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:Vorderhopfreben Üntschenspitze 1.jpg

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

[edit] Image:Port w Bonifacio.JPG

Harbour in Bonifacio

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

Syrphidae in a flower.

[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:ComputerHotline - Diptera sp. (by) (2).jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 08:09:08
Diptera enjoying with foam coming out of demijohn.

[edit] File:ComputerHotline - Diptera sp. (by) (6).jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 08:07:13
Diptera enjoying with foam coming out of demijohn.

[edit] File:ComputerHotline - Diptera sp. (by) (8).jpg

Diptera enjoying with foam coming out of demijohn.

[edit] File:Humayun's Tomb from the entrance, Delhi.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 05:50:56
Humayun's Tomb, a UNESCO World Heritage site, from the entrance, Delhi

  • Info: created by Poski - uploaded by Ekabhishek - nominated by Ekabhishek -- Ekabhishek (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ekabhishek (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Bit noisy, but acceptable. The crop is bad, the black area is not symmetrical. Also geolocation would be appreciated. It'll have my support if all this is fixed. -- H005 (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Archives and the port.jpg

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

[edit] File:Shrine of the Bab with clouds.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 03:55:32
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by JalalV - uploaded by JalalV - nominated by JalalV -- JalalV (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- JalalV (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad crop, the building is probably symmetrical, either make it appear this way or completely concentrate on a particular part, but this seems just indecisive. Also, please add geolocation. -- H005 (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Meerkat in SF zoo f.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2009 at 01:10:59
Meerkat

  • Info:w:Meerkat in SF ZOO
  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Meerkats are always cute and funny, this one is IMHO not exceptional enough. But I'd support it as QI. -- H005 (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: It is the only image of Meerkat at Commons that shows a Meerkat laying on his back. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like this picture, a pity some visible noise appears in shadowed areas though. →Diti the penguin — 22:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:William Berryman Plantain Walk2.jpg

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

  •  Support –Juliancolton | Talk 22:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - very nice. Thank you for making this available. Downtowngal (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (6).jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2009 at 20:06:17
Syrphidae sp. on a flower.

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unidentified. Lycaon (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Identification is no criterion in FP, but DOF is far too low. Sorry, otherwise a great image. -- H005 (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

[edit] File:Agave americana R01.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2009 at 15:20:57
Agave americana

  • Info: created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- MJJR (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support nice, perfect quality and valued for Wiki. I like this --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I recognise that different things appeal to different people, and usually, if I'm not interested in the subject, I don't vote on an image. This picture, however, seems to me to be of a completely ordinary composition, with nothing setting it apart from any other picture of the same species. The subject of the picture is not particulary apparant, and blends into the background, making for a cluttered shot. The view of the plant is unremarkable, and reveals very little about it, and leads to a very shallow DOF. Kudos to the photographer for the high technical quality, but just not featured, for me. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing special, neither subject nor photographic quality. -- H005 (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - Agree with George. Also, the photo shows the agave in the dry, sunny conditions it likes in the wild. You can see a baby plant emerging on the left side of the mother plant and younger plants nearby. A more aesthetic approach would not be as informative. Downtowngal (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment But FP ist primarily about aesthetics, for informative pictures we have COM:VI -- H005 (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment - Well, I am confused. The guidelines say "Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special,..." Actually, these two sentences can be contradictory. What is very valuable may not be special (see simultaneous fireworks), and what is special is not always valuable (see smoking fish). Usually I make high aesthetic quality an absolute requirement. (You caught me here making an exception.) In practice that policy ends up limiting the kind of images that easily qualify for FP to landscapes, macros and existing high-quality artworks. Other kinds of images (buildings, some plants, objects) face a higher standard because they are not as intrinsically aesthetically pleasing. We even had a big debate about whether the extremely valuable 1838 photo should be FP! So I would appreciate some discussion on whether the guidelines should be revised, or a pointer to a previous discussion of this bias problem. Downtowngal (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Zebra portrait.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 21:13:46
SHORT DESCRIPTION

[edit] File:Cheetah cub close-up.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 21:12:27
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Muhammad (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Definitely QI, but ordinary composition. Also, the shallow DOF makes the head look glued onto the body like a mask. Downtowngal (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO the composition could win, if the head alone will be shown at the picture. I will probabably support it then. I am not asking for a bigger resolution, just for another crop from your original. Could you please include information where the images of Zebra and Cheetah cub were taken in the images descriptions? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I will upload a cropped version butit will probably be too small for com FPC. Would appreciate your vote at en FPC when I nominate it there, though. --Muhammad (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per Mbz1. I'd appreciate geolocation, although not an FP req. -- H005 (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Male Checkered White, Megan McCarty125.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 18:15:05
Male Checkered White

[edit] File:Callie2009.JPG

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 17:59:29
Golden Retriever dog

  • Info: created by MichaelMcPhee - uploaded by MichaelMcPhee - nominated by Brianga -- Brianga (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Brianga (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - All puppies are cute and this puppy is very cute. According to the American Kennel Club, retrievers (Labrador) have been the most popular dog in the world since 1998. For good reason. But that fact imposes an extra burden on the photographer. Cuteness is not enough. The background is messy. Sorry. Downtowngal (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Extra cute (can yours play with itself? :)), but per Downtowngal. →Diti the penguin — 10:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:GGB reflection at Baker Beach at low tide.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 17:55:54
Baker Beach

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Camera Location missed.--Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Done.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great view and nice composition, particularly the reflection, but resolution too low IMHO, even if it just meets the 2 MB criterion, and the similarity between "horizon" and "horzontal" is no coincidence ... ;-) -- H005 (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edit 1 bigger resolution

Baker Beach

  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose composition is ok. But the photo is tilted (or distorted) and sharpness is also just so-so --AngMoKio (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cyprinus carpio smoking.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 15:46:41
Carp smoking?

  • Info: created by Wouterhagens - uploaded by Wouterhagens - nominated by Wouterhagens -- Wouter (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Wouter (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Smile As sad water pollution is   • Richard • [®] • 15:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Smile A dead man walking, a dead fish smocking--Mbz1 (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lots of noise and no wow. --Afrank99 (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Disturbing --Muhammad (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Econt (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support The photo is a freak. It seems to have little encyclopedic value. But it is evidence of an abnormal situation that is not always easy to capture photographically. For this I overlook the noise. Downtowngal (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support We need more humorous FPs. I put it up on reddit [1]. --Calibas (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Great capture. --Lošmi (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy, no wow. —kallerna™ 12:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not enough value (according to me) for Commons. There is noticeable vignetting, noise, and the polarization of light because of water gives an unaesthetic result. It may be a rare shot, but I cannot see this one featured. →Diti the penguin — 13:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Diti.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Funny, but quality is just average. -- H005 (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with opposers. As joke it is good Smile --George Chernilevsky (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Blackberry fruits 2008 G1.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 11:39:35
Ripe and unripe blackberries on a bush


  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Ripe and unripe blackberries on a bush --George Chernilevsky (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Hmm. Yummy, but I think some more interesting composition would be much better. --Aktron (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support –Juliancolton | Talk 02:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like to oppose but: DOF isn't great; we manage better for insects, and this was a static subject. The composition isn't great. I think this may be a tad too bright. It feels somewhat overexposed. On their own not enough to oppose, but the three together are, sorry. Maedin\talk 22:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Honeymoon Bay Sunset.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 10:42:33
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Hopefully 3 is an acceptable level of spam. -- Noodle snacks (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Stunning picture, but IMHO looks too artificial probably due to post-processing. Also, I noticed a lot of chromatic aberration. -- H005 (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Chromatic aberration is unavoidable at wide angles. The lenses able to avoid it cost two good months of salary. →Diti the penguin — 13:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Easy enough to photoshop out if it is a deal breaker Noodle snacks (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: What are blue particles in the sand?--Mbz1 (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The saturation was boosted the saturation artificially. This isn't normal practise for my images though. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cygnus atratus Sunset.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 05:46:10
SHORT DESCRIPTION

That's an argument against its misleading name, not the picture itself. -- H005 (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree, and edited my oppose.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's a nice graphic, but doesn't have the wow for FP. Downtowngal (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fortesque Bay Sunrise.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 05:35:45
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support ---donald- (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Fantastic! -- H005 (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support The atmosphere in your pictures is breath-taking. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support i am a fan of long time exposures. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Amazing shot. Brianga (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral - Well-done but not all that special, IMO. Downtowngal (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice. --Afrank99 (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It looks really nice, but no EV. Just another too photoshopped sunrise-photo, sorry. But it's very beautiful. —kallerna™ 20:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The lack of EV is exactly why I sent it here. Beyond a graduated blend, no photoshop work has been performed. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • EV = "encyclopedic value"? (I should know this...) –Juliancolton | Talk 02:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • “EV” stands for “Educational value”. I see one, a perfect representation of a sunset taken with a low exposure time. Suitable for articles about photography. →Diti the penguin — 13:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
        • And hopefully, it will illustrate Noodle's entry in the Featured Photographers page, when he eventually gets one. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support, looks fine to me. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful! →Diti the penguin — 13:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tree branch after ice storm.JPG

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2009 at 00:05:23
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Tevonic - uploaded by Tevonic - nominated by Tevonic -- Tevonic (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support. Photo shows how freezing rain after an ice storm can lead to severe damage in forests. -- Tevonic (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support –Juliancolton | Talk 04:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Great light, low noise, but the DOF does not completely cover the main object. -- H005 (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - useful for an encyclopedia, but no wow. Downtowngal (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment I would respectfully disagree with Downtowngal on this. Freezing rain is supercooled water that freezes to ice on impact with an object on the ground, coating everything with ice. There are many good images of such objects on the commons, with some of them being more colorful than this one. However, the amount of ice here is incredible, and I could not find an image which conveys buildup on a similar scale. For this reason, I believe the unique composition, educational value, color, and lighting warrant consideration for FP. I agree with H005 that the DOF could be improved, but disagree that this detracts from the image. Tevonic (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Indeed, such a significant buildup of ice is exceedingly rare (unless of course the branch is situated directly under the gutter...) –Juliancolton | Talk 16:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support As I was planning on nominating it myself, I suppose I should support it. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting work Esc861 (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support good colours --George Chernilevsky (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sarcophaga sp male.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2009 at 23:54:53
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: c/u/n   • Richard • [®] • 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Male Sarcophaga fly feeding on honey. Males cannot be identified easily to species level without killing or anesthesia, people at www.entomologie.de said. That shouldn't be my job :-) Otherwise a good study IMO.
  •  Support --   • Richard • [®] • 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Gross. You didn't feel like capturing it and dissecting it's genitalia to determine what species it is? I don't blame you. --Calibas (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support –Juliancolton | Talk 04:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Perfect. -- H005 (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree. --Lošmi (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Durova (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Grasshopper June 2009-3.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2009 at 23:03:59
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: Detail of an Egyptian Grasshopper. Everything by -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Impressive close-up with lots of sharp details of the main body, but unfortunately DOF is too tight, legs and antennae are extremely blurry. -- H005 (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the dof is ok here. I accept that the legs and antennae are out of focus, but considering the angle and extreme change of plane, this seems acceptable. Maedin\talk 12:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: Was it alive? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Certainly the antennas doesn't look very vital but I may be wrong.   • Richard • [®] • 15:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Porto Covo July 2009-1a.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2009 at 22:51:47
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: The sea and cliffs in Porto Covo, Portugal, by the end of the day. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Camera Location missed. Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done - Added, but not a requirement for FPC though. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Nicely done   • Richard • [®] • 23:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support nice --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO the lower part of the image (most of all the lower middle and the right lower corner) are not sharp at all. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral As per Mbz1, plus it's somewhat impressive, but no real "wow" ... -- H005 (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - As Mbz1 including the sorry. Downtowngal (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks like one of my 5000 holiday snapshots. No wow, sorry. --Afrank99 (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
This image is not a snapshot. This is a good image, which has some problems that made me to oppose. May I please suggest to you to be a little bit more polite in your comments? Remember you'te talking about somebody else work. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry (Alvesgaspar!), I did't mean to step onto anyone's feet. I'm just trying to express my opinion on the image, and it's far, far away from being something special IMHO. And even being a good image is not enough for FP. For me it still looks like a snapshot (how do you know it's not one?), sorry again. --Afrank99 (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Otherwise really good, but per Mbz1. —kallerna™ 20:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose per Mbz1. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Zepper-Tony Sly (NUFAN).jpeg

Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2009 at 11:30:05
Guitarist and vocalist Tony Sly from No Use For A Name

  • Info: created by Curnen - uploaded by Curnen - nominated by Curnen -- Curnen (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support A little bit noisy, but I think thats forgivable. -- Curnen (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support After downloading it and trying some noise reduction myself, I think it's better with a little noise - any removal needs quite strong luma noise reduction, which blurs out details in the shadows. Great shot! --Tom dl (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose quality (noise and sharpness).--Mbz1 (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative

Zepper-Tony Sly (NUFAN)

I agree with Tom dl, but I doubt that with all those noise image has a chance, so I tried to denoise it a bit anyway. --Lošmi (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  •  Comment – I think the best way to get noise out of this image is to downsize it. It is lare enough to allow a little resizing. According to the EXIF data it was shot with ISO 6400 (!!). For such a high ISO it has quite alot of detail though. Amazing what modern CMOS sensors are capable of. --Ernie (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support a really great shot made under difficult conditions --AngMoKio (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Great shot and great job denoising it. The resolution is high enough that I don't see any problems with the sharpness. --Calibas (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent shot. -- H005 (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice job on denoising, yet lots of CA most of all at the right arm. I do not like how the face came out. I am the first one to forgive those problems for the images that have big EV. IMO (and I underline IMO) this one does not. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment
@Lošmi: Thanks a lot for removing the noise, you did indeed a fantastic job. (I almost went nuts trying, because of the artificial fog wafting on stage adding to the usual noise)
@ Ernie: Yes, the photo was indeed shot at ISO 6400, which was the most reasonable balance between shutter speed and noise, because I needed to shoot hand-held out of a crowd of celebrating fans in front of the stage. Less than 1/160s at 400mm was at least for me impossible [Although I tried ;-)]
@Mbz1: Sorry, what does CA mean ? and EV ? By the way, I agree that the picture has some flaws in it and can live with it beeing rejected because of them. ;-)
--Curnen (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
CA means w:Chromatic aberration, EV means enciclopedic value. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Curnen: You're welcome. I'm glad you like the result. --Lošmi (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much denoised (... and the photo is just too noisy to be fully denoised). —kallerna™ 20:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality not enought, I'm sorry --George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bohdan Khmelnytsky Monument in Cherkasy Ukraine.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2009 at 07:11:08
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Turzh - uploaded by Turzh - nominated by Turzh --Turzh (talk) 07:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support: The lack of pictures from Ukraine; the monument to prominent Ukrainian hetman (ruler) of XVIIth century in the oblast center Cherkasy-city (Central Ukraine). --Turzh (talk) 07:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Mbz1 -- H005 (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp, and no wow. If it's a rare image, try COM:VI. --Afrank99 (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yeah, quite blue and no wow indeed. --Aktron (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment No FP quality indeed, but excellent encyclopedic value. Please do continue uploading images from Ukraine! -- MJJR (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Henri Rousseau - The Luxembourg Gardens. Monument to Shopin.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2009 at 08:19:46
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Henri Rousseau - uploaded by Olpl - nominated by me -- Luxembourg (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Luxembourg (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Another aggressively de-yellowed painting. I agree that the present appearance of the painting is the result of years of varnish yellowing and dust and grime deposits. Yet, do we know for sure that it ever looked this way ? The greenery is not green any more, it's moss... In comparison to that rendition, i believe this candidate is overdone. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Red spotted newt 01.JPG

Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2009 at 02:28:14
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Tevonic - uploaded by Tevonic - nominated by Tevonic -- Tevonic (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support: Only macro found on commons of the red spotted newt active in its natural habitat, with a good amount of detail present. -- Tevonic (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose because of low DOF. Nose, eyes and tail are very blurry. The image's uniqueness might qualify it for a quality image however. -- H005 (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice composition, but quality is not up to par for FP. Lycaon (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Kalapana and steam from lava entering the ocean .jpg

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 23:55:55
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: The big Island of Hawaii is growing by an hour. All brand new land (sorry lava) that pours in the ocean, creating new shoreline, belongs to the state, but if a new lava gets atop of the old one, the prior owner still keeps his rights. The owners home was covered by lava in 1990. Now they try to sell their new/old lava. The steams at the background are volcanic plumes from at least two ocean entries of the lava. There is a helicopter nearby to show how big the thing is.
  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose — It's nothing special. Nice photo but not really informative or educational at all. Acablue (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
"Informative" or "educational" is not a criterion here as far as I know. bamse (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO very informative. I was not ware of such an incidence occurring. --Muhammad (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Fascinating story but the picture itself doesn't tell the story. Plus the lack of sharpness. Downtowngal (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Türkenbund Lilie, Lilium martagon.JPG

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 21:22:35
Türkenbund Lilie, Lilium martagon

[edit] File:Hibiscus-syriacus.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 15:00:13
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by --Chrumps (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Chrumps (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good, but not special enough to be FP. —kallerna™ 20:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:BallonKathedrale01.JPG

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 14:38:24
Fantasy of Flight

[edit] Edit 1 (sharpened)

Fantasy of Flight

  •  Support the sharpened version. The lighting and composition are so attractive and the photo is not easily reshot. Downtowngal (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Mbz1 (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support sharpened version. A unique balloon and well-placed lighting behind the camera. Ikluft (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support sharpened version. Fantasy-styled view --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support thanks for the Promotion and sharpen --Böhringer (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support POTY 2009 ?   • Richard • [®] • 12:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversharpened (strong halos) yet blurry. Lycaon (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - per Lycaon -- Pro2 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lycaon, although I see the improvement. -- H005 (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: What I'm wondering is, is this even a free image? I'm not sure freedom of panorama applies, given that the balloon is presumably not permanently installed in public. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Cars and planes are not permanently installed in public, either. --Lošmi (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment I think this a very valid point. Obviously freedom of panorama does not apply, as it is not permanently installed. (Btw, according to the coordinates the camera was in Switzerland, although the balloon possibly was in Austria. The latter has freedom of panorama, Switzerland I don't know.)

Cars etc. are not a good example, as these are not considered "art", but just things of everyday usage. This might be different here. At least the creators of the balloon call themselves "Künstler" (="artists"), and they are called artists in publications, so the balloon could be considered a pice of art, which unsually must not be reproduced on Commons. -- H005 (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC).

  •  Comment Perhaps it is justified as a public event with the clear wich to be represented in Media and Internet. I think we would get no problems here in Germany but I'm not absolutly shure about Austria. --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir 007.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 12:00:43
Painting On the Terrasse by Renoir

  • Info: created by Pierre-Auguste Renoir, uploaded by Olpl, nominated by Yann (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Huge size, great colors. Yann (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Gorgeous. -Calibas (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: The colours are great, but as I assume the picture does not look this way anymore, do we know that they ever looked so bright and saturated? -- H005 (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't know the real painting. But I like this image for all the above reasons and also because we can see that the faces have several simultaneous expressions. --Zyephyrus (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If this is to be a faithful reproduction of the real painting, then i believe the colors are unacceptably too vivid and saturated. Jeez, they are supposed to be sitting in a scenery of greenery, and now the overall yellowish-greenish hue of the painting has been so strongly removed that they are left against a pinkish-white background. I'm sorry to say that this, imho, makes no sense. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Maurilbert. Lycaon (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per my question above and until someone provides sufficient evidence that these colours depict the actual painting. -- H005 (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Of course the colors don't represent the actual painting, any painting this old is going to be quite faded. This is probably a far more accurate reproduction of what it looked like right after Renoir painted it, than what is currently hanging up in the museum. We touch up old photographs all the time here, why not paintings? --Calibas (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • With "actual painting" I did intentionally not exclude how it looked right after it had been painted. I just fear that if through image processing you e.g. simply make everything red that today is brown this might be far from what it looked back then. E.g. all the branches in the background look orange, not brown, I'm not convinced that Renoir made them look that way. -- H005 (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's any way to tell precisely what it's supposed to look like. The lighting and the camera are always going to alter the colors. If the whites look white I'd say it's close enough. If somebody wants to drop the saturation a touch I'll vote for that too, but this version looks fine to me. --Calibas (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Here, a knowledgeable contributor on wp:fr pointed me to the zoomable painting on the Art Institute of Chicago website. This should be assumed as reflecting best the way it looks today. It is far less yellowish than usually seen, yet far more subtle and muted in tones that the candidate. This contributor also mentionned that "Impressionists didn't paint in oils but in spirits and they would not varnish their paintings, so those don't become yellowish with age. Linseed oil and varnish cause yellowing." Thus, i'd guess that we are used to see old photographs of these paintings, and that the photographs yellowed way more than the actual paintings... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 00:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Neeme Järvi at Laulupidu.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 11:47:22
Conductor Neeme Järvi

[edit] File:Wildfire in Yellowstone Natinal Park produces Pyrocumulus clouds.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 02:58:47
Pyrocumulus clouds

  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too much post-processing --AngMoKio (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose slightly, also my impression is that the photo gains most of its unnatural atmosphere from image processing, but of course I might be wrong. Would love to see it in a RAW format.-- H005 (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Autism Kevin Fruet.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 22:08:25
Child with autism that loves water

  • Info: created by Kevinfruet - uploaded by Kevinfruet - nominated by Econt (talk) -- Econt (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Econt (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose cute pic, but I see nothing out of the ordinary (the fact that the child has autism is impossible to tell). --ianaré (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment My opinion, this pic is ordinary because is a cute pic.--Econt (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with ianaré. Furthermore there is a white balance problem. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as opposers --George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose other opposers + personality right problems --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose — Cute photo, but it's nothing special. Also the image page says that this image is eligible for speedy deletion since the subject of the picture has not (or cannot) provide permission to release it under the current license. Acablue (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per Ianare. --Afrank99 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Fascinating expression and light. -- H005 (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Episyrphus balteatus side.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 21:55:09
SHORT DESCRIPTION

[edit] File:Star-sizes.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 20:32:32
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created by Thangalin - uploaded by Thangalin - nominated by Thangalin -- Thangalin (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Thangalin (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Aqwis (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: What are the colors of the stars based on? bamse (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Updated star colours using Wien's Law to calculate the perceived wavelengths, based on the most recent estimates that I could find for the star's surface temperature. Temperatures and sources are noted on the image details page. Thangalin (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The texture/material is based on what? Some stars range in color from yellow to red. Please correct me, but I don't think the temperature/wavelength is known to astronomers on this scale. Besides it would likely change over time. bamse (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment bamse: See the Hertzsprung-Russel Diagram for details. Temperature can be determined. See the Antares page for details. Planet texture maps are mostly from Celestia Motherlode and in the public domain (Earth was from a different site, but also PD). The textures for the stars are simulated, mostly based on textures from our Sun. Yes, the colours will change over time. I will update the image 10,000 years from now (if I remember). ;-) Thangalin (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I remember the Hertzsprung-Russel Diagram from my high school, but that was not my question. Sorry for being so persistent. I have no doubt about the planet textures, since the details can be observed through telescopes or via space crafts. My problem is with the stars which are much further away. You say that you simulated their textures based on the texture from our sun. Can you tell a little more about the simulation part? Also, if I wanted to determine the temperature of "VV Cephei A", should I look at the yellow or the red parts of it? bamse (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I downloaded a few pictures from SOHO and created texture maps from them. The texture maps were applied at various opacities against the base colour of the sphere (derived through Wien's Law). To determine the temperature of VV Cephei A, look at its average colour, rather than its variances. Thangalin (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Do I understand correctly that the textures of the stars (except the one of our sun) are chosen for beauty rather than based on scientific grounds? If that is the case I would be glad if you added a note in the image description. In any case the description should state that the average color represents the temperature (through Wien's law). bamse (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. Since we have no textures of distant stars, all the star textures are based on the Sun, for aesthetic purposes. It would be misleading to state the average colour represents the temperature for a few reasons. (1) Star temperatures are determined within a range. (2) Wien's Law works best with large stars, such as red giants. (3) The colours are likely close, but are not exact matches due to texture map opacity levels and procedural shaders. It would be simplest to state that star colours are estimated (and Saturn's rings are slightly larger in the picture than to scale). Thangalin (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support looks OK to me (but I'm no expert) --ianaré (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Wow. But I thought the biggest stars were blue? →Diti the penguin — 23:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment The colour of a star depends on its size and temperature.
    • Yes, and the bigger the star, the bluer it is, isn't it? →Diti the penguin — 11:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment same stars seems to appear in absolute different colours, isn't it? --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment The same star will vary in colour from one picture to the next due to slight differences in lighting. (The spheres and materials, however, were imported directly from one scene into the next. The spheres were resized, but colour settings never changed.) Thangalin (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment This image was reviewed for technical accuracy by Stephen Shawl for inclusion in a K12 astronomy textbook. Thangalin (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Now I'm a believer... --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Wow, amazing representation of celestial bodies. Acablue (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Good and very interesting. Yann (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support very good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support —kallerna™ 11:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent quality and great encyclopedic value. Congratulations! -- MJJR (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Very well done. Intuitive, informative, interesting, impressive... Ikluft (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment it would have been nice if we could access the original 3d format. How did u create this anyhow? Great image.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Blender 3D was used for the models, lighting, and rendering. The GIMP was used to assemble and label the six renders into a single image. Saturn's rings were difficult to get right (which is why the previous versions lacked them). I used Wolfram Alpha to calculate each sphere's base colour. Then simply calculate the relative sizes of spheres in terms of their representative solar radius (in other words: divide some numbers). Thangalin (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Odocoileus hemionus (Calibas).jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 15:37:50
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated by Calibas (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Calibas (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support cute ! (if possible, re-upload with Exif) --ianaré (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Smile —kallerna™ 11:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Pro2 (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Please add EXIF. Lycaon (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Orange Spring Mound at Mammoth Hot Springs.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 15:24:28
Orange Spring Mound

[edit] File:Spout Falls, Liffey, Tasmania.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 02:27:14
SHORT DESCRIPTION

[edit] File:Kalapana May 2009.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 23:26:05
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: The image was cropped not downsampled--Mbz1 (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Few years ago Kalapana was a very nice, little town with blooming gardens at the Big Island on Hawaii. In 1990 it was buried by lava flow. Most homes were destroyed, but few including famous painted church were moved to other locations. There are no paved roads, no any utilities, no even cell phone services in Kalapana. There is only w:lava, and now new lava is coming back. Just few hundreds meters down new lava enters the ocean File:Three Waikupanaha and one Ki lava ocean entries w-edit2.jpg, yet the trees have no problem in growing up and even blooming in Kalapana, and few people came back and rebuilt.
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support wonderful allegory of hope after a catastrophe of a volcanic eruption. -- Ra'ike T C 23:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Econt (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - anonyme vote --George Chernilevsky (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support excellent view! Bit small... I strong support this photo --George Chernilevsky (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support good composition --ianaré (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO it doesn't have enough wow, quality is just decent. —kallerna™ 02:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose What happened? Nothing is sharp. --Estrilda (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: - Is this photo of a part of the town that used to have houses? Are the houses on the beach the last remaining houses? In other words, is the site special? Downtowngal (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your question, Downtowngal. More than 100 houses were destroyed by the lava flow in 1990 in Kalapana. The town used to have streets and gardens. They had their own church. They are there no more. The church was moved to a safer location. The streets and gardens were covered by lava. Some kids went to school, and came back to see their houses on fire. People tried to make a desperate bargain with Pele ,the goddess of fire. They threw bottles with wine to the approaching lava in hope Pele would have some pity on them. It did not help. There were many heartbreaking stories. One young family had volcano insurance. Their policy was canceled with no reason, few days before the lava was about to destroy their home. Their friends helped young couple to move the entire home to a different location. Today some people came back to Kalapana. There are few houses here and there. I do not think there is a beach there, but I am not sure about this. I've never approached any of the houses. It is a private property, and they do not like tourists to come around. I understand them very well. IMO this site is very, very special. I hope I answered your question, but if I did not, please feel free to ask me more. If I am still around by that time, I sure will respond Smile.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - Thanks, Mbz1. I wish the photo were sharper, but the composition symbolizes the meaning of the site so well I make an exception. Downtowngal (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support =^ Downtowngal --Böhringer (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support The composition is awesome! →Diti the penguin — 11:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Diti! Is this a comment or support? I am asking because you said "support" in the edit summary, but I see no support in the nomination Smile--Mbz1 (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it was a support, I forgot to use the template. :) →Diti the penguin — 16:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry. Lycaon (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • weak  Oppose It is a nice composition...but for the quite easy conditions I also wonder why it isn't really sharp. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: There was strong wind at the site. Here's the image that was taken at the same day and which shows a steam devil at volcanic plume w:File:Steam devil.jpg. Steam devils form, when strong wind is present.So "conditions" were not easy at all.@AngMoKio. I believe now, when you learned more about the contitions, you could safely change your weak oppose to weak support Smile --Mbz1 (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
really a clever plant there...it simply doesn't care about the wind. Smile --AngMoKio (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure I follow you. You said the image "isn't really sharp" under "easy conditions" . I said the condition were not easy because of the wind, and now, if I understood you right, you say that the plant "simply doesn't care about the wind", which to me means that you believe that the plant is sharp enough. You see, no matter what it is time to change your vote for "support" Smile.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
You know I just wondered why the plant isn't affected by the strong wind? --AngMoKio (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I understood this. I am asking what does it mean "the plant isn't affected by the strong wind". Do you believe that the plant is sharp enough?--Mbz1 (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
No, unfortunately I don't think that the plant is sharp. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
But if it is not sharp, how do you know that it is not sharp because of the wind?--Mbz1 (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Smile You said it is not sharp because of the wind, not me. I don't know why it is not sharp. I just wanted to say the plant doesn't look like as if there is a strong wind. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
SmileI have never said anything was not sharp at the image. I said the conditions were not easy because of strong wind, and I proved strong wind with another image. On the other hand, when you say that conditions were easy, and the plant is not sharp, but not because of the wind, it is what is called "speculations" in the court of low, and speculations they are.Smile--Mbz1 (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Basilique St Maximim La Sainte Baume.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 18:32:24
Interior of the Basilique of St Maximim la Sainte Baume, France.

  • Info: created by Esby - uploaded by ? - nominated by Yann (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Yann (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too distorted (see the top of the image). Also quite noisy. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great lighting, really impressive, but unfortunately the front part is far too distorted, and the center lacks sharpness. -- H005 (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Support Sharpness, noise, stitching, ... everything has become much better since the previous version. -- H005 (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noisy.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • ' Comment I did two new versions, I changed the projection angle a bit and I added a colored version to show how the panorama was made. Enfused images were also used to make both new version. Dunno if this might be enough or not, now this might be ok for making the sets as 'VI' (since it explains how the images are stitched together).
    See template:St Maximim - Hugin‎ for more details about that. Esby (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distorted, overburnt. —kallerna™ 14:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    Just a silly question, but how do you do a 210x180° indoor panorama without distorsion? Esby (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    With DxO or Fisheye-Hemi I guess. But there are people to dislike distorded images, I personnally prefer distortion, more aesthetic. →Diti the penguin — 23:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    Trying to put half of a sphere on a plane will always show up distorsion, rectilinear images just can't be achieved in such case. For those who don't understand what I am saying, take a world map (usually with a mercator projection), looks at the greenland and at the artic area, and ask yourself if there is no distorsion present, now takes another one, centered elsewhere, with another projection, you'll notice there will be always one or several area that appears as distorted. Esby (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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)
  •  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)

[edit] File:Owl-Flying-against-a-Moonlit-Sky.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 14:27:58
Sepia drawing by Caspar David Friedrich

[edit] File:Buteo swainsoni (Calibas).jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 13:58:40
Juvenile Swainson's Hawk

I'd love to but "Save for Web & Devices" in Photoshop seems to remove the EXIF. Not sure if there's an option to disable it. --Calibas (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Question: Err, why don't you use the usual "save as" diealogue then? -- H005 (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The way Photoshop translates jpegs into the actual image is different than the way web browsers translate the image. There's no standard way to read a jpeg file, so the brightness, contrast and color can vary. The "Save for Web & Devices" option writes the jpeg in a way that web browsers will "see" the image in relatively the same way Photoshop does. So "Save for Web & Devices" usually creates something that looks a lot more like the picture you see in Photoshop than "Save As" does. Compare the two, often they vary quite noticeably. --Calibas (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • 'save for web' also uses higher compression, resulting in poorer quality. I understand you are worried about how it looks in browsers, but our main concern should be in providing the highest possible quality. --ianaré (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure it's lower quality? The file size at maximum for "save for web..." is actually larger than "save as". I don't think a higher compression would have a larger file size. And even if I did lose a tiny bit of resolution, is not correct color and contrast an important part of image quality? --Calibas (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I noticed my images look better on 'save as', but on closer inspection it was other settings that affected them ... In looking at the manual, the only difference is in Exif info being removed in 'save for web'. Both types allow you to embed the ICC color profile, BTW. --ianaré (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Added exif. The "convert to profile" option basically does the same as "save for web" without tossing the exif data. --Calibas (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --ianaré (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support And just save in sRGC color profile, it is intertionnaly readable. →Diti the penguin — 23:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Good idea, I'll do that from now on. --Calibas (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Egyptian paratrooper.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 11:57:01
An Egyptian paratrooper.

  • Info: created by Staff. Sgt. Aaron Allmon - uploaded by mo7amedsalim - nominated by mo7amedsalim -- mohamed salim (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- mohamed salim (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral -- Good quality, but cropped too tight on the left and right, and the other soldier is disturbing. -- H005 (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree about the crop. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Maybe removing the background completely would be an option, but otherwise I don't see how the problem tight crop vs. disturbing other soldier could be solved more satisfactorily than this. Furthermore the most important things - face and accouterments are clearly shown. --Curnen (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The other soldier is indeed problematic --Tom dl (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor crop. Lycaon (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good otherwise, but the crop kills it for me. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:12 foot pipe installation s.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2009 at 17:17:56
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Info: created, uploaded, nominated and sold by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interesting composition, but just too noisy + quite lot of chromatic aberration. —kallerna™ 18:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Right with the chromatism, but it's very interesting and value --> featured! --kaʁstn 20:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose - Not unusual or rare enough to overcome the technical flaws. Downtowngal (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Very nice but would it not be better as a square crop (or at least symmetical)? --Estrilda (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:California island Vinckeboons5.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2009 at 00:34:40
SHORT DESCRIPTION

[edit] File:2Heißluftballons.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 22:34:42
2 hot-air balloons

  • Info: created by H005 - uploaded by H005 - nominated by H005 -- H005 (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- H005 (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interesting idea, good lightning, sharpness, and overall image quality but I think the composition is weak. For me there is not a clear idea with the composition and the cropped text distracts. --Slaunger (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Slaunger. Good effort. Durova (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral just the cropped text is bad --kaʁstn 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Durova. —kallerna™ 16:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, actually I have virtually the same pic showing the entire balloons with all the text, but I find that perspective boring, whereas this one draws some tense out of its incompleteness, which I liked very much. But well, that's a matter of taste, and taste is undebatable, so of course I'm ok if you all think otherwise. -- H005 17:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
@ Slaunger, The "idea with the composition" is that these balloons are so huge that they are even larger than your field of vision, impossible for the eye to catch them completely. But never mind, if this idea doesn't come across to you, it has probably not been a good one. ;-) -- H005 (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi H005, I see your point, and sometimes I also like unusual crops, be it of a face, or some object, and this one is close at getting to me, it catches my eye somewhat, but still leaves an impression of being messy and point-and-shoot-like. I agree with you that just capturing one balloon or two together can easily lead to a quite uninteresting composition as well, so some amount of creativity in capturing it is called upon.

[edit] File:Kluft-photo-fireworks-Cameron-Park-June-2009-Img 2951c.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 08:43:36
Fireworks in Cameron Park, California on June 27, 2009

  • Info: created by User:Ikluft - uploaded by User:Ikluft - nominated by User:Ikluft -- Ikluft (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support as nom -- Ikluft (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not the best crop, decent quality. I've seen better fireworks-photos. —kallerna™ 19:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Those long exposures (5 seconds on the link provided) are actually easier shots to get - but they're entirely a different style and result. This one with 7 shells exploding in a 1/40th of a second exposure is far more difficult to get and takes a fair amount of luck as well. Also, what specifically didn't you like about the crop? I cropped it with intent to preserve the widest shell and aspect ratio. But cropping can be adjusted (such as not worrying about the aspect ratio and cutting more off the sides) if it makes a difference. Ikluft (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • With the crop I meant that the whole firework isn't on the photo and there's too much of black area on the sides. —kallerna™ 16:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Uhmm yes, I have to say that it's not exeptional enough   • Richard • [®] • 21:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like this as it is. I think it is high-quality, high-value, and has impact. Maedin\talk 19:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks too ordinary. No wow. --Afrank99 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative

Fireworks in Cameron Park, California on June 27, 2009

OK, I shouldn't have bothered trying to retain the aspect ratio of the original photo. Fair enough - this alternative addresses that. I also encourage reviewers to observe that this is not the same kind of photography as a long-exposure shot of fireworks. As I mentioned above, this is a 1/40th sec exposure with 7 shells in various stages of exploding. The illumination of the smoke clouds from earlier shells shows there is focus and detail. It's in effect an action shot, which is very difficult to get with fireworks. Submitted again for your review... Ikluft (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - This is an excellent encyclopedia illustration of 'simultaneous fireworks'; the smoke clouds contribute to the effect. But for FP a more beautiful (but less accurate) long exposure is more appropriate. A good and useful photo, just not FP. Downtowngal (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I know it was a difficult shot to get. But fireworks pics need color, which these shells just don't have. There's no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • FYI, when I downloaded the photos from the camera into the laptop after the show, one of the leaders of the fireworks crew was watching as I stepped through them. For this one, his one word was indeed "Wow!" That was what led me to submit this one. Ikluft (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Since there obviously are white fireworks, color isn't a requirement on its own - the different types of fireworks photography are not better than the others. It distracts the issue to say it isn't a different style. The guidelines say the value of a photo is enhanced by how it adds variety to the collection. I recommend a look through Category:Fireworks to see exposures of more than one second are very well represented, and are the ones that should hardly be considered special. They're analagous to photos of sunsets, which the guidelines address specifically. Ikluft (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks too ordinary. No wow. --Afrank99 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Abwahl-Kandidaten

[edit] Zeitplan (Tag 5 nach der Nominierung)

Sun 05 Jul → Fri 10 Jul
Mon 06 Jul → Sat 11 Jul
Tue 07 Jul → Sun 12 Jul
Wed 08 Jul → Mon 13 Jul
Thu 09 Jul → Tue 14 Jul
Fri 10 Jul → Wed 15 Jul

[edit] Zeitplan (Tag 10 nach der Nominierung)

Tue 30 Jun → Fri 10 Jul
Wed 01 Jul → Sat 11 Jul
Thu 02 Jul → Sun 12 Jul
Fri 03 Jul → Mon 13 Jul
Sat 04 Jul → Tue 14 Jul
Sun 05 Jul → Wed 15 Jul
Mon 06 Jul → Thu 16 Jul
Tue 07 Jul → Fri 17 Jul
Wed 08 Jul → Sat 18 Jul
Thu 09 Jul → Sun 19 Jul
Fri 10 Jul → Mon 20 Jul
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Kandidaten_f%C3%BCr_exzellente_Bilder"
Personal tools