kardovsky. «V. I. Lenin in Gorki village, of Pereslavl uezd». 1926.

Info: Dmitry Kardovsky. «V. I. Lenin in Gorki village, of Pereslavl uezd». 1926. — Created, uploaded and nominated by PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC) -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment "Source: Own work"??? Please supply more detail. -- Jovan Cormac 22:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Secret Service WMG.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2009 at 20:55:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: Secret service by William Gillette , 1897. - uploaded by Barun - nominated by Barun -- Barun (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Barun (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Wholly undocumented attempt at restoration on this image, broken source link at upload page. Appears to be a good faith attempt, though. Would gladly work with the nominator toward a viable nomination. Durova (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[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)
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Of course. -- Jovan Cormac 14:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
A favore Wow! Thank you! --Phyrexian (talk) 05:23, 24 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)
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --ianaré (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
A favore Very beautiful. --Phyrexian (talk) 05:25, 24 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. -- Jovan Cormac 07:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
A favore Really fascinating... --Phyrexian (talk) 05:23, 24 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)
    - Well, so I suppose current 640×360 pixels is not a real low-res for a video. If someone thinks this cant get featured at this resolution, I will upload HD.--Kozuch (talk) 20:15, 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! -- Jovan Cormac 07:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Support - High educational value and interesting. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment I think the first two seconds should be cut from the video. There's nothing happening, really. -- Jovan Cormac 20:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I think the video is not too long and doesn't need to be cut, is less than 30 seconds, and the first two are precious: you can hear the bird and begin to understand what is the subject --Phyrexian (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Right, its very educational and interesting, but this is commons and not wikipedia. And for videos the same rules should apply as for pictures. The composition is rather boring --Simonizer (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think you completely miss a point here. There is no language and that means this video is nicely useful accross various projects and languages, that makes it uniques for a Commons (featured) candidate.--Kozuch (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't think you can see anything well enough - the bird is tiny, and we can't even see it feeding the chicks, just going into the box. It's nice, but not quite wow enough. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
A favore As Jovan --Phyrexian (talk) 05:15, 24 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. -- Jovan Cormac 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)
Support --ianaré (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
A favore Bleah!! ;-) --Phyrexian (talk) 05:05, 24 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. -- Jovan Cormac 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. -- Jovan Cormac 08:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    - I retract my vote of "Oppose", the color issues have now been corrected AFAIC. Still don't know whether to support, though. The view is rather ordinary. -- Jovan Cormac 07:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
Support, very nice landscape. --Vprisivko (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, IMO bit boring composition. —kallerna™ 21:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Info: I made an update, cropped the Blumenwiese and made the green colour of the grass light. The "Blumenwiese" is an essential part of the high mountain region of Europa and IMO an important part of this image. Therefore I leaved a part of it. I didn't found any word for the "Blumenwiese" in the English language. JovanCormac, Leafnode and Kallerna, I hope, the colour and the composition is now ok. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 02:04, 23 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. -- Jovan Cormac 15:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Contrario Purtroppo devo concordare con Jovan, ma se puoi continua a creare gli stemmi dei comuni italiani con questo livello di accuratezza, ne abbiamo bisogno su Wikipedia ;-). I have to agree with Jovan, by the way please continue creating CoA with this high graphic level of italian municipalities, we need it on Wikipedia ;-) --Phyrexian (talk) 05:01, 24 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. -- Jovan Cormac 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)
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Weak oppose I know it's hyper-rare shot and so on, but the noise is just too much for me. NASA can make better photos (even though this was taken in 2002). —kallerna™ 21:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
A favore Fantastica! Too educational value and rarity to care about quality, that is not so bad... --Phyrexian (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[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. -- Jovan Cormac 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: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)
Oppose strange photo, not in COM:PS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is being used in an article on en.wikipedia - so is in scope.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  - There are thousands of the images on Commons that are not used in any project, which most of the time does not mean they are out of the scope. What is out of scope here is the oppose vote of kuiper, who opposed not the image, but me personally. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Support I find the concept that this image is "out of scope" simply bizarre I'm afraid. This is action photography of a sport. I look forward to seeing the deletion request removing all such images. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose IMO the composition is awkward - the surfer is too close to the right edge of the image.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Well captured, but in a FP surf's photo I prefere action --Cesco77 (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is not an action shot, I do not know what is.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 24 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)
A favore --Phyrexian (talk) 04:35, 24 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! -- Jovan Cormac 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)
Support --ianaré (talk) 06:25, 23 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. -- Jovan Cormac 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)
- 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. -- Jovan Cormac 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)
Support When I saw the thumbnail at first I thought it was fake - impossible! 99of9 (talk) 12:17, 23 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)
~~Neutral~~I'm not convinced by the lighting/point of view/time of the day combination. Architectural features are difficult to see, given the angle at which we see them. Right side of the building has less perspective distortion but is in the shadow, and thus dimmer. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)vote striken by MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:44, 21 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.

$A tile ball created with fractal art program Apophysis.$

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. -- Jovan Cormac 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. -- Jovan Cormac 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)
- I never knew you were a mathematician as well. Cheers! -- Jovan Cormac 13:01, 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. -- Jovan Cormac 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)
Oppose, as above. --Vprisivko (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:03, 23 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)
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)

I know we have a very different ideas what is and what is not beautiful. So far you have opposed few of my images, and never supported any. The image is as sharp as it gets in such situation. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:56, 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)

That particular reflection was not sharp, wnen I looked at it with my own eyes.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

NeutralQuality is good, but chaotic composition for me. --Cesco77 (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose for some reason the (dirty) water does not seem to be level; the duck's head is just a black blob. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO "dirty" water still is much better than dirty people.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, as above. --Vprisivko (talk) 18:49, 22 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)
~~Oppose~~ The caption in the bottom margin (see annotation) is faded and illegible. I think it should either be removed or restored. —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:02, 19 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: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. -- Jovan Cormac 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: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.

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-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.

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)
  - Silly me... Wolf (talk) 22:28, 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)
Neutrale Ireally like it, but Dschwen is right after all... --Phyrexian (talk) 04:05, 24 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.

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. -- Jovan Cormac 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)
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 18:50, 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)
  - Ha, I knew it. Thanks for the link. My brain is better than I thought. :) --AngMoKio (talk) 18:22, 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)
Support atmosphärisch stark --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:47, 24 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.

Bell tower of Nikitsky monastery in Pereslavl-Zalessky, Russia

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: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)
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:24, 23 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)

My mistake --Leafnode✉ 15:50, 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:Compliant Guantanamo captive is allowed to stroll the exercise yard.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. 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. -- Jovan Cormac 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, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. 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)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. /FPCBot (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ocean Beach in San Francisco at sunrise.jpg, not featured

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)

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)

"The left dark side" could be cut off.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:15, 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)

Oppose composition --Leafnode✉ 08:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)