Commons:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search
Deutsche Benutzeroberfläche
Springe zu den aktuellen Kandidaten Springe zu den aktuellen Kandidaten Springe zu den aktuellen Abwahl-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.

Springe zu den aktuellen Kandidaten Springe zu:

[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

  1. 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.
  2. Nominierungen von anonymen Mitwirkenden sind erwünscht.
  3. Mitwirken bei Diskussionen von anonymen Mitwirkenden sind erwünscht.
  4. Stimmen von anonymen Mitwirkenden werden nicht gezählt.
  5. Die Nominierung zählt nicht als Stimme. Unterstützung muss explizit angegeben werden.
  6. 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|~~~~}}.
  7. 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.
  8. 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“).
  9. 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:

  1. Passende Lizenz (selbstverständlich)
  2. Mindestens 5 positive Stimmen (Pro-Stimmen)
  3. Das Verhältnis von unterstützenden zu ablehnenden Stimmen ist mindestens 2/1 (eine Zwei-Drittel-Mehrheit)
  4. 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


[edit] Inhaltsübersicht

Contents


[edit] Exzellenz-Kandidaten

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

[edit] File:Leucanthemum x superbum 'Becky' in NH.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2009 at 01:07:40
Leucanthemum x superbum 'Becky'

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Anisoptera (2) (by).jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2009 at 20:53:00
Head of anisoptera sp. on my finger.

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Anisoptera (4) (by).jpg

Anisoptera is going out of his exuvia.

[edit] File:Brugge Smedenpoort R02.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2009 at 20:40:08
Bruges (Belgium): Smedenpoort

  • Info: created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:PapuaNewGuineanandson.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2009 at 18:20:42
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Fantastic this one too. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sadly (and unnecessary) missing colour. Lycaon (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I got nothing against black and white. --Calibas (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fishing 2.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2009 at 18:21:18
SHORT DESCRIPTION

[edit] File:People on Times Square.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2009 at 11:26:49
People on Times Square

  • Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: People enjoying a sunny afternoon on Times Square, NYC.
  •  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose snapshot --Andreas 06 (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting one. --Aktron (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose More or less as Andreas 06, missing compositional value. Lycaon (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A bit messy. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment That's what the photo is about ;) --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:France 466.JPG

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2009 at 08:20:52
drawing of Achaemenid Soldier on wall in Iran division of Louvre

  • Info: created by سندباد - uploaded by Amirobot - nominated by Ladsgroup -- Amir (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Amir (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose because of the shadows. --Estrilda (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Can crop it!I gonna crop nowAmir (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    ✓ DoneAmir (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The left side of the photo is considerably unsharp. It lacks a better resolution as well --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Misumenops tricuspidatus 0907.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2009 at 08:10:07
SHORT DESCRIPTION

[edit] File:Tetragnatha squamata 0907.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2009 at 07:15:30
SHORT DESCRIPTION

[edit] File:DaN w edges 2.gif

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2009 at 07:04:04
Period 256 rocket gun animation

[edit] File:Baby 2.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2009 at 22:59:27
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Tarotastic (Flickr)- uploaded by Paris 16 - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
  •  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, No consent was given of a recognisable nude child not in a public place. Lycaon (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, the photographer uploaded it on Flickr. That's a sufficient consent. Yann (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support One more of our species. ;oD Yann (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Nothing special - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 08:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with ☩. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ferocactus wislizenii in bloom.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2009 at 19:25:21
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support DOF could have been slightly higher and light a tad less dull, but still enough wow for FP. Lycaon (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with Lycaon. Interesting plant. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Forde Abbey over the pond 2.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2009 at 18:07:39
The gardens and house of Forde Abbey

  • Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Maedin (edit by Diliff)
  • Info: A view of Forde Abbey, from the gardens. Situated in Somerset, UK, Forde Abbey is an 11th century building, originally a monastery, that has been modified and partially reconstructed in later centuries. It is now a private residence and the house is partially open to the public. The surrounding 30 acres of gardens are award-winning and include a 160ft (~49 metres) fountain and an arboretum.
  •  Support— Maedin\talk 18:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support   ■ MMXXtalk  19:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Aqwis (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice compo, weather rather 'English' though ;-). Lycaon (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good detail and lovely composition. Diliff (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support (And those of us who have been struggling with English weather wonder how you managed to find a day with a few minutes of sunshine as bright as that. No, I must admit that I did find a little sunshine myself, at Ilam.) -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • A few clouds, but it was actually a hot and sunny day. I managed to get a touch of sunburn, anyway! I just hope that weather returns soon, it's been raining every day for the past week now, :-( Maedin\talk 07:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Quite nice, yet ordinary composition. --Aktron (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Chevrolet-Apache.png

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2009 at 15:16:36
Chevrolet Apache

  • Info: created by Rastaman3000 - uploaded by Rastaman3000 - nominated by Rastaman3000 -- Rastaman3000 (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Rastaman3000 (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Crop is too tight and background is too cluttered. Lycaon (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are many was how to take picture of such a car and more interesting ones. For example something in sunset with good reflections of the light, but not this, parked cars like this one we have thousands here. --Aktron (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Hand of Coexistence.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2009 at 04:09:06
Five seagulls on each finger of〈Hand of Coexistence〉 bronze, at Pohang, South Korea.

[edit] edit version

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2009 at 04:09:06
edit version of above one.

  • Info: created by Salamander - edit by Quotation Marks - uploaded by Quotation Marks - nominated by Salamander ØSalamander (Talk / Contributions) 04:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interesting, but far too noisy for me. —kallerna™ 17:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support To me, as said on previous version, wow factor overrides the valid noise criticism. ---User:CopyrightFreePhotos (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy and unsharp. Lycaon (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'll put up with a lot if a picture's compostion is great, but this one is a little too poor quality-wise. A great subject, to be sure, but poor exexcution. If a reshoot is possible, please get the entire hand in-shot, and see if the quality of the picture can be improved.
  •  Oppose Bad details. --Aktron (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cool :), but sadly bad quality. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Zepper - Episyrphus balteatus pair.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2009 at 09:25:28
Episyrphus balteatus hoverflies

  • Info: created by Curnen - uploaded by Curnen - nominated by Curnen -- Curnen (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Since you guys here seem to like macros, maybe this suits your taste. -- Curnen (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --User:CopyrightFreePhotos (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Magnificent! -- Ra'ike T C 20:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image looks very nice in thumbnail, but is quite noisy, not sharp and suffers from disturbingly blown whites. Lycaon (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I can tolerate the blown whites (although some digital editing to darken these would be helpful since it concerns a major area of the picture) in the interests of getting the exposure correct on the insects. Likewise I can tolerate the graininess (digital noise) in some parts of the picture, chiefly the background behind the insect in flight. And I can tolerate some lack of sharpness on the insects compared with some images we have this month. What I see here is the achievement of photographing this pair of insects, including one in flight, achieving something special with a comparatively difficult subject. That is for me sufficient mitigating circumstance to tolerate the imperfections, and congratulate you on an interesting picture. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice catch. The noise level is acceptable IMHO. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Lib-quad-mos (by).jpg

Libellula quadrimaculata

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I think that insect images like this have added value from the multiple viewpoints. With one single viewpoint, you may have a "pretty picture" in terms of something which looks nice to hang on the wall. This multiple of 4 viewpoints has added educational value, and is one step towards providing a 3-d image within the limitations of this medium. The one change I would suggest to this version would be to swap the left images top-to-bottom and bottom-to-top purely to reduce the discontinuity of the background colours. Merci beacoup, notre ami, pour un image tres informatif. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:USAF F-16A F-15C F-15E Desert Storm edit2.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2009 at 00:13:31
USAF F-16A F-15C F-15E Desert Storm

  • Info: created by U.S. Air Force - uploaded by Kallerna - nominated by Matasg -- Matasg 00:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Matasg 00:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Curnen (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral – The quality does not convince me, but the value does. So neutral to me. --Ernie (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Durova (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - nice composition but the quality is inferior (noisy / blurry).--Avala (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support —kallerna™ 17:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Avala. Small (rescaled) and not sharp (despite the rescaling!). Lycaon (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose don't like this war promotion --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Request: - The picture looks good in small view, but looking the actual size can be seen a little image noise (maybe just a non-noise blur), so it will be more suited if someone fix this. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 08:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose because it is not sharp. --Estrilda (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Regrettfully, as I like the compostion, but as per Avala and Lycaon. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Gämse, Rupicapra rupicapra.JPG

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2009 at 21:57:05
Chamois

[edit] File:Inde bondo8658a.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2009 at 21:35:05
girl headcarrying goods

  • Info: created by Yves Picq - uploaded by Yves Picq - nominated by Jklamo -- Jklamo (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jklamo (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice picture. Yann (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support – Something I would love to see more of here - pictures of our species. --Ernie (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Durova (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Econt (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Estrilda (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:NASA Mars Rover.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2009 at 10:46:55
NASA Mars Rover

  • Info: NASA Mars Rover - created by Maas Digital LLC - uploaded by Dschwen(?) - nominated by JovanCormac -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Reason for nomination: High-quality render, encyclopedically relevant. As an added bonus the NASA logo doesn't appear anywhere on the image, freeing it from any restrictions, in addition to being public domain already. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Neat. --Calibas (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support It looks good to me. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support nice and very rare view --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Good work.   • Richard • [®] • 17:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - MJJR (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Complete with 2 fried eggs for breakfast! -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support –Juliancolton | Talk 23:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Econt (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support ØSalamander (Talk / Contributions)

04:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Arkansas State Capitol.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2009 at 02:18:43
Arkansas State Capitol in Little Rock.

  • Info: Arkansas State Capitol in Little Rock. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen (talk).
  •  Support -- Dschwen (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • P.S.: had to chose 600px as the generation of new thumbnails is currently broken. --Dschwen (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: Have you tried an rectilinear projection? I think it would look better from that point of view. --S23678 (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, tried it, but it makes the sides very distorted and unnatural looking. --Dschwen (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Support Very nice --Muhammad (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support very good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I don't think that this projection works very well. The fact that it doesn't look natural in rectilinear only speaks against the image.--Avala (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Citron-1 (by).jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2009 at 21:11:50
Gonepteryx rhamni

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Lib-quad-3 (by).jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2009 at 21:10:29
Libellula quadrimaculata

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO the four images of the same dragonfly should be nominated in one nomination as alternatives. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral While this is the best of the dragonfly set, IMO it could use some cropping on the top right. Will support if done. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Lib-quad-1 (by).jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2009 at 21:08:52
Libellule à quatre taches

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support As a set, or as all 4 views combined into one single image. Any single one is good. As a set, they constitute a very informative view of the dragonfly, including behaviour. I have put my support with this one image, which I like along with Lib-Quad 2, for the angle of view and the action in the scene. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --User:CopyrightFreePhotos (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Lib-quad-2 (by).jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2009 at 21:07:34
Libellula quadrimaculata

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the action in this view in the manner in which the dragonfly is holding on to the stalk. As I have noted, I would like to see all 4 views combined into one image (with a little cropping so that the insect is the main detail). -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Lib-quad-5 (by).jpg

Libellula quadrimaculata

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment The composition seems a little unbalanced. A different crop and maybe a little rotation might improve it. Otherwise it's a great picture. --Calibas (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Xanthippus corallipes.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2009 at 14:45:10
Xanthippus corallipes

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by Calibas (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

* Support --Calibas (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

    •  Oppose On second look, this picture is the height of mediocrity. It's composition is so standard you could train a robot to take photos like these all day long. While it's technical aspects are well done, the straight lateral view, the centered subject, and the even green bokeh in the background make for a horribly predictable photo. Dull dull dull. --Calibas (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Curnen (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --CopyrightFreePhotos (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support nice --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I have to agree with Calibas. Nothing new. I don't know why he nominated it and shortly after started this opposition, but come on - he is right. --Aktron (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Calibas. —kallerna™ 16:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Times Square Ads.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2009 at 08:42:23
Times Square Ads

  • Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Question: Could you be polite by telling the reason of your opposition? --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      •  Comment Well, composition does not do it for me... the human brain wants to read text in images, and there is truncated text in the image, so that doesn´t work... take this as a tip... the cropping is off somewhat... The lights are dull... and if it a picture of signs, regarless of the place, their are not the most visually attractive signs... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Tomas. Downtowngal (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Beautiful Blonde at the beach.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 22:00:04
Beautiful Blonde at the beach.

  • Info: created by Carlos Allevato - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Econt (talk) -- Econt (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Nice buttocks --Econt (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Econt (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice buttocks indeed. --Calibas (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the resolution is below 2 megapixels. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Size, bad crop. —kallerna™ 08:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
size of what? ;) --AngMoKio (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose well..ahm..yeah nice buttocks, but I think this can't be enough. It has a taste of voyeuristic snapshot (220mm shot), I'd be interested under which circumstances this pic was made. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Looking very well. --Karel (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Can't be promoted: under sized (image), no mitigation. Lycaon (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it can be promoted if enough people support, that's the rule. The size is only a guideline. --Calibas (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Mbz1 (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose File is grossly undersized. Of all the thousands of beaches out there, filled with hundreds of similarly nicely-buttocked women, I'm sure we can do better than this. I support having such a nice ass as an FP, but not at the expense of technical concerns and not with such a messy composition. Maedin\talk 17:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too small. Yann (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Too large (the buttocks) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, I agree that there is no reason to ignore the size guideline in this case. --Aqwis (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice shot of a female Homo sapiens sapiens, but I cannot support a picture of a living being without at least the family (Hominidae) in the name or description. Interesting discussion going on here. --Ernie (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  this is easy --Econt (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Neutral – Okay, since we have a positive ID on the species now I change my vote to neutral. The picture still has insufficient image size. --Ernie (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice image. --Dezidor (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice picture (even though the composition is a little bit disorderly) of a very nice looking young person. But unfortunately that's not a sufficient reason for FP promotion IMO. And the image size is effectively far to small, so no QI as well. -- MJJR (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  We need a bigger buttocks? --Econt (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose – no compelling reason to ignore the guidelines. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Would even be better if you had asked if you could remove the sand... --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral - Very good quality, but unfortunately does not match the required size. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 08:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Size dosent matter! Amada44 (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Rainbow Falls in GGP.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 21:49:10
Rainbow Falls

  • Info: Rainbow Falls in w:Golden Gate Park
  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cluttered and oversharpened (halos). Lycaon (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    I see no halos. Could you please point out one?--Mbz1 (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    The most obvious one is near the top center, where the dark rock partly occludes the waterfall (e.g. around pixel 1140/280). I think I can also see some around the leaves at the bottom right, (e.g. around 2325/890). And, while I'm looking closely, there seems to be some rather noticeable chromatic aberration visible in various places (e.g. foam spot at 1040/1645, branch at 1905/5, top of waterfall and branch at 1080/35). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The overall composition is not interesting. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Paw 1.JPG

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 19:16:31
Indian Peafowl

[edit] File:Hispaniola Vinckeboons4.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 05:00:36
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Johannes Vingboons - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova and Ynhockey. Restored from File:Hispaniola Vinckeboons.jpg by Durova. See also courtesy copy at File:Hispaniola_Vinckeboons4_courtesy_copy.jpg for viewers with slow connection speeds. -- Durova (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Nautical chart of Hispaniola and Puerto Rico, circa 1639.
  •  Support -- Durova (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment - There is a dramatic difference between the original and the restored version in what the colouring is concerned. I wonder if this kind of correction is the right thing to do with old manuscript maps. Is the medium paper or vellum?-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Library of Congress staff have confirmed the scanner was miscalibrated; the coloration on the unrestored version is affected by the miscalibration. Durova (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Removing discolourations, stains folds and cuts is what a restoration is about. The Venus of Milo is yellow because of the varnish and as such different from how it looked when the painting was fresh. Your argument is an old one and imho a clean crisp look provides the best illustration. GerardM (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Removing dirt and varnish physically so that the original colours are restored is a common and accepted practise. Doing it digitally is a totally different thing because we only can guess what the original looked like at the time it was made. In this particular case I find the background tone too bluish even if the medium is paper, as I suppose. An old argument is not necessarily irrelevant or wrong. A clean and crisp look provides the best detail but may be considered unacceptable in historical terms. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • What you are saying, basically, is that restoration includes elements of esthetic discretion. People who do restorations have been discussing that a long time (it's graphic art after all). If you'd like to discuss that in more depth at another venue, and try your hand at it, then by all means let's take it to talk somewhere. Durova (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Manuscript old charts are often considered as works of art. And exactely as with other paintings, I don't think that aethetic discretion in the restoring process is acceptable in these cases. In some libraries and museums, when we order a high definition digital copy of an old map, it comes with a color target which was photographed together with the original so we can reproduce its exact colours. Stretching the concept of digital restoring as to consider it as a form of art is hardly acceptable when the object is an historical document. Maybe the best place to discuss the issue is here, where the images are being evaluated. In this particular case I would consider to support the image if the colours were faithfully reproduced from the original, which doesn't appear to be the case. As I have stressed before, we at FPC evaluate the merits of images not of the restoring process. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- GerardM (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't see any "wow" here. --Calibas (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Per my comments above, as the original colouring appears to have been strongly manipulated in the restoring process. That is, in my opinion, not acceptable in a historical manuscript chart. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Great. Yann (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm not sure some people realize the technical complexity of both making the original image, and the restoration by Durova and myself. If this doesn't have the "wow factor", then I don't know what does. —Ynhockey (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Lycaon (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - don't find Alvesgaspar's argument convincing - during restoration, it's usual to change the aged paper back to white. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Alvesgaspar. --Estrilda (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fossil Bay Seascape.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 02:53:54
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Very small, but interesting.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  SupportJukoFF (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Very nice. Tevonic (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting result with the long exposure time blurring the waves. My apologies for a negative - The white line on the seaward side of the foreground rocks due to the "sharpness" setting is in conflict with the overall pastal shade of the picture. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Lovely. --Calibas (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Hmm, something good. --Aktron (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice. --Karel (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support it is just an atmospheric shot but a really good one. Can seldom resist long time exposures. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support A bit uninteresting when at the thumbnail, but it looks great at the full resolution. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Paris 16 (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Amazing --Dtarazona (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support ØSalamander (Talk / Contributions) 04:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm a sucker for your photos. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --CopyrightFreePhotos (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - Outstanding !!! - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 08:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:The Totem Pole, Cape Huay.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 02:52:53
SHORT DESCRIPTION

[edit] File:Dimitri Torterat - C-160 Transall passing by (French Bastille Day 2009).jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 23:19:28
C-160 Transall.jpg

  • Info: Created, uploaded and nominated by Dimitri Torterat. →Diti the penguin — 23:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Today was the French national celebration. I brought my non-pro gear with me, concentrated mostly on the planes, and here's what I got. →Diti the penguin — 23:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Picture is too static... props are frozen, thus depriving the image of a sense of motion. In a back to front motion, a slower shutter speed is able to freeze the plane´s movement, and at the same time blurr the props. Composition and angle of view uninteresting. There is no dynamics in image. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Don't mind the non-blurred propellers, but it's not a very exciting angle. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No WOW. --Aktron (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Common image, nothing special. --Karel (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment How common is a photo for which you have up to 5 seconds to take it, once a year? ;) →Diti the penguin — 22:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ParcoPuez-Odle.JPG

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 20:46:09
A little valley (direction Lungiarü) in the Naturpark Puez-Geisler/Odle, in South Tyrol (Italy).

  • Info: created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support It is difficult to have mountain picture wich is not ordinary and stands out. I like the balance of green and rock. It is not a valley view (looking upp) or a mountaintop view (looking down), but has both. The cloud shadows add a playfull element. Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Paris 16 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - not special. Downtowngal (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:FEVE Valencia 15.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 18:46:57
Local railway in Valencia

  • Info: created by Smiley.toerist - uploaded by Smiley.toerist - nominated by Smiley.toerist -- Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- It is an historic picture (1987). Neither the station or the train exist anymore. Is a scanned slide. The scanning of old pictures should be encouraged. Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Although the technical quality of the picture is not flawless, I tend to support it. The subject is interesting and 'historical' (as it doesn't exist anymore). The original slide seems to be very good. The scanning is rather good, except the halos in the sky near the electric wires, probably due to oversharpening. Anyhow, I fully agree with Smiley.toerist that the scanning of old - and also of not so old - pictures from the pre-digital period should be encouraged here at Commons, especially when they show objects or situations which profoundly changed or even disappeared since then. No doubt that the slide collections of many Commoners contain a lot of useful and valuable images. -- MJJR (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  SupportJukoFF (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - as supporters. Downtowngal (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose We should not encourage very visible jpeg artifacts, and if this is valuable it sounds more like a VI candidate than something for FP. The composition is not very good either and the quality is far too low; colors seem wrong plus the visible halos. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Hmm does not look like somewhere in Europe. But I like this one. --Aktron (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not good quality. --Estrilda (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Culvert assembly.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 16:50:37
SHORT DESCRIPTION

[edit] File:12 foot culvert.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 16:43:44
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support nice sky.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - Peripitus (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see it as great QI, but not FP. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - Something about the mood and the curving road vs. the straight pipe. (This looks better full-size than thumbnail size.) Downtowngal (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Rebar worker.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 16:34:01
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support rare pic of humans with a nice composition. Maybe a slightly tighter crop would be better to cut away the worker on the left but this is also ok for me. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice one. It's got feeling, personality and action. --Calibas (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Good industry photo and engaging portrait. Maedin\talk 06:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JovanCormac (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral - it looks posed, and it's not clear what the worker is doing. Downtowngal (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support ØSalamander (Talk / Contributions) 04:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Estrilda (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Renoir, Pierre-Auguste - The Two Sisters, On the Terrace.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2009 at 16:08:17
Two Sisters on the Terrasse

  • Info: created by Pierre-Auguste Renoir, uploaded by Ilmari Karonen, nominated by Yann (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful painting by one of the most famous French painter. Huge size. I cropped the black border. Yann (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Econt (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, but also here, the colour rendition is wrong. The addition of a colour chart on this copy however offers the chance to get this correct. Maybe with some advice of the "restorers" around? Lycaon (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • And now? I tried to correct the white balance. Yann (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      •  Comment You should update the image info, it still say it has not been color corrected. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • ✓ Done Yann (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      •  Comment Looks a little blueish/greenish to me. --Calibas (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Really nice.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Paris 16 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Curnen (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Großer Perlmutterfalter, Argynnis aglaja 1a.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2009 at 21:18:54
Argynnis aglaja

  • Info: all by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- H005 (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Aqwis (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Otherwise superb, but the crop isn't perfect (see the legs). —kallerna™ 06:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It looks great in thumbnail, but in full view it misses crispness and the crop of the legs is indeed unfortunate. Lycaon (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lycaon. →Diti the penguin — 18:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It looks very good, pity that the feet are not fully visible. --L.Kenzel (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Lycaon. Estrilda (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose – Is it just me or are the wings a bit out of focus? Per Lycaon --Ernie (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As opposers and I think the strong shadow is a bit distracting. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Chrysomya albiceps + Potentilla palustris.JPG

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2009 at 19:44:43
Chrysomya albiceps on Swamp Cinquefoil (Potentilla palustris).

  • Info: created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 19:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support —kallerna™ 19:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful Downtowngal (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Cool! --Aktron (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No wow.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focused subject only covers 10% max, too small to be a descriptive picture of a common insect, and the rest of the image is 95% blurr. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Isn't 10% + 95% = 105 %? Smile What do you think about the version 2? —kallerna™ 11:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- per Tomascastelazo -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support As above. BTW, have you seen the little gnome face reflected on the abdomen of the fly? Lycaon (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Yep. Smile It's probably my camera. —kallerna™ 12:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it. --Lošmi (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The spider web disrupts the harmony of your composition. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Tiago Fioreze. --Estrilda (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Apis mellifera on Potentilla palustris.JPG

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2009 at 19:41:43
European honey bee (Apis mellifera) on Swamp Cinquefoil (Potentilla palustris).

  • Info: created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 19:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support —kallerna™ 19:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Lycaon (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Downtowngal (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cluttered picture of a common bee, poor technique and point of view. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- composition Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Estrilda (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Bees are usually fast moving so it is difficult to get them "well composed" for their portrait. And it is interesting to see the different varieties of "common honey bee" (I think I have photographed 5 or 6 this year). I like the level of detail on parts of the bee, but it is too far off-centre, and needs a bit more "wow" factor. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition. --Karel (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As per Karel. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose a flower bit dark, and bee's legs not sharp. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Declaration independence.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2009 at 17:57:35
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by John Trumbull - uploaded by Panoptik - nominated by Ivan03 -- Ivan03 (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ivan03 (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: Previous versions and the image at the Capitol website [1] are more yellow - can you explain why this one is more accurate?Downtowngal (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I only nominated this picture for its quality, I did not know that the image had other version, if the version more yellow is the accurate I nominate this version. Sorry but my English is not very good. Ivan03 (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Largely for historical significance. The colour difference seems like different white-balance settings or light used to digitise the picture. I looked for an alternative copy on the internet, but did not quickly locate one. But Wallbuilders has the text of the Declaration [2], and a useful on-line library of historical documents; and the original document does look rather yellow, showing its age. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Female gorilla with 2 months old baby boy gorilla in SF zoo.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2009 at 13:34:51
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info:A surrogate mother with 2-months old baby boy gorilla in SF Zoo
  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose regretfully - a too-rare photo of a female and baby, in an interesting relationship. Almost there, but the wow requires thinking about the photo; the wow is not immediately apparent. P.S. The photo title has three misspelled words. Downtowngal (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, before you knew that I am a bad photographer. Now you know that I am a bad speller too. Oh well... :)
I don't think you are a bad photographer. Personally, I prefer to look at your images (and those of Tomas Castelazo), which are not perfect technically but make me think. But the FP criteria require something special, which I understand to be an immediate visceral aesthetic response. Downtowngal (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Cute fellow! MartinD (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Umnik (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Tevonic (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I somewhat agree with Downtowngal's view, and also the mother is much too dark. Providing there aren't areas completely black or assuming you have the RAW files, you could try using a shadow/highlight adjustment. Maedin\talk 16:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I hope you do understand that, if two gorillas, sitting so close to each other, and the color of one of them is OK, it means that the color of the second one is probably OK also, which means that the color of female gorilla is natural? --Mbz1 (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral For the reasons given by Downtowngal; I'd support it if it was taken in the wilderness. But technically it's good, hence neutral. I do not think the mother is too dark. -- H005 (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No wow zoo pic. Lycaon (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Lycaon. —kallerna™ 07:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice scene...but for FP a bit too ordinary. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
This vote by a person, who takes lots of images of the birds in captivity, and does not even mention this fact in the nominations really surprised me, and IMO it is better to have a single image of gorillas as FP than two images of the same bird taken in the same ZOO few minutes appart. BTW your "too ordinary scene" reminded me a story my co-worker has told me. She took her 3-years old to ZOO. The boy was not amazed by anything and kept saying "boring, boring, boring..." At last my co-worker cried :"What do you want? You want animals to dance for you?!" That story is about 3-years old, AngMoKio :) And what in your opinion would not be "too ordinary scene", if I may ask? AngMoKio, I take your votes personally.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
All I say to this: First of all taking votes personally is always a bad choice. I only vote for or against your pictures, it has nothing to do with you (although you attack me personally now) - you know exactly that I also voted pro for some of your pics. I tried several times to put things straight btw us on your talkpage. I learned now that this makes no sense and I won't do this anymore - it simply leads nowhere. Concerning the pic (and this what it all should be about): The composition is too ordinary - the pic might very well work as a QI or VI but imho not as FP. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
It might be a "bad choice" , but it is how I feel, and I'd rather say it clear and loud. BTW you still did not answer my question. What composition in your opinion would not be too ordinary? It is not so often a baby gorilla is born in a zoo. This fact alone already is making the image somehow special IMO. The image was taken the way that a viewer will never guess that it was taken in a ZOO. Isn't that interesting that a baby is so small that he is almost hidden behind the grass? Isn't that interesting that he has his finger in his mouth as human kids often do? Anyway as I said earlier, and I repeat it one more time, IMO it is much better to feature "too ordinary scene" of a single image of gorillas than two the same images of the same bird taken in the same ZOO. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The fact that constantly mention my pics of birds (which have nothing to do with this topic here) makes it obvious to me, that it is not about the pic for you but some kind of personal fight. So it makes actually no sense to discuss things here. This pic simply doesn't convince me - fact! You have several pics that do convince and for which I voted pro. Anyway as I said earlier, and I repeat it one more time: Don't take my votes personal! --AngMoKio (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder why you are going to be fooled to justify yourself and get psychologized for an oppose vote. Polls consist of many votes and I don't understand why some votes get boiled thoroughly. Maybe ... after Hans it's you ;-) It seems that there must be permanently a bad guy (or more) around who will be teased so long as he/they say something very direct ... and in the end Milla leaves Commons and you will get a sore conscience ... This kind of working atmosphere is very counterproductive IMO.   • Richard • [®] • 17:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Brilliant picture, but I wouldn't feature anything whose title was misspelled.  Support if the image could be moved. INVERTED (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: I requested the image to be renamed. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: The spelling of the name is corrected. It might be a good reason to reconsider some of your opposes Smile--Mbz1 (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As per AngMoKio. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:E3 sentry zh101 planform arp.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2009 at 13:31:27
E-3 Sentry Planform

  • Info: created and uploaded by Arpingstone - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: An unique and interesting angle of a NATO AWACS (Airborne Warning And Control) aircraft. Even better, the picture has been taken by a member of the community, not a member of the military.
  •  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Very nice, but it looks like the file has been processed a bit too much. →Diti the penguin — 14:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support, nice picture. Ktr101 (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- excellent shot. Tevonic (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Geolocation and use of information template would make it even better ... -- H005 (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good, but per Diti. —kallerna™ 19:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing special, a plane from the bottom. This is not excellent. Quality Picture OK but really not an exzellent Picture! HBR (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As HBR. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose – Is it valuable enough to become featured? --Ernie (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Gallotiagalloti primerplano.JPG

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2009 at 13:01:26
Juvenile male Gallotia galloti in Teide National Park

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by El fosilmaníaco (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- El fosilmaníaco (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- H005 (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Durova (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The unfocused foreground is distracting, perhaps a different crop would help. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It lacks a bit of contrast. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Brooklyn Bridge NY.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2009 at 10:19:06
Brooklyn Bridge

  • Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral -- Good shot, sharpness, light, perspective, noise are excellent, but a tad too ordinary IMHO for FP and much distortion in the edges. -- H005 (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the exposure. Well some much different shot like soon before sunset might be better but this is quite fine. --Aktron (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Detmold Freilichtmuseum R05.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2009 at 19:58:24
Detmold (Germany): Open Air Museum

[edit] File:Detmold Freilichtmuseum R04.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2009 at 19:49:01
Detmold (Germany): Open Air Museum

  • Info: created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by Mmxx --   ■ MMXXtalk  19:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --   ■ MMXXtalk  19:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- MJJR (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment - This is a beautiful, clean image, and there is just as much artistry and effort here as in the many images of insects on plants. But those achieve FP because we are not accustomed to looking close-up, and this image may not achieve FP. A perfect example of the guidelines' bias. And now I'll shut up about them. Downtowngal (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I totally agree. There are way too many close-ups being shoehorned into the FP process. --Ernie (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support The central part of the image is cool. I mean the angle of the front building, this looks good. --Aktron (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral – The composition does not convince me. I think the picture would look alot greater if the house to the left was not in the center of the image. --Ernie (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Prefer and supported the R05 version instead that is a closer and gives a better view of the building. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mauna Loa from the air May 2009.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2009 at 17:23:19
Mauna Loa

  • Info: w:Lava flows of a different colors and a w:fissure vent at w:Mauna Loa
  • Info: The image was taken from a helicopter.
  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Simply great. Yann (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting scene. (And I think I am now seeing true colours having just replaced my fading old CRT monitor with something more modern.) -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Obviously, I'd like to know how a shot from an helicopter and some lava being shown can make this a Featured Picture? Besides, why is it cropped (or erhm downsampled?) Assuming the camera can go up to 3888 x 2592, an horizon would have been nice... Esby (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure I follow your comment/question. Are you against featuring lava images in general? Are you against featuring images that were taken from a helicopter in general? Have you noticed by any chance that the image shows a fissure vent, not only the different lava flows? Have you read the articles the image is linked to? Were you able to learn something new from that reading? The original image did not show the horizon either. The camera was pointed mostly down. I cropped the image the way I believe was better to see the lava and the vents. The size of the cropped image is more than 2 times bigger than the required size.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
That's simple; I don't see any wow in this picture. Honestly I'd be for having this image promoted as VI or QI, but not as a FP. I know that lava is rare, that helicopter are rare (althought it's relative to where you actually are for both) but still there is nothing special in it to my eyes. I know some (commons) guy that is in Iceland right now with a good camera, are we going to make his pictures of geyser/volcano FP too, supposing he used an helicopter? Esby (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
May I please ask you to be a little bit more specific?
  1. Are you opposing because you are against featuring any lava images at all?
  2. Are you opposing because you are against featuring any images taken from a helicopter at all?
  3. Are you opposing because you are against featuring any cropped images?
  4. Are you opposing because you are against featuring any images that do not show a horizon? --Mbz1 (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Although I might maybe hang this pic on my wall as I like the colours and the structure, I really miss sth to get a feeling for the size of that structure and also a horizon would be helpful to get a general feeling for that landscape. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - As AngMoKio: no sense of scale or orientation. The abstract structure is not special enough imo to reach FP status. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

 CommentHonestly IMO all those talks about horizon, scale and orientation sound funny to say the least. It is impossible to have a scale and/or to show the horizon in this kind of image. The similar image is not easy to find on the NET. I did a search on Flickr and Google and did not find any. The image has big EV. Many features of this image do not even need a scale to be encyclopedic. For example different colors of the lava. Well, there is nothing new in those opposes. I learned a long time ago that quite a few reviewers here will rather promote number tenth European honey bee or few images of the same bird taken in the same zoo than a really unique, one-of-a-kind image, but, no worries, next time I will ask my husband to jump down to create a scale just for few shots, you know, and I will ask the pilot to fly as close to the mountain as possible in order to take an image that will show both the lava and the horizon. If the helicopter will crash, it will not go down in vain. Just think what a great scale it will create for all other photographers, who will happen to fly by :)--Mbz1 (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  •  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I think its a picture worth a promotion and therefore I support it. On the other hand, I think the passion demonstrated by Mbz1 when reacting on criticism might be a little exaggerated. I myself know to well how it feels, when you took great efforts to take a picture and somehow feel, that others don't appreciate that. Nevertheless, a little more objectiveness would probably help both sides. --Curnen (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacking any sense of scale. Lighting and sharpness aren't ideal. Arguments of EV are weak here, in my opinion; they hold more weight at en: (for example). Maedin\talk 16:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Good color balance and resolution, but the shot is to close, as per Maedin, lacks the logical scale. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 08:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Maedin. --Estrilda (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Vorderhopfreben Üntschenspitze 1.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 22:30:45
Alps in Bregenzerwald

  • Info: all by -- Böhringer (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Böhringer (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - Beautiful. I see a little chromatic aberration in the trees on both sides. Downtowngal (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Noticeable stitching errors on the left side, but otherwise excellent. H005 (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support   ■ MMXXtalk  18:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support very nice --AngMoKio (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Some minor stitching errors indeed (which could easily be corrected btw), but in general a great image. FP quality! -- MJJR (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: stitching errors corrected - Thanks for the hint --Böhringer (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support —kallerna™ 19:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Hollariduljöö   • Richard • [®] • 19:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Real good picture! HBR (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Halfalah (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Chrumps (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Aktron (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --L.Kenzel (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Super! --Karel (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Paris 16 (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Avala (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Ich hab mir gedacht, ich schau hier mal wieder vorbei und dann seh ich dieses Bild. Gleich einlogen und supporten. Traumhaft schön, Friedrich! --Simonizer (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - What a beautiful landscape, great detail, great resolution. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 08:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Estrilda (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (3).jpg

Syrphidae in a flower.

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support   ■ MMXXtalk  18:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the detail of the eyes, including the water droplet. (And I am enjoying seeing photos more clearly on a new monitor instead of my fading, 8-year-old CRT.) -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support —kallerna™ 19:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not identified (try to start at Syrphinae or at least do the effort to ask at http://www.diptera.info). Lycaon (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Info: - I guess this is a male Eupeodes corollae -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Info: No. It's not it. Look here. --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Info: In looking through the guidelines (and complete guidelines) for featured pictures, I don't see any mention about identification or GPS coordinates. Am I missing these guidelines somehow? --CopyrightFreePhotos (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
          •  Comment I quote: "Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others". Images of organisms that are not identified obviously have a very low value as to usability. For some groups (e.g. Diptera), there are very good and accessible resources online to help you with identification. The (small) effort is upon the nominator. Some groups are however very hard (e.g. Coleoptera) and then a higher taxonomical level (e.g. genus) should be acceptable. Lycaon (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
            •  Comment The value of a great picture doesn't depend upon it's description or information - the picture has inherent value. That is why identification is not included as a guideline - it's about the picture, not about written information. Besides, this is a community. If someone needs something identified, let them identify it and share it, that's what a Wiki is all about - community involvement. To disqualify a picture based on it's written information is a tragedy. --CopyrightFreePhotos (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Wow, fantastic sharpness, colors and brilliance! -- Ra'ike T C 23:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --CopyrightFreePhotos (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - Outstanding colours! - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 08:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (7).jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 08:14:40
Syrphidae sp. copulation

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Diptera sp. (by).jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 08:12:34
Diptera in a petunia flower.

[edit] File:Archives and the port.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 03:57:39
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by JalalV - uploaded by JalalV - nominated by JalalV -- JalalV (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JalalV (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Good shot, but please add geolocation. -- H005 (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support as H005 -- MJJR (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Great picture. The only problem is filename, I have no idea where it was taken. But that is not a matter of technical quality or composition of this image. --Aktron (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:William Berryman Plantain Walk2.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2009 at 22:21:58
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Result: 7  Support, 0  Oppose, 0  Neutral => featured. ☩Damërung ☩. -- 00:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (2).jpg, featured

Syrphidae sp. in fly.

If he's got it down to the family, that's pretty dang good for a photographer. Not all of us are biologists and expecting photographers to identify every species is just going to result in misidentification. If it doesn't already. --Calibas (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course being a biologist has nothing to do with getting an id for an organism. It is about being able to obtain useful information, and that is what wikimedia is all about, isn't it? Lycaon (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Identification is no criterion in FP, sharpness and exposure are excellent, the crop is not. The fly alone would have been better. -- H005 (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I would like to see this identified to better than family, but as identification isn't an element of FP criteria, I cannot justify opposing based on it. As for the crop, I think it is great—it is giving it dynamic and target and movement. As for the sharp capture of a flying subject, I think it is excellent. Kudos to Thomas. Maedin\talk 20:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Maedin - this sharp a picture of an insect in flight is quite something. I only wish I could have done it. Zoomed in, the insect alone looks impressive. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose – per Lycaon --Ernie (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice catch! --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not sharp enough. --Estrilda (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Result: 4  Support, 3  Oppose, 1  Neutral => featured. ☩Damërung ☩. -- 00:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Western tent caterpillars Malacosoma californicum in Joshua Tree NP.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 15:55:35
Western tent caterpillars

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: The image was nominated here and did not get promoted. After that the quality of the image was improved.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting --Muhammad (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Intriguing theme, good quality -- H005 (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support very good photo --George Chernilevsky (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC) - I now move my vote to the Original version --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I needs new crop and the quality isn't FP-material IMHO. —kallerna™ 14:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as kallerna. It is oversharpened to the point that everything glitters. Lycaon (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: to Kallerna: What exactly do you mean by "quality isn't FP-material"? Sharpness and lighting is excellent, I think. And the crop, ok, it could be centered better, but not really an issue IMHO. -- H005 (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
And besides it is already FP material on English Wikipedia. Smile --Mbz1 (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, Maedin. The original image was added to the nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Original

Western tent caterpillars

  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Muhammad (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the sharpened version better, but if others prefer the original, so be it. -- H005 (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Yep, definitely prefer this one. Maedin\talk 13:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support very good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support my whole class has traumas from these little things from a trip we took once. --SuperJew (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the colors. --Snek01 (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Result: 
Top image: 3  Support, 3  Oppose, 0  Neutral => not featured. 
Original: 7  Support, 0  Oppose, 0  Neutral => featured. ☩Damërung ☩. -- 00:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Abwahl-Kandidaten

[edit] File:Neon.JPG

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2009 at 19:35:43
Misleading image of a sample of neon!

  • Info: This does not actually have any neon gas in it! (seeFile:NeTube.jpg). Something this misleading should not be featured! (Original nomination)
  •  Delist Please log in to vote. Lycaon (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC) -- (en.Nergaal) 18.74.6.182 19:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Keep This looks like a usual neon light to me, and I don't think that it's misleading. BTW, you have to be logged in to vote. --Lošmi (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
It's misleading because it says "Neon", NOT "Neon sign". As the tube is definatly not filled with neon, it is definately misleading! 18.251.7.152 06:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Zeitplan (Tag 5 nach der Nominierung)

Wed 15 Jul → Mon 20 Jul
Thu 16 Jul → Tue 21 Jul
Fri 17 Jul → Wed 22 Jul
Sat 18 Jul → Thu 23 Jul
Sun 19 Jul → Fri 24 Jul
Mon 20 Jul → Sat 25 Jul

[edit] Zeitplan (Tag 10 nach der Nominierung)

Fri 10 Jul → Mon 20 Jul
Sat 11 Jul → Tue 21 Jul
Sun 12 Jul → Wed 22 Jul
Mon 13 Jul → Thu 23 Jul
Tue 14 Jul → Fri 24 Jul
Wed 15 Jul → Sat 25 Jul
Thu 16 Jul → Sun 26 Jul
Fri 17 Jul → Mon 27 Jul
Sat 18 Jul → Tue 28 Jul
Sun 19 Jul → Wed 29 Jul
Mon 20 Jul → Thu 30 Jul
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Kandidaten_f%C3%BCr_exzellente_Bilder"
Personal tools