Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2022 at 23:34:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Clouds over Grand Canyon.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Clouds over Grand Canyon.jpg
Info View from South Rim near Yavapai Point into Grand Canyon, Arizona, USA. All by me. -- Wolf im Wald 23:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Wolf im Wald 23:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Hazy, unfortunately the light is not compelling. Bland colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose It is of course an amazing view, but this is the kind of motif that cries out for a panorama. Cmao20 (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Too much of the landscape appears flat, and the WB is too cool. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Hazy and an unremarkable image of something that's remarkable IRL. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Neutral For me this is a great photo because of the contrast between the incredible landscape and the wonderful clouds, but the light and colours spoil it, sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your review! I am not very happy because of the flat light too but I thought it‘s a nice view with the clouds. -- Wolf im Wald 02:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2022 at 23:19:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Grand Canyon North Rim.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grand Canyon North Rim.jpg
Info View from North Rim near Bright Angel Point into Grand Canyon. All by me. -- Wolf im Wald 23:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Wolf im Wald 23:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Neutral Chromatic aberration, color noise (sky) and perspective distortion in the hills in the background. A CPL filter would also have improved the sky and background --Wilfredor (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Done@Wilfredor and Sea Cow: I fixed distortion & noise and uploaded a new version. Thanks for your review! -- Wolf im Wald 17:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for improve it. Is the horizon actually tilted or was the shot tilted? --Wilfredor (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I think the shot tilted a bit to the right and I fixed it now. -- Wolf im Wald 01:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort you put into trying to fix this. --Wilfredor (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose, per the issues defined by Wilfredor, as well as the people in the foreground, which I find rather distracting. Sea Cow (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Support This is an FP to me now with the noise reduction and straightening, and I like the people, who indicate the scale. Where was the CA? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Tech issues aside, and I don't mind the people, but ... this is a subject which can be and has been captured in much more spectacular direct sunlight. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2022 at 04:39:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support -- Ivar (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Support--Peulle (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Support Wow! --Yann (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Support Wow! indeed. --Aristeas (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Support Top Poco a poco (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Support And *this one* you upload just now? ;-) --A.Savin 11:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I've been very busy the last few years and only recently found the picture. Sometimes it makes sense to look through old pictures again. :-) -- Wolf im Wald 22:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2022 at 22:46:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Westhafen Frankfurt.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Westhafen Frankfurt.jpg
Support -- Wolf im Wald 22:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Question Would a bottom crop to remove the half boat improve the composition? Half person would need to be cloned out. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for your suggestion Charles! I'm not entirely happy with the boat either. But I really like the reflections on the water and I wouldn't like them to be cropped so much. So I believe it looks better without cropping, but I think it's a matter of taste. -- Wolf im Wald 17:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Support--Ermell (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2022 at 21:47:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hochzeitsturm Darmstadt 2022.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hochzeitsturm Darmstadt 2022.jpg
Info 300 megapixel stitching of Hochzeitsturm, part of UNESCO World Heritage Site Mathildenhöhe at Darmstadt, Germany. Please notice that the picture maybe cannot be displayed regularly in the browser due to the high resolution. However, the image can be downloaded or viewed in the ZoomViewer. There is also a reduced version with only 100 megapixels, which can be viewed in the browser as usual. All by me. -- Wolf im Wald 21:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Wolf im Wald 21:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Support Apart from the blurred amd messy immediate foreground, looks very high quality. Charlesjsharp (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment I thought about cutting away the foreground, but I think it looks better with the foreground. I don't like the picture having no foreground. The blur is a result of the focal length of 135mm. I don't think that's a problem because there's nothing exciting to see in front anyway and it gives the picture some depth. -- Wolf im Wald 23:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Support though I do think f/8 would have been a better choice. For ultra-high-resolution images, I don't expect everything to be in perfect focus, but everything should be sharp at a moderate resolution like 6 MP. The sharpness of the foreground is passable, but there's just a little bit more fuzziness than I'd like. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment I used f/5.6 because the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Milvus performs with more sharpness at this setting (compared to f/8). I always try to achieve the best possible technical result and in this case it was more important to me that the sundial in the right center of the picture is very sharp. The uninteresting and ugly foreground was not important to me, I even think it's good that it loses importance due to the blurring. -- Wolf im Wald 16:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Support Excellent quality and resolution -- George Chernilevskytalk 07:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Oppose The technology used gives us excellent sharpness and resolution, but shouldn't have been bought for the price of a blurred foreground. The unsharpness doesn't really helps for depth here in my eyes. Yes, without foregeund is not a better solution. f/5.6 doesn't seem to be the right choice for 135 mm and this subject either. In broad daylight, a high f-number shouldn't have been a problem. If the goal is a lower resolution, the photographer could have made it easier for himself instead of composing 28 individual images. By the way: The photographer can't do anything about the scaffolding, but it wasn't the ideal time for an excellent image of this tower. --Milseburg (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Weak support Personally I am fine with the foreground etc. being out of focus – the subject is the tower, period. (“Photography consists of sharpness and unsharpness”, my father used to tell me; one can read more about this idea e.g. in Feininger’s photography textbooks.) And I understand the choice of f/5.6; modern lenses, combined with modern high-resolution sensors, often excel in sharpness already at f/4 and show diffraction starting already at f/8, even more at f/11. So if the photographer wanted to make the most of the tower, he has done well. It’s just a pity about all the ugly stuff (scaffolding etc.) around which really degrades the overall impression, sorry; while all the foreground and background can very well be out of focus, they are still parts of the composition and therefore influence the overall impression. --Aristeas (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Nice quality, but the fences in the foreground are really hugly. I would support with a crop. Yann (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Per Yann. -- Karelj (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Weak oppose The amount of detail is great, but the overall composition/rest of the scene doesn't work for me. — Rhododendritestalk | 02:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2022 at 19:01:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Landscape Arch Utah.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Landscape Arch Utah.jpg
Support Great view; incredibly sharp image. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Unusual lines -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment Really impressive, but shouldn't the water lines on the rock be vertical? Perhaps technically impossible to do perspective correction? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I think it's very natural the way it is because I shot from the bottom up. It would look unnatural if the lines were completely vertical. It's also not a building where the lines have to be perfectly vertical. Besides some sharpness would be lost if I do a perspective correction after stitching procedure. Regards -- Wolf im Wald 18:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Support I'll believe you... Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2022 at 14:05:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Europäische Zentralbank Frankfurt.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Europäische Zentralbank Frankfurt.jpg
Support — Although I like the architecture more than the picture. UrbanVersis32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 13:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Strong support Simply wow! -- Radomianin (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Support a tad noisy and heavy handed on clarity but very nice and clean (empty street) architecture shot. - Benh (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I dissent. Certainly a good QI (with the caveats mentioned above), but basically very well-done and probably a good promotional image, but no great composition to me. The shapes of clouds would need to cooperate more, especially since all that blacktop is boring to look at. Basically, this photo looks very colorlessly corporate to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment Impressive composition to me but it’s overall rather noisy, especially the glass panes and building edges, there’s much "burbling" as if from heavy noise-reduction processing. Might be air turbulence as well. I am aware we’re talking about 36 megapixels here but it just bothers me. --Kreuzschnabel 06:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Neutral I like the architecture of the buildings and the composition but agree with the comments about, quality (which is usually superb is Thomas's images) and lighthing are just ok and wow is pretty moderate Poco a poco (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per Ikan Kekek -- Karelj (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Support The colorless-corporate aspect to me makes the picture work. This is the headquarters of the most important international central bank in the world, and one of the most important central banks in the world. It should look like this ... this is its truth. Having it in a crowded parking lot with lots of pedestrians under bright sunlight and a sky full of little fluffy clouds would obscure that truth. Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment You make your point well, but when the truth is boring, does that make for a great photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2022 at 14:07:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurter Römer 2019.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurter Römer 2019.jpg
Support This is best at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Support Agree with Ikan. May seem “just good” in the thumbnail, but it’s impressive when seen at full screen size, and the details of the façade are reproduced in all their beauty. --Aristeas (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose It's detailed, but the topic, light, framing is fairly standard in my opinion. I think we have here a fine example of QI (all QI should be this good, but that's not the case on Commons) and not FP. Sorry. - Benh (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Support I think the corner-to-corner sharp 35 MP resolution elevates it from a QI to an FP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2022 at 17:12:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Hohenschwangau 2021.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Hohenschwangau 2021.jpg
Info 215 megapixel stitching of Hohenschwangau Castle at Schwangau, Bavaria, Germany. I took 46 pictures with a focal length of 300mm and stitched them. All by me, Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 17:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Support Would support this one also with “normal” resolution, of course; perspective, colours and light make this a FP for me. --Aristeas (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2022 at 08:05:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Porta Nigra morgens.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porta Nigra morgens.jpg
1350
1266
18312
10842
20000
13500
crop suggestion --Kreuzschnabel 08:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Info 270 megapixel stitching of UNESCO World Heritage Site Porta Nigra at Trier, Germany. All by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 08:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment Impressive detail of course. Two issues I don’t like too much: 1. Sharpening. Looks slightly oversharpened to me, there is a tiny sharpening edge visible against the sky (at the resolution given, this is top-level complaining of course). The image should not need that much sharpening. 2. The dominating foreground shadow, blocking the viewer from the building somehow. I’d prefer most of that cut off. --Kreuzschnabel 08:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment I don't really like the shadow either. But the location is quite difficult. There are only a few days of the year when the north facade of the building is illuminated by the sun early in the morning. As you can see, the picture was taken on June 19th., one of the longest days of the year. Unfortunately, you have to choose between the shadow and a bad light (too lateral). I didn't cut off the shadow any further because then I would have to cut off the sky as well and I don't think that would look so good. I think the building needs its space! ;-) -- Wolf im Wald 08:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
We’re entering into matters of taste here. Yes, it needs space, and with the shadow part, I get an impression of space being taken from the frame instead of granting more of it. The building is somewhat crammed between two large unicoloured areas – foreground and sky. A crop as suggested might even free it. --Kreuzschnabel 08:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I see what you mean and thank you for the suggestion above. I tried this out in Photoshop and I have to say that I like it better with more shadow. But you're right, it's probably a matter of taste! I just don't like the main subject (almost) hitting the bottom edge of the picture. I'm curious what others think about it. -- Wolf im Wald 08:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
How about brightening the shadow then? and not only the street part, I think the whole pic would benefit from some toned down contrast (just my 2 cts). - Benh (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Because no one has voted here yet, I just uploaded a new version with a little lighter shadow. It was important to me not to falsify the original lighting mood too much, so I only brightened it up slightly. Thanks for your feedback! -- Wolf im Wald 09:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Support Am I the only one who likes the shadow that produces such a contrast with the lighted gate? I'm reminded somewhat of the monumental paintings of De Chirico with long shadows. The shadow helps provide this photo of a Roman monument with a sense of monumentality. This is also a huge and impressively sharp photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Support Huge resolution, interesting architecture, and the light on the building is pleasant. Still agree that de shadow on the ground is unsuccessful, but overall the illuminated parts are dominant -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Support per Basile Poco a poco (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2020 at 10:32:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurter Altstadt mit Skyline 2019.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurter Altstadt mit Skyline 2019.jpg
Info This picture is stitched out of 105 single images. I took them with a focal length of 135mm on my Canon EOS 5DS R. Created, uploaded and nominated by me -- Wolf im Wald 10:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Support Beautiful colors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Support Technically outstanding. For a look at the entire new build old town, the perspective should have been directed a bit further down. --Milseburg (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
There was a building site 'further down', not old town, so I assume there are new buildings there now. ̴̴Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Support Very high technical quality. --Peulle (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Support Good light and exceptional resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose As a skyscraper fan, I wish we had more architecture FPs on Commons, but unfortunately I don't consider this to be an extraordinary skyline shot, even though it may be technically excellent. Perhaps I'm jaded after having seen so many Frankfurt photos; in any case, I'll be happy if this does get promoted. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Support Perfect! --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2020 at 20:41:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Please notice that the image cannot be displayed regularly in the browser due to the high resolution of 612 megapixels. However, the image can be downloaded or viewed in the ZoomViewer. There is also a reduced version with only 100 megapixels, which can be viewed in the browser as usual. Created, uploaded and nominated by me -- Wolf im Wald 20:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Support I don't know about the technology, but the result seems pretty incredible. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Info Thank you! It's a stitched image out of 187 single images. I took them with a focal length of 600mm (prime lens) on my Canon EOS 5DS (full frame). The stitched image has a full resolution of 1448 megapixels, but I had to scale it down for computer performance reasons and because of the 30.000 x 30.000 pixels limitation of the JPEG format. Because of the extreme conditions (heated air flow) not every single image is perfectly sharp, so that I besides improved the overall sharpness with this downscaling. -- Wolf im Wald 01:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Support Amazing! --Sonya7iv (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong support Utterly incredible. Cmao20 (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Support Unbelievable quality. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Support per others. Stupefying! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2017 at 12:45:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Berliner Dom von Humboldt-Box.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Berliner Dom von Humboldt-Box.jpg
Info This image is stitched out of 77 single images. The nominated result has a final resolution of 301 megapixels. All by me. -- Wolf im Wald 12:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Support impressive! --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Support - Maybe my connection isn't fast enough for the largest size to work for me (it won't completely download in the ZoomViewer), but I've seen enough to see that this is amazing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Support Pardon my French but this is f**ing AWESOME. :) Truly worthy of the designation "one of the finest images on Commons". #masterpiece. --Peulle (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2017 at 12:33:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Trevi-Brunnen abends.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trevi-Brunnen abends.jpg
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Support I'll support anyway - but see note. I know, all the masses of tourists there are a real pain in the a that can't be helped... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Question - Are we sure they can't be helped? Is the piazza closed or the fountain off at the blue hour before dawn? Even if the fountain is off, the photo would be better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I also tried a photo in the blue hour before dawn, but then the fountain was not illuminated. Besides I think the tourists belong to this location. -- Wolf im Wald 14:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I understand. Lack of illumination is a big deal. I often find the presence of tourists just fine, but in this case, I'm feeling distracted by them. I'll live with the photo longer and see how I feel later. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Crop it, I say. --Peulle (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment If you have Photoshop, it would be better to crop a bit lower and remove the heads with the Content-Aware Fill tool. That way more water can be preserved; I think that would be better than just cropping. --cart-Talk 19:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
To clarify: I was only suggesting an alternative method to get more water if it was cropped. It was not an argument for or against the tourists. --cart-Talk 10:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Support I think this realistic presentation is excellent. The tourists belong to Rome and especially to this fountain. To get a "clean" picture you would have to remove the scaffolding and the electrical wiring in the upper left corner. And what happens to the people on the right and left?--Ermell (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Neutral I am in agreement with both cart and Ermell. On the one hand the people's heads are a distraction. On the other when can you shoot this picture without anyone there? And who would deny that tourists are part of the Trevi experience? I like that we can see a couple taking a selfie. But then they are distorted, as well. I guess I would have to see one with the people edited out per cart's suggestion to know whether I would like it better. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Support Beautiful. Please don't try to erase the tourists, it's a great addition to the fountain. We don't always need "clean" pictures. This one is really great with the tourists. --Selbymay (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
well done, I've also tried that (privately) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry for Mile --LivioAndronico(talk) 08:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Neutral The software processing is too far, I would like hardware effect. --Laitche (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Support This picture perfectly depicts a daily scene seen in Roma; the presence of people in the low part of the composition adds some "soul" to the whole composition. Well done.Paolobon140 (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I'm landing on this side of the fence. The problems are just a bit too much for me to ignore.--Peulle (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Blurry and deformed tourists. Removable by cloning out ! Wires too.--Jebulon (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Support Personally I think it still passes the bar -- Thennicke (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - Diliff's photo is far superior, in my opinion, simply because of the lack of tourists in front of the fountain. The tourists in front of the fountain are really distracting to me. However, I like the lighting a lot. If you decided to crop out the entire front as far as necessary to eliminate our view of the tourists on that side, I would support. As it is, I think you can take a photograph of "Tourists in front of the Trevi Fountain" or of the fountain itself, but a photograph of both is not special to me, even if it does reflect what the atmosphere around the fountain is actually like. (One reason I've been there only once that I can remember.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSkytalk 19:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2017 at 13:13:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Balanced Rock sunset.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Balanced Rock sunset.jpg
Support Wow. I'm very impressed. Light, subject, quality, composition, detail - this is certainly one of the best pictures I've ever seen here on FPC. Which lens did you use? --Code (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment! I am very happy to hear this from one of my favorite photographers here! Info I used the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM and I love this lens. :-) Grüße nach Berlin, -- Wolf im Wald 14:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Support per Code! There's a couple of strange reflections (?) in the bottom tenth of the image. I've added a note - but there are more. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Info Behind the bushes there is the main road of the Arches National Park. So it could be cars, traffic signs or people. Grüße ins Rheinland ;-) -- Wolf im Wald 14:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Stunning... but... I would photoshop out all man made materials along the bottom of the image. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree. This is man invading nature with metal signs and whatnot. Removing it wouldn't ruin the "authenticity" of the image. DaphneLantier 05:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Support per others. --cart-Talk 08:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Support - Awesome, in the original sense of the word. And I wouldn't suggest cloning out the signs, though if you'd like to crop out a bit of the bottom of the picture frame, I'd be OK with that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Great details, light and composition, very good! Christian Ferrer(talk) 08:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2017 at 12:53:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Great Blue Heron Yellowstone.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Great Blue Heron Yellowstone.jpg
Comment The light is very good, and I like the fact that the resolution is hight. But tell me: have you considered doing a bit of noise reduction?--Peulle (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
@Peulle: I did a very slight noise reduction in the RAW-processing. I tried not to lose any details of the heron, so a bit of noise is OK for me. -- Wolf im Wald 01:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Neutral Beautiful picture of the bird, but the background is disturbing me.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Neutral There are three things, which are disturbing me in full resolution: 1.) the noise, 2.) overexposed areas in the grass but also even in the heron itself, and 3.) the left part of the picture is completely unsharp whereras the right part (in about the same distance) is not. --Llez (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per Famberhorst and Llez. Also, perhaps I'm biased because I see these birds almost every day (this time of year) in the shallows of the river while I'm walking across the bridges near my house, but this really doesn't seem like an extraordinary picture of them. Yes, I know they're in their natural habitat, but I'd like to see a little more of them and not so much of the environment. As it is, it's a QI possibly (certainly in composition) but not an FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per others, --Cvmontuy (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2017 at 00:46:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pronghorn Yellowstone.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pronghorn Yellowstone.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2017 at 00:04:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Turret Arch through North Window.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Turret Arch through North Window.jpg
Oppose Opposing both versions: The faces of the two people on the left seem to have been purposely blurred.--Peulle (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Info I have no permission to publish their faces. Besides I do not know their identities, so unfortunately I can not ask for permission now. Therefore I have blurred their faces for legal reasons. -- Wolf im Wald 11:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The faces of the two people on the left seem to have been purposely blurred. That kind of editing is a hard line for me.--Peulle (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Info I have no permission to publish their faces. Besides I do not know their identities, so unfortunately I can not ask for permission now. Therefore I have blurred their faces for legal reasons. -- Wolf im Wald 11:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Wolf im Wald, there are no "legal reasons" to blur their faces. The law in the US permits photos of identifiable people to be taken and published and we have many thousands of such images on Commons. Nor is their, imo, any moral reason to do so as your image does not harm anyone's reputation. Consider my own photo of a railway station which contains hundreds of identifiable people. I do not wish to support this image while the people are blurred: they are in the photo and should be displayed properly and their presence gives scale to the subject. There's even a series in The Guardian newspaper called "That's me in the picture" where subjects celebrate their appearance in some famous photo, and often they were not aware the photo was taken, never mind were asked permission. A national park has people in it. Let's be happy about that rather than blur it out. -- Colin (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I do not know their nationality. In Germany, we have a different legal situation. Indeed German law allows you to publish images with recognizable people on it but only if there are at least 5 or 10 people on the image. If there are less than 5 people on the image it can quickly become a problem for the photographer. Maybe the people are Germans and I uploaded the image from Germany. I think in this case they could take me to court (in Germany). If I would be an US-citizen and the people on the image too, I would agree with your opinion. But this is a very popular location for tourists from all over the world and the legal situation of my country does not allow this, as far as I know. Do you understand my situation? Regards, -- Wolf im Wald 11:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm of the same opinion of Colin; this was a public place and people must be aware that images are taken in such places. As long as the people are not the subject (just caught on camera by coincidence), the photographer cannot be blamed. Cropping them out would be acceptable, but censoring images crosses the line IMO.--Peulle (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Wolf im Wald, why on Earth would they take you to court? No reasonable person could have an expectation of privacy in these wide-open spaces, and they are not depicted doing anything unusual or sexual. Are you afraid they'd want payment? Next time, maybe you should ask the people for permission. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
'LivioAndronico, did you ask Wolf im Wald permission to clone out the people? If not, then that's really disrespectful to alter his photo and especially to alter it while it is an FPC. To be honest, I'd prefer to see the people but without the blur, unless those people are friends of the photographer and have asked to be made unidentifiable. The US has no issues with photographing people in public places, and in fact there's a good chance they'll be happy to see their photos on Wiki in this case. It gives a sense of scale. Such a significant change requires pinging all previous voters, not just those who objected to the blurred faces (which I do also). I think you should consider reverting and asking first. -- Colin (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Of course Colin I warned him, anyway I do not think that's your problem. And why ask if you believe, wrongly, to be right? Besides, the photo is here and visible to everyone. --LivioAndronico(talk) 22:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
To me the people were an important part of the composition and I'm considering changing my vote to oppose now. But first I'd like to hear if Wolf im Wald agrees with the editing done by LivioAndronico2013. The blurred faces were no big deal and I find it quite respectful to blur them regardless what the legal situation in the U.S. or elsewhere is. --Code (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought the people were quite recognizable despite a bit of blurring. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted the change per Commons:Overwriting existing files. This official guideline requires you to ask first, not just tell them afterwards you've made significant alterations to their photo while it was their nomination at FPC. If Wolf im Wald is happy with the edit he can restore it, though I caution that really he then needs to ping everyone who has voted here. Livio, you know full well that photographers here can generally do a better job making edits to their raw files than anyone else can with the JPG. This is Wolf im Wald's photo and you should respect that. -- Colin (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I prefer the version with the people because they are a good scale for the size of the arch and they improve the composition in my opinion. I blurred them moderately not to hurt the picture. I think they are not clearly recognizable but they are blurred so moderately that you only can realize that in full view if you look out for their faces. Therefore I think the current version is a good compromise between these aspects. -- Wolf im Wald 11:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Support This is better framing. As for the faces, having been involved in a similar dispute here over the appearance of identifiable people I photographed in a public place in the UK without their consent ... I defer to Wolf here. Had I been the one taking the picture, I wouldn't have blurred the faces out; indeed they are well smaller than a thumbprint (the standard we always used in journalism for when you have to identify someone, or crop them out). But ... there's no requirement under American law that you do this, which means equally that there's no requirement that you leave them unblurred. All we need to do is categorize it appropriately. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Support The version with faces! It is a great view and those people give it scale plus a little human touch. -- Colin (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Support FP for me now. I do not know the legal situation in America. In Germany the people would be ok as an secondary accessory I think. --Milseburg (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Per Colin.--Jebulon (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 18:57:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Half Dome from near Glacier Point.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Half Dome from near Glacier Point.jpg
Comment Spectacular like the other one but is there a need for 2 almost identical FPs? -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment I don't see them as almost identical. There are significant composition differences IMHO. Even if there weren't, I'd still support. PumpkinSkytalk 19:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Info Hello Kenny, this image was taken in 2016, the other one in 2015 during another trip. Moreover the images were taken from two different locations (see geodata) and I think they show different aspects (flora in the foreground vs. view into the valley). Regards, -- Wolf im Wald 20:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment Not much below the exact same discussion was going on about two bird pictures and what constitutes "different enough". -- KennyOMG (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment I've read the discussion, but between these bird images was a time difference of only a few minutes and the subject was the same (excluding the birds head pose). The Yosemite images show different perspectives and they have a time difference of about 11 months. Therefore the sky is very different becaus they were not taken at the same day. Besides the camera locations are about 500 meters apart (see geodata). So I don't think, that the situation is comparable with the bird. Regards -- Wolf im Wald 23:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Support People have spoketh. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Support - When I was comparing the two pictures, I felt the other one had a better composition, but this is such a big, sharp (with the exception of the near right corner) photo, with so many wonderful details that it deserves the star, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Support Quite a different viewpoint and composition with the foreground trees. Great resolution. -- Colin (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Support but probably I would play a bit with exposure and WB - maybe this is not optimal yet. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Support Anyhow per Uoaei1. --Hockei (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Strong support Feels like I could walk right into it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Support I'll bite on both these versions since they are so well done. Can't help but thinking that the Half Dome looks like a hooded version of the Grim Reaper looking out over his realm. --cart-Talk 10:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2017 at 21:05:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Half Dome with Eastern Yosemite Valley.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Half Dome with Eastern Yosemite Valley.jpg
Support Impressive in detail. No problems with the close range. Since it is obviously a stitched work you should use the corresponding template. --Milseburg (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Info Template added. Thanks for your advice! :-) -- Wolf im Wald 19:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Support Great detail. -- Colin (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 14:57:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support -- 20:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs) 01:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Support I'm at a loss as to how you get such impressive pixel-level sharpness... Anyway, great image, as usual. Textbook composition -- Thennicke (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Update: I'm no longer at a loss - I've been using too high a sharpening radius :D -- Thennicke (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Support I'm fine with the bottom; stop down any further and using a 50mm prime on a 5DS R would have been pointless. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per Milseburg. The unsharp foreground surely adds nothing to the picture; it only subtracts from it, and is in my opinion disqualifying. If you crop it out, I will support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I think the foreground does add to the image, even if it is unsharp (since the foreground is not the subject that should be irrelevant anyway. Also, per Peulle below, it's impossible without focus stacking). The reason the inclusion of the foreground is important IMO that it allows the curve of the river and rocks to be uninterrupted. One of the hardest things to do is avoiding those kinds of "cuts" in an image and I suspect that's what Thomas was going for here -- Thennicke (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Thennicke! That was exactly my intention. :-) Regards -- Wolf im Wald 14:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Support I see the point made by Milseburg and Ikan Kekek, but since the foreground curves upwards to the right, cropping it out would mean cutting off the river: no fix possible without focus stacking. Main subject is clear and sharp, the level of detail is amazing for such a large photo, you can even see birds in the sky clearly outlined and power line towers in the distance. Slight noise but hardly noteworthy given the high resolution.--Peulle (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Support Per Peulle. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2016 at 23:07:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Engelsburg und Engelsbrücke abends.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Engelsburg und Engelsbrücke abends.jpg
Support - This photo is literally splendid, with the light streaming across the bridge toward the viewer's eyes. It's not perfect: the ghosts bother me at full size, and there's some blurring to the right of the bridge. But overall, it's a great photo and very deserving of a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Support - It is amazing that you can get such sharpness in your images at full resolution. Brilliant pic. Nikhil (talk)
Support great! Been there, tried that, failed (unfortunate lighting). It's pretty much impossible to avoid ghosts in this extremely popular location --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Support Per Ikan Kekek and Martin Falbisoner. Excellent and very impressive sharpness. A (very) slight crop at right could provide a better impression of perfect symmetry.--Jebulon (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Support --C messier (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2016 at 22:08:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Archäologisches Nationalmuseum Athen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Archäologisches Nationalmuseum Athen.jpg
I don't think so. Please look at the ground, the stairs and the shadow areas. Sky and red facade are OK in my opinion. Regards, -- Wolf im Wald 04:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that might just be a consequence of the short exposure and the sun being almost behind the camera. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2016 at 22:01:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Griechische Nationalbibliothek.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Griechische Nationalbibliothek.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2016 at 18:14:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Akropolis mit Umgebung.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Akropolis mit Umgebung.jpg
Support -- Wolf im Wald 18:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Support What a Athens! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Support IMO, you've got it ! (one category added). Very detailed, clear and pinsharp. --Jebulon (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Support - To my eyes, this photo isn't perfect, as there are a few trees that are too close to be in focus. But it's a great photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Support --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Strong support Isn't it amazing what those Canon sensors can do? Usually that shade of blue in the sky is (to me) a yellow flag that there might have been a little too much processing, but this time it's the real deal. Love the result ... it brings back very old memories of visiting Athens. Shame the Parthenon's all scaffolded up, though. Daniel Case (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Daniel I'm curious why you praise Canon sensors here, unless as a little joke? Adobe probably has more influence in what colours you see than Canon. I assume this is a downsized-stitched panorama. Even a six-year-old entry-level DSLR with plastic $100 prime lens is capable of generating a picture like this (e.g. this photo). It's the photographer who makes the photo; Der Wolf im Wald should get your praise, not Canon. -- Colin (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: I was talking more about the level of detail. Sort of an inside joke between me and my dad, if he happens to be reading this. Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Support Per Daniel. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Support The high detail and the EV of the subject compensate for the unfortunate scaffolding. -- Colin (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2016 at 17:02:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Altstadt Zürich 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Altstadt Zürich 2015.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2015 at 16:27:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Akademie von Athen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Akademie von Athen.jpg
Support -- Wolf im Wald 16:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Support as cool and reduced as the construction itself. The image supports the simplicity. But probably, it was pretty warm there.. ;-) --Hubertl 19:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Support - The one thing I find jarring is that the nearest part of the picture is blurry, but that's evident only at full resolution and I'm willing to overlook it in keeping with the overall excellence of the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose with deep regret Great color. Great detail. But the distortion of the columns goes beyond even what that could make me overlook. Daniel Case (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Extreme perspective! ;-) The distance to the building was only 15 meters... Wolf im Wald 14:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Question Is the metadata correct? Focal lenth=70mm?? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
It's the focal length of the single images. I tranfered the original exif-data to the stitched image manually. -- Wolf im Wald 10:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Question I very much wish to support this, but one detail bothers me: shouldn't the stripes on the Greek flag be white?.. --Óðinn (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Support As Daniel mentioned: the distortion at the columns is relatively extreme but it is only a tiny part and does not bother me. The level of detail is amazing. I would personally apply some selective NR on the sky. --Tuxyso (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Support — Julian H.✈ 10:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Support There is some posterization on edges, but downscale it to 20Mpix and everything is fine for sure --A.Savin 13:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Distortion too extreme on columns/statues due to close position of camera and extreme angle of view. I would probably support the central building as a crop, though the flag is over-dominant. [The image itself is over-sharpened, with the whole sky fizzing -- really I assume this has been downsized so a downsized ISO 100 full-frame image should have zero noise -- that's not an oppose reason but there's some improvement to technique possible). -- Colin (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2015 at 05:02:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Griechisches Parlament.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Griechisches Parlament.jpg
Support -- Wolf im Wald 05:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Support - This picture probably would have been worthy of support if it had just been another well-taken monumental shot of a government building in the middleground distance, but the three long shadows in the foreground make it much more interesting. Pretty sky, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm the shadow on the right... ;-) -- Wolf im Wald 05:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Weak support I can see why that portion of the image is included, but I actually find the shadows distracting. But only after they were noted. Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Those three foreground shadows of people kill it for me. Otherwise it would be a very nice image. INeverCry 23:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@INeverCry, Pofka, Jebulon, and Iifar: In golden hour you can't take an image there without your own shadow on it (if you use a focal length of 16mm). Therefore my shadow on the right is not avoidable. Wether you prefer the version with 3 shadows or another version with only the photographers shadow is matter of taste in my opinion. I prefer the 3 shadows. :-) Regards, -- Wolf im Wald 01:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@Der Wolf im Wald: other possibilities to avoid shadows: bottom crop, panorama shot or golden hour in autumn/spring. Regards, --Ivar (talk) 06:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Shadows mentioned by INeverCry. -- Pofka (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Shadows.--Jebulon (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per others, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose The shadows are too disturbing and isn't the composition a bit boring? --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Shadows and light conditions. -- -donald- (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2015 at 19:24:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:San Cristóbal de La Laguna.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Cristóbal de La Laguna.jpg
Support -- Wolf im Wald 19:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Support -- KTC (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Support - impressive! Óðinn (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Very strong support Definite WOW ... my kind of FP. Daniel Case (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment - I can't view this picture above the thumbnail size, because when I try, I get the message that it has errors. Is there a way you can set up a zoom feature for the thumbnail? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Most browsers have problems with images above 100 Megapixels. Nevertheless there are some opportunities, to view these images in high resolution. Opportunity 1: You can download the file (right click on the 800px preview and "save target/link as"). Opportunity 2: You can click on the resolution links below the 800px preview (but not the full resolution link!) und then p.e. you will reach the URL https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/San_Crist%C3%B3bal_de_La_Laguna.jpg/1280px-San_Crist%C3%B3bal_de_La_Laguna.jpg Now you can replace the parameter "1280px" with a higher value, p.e. "5000px" (maximum is about "7000px", above: server error). Your third opportunity is to use the interactive large-image-viewer linked above the description (red box). I hope I could help... :-) -- Wolf im Wald 15:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. The view at the link was big enough for me to judge the photo better, and I'm happy to Support featuring it, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment The left part is clearly leaning out. --Code (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I think this is perspective distortion because the photo was taken downward. The vertical lines on the right are also leaning out to the other side. Besides the terrain is sloping. Wolf im Wald 15:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2015 at 10:52:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Llano de Ucanca.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Llano de Ucanca.jpg
Support -- Wolf im Wald 10:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Support There's a certain strangeness about deserts in full midday sun; I like it. There might be a touch of oversharpening? Either way, it isn't bad enough to affect my vote. -- Thennicke (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2015 at 04:54:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Auditorio de Tenerife 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Auditorio de Tenerife 2015.jpg
Support Per XRay. --Laitche (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Support Indeed - crazy file. -- Pofka (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I appreciate the effort put into this photo, but it lacks any wow and the lighting is too harsh.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Fotoriety: Did you see it in full resolution? The lighting is harsh because of the canarian sun, it's normal there. Regards, -- Wolf im Wald 00:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Perhaps a different time of day when the sun is lower, or a cloudy day when the sun is obscured, would have helped? Regards.--Fotoriety (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
WeakSupport. Agree with Fotoriety, but for me an image that would otherwise be a QI becomes FP when the resolution is exceptionally high. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Support The "Wow" lies in the amount of detail visible here, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2015 at 06:11:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Roque Cinchado mit Teide.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Roque Cinchado mit Teide.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2015 at 10:02:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Roque Cinchado und Teide.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Roque Cinchado und Teide.jpg
Support -- Wolf im Wald 10:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Support good shot, clear and sharp. As I said at the QI-process. Maybe a bit too dark in the shadows. --Hubertl 15:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Support per Hubertl. --Tremonist (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Impressive size, but I think the light (relatively flat, dark shadows) hurts the separation of different shapes and it's oversharpened in my opinion. — Julian H.✈ 18:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Good composition, but the near-noon lighting leaves much to be desired. The large rock is almost entirely in shadow and the ground looks scorched. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Support I think the light highlights the aridity of the scene. Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, even deserts are better at the golden hour than noon in general. There's a time and place for a noon shot, like File:Amboy (California, USA), Hist. Route 66 -- 2012 -- 1.jpg, but here it just doesn't cut it for me. (I guess noon works well when you're trying to convey a theme of "endless desert," but here the composition is too complex for that.) Anyways, it's ultimately a matter of personal preference. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Support and the seventh. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose QI, but per KoH. --Yann (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per King. --Ivar (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Support think the light is good, later in the day the light would be lower and less shadow on the rock but then would be other parts in shadow, so maybe the photograph made the best which was possible... Dr. Chriss (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2015 at 10:00:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Caldera Las Cañadas mit Roques de García und TF-21.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caldera Las Cañadas mit Roques de García und TF-21.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2015 at 14:04:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Berliner Fernsehturm (Detailansicht).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Berliner Fernsehturm (Detailansicht).jpg
Support -- -donald- (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Support Excellent! Superb resolution, colors, sharpness. No blown out highlights (difficult task on the metal plates). --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Colin (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 03:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Support --Ivar (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing special. Please see the result of this nomination.--Jebulon (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Jebulon that the composition is nothing special, and one could complain about it being just the upper part of the tower. It seems this is a popular subject for our FP crowd, with loads of good quality images! This gaudy image shows potential for a great city composition. The other picture Jebulon linked had the advantage of being taken from a high vantage point, so the angle of view was much better than this one. But the other image is less than 10MP and fairly sharp whereas this one is more than 70MP and extremely sharp. While that doesn't matter much if I print A4 or view the whole thing on a monitor, this picture allows me to explore the structure in a way that is highly educational to see how it is made and what has been stuck onto it. In our digital world, I can appreciate such a picture in more ways than just standing back and observing the whole thing. Here, I can see as much detail as Spiderman. That is why I think it is worth FP. -- Colin (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, this one has better light (bottom of the "sphere" is less dark), the colours look much more natural and the top crop is nicer. — Julian H.✈ 21:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2015 at 13:42:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Teide von Nordosten (Zuschnitt 1).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Teide von Nordosten (Zuschnitt 1).jpg
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. The quality is great, but the light makes it look flat and hazy. — Julian H.✈ 15:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Info It's a distance of 16,5 km to the mountain. Of course it's a bit hazy... ;-) -- Wolf im Wald 16:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely, not your fault. But with light from behind you, the haze is highlighted, whereas light from the side (ideally with a pol. filter) would reduce the effect. It would also show the three-dimensional shape of the terrain. — Julian H.✈ 16:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Nice, but not outstanding. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Support Not only the nice detail, especially given the haze, but I like the way it shows how the terrain of a mountain's lower slopes slowly (or abruptly; see the sharp treeline here) changes as you get closer to the summit. Not something you usually see in mountain pictures; indeed you can't see this at all with a lot of mountains. Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Support per Daniel. --Tremonist (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment What details!! I think it is a bit overprocessed (oversharpening), there is a white contour around the mountain, most visible on the right. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Support --Ralf Roleček 20:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2015 at 22:44:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Berliner Dom vor Sonnenuntergang.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Berliner Dom vor Sonnenuntergang.jpg
Support per Ivar --A.Savin 01:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Support per Iver and I think it's just my imagination but feel of a bit déjà vu, maybe the clone is allowed? in this case... --Laitche (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2015 at 14:39:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hollywood Sign.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hollywood Sign.jpg
Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Support Great! --Laitche (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Support Never seen the sign so clearly in my 14+ years in the LA area. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Support More Hollywood Sign. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Question I'm inclined to support the crop you created. Could you add it as an alternative to this nomination? Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Support Great. I've seen some defect at the antennas :) --Tuxyso (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose very flat image, this amount of not interesting sky overcoming the main object is bad, bad hour to shoot, nothing special here... -- RTA 04:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Nice, iconic, but not extraordinary. A good QI, but nothing more to me, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2015 at 22:18:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas.jpg
Support -- Wolf im Wald 22:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Support Nice colors and the mood of Las Vegas, strong sunlight and cables are ok in this case, imho. --Laitche (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment The person below the sign is very disturbing. Don't you have a version without her? Otherwise very good. --Code (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I thought, she is a good reference for the assessment of the signs dimensions (especially for WP-usage). Wolf im Wald 14:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Qualified support Laitche says what I like about this image. I'd like it even more if we could find some way to reduce the CA on the wires near the edges. Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Support Vegas baby! Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Support how much did you won in the casinos? ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
lost 20 dollars :-( Wolf im Wald 17:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, not the best hour to shoot, there is shadow in the main object, and this is a luminous sight... About composition, not that centred, with a little bit of tilt, this could be better execute, for me, it's just a snapshot... -- RTA 04:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Support I'm not a fan of the strong vignette, but I actually think the hard light works here somehow, what with it being Las Vegas and all. Quality is certainly excellent. — Julian H.✈ 06:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2014 at 13:18:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rathaus Palma de Mallorca abends.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rathaus Palma de Mallorca abends.jpg
Support The ghosts trouble me the most, but the overall composition is great, and all the lines are nice and sharp. --99of9 (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2014 at 18:49:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2014 at 08:35:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Charlottenburg nachts.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Charlottenburg nachts.jpg
Support -- Wolf im Wald 08:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Support --C messier (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Support Wow. Very good. (Sorry, but there are some very small hot pixel (on the left of the tower). The star in the darkness is OK.)--XRaytalk 09:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the information! I removed them. :-) -- Wolf im Wald 09:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2014 at 21:39:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Schönbrunn Wien 2014 (Zuschnitt 1).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Schönbrunn Wien 2014 (Zuschnitt 1).jpg
Oppose The building lot and the car in the park are disqualifying for me, without them I would support immediately. Sorry! --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Support Very high detail level, crisp, good light, colours and excellent exposure control. The construction work and car are a bit unfortunate, but I find it fills such a small fraction of the entire view that I do not see it as a problem, and certainly much less prominent than in other FPs. --Slaunger (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Support per above. Very good! --mathiasK 15:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Support nice. The van is a real pity, but the cranes are just part of the city imo. --Kadellar (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Support Very good, I also like the tiny construction lot. One minor issue: If you take a look on the foreground there is a visible variation of sharpness on the grass areas I guess due to stitching. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2014 at 18:30:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Karlskirche Wien abends.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Karlskirche Wien abends.jpg
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment Very nice, but I think that both sides of the building are too dark, wouldn't it be nicer to have them a bit brightened? --Kadellar (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2014 at 14:21:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gloriette Schönbrunn Wien (Zuschnitt).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gloriette Schönbrunn Wien (Zuschnitt).jpg
Support I prefer this version, because no reflection in the water seems better than the incomplete one. But I would also support the alternative. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment IMO, the nominator has to chose first between alternatives when he nominates. Alternative versions is for improved pictures after comments. --Jebulon (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment I didn't want to influence the voters and I didn't want to conceal the alternative! I prefer the first one because of the incomplete reflections of the alternative. :-) -- Wolf im Wald 22:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Question Mag der Autor sein eigenes Bild nicht? Wieso sollen es wir andere es denn mehr mögen? ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment Ich hasse das Bild :P! Im Ernst: Ich finde das Bild ohne Wasser mittlerweile cooler, weil die Reflexion - wegen der Rasen-Reflexion - so weit unten ist und sie zudem aus technischen Gründen unschön abgeschnitten ist. Daher habe ich ursprünglich nur das Bild ohne Wasser zur Wahl gestellt und schließlich das andere nachträglich ergänzt, weil es sowieso ergänzt worden wäre und ich es den Abstimmenden nicht vorenthalten wollte, damit ein authentisches Abstimmungsergebnis zustande kommt, welches nicht zustande kommen würde, wenn das andere Bild erst nach Tagen ergänzt werden würde und somit einen kürzeren Abstimmungszeitraum hat. -- Wolf im Wald 22:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Supporteither (rather prefer the alternative) - Both fine images . Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Support Extremely detailed. Good light. And I am wowed by symmetrical building like this. --Slaunger (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Support This one is better. Yann (talk) 09:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Support I'll vote this version too. --Kadellar (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Abstain as author. -- Wolf im Wald 14:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Question Mag der Autor sein eigenes Bild nicht? Wieso sollen es wir andere es denn mehr mögen? ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment Siehe oben. -- Wolf im Wald 22:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Support any version. Nikhil (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Support I prefer the alternative. Even with the reflection cropped, it makes a more balanced composition imo. --Kadellar (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment Do not like the partial reflection in the alternative. --Slaunger (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2014 at 14:11:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Französische Botschaft Wien.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Französische Botschaft Wien.jpg
762
1063
732
958
8758
4490
maybe unavoidable, but very eye catching and disturbing...
Comment Please have a look to the annotation. Thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment Unfortunately from the frontal perspective, you can't take a photo without the buliding on the left. -- Wolf im Wald 16:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Due to the weird tilt pointed out by Jebulon. --Slaunger (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
New version
Comment Far much better, very good correction !--Jebulon (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Support Corrected version is so much better I would overwrite as non controversial. Not even sure how you did that. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment Looks underexposed to me. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Neutral Very high detail level, good colors and composition. Wow not quite as high for me as in your nomination above. The pole is a little distracting as well (yet unavoidable). The crop of the sky is also a little tight for me. --Slaunger (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Support I prefer the edit, thanks to Paris 16! Question Can I simply overwrite the original image, so that only this edit is nominated? I think that the edit is clearly better than the original image and nobody will think different. It would be better for the servers only to have one version and to delete the other one. -- Wolf im Wald 05:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment Bitte überprüfe Weißabgleich und Belichtung. Irgendetwas scheint da noch nicht zu stimmen. Ansonsten: schönes Foto :-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Question Hallo Frank, was meinst du genau? Ist vielleicht dein Bildschirm falsch eingestellt? Grüße, -- Wolf im Wald 08:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deutsch: Weißabgleich sieht für mich OK aus, aber mir kommt's unterbelichtet vor (siehe auch Kommentar von Kreuzschnabel oben).
Für mich sieht es unterbelichtet aus. Versuch mal, den Weißregler etwas zu verschieben. Für Lightroom könnte ich dir das Vorgehen genauer beschreiben. Schick mir einfach eine Wikimail, falls Du Lightroom benutzt. Dann schicke ich dir eine Anleitung zurück. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2014 at 04:50:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Otto-Wagner-Pavillon Wien.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Otto-Wagner-Pavillon Wien.jpg
Support - Nice and sharp. But I feel that the shadows cast are slightly harsh on the top. Nikhil (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Really impressive detail level, good, but also a bit harsh light. The fence to the right is really ugly and spoils the symmetry. I admit it is hard to do something about, except trying to change the composition. Speaking of the composition, it only gives a quite low reading on my wow-o-meter. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2014 at 20:49:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Parlament Wien abends.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parlament Wien abends.jpg
Support Nice! Nikhil (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Support although the electric cables of the tram are disturbing, but there is no way to avoid them. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
No, there is no way to avoid them, but a cloning out is possible.--Jebulon (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment I think it's overall a good night shot, but I'm per Uoaei1 on the cable issue. Can't this be cloned out ? I'd also selectively brighten the lower part of the image to make up for the cast shadow; and try to fix what I believe to be barrel distorsion. - Benh (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I've tried to correct this three issues.--Jebulon (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2014 at 07:32:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Altstadt Zürich.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Altstadt Zürich.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 00:26:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Peilturm am Kap Arkona.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Peilturm am Kap Arkona.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2014 at 15:25:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Säulengang Alte Nationalgalerie Berlin.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Säulengang Alte Nationalgalerie Berlin.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2014 at 14:17:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Erdbeerschalen Viktualienmarkt München.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Erdbeerschalen Viktualienmarkt München.jpg
Comment is there something to do about the fly? Tomer T (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
No, she is random there. -- Wolf im Wald 16:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose A Quality Image, probably, but not a FP, IMO. The thema is common and not outstanding, and the technical result is not extra: only a few of fruits are sharp. And yes, the fly is a bit disturbing.--Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Regretful oppose as color pops nicely and composition is striking, but DoF problems more than offset that. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Not convinced by the composition. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Support Quality doesn't matter for this type of motif (although i am a proven DOF fetishist). Nice composition and color. • Richard • [®] • 13:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose not far enough, not close enough, also a large part of the image is totally out of focus --Pava (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2013 at 23:55:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Frauenkirche München abends.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frauenkirche München abends.jpg
But only this image shows the illumination of the building. :-) -- Wolf im Wald(keb) 01:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Info Taking the image, I had to use ISO 400 (although I used a tripod), because the people on the observation deck where in motion all the time and therefore the floor (made of wood) oscillated noticeable. I think, you can't take a sharp image from this perspective without high ISO and short exposure time in the evening or at night. -- Wolf im Wald(keb) 01:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Support An advantage of your photo is that is shows the Frauenkirche without scaffolding and without cranes. Resolution is relateively low, but detail quality very good. Have you slightly downscaled due to noise decrease and sharpness enhancement? --Tuxyso (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
1. This is a cropped version. 2. I reduced the resolution a little, because of the clear noise. I think an upload in higher resolution only fills the servers without any additional benefit of quality. -- Wolf im Wald(keb) 17:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2013 at 11:18:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Landungsbrücken Hamburg.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Landungsbrücken Hamburg.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2013 at 16:17:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment I saw this in QI and thought about nominating it here, very nice photo. Two things worried me: The ground on the bottom right is clipped. I think it would be better if it was only almost clipped. More importantly though, the white ground has reduced the contrast the lens produced in the lower part of the photo, which is why I think the contrast of the lower third (approximately) should be increased so that the black point is correct in these areas (and consistent with the contrast in the center of the image). — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 16:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Support --M49314 (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose shadow truncated very bad, bad cut, screen, bad contrast and the screen and the screen in my infringes any copyright, ugly reflections and ugly brightness of the white parts, you can even see the legs of the photographer on the plate. not Good --Pava (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2013 at 18:51:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Audi Sport quattro concept.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Audi Sport quattro concept.jpg
Support --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 19:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose light reflections bad (especially on the glass), the sensor could be used much better, cut to the right size completely the head of a man, the public and the depth of field did not take account of the public that neither was put completely in plan, nor is it in focus. The subject (this specific car) is not particularly exciting and is not quite original. Do not be distinguished from other. they are beautiful just the reflections in the dark opaque plastic, I think this model (this static reproduction of a car) they did in Turin, (Italy) PS: because there are a lot of votes without comment? It looks more like a "call to arms" that a discussion on the evaluation of the image.--Pava (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2013 at 20:59:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mercedes-Benz IAA 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mercedes-Benz IAA 2013.jpg
Oppose What is the subject of this picture? All is black and red.--Claus (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This image shows the light effects and the rush at exhibiton hall of Mercedes-Benz at IAA 2013 in Frankfurt and thisfeatured image also shows only two colors. ;-) -- Wolf im Wald(de) 19:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Support To me, the subject is the architecture of this hall. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 12:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
And what can you tell us about that architecture based on this photo alone? Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I can see the rough layout of this area of the hall, I see how light and colour is used for a dramatic presentation of the cars, I see how the visitors have access to an area all around the presentation area, going up via the escalator on the right and then back down using slopes (which is very similar to the Mercedes-Benz museum in a way). I also see that the roof is built in the shape of a dome but not lit at all to give the impressin of a very high room, making it almost but not completely invisible. On the right, an LED screen is used to imitate the look of a draped red curtain (thanks to sufficient resolution to see individual pixels). All parts of the building itself are clearly deconstructivist in their architecture. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 07:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, what I see is an abstraction of discordant shapes in red and black into which the Daimler-Benz logo has somehow wandered. It is artistic, perhaps, but not an effective picture for an encyclopedic article. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Interesting colors and lighting, well-captured, but they cannot obscure the fact that this image lacks a clear subject. Daniel Case (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Excessive overexposure of light, dark parts too vague and illegible, photography is badly cut (the subject is indefinite, it seems that the photographer did not know quite what to photograph)--Pava (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose looks like a nightmare in red -- Arcalino (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JKadavoorJee 05:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2013 at 20:51:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Luminale 2012 - OVO innen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Luminale 2012 - OVO innen.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2013 at 15:46:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kölner Dom nachts 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kölner Dom nachts 2013.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2013 at 12:41:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2013 at 20:45:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Neuschwanstein 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Neuschwanstein 2013.jpg
Support Every year we get a new FP of this :-) Who could resist shooting this fairy-tale scene. Very detailed and crisp and well lit from both facing sides. Even the clouds are cooperating with the composition. Hard midday light brings out the brickwork texture. Colin (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Support It's wonderful without a doubt. I just wonder why it has to be sharpened so much... — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 07:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Support The castle is kitsch (I'm Bavarian and thus allowed to say so... ;-) ) - but the picture is awesome! Superb quality. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Neutral It's a good picture of an amazing castle but I do think it's oversharpened. You can see halos around some parts of the castle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P.Lindgren (talk • contribs) 09:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Info I removed the halos. -- Wolf im Wald(de) 10:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Support--P.Lindgren (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral I have to agree about the oversharpening. I would support if redone with less sharpening. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Support It is razor sharp image, but I see very little evidence of oversharping unless under extreme and worthless pixel peeping. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Very good like that --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:55, 01 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment It's a nice & highly valuable image, without doubt. But: Do we really need four (!) nearly identical views of Neuschwanstein as FP? Even though the one from 2005 can (and should, imo) be delisted, the remaining three are a bit too much I think. --A.Savin 22:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment Per A.Savin. No more wow factor...--Jebulon (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd say that is more a comment on our FP collection and processes than on this image. We don't moan when there are lots of similar poor-quality non-FP pictures in our collection. We are happy to congratulate one that is the best (and this is). So it is a bit unfair to be critical in this nom just because some others got to FP in the past. I imagine there is one best viewpoint for this castle, which limits the variation. Should we discourage people from taking and uploading improved pictures of subjects we already have? Of course not! Suppose this nom failed if everyone said "Not this again, boring" -- then we'd have a perverse situation where the best image of this castle wasn't actually featured. -- Colin (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, actually a dilemma. Feature this one but delist all others = a disrespect for the work by Taxi and Ximonic, possibly unnecessary conflicts. Feature this one and keep the others featured = somewhat contradictory to the idea of COM:FP (the "very best of Commons", several almost identical pictures concurrently featured). Not feature this one = nonsense, the picture isn't worse than the others (although the "wow factor" falls with every new nomination of this motif, that's for sure). --A.Savin 11:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Well you and Jebulon can go "Wow, not this again!" :-). Having too many similar FPs is "a nice problem to have", is fairly uncommon, and not worth the pain it causes whenever the subject of delisting is raised. Let's just be happy we have an abundance of excellent photos and worry about something else. Colin (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that this picture is the best or second best of them all, so I don't regard this as a reason to oppose. I also think that the photo from 2005 doesn't meet today's standards for FP any more with many blown areas and questionable wb/sharpening. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 12:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Please notice that I did not oppose, and I even didn't vote...--Jebulon (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but the comment is, imo, a little hurtful. And if everyone didn't vote because of "same again" then it wouldn't be featured... Colin (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I did not want to hurt anybody, sorry for that. And yes, I did not support because of "same again", so I've no problem if this picture is not promoted. But it will be promoted ! Good image, anyway...--Jebulon (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Yes, very good!! Although I`d like to see the unsampled 11500 px version. ;-) --mathiasK 15:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a cropped version. The other version will be uploaded soon! :-) -- Wolf im Wald(de) 15:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Congratulations! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Very nice. • Richard • [®] • 08:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2013 at 22:03:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zeche Zollverein abends.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zeche Zollverein abends.jpg
Support Wow, really great shot. I like the atmosphere and the lighting. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC) P.S. Ich war vor Jahren mal da und bin beeindruckt von der Bildqualität.
Pile-onSupport Can't argue with anything about this. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Support — Stas1995 (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2013 at 17:43:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Basteibrücke morgens.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basteibrücke morgens.jpg
Support -- It's beautiful! --Martino Ghisleni (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Support Very nice. But I personally prefer this crop. With the photo here the area around the trees at the right is a bit too large (and unsharp due to focus on the bridge) and the area at the bottom left is quite dark. Nonetheless the nomination is an FP imho. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Support -- Agree with Tuxyso that it would be improved by cropping the tree down/out of the right side, but don't feel strongly enough about it to not support. Almonroth (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2013 at 00:05:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bonner Münster.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bonner Münster.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2013 at 22:41:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Reichstag Fernsehturm.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reichstag Fernsehturm.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2013 at 22:35:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Altes Rathaus Bonn.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Altes Rathaus Bonn.jpg
Oppose As already written on German EB: The smooth look of the fassade and on the stones in front of the building is not convincing. There are still stitching errors (see notes). As far as I remember you promised on EB to correct them :) --Tuxyso (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JoydeepTalk 17:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2013 at 23:32:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Festival of Lights 2012 - Französischer Dom.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Festival of Lights 2012 - Französischer Dom.jpg
Support maybe the light is Kitsch (some would say the building is Kitsch) but the photograph is good. --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Support Top technical quality IMO. Kitsch ? Probably. But also unique, and therefore featurable.--Jebulon (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Support Wonderful combination of colors. Carpodacus (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Not eligible to vote, less than 50 edits --A.Savin 15:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2013 at 23:23:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Feldherrnhalle München.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Feldherrnhalle München.jpg
Support It's kind of an art to show us these places (my city) without humans. Great and somehow spooky. • Richard • [®] • 10:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2013 at 09:47:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Deutsche Bank Taunusanlage.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Deutsche Bank Taunusanlage.jpg
Oppose -- Shoshie8 (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Not eligible to vote --A.Savin 22:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The clouds on the building on the right are distracting people from looking all the way up. Flickrworker (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
That came close to being the redeeming factor in my view... '"De gustibus non disputandum est, as the Romans said. Kleuske (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Support very nice one! Good sharpness/resolution and a nice compostion with these two skyscrapers caming out of the forest. ;-) --mathiasK 09:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Support Nice! -- Arcalino (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Support I'm not bothered by the clouds ... they actually improve the image, IMO, by making it look more natural and less like something that might have been done in Photoshop. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Weak Support could be sharper but otherwise good. --Pine✉ 19:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2013 at 02:50:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brandenburger Tor morgens.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brandenburger Tor morgens.jpg
Support This photo is astonishing at the fact that there are no people at the "Brandenburger Tor" (despite a small cyclist behind the gate). Remember that this gate is one of the most visited sights in Germany. The light in the early morning is ideal, because the rising sun illuminates the characteristic front of the gate perfectly and only at this day time. A well done photograph of a seldom view of this gate. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Support -- I see you took the picture at 05.27, which means you had to get up pretty early, well worth the effort! MartinD (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2013 at 22:21:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stadtbild München.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stadtbild München.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2013 at 22:16:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Siegestor München abends.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Siegestor München abends.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2013 at 15:56:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Beethoven-Haus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beethoven-Haus.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2013 at 21:24:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sankt-Michaelis-Kirche Hamburg.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sankt-Michaelis-Kirche Hamburg.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2013 at 21:21:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Elbphilharmonie Hamburg.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Elbphilharmonie Hamburg.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2013 at 13:52:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hanseatic Trade Center Hamburg.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hanseatic Trade Center Hamburg.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2013 at 13:52:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Alsterblick Hamburg.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alsterblick Hamburg.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2013 at 02:10:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Porta Nigra abends.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porta Nigra abends.jpg
Support --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 12:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Nice light, motif and colors, but I think the use of a small focal length followed by software perspective correction resulted in an unnatural object shape. Cf. top of the two towers. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Especially the right tower doesn't meet reality. Perhaps the coulors may be correct but they are not appealing. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
What is reality? The form of the towers depends on your standpoint. Photographed with tele from far away the tower is compressed, photographed from the position here with wide angle lines look longer (exactly the way as you would stand at this position). --Tuxyso (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
weak support: I like the photo (exposure, mood and very good sharpness with regard to the long exposure time). Two aspects are slightly disturbing: The fence and (more important) the scaffolding especially at the right gate. IMHO it still deserves FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per others. --Dey.sandip (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Weak support Per Tuxyso. Michael Barera (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Norbert --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Support ( Pro) (Stimme zur Unterstüzung des Exzellenz-Status') — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcalino (talk • contribs)
Unsufficient edits to vote. Yann (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose as per Norbert Nagel. Yann (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevskytalk 10:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
2012 (12x featured, 7x not featured, 1x delisted)[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2012 at 22:07:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Very nice ! shame of the three persons on the stairs in front, one of them is moving ("ghost"), do you think you could clone them out ?--Jebulon (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2012 at 17:09:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Heilig-Geist-Spital abends.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Heilig-Geist-Spital abends.jpg
SupportTomer T (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Support Visible details in the inner room of the central building are very good and nice overall mood and reflections on the water. Is it an HDR? If so, you could use the Template:Panorama and briefly describe your processing. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
It is no HDR. I simply took the bright parts manually from another shot with shorter expusure-time. Therefor I used the Photoshop-layers. -- Wolf im Wald(de) 02:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
But this kind of manipulation is also a kind of HDR/DRI --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Support Дом престарелых. --Alexandronikos (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Support --ArildV (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Support Sehr gut. -- MJJR (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Support By the way - my aunt lived in the room just in the little tower in the middle. --Schnobby (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Already on german Wikipedia a user told me, that his father worked for 20 years behind the most right window on the image. It's a small world! ;-) -- Wolf im Wald(de) 16:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2012 at 17:20:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Festival of Lights 2012 - Berliner Dom - 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Festival of Lights 2012 - Berliner Dom - 2.jpg
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment - fine ... but tilted to the left aprox 1 degree --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, the perspective was not 100% central (the fountain is exactly central in front of the cathedral), because there where many people and there was no space. Besides the central perspective would be seen from a footpath and my position was about 1m higher, so that I could better photograph above the annoying people. So I think the image is OK, because a correction would be a falsification. -- Wolf im Wald(de) 18:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the angle from the side means the building won't be square-on and shouldn't be "corrected" to be so, but I think Villy Fink Isaksen was referring to an overall rotation of the image 1 degree anticlockwise. For example the communication tower in the distance is angled and becomes truly vertical if I rotate clockwise by 1 degree. -- Colin (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, I will correct this. -- Wolf im Wald(de) 15:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Info The corrected version is now online. -- Wolf im Wald(de) 19:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment -- Cons: no doubt the lighted building is beautiful & feature-worthy, but the photo in its entirety negates it being featured status. The tower in the background ruins the composition, as does the people and fountain in the foreground and the rather unsharp right tower. But i can understand that the unsharp right tower and people was due to a lower shutter speed to capture the light. Again, nice but not quite worthy.Fotoriety (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately the tower and the fountain are there and it is impossible to take a photo without them. The problem with the shutter is, that the projection an the cathedral facade changed very fast (maybe every 15 seconds). So it is also impossible to expose for example 30 seconds or more. Another problem was, that most people stood there motionless, what means, that I had to expose a few minutes. -- Wolf im Wald(de) 15:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
SupportTomer T (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Support Big wow. Could you please correct the tilt noticed by Colin and Villy Fink Isaksen ? You could also clone out the man in front of the fountain, and some other disturbing details ( lighting screens of pocket cameras, etc...). But it is a FP to me anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose perspective distortions, posterization, copyright problem, overall too dark (I prefer a brighter illumination, IMHO not the best of the series (but I'm not sure which is the best)). --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 14:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2012 at 17:17:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Maintower Frankfurt.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Maintower Frankfurt.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2012 at 14:41:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support -- Nice! Das "menschenleere" ist wohl grösste Wow. Kleuske (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Support Sometimes the simplest is the best. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 17:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Support 2258hrs ftw. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Support Great picture of an unusual location. Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Support And what's even more remarkable to me is that this isn't even a monochrome sepia or whatever. Seems to be the actual colors. - Benh (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Support Wow! Yann (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
SupportTomer T (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2012 at 14:56:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2012 at 01:45:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Königsstuhl und Viktoria-Sicht.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Königsstuhl und Viktoria-Sicht.jpg
Comment White balance is a bit off (too blue). Could you fix that? -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It was really so blue there. I only see much blue in the shadow areas, but there it's OK. Have a look at the rocks, there is not to much blue. I think their color appears very natural. -- Wolf im Wald(de) 22:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
August 2012 (UTC)
Support I like it, very nice composition --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2012 at 14:22:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Seebrücke Sellin abends.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Seebrücke Sellin abends.jpg
Support Composition is better in this version. --Jovian Eyestorm 00:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I also tried a crop like this one, but I think the sky is not so fine as in the non-cropped version. Therefore I uploaded and nominated the version with more sky. -- Wolf im Wald(de) 01:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Support First choice. It's a bit of a pity that the sky is cut off, but overall I think this draws the viewer in more. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Support Very (very) nice light. On a personal taste side, I'd have love camera to be more on the middle of the way. - Benh (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Support outstanding light conditions, very nice object, better crop than the first --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Support Excellent work! (I also like the other version very much) -- MJJR (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2012 at 18:56:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fruchtkasten und Schillerdenkmal.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fruchtkasten und Schillerdenkmal.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2012 at 19:03:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brandenburger Tor nachts 2012-07.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brandenburger Tor nachts 2012-07.jpg
Support per Donald and Michael; but then a delist is required for the previous one. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Support Nice improvement. Any chance to move the Berlin Victory Column to the center of your composition next time you go there? Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2012 at 04:53:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2012 at 04:53:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Luminale 2012 - OVO mit Baum.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Luminale 2012 - OVO mit Baum.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2012 at 21:59:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2012 at 01:46:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Alte Nationalgalerie abends.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alte Nationalgalerie abends.jpg
Oppose deeply dark branches of the tree(s) are disturbing the major object --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I like the colours, and the tree branches don't bother me and actually frame the building. However, the leading lines of the road head off to the right and a gate rather than the subject. The building and main statue are facing the left but are also on the left-hand-side, so faces out of the picture. The composition doesn't work for me. Colin (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2012 at 19:52:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I reckon this is must have been a pretty difficult shot (not easy to get the right focus, nor the right parameters). It looks pretty well done. I also think we don't have many FPs of this kind in our galleries. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Support very impressive! --Chmee2 (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Support At first I thought this was some sort of CGI. Has some very slight CA at the bases of the strings, but with all the rest that goes right with this picture, who cares? Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2012 at 14:43:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brandenburger Tor nachts.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brandenburger Tor nachts.jpg
Weak support OK the panorama is ok for geometry and classic composition. But there is a light on the right, and also a big one at the basis of the central structure... Definition could be improve on the details.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2012 at 14:40:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Berlin Museumsinsel Fernsehturm.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Berlin Museumsinsel Fernsehturm.jpg
weak oppose Your composition is great. But the lights shadow aspect is not ok in many part of the images. The darky area of the wall on the bottom right is really a flaw to me. You had the sun on the right, and maybe taking the same picture while having it more on your back (if possible) would improve the picture. You can try it digitally though.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Why please ? Could you elaborate ?--Jebulon (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
don't like the composition. i think that the building's front should to catch more place in the picture. Zivya (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose too harsh light with shadows, an underexposed wall on the right and an overexposed/blown tower in the background. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 13:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Support For me, the light is fine. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevskytalk 06:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2012 at 13:56:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Speicherstadt abends.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Speicherstadt abends.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2012 at 03:01:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurter Altstadt mit Skyline 2012-04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurter Altstadt mit Skyline 2012-04.jpg
Support - Very nice contrast between historical and modern architecture, I think. -- Wolf im Wald 03:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Support Imo excellent. Very very sharp, lines are straight, nice light, good framing, I saw no major flaws. Featurable. --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Support One would wish for a more vibrant sky, but in its absence the stated contrast between the old and new cities comes through that much more. I like that you can see quite a bit in those streets. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 21:43:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Römerberg Frankfurt abends.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Römerberg Frankfurt abends.jpg
Oppose ein sehr, sehr ordentliches Bild. Schärfe ist gut, kein nennenswertes Rauschen. Licht, na ja, blaue Stunde natürlich perfekt abgepasst. Aber dennoch vielleicht etwas spät, einige überbelichtete/aufgefressene Stellen und vor allem an den Dächern unterbelichtete Bereiche sind vorhanden. Der Himmel hat natürlich auch was, mit seiner deutlichen Bewegungsunschärfe, dennoch ist es ein bisschen viel obenherum, da würde ich persönlich etwas abschneiden. Ganz gerade stehen die Gebäude auch nicht, da sind noch minimale stürzende Linien vorhanden. Größtenteils beruht mein Contra jedoch auf den Geistern. Ja, ich weiß, du kannst da nur unwesentlich etwas dafür und an für sich stören mich diese Ghosts fast nie; in diesem Bild sind sie ziemlich extrem und auch ziemlich störend sowie verwirrend, sorry. Aber ich bin mir sicher, dass dieses Bild hier auch trotz meines Contras exzellent wird... --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 14:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
CommentWas ist above geschrieben is very interessant, because it is a very careful review. Aber ich bin nicht sicher that everybody is able to verstehen. Vielleicht something in english could help other reviewers, Vielen Dank in advance... !--Jebulon (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Wie kaʁstn. Especially the too prominent ghosts disturb the image. W.S. 19:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Support The review by kaʁstn is exemplary: detailed, balanced and correct - but perhaps a little bit too severe though. For me, only the two persons in front of the fountain are really disturbing: they are spoiling the image. Nevertheless, for the general quality I'd like to support this FP candidate. -- MJJR (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Je trouve ce ciel de très mauvais goût. -- Jamain (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Lacking sharpness and overexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Overexposed. Steven Walling 23:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Very difficult for a photographer. But the result was an unnatural side. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Support I like the sky and mood. Most of the time, ghosts will be an issue on busy places like this - Benh (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Support per Benh! --mathiasK 18:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2011 at 23:25:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Skyline Frankfurt 2011-01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Skyline Frankfurt 2011-01.jpg
Oppose Overexposure and lack of sharpness on the buildings, especially on the top of the building with the triangle logo and also on the top of the building with the S shaped logo next to it. I would expect similar amount of quality on the buildings as there is on the sidewalk paraell to the river and the bridge. And those lines in the sky, I doubt that they are natural.--Snaevar (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Info I changed nothing in sky or somewhere else. Its all natural. I have not actually modified colours or saturation. ;-) -- Wolf im Wald 17:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Support Beautiful! --Murdockcrc (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, per Snaevar--shizhao (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Sorry but I also find the buildings, which are the main subject here, somehow not so vivid and dynamic as they should be.--MrPanyGoff 09:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I love the reflections, but I agree that too many of the buildings are washed out, unsharp or partly overexposed. The contrails also detract from the image IMO (if that's what the diagonal lines in the sky are), but the buildings are my main concern. --Avenue (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Support --Janusz J. (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Edit by anonymous user -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Support I do not understand the arguments that have been raised against it. -- H005 23:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Tilted, overexposure, lack of sharpness. --Mylius (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Support --Avala (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2010 at 01:39:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose -- A quality image, maybe (it looks overexposed and washed out). But not special enough for being featured (please check Diliff's panos). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment a lot of the Diliff's panos photos seems oversaturated imo. I understand that you like them.. but I find it is not polite/fruitful to make comparison of a user work with another user. Ggia (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment -- I respectfully disagree, as Diliff pictures are an example of excellence. Please remember that in FPC we aim to choose the best Commons has to offer -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment for your personal point of view all Diliff's panos photos are example of excellence. You can believe this.. Is this a general view of all the community (Diliff's panos photos are example of execelence)? The point for me is that is non-polite to compare other images with the nominations of the users.. Ggia (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Diliff's panos shown in his userpage have been promoted to WP:FP and so, they are examples of excellence for the community (not just for me). Also, this is a forum where candidates for FP are evaluated, not an exibition or a social event. In this perspective, I find perfectly adequate to compare the candidates with other images, particularly better ones. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment many users show their showcase with featured pictures.. general you can say that all the featured pictures are example of excellence.. IMO when you make comments to other user image.. you have to focus to comments concerning the aesthetics, technical details (advices to make it better) etc. As easy is to find a example of "excellence" it is easy to find a FP that is really bad. Each one has different point of view - you can see it in the nominations.. both opposes and support votes exists.. Art - aesthetics do not have limitations. Here the only limitation is the rules. Ggia (talk) 08:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The kind of comments a reviewer makes when evaluating a picture in FPC is his/her own business, as long as they remain within scope and address the picture, not the author. Drawing the attention to high quality images of the same kind is a valid and constructive type of comment, used often in this forum. In this particular case, Diliff's works are very instructive examples of good lighting, colouring and composition of panoramic images, and I really fail to understand why showing them to the nominator may be considered unpolite. Neither I understand the suggestion that my comments may not comply with the present rules. But if that is what you really think, maybe it is better to start a discussion in the FPC talk page. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
* All the FP are considered the finest images in commons. If you like open a discussion in FPC talk page if you believe that only some of the FP commons are example of excellence.. And these FP pictures (that are example of excelence) should be used as an comparison example in the nominations. Ggia (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Weak support probably a increase of saturation make image colors more vidid. The composition and the details make this image education enough and it is aethetically good to be featured. Ggia (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment I can't understand. This image is now FP. What happens? To me it's FP, but I don't know if I must vote.--Miguel Bugallo 20:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry--Miguel Bugallo 20:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Weak support Per Ggia--Miguel Bugallo 20:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Info -- Please notice that a "Week support" or a "Strong support" have exactly the same value as a "Support" vote. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Alvesgaspar. I know it, but it's different. A {{neutral}} vote have exactly the same value as a "Oppose" vote and I don't like it, but... nobody protest--Miguel Bugallo 21:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
No, a "Neutral" vote is not taken into account in the final result... Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right. pt: Creio que nesse caso não tenho razão e, se você o diz, eu acredito. Acaso noutro tempo, quando eu andava algo por aqui, fosse assim--Miguel Bugallo 22:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. Also looks somewhat oversharpened, while missing details in part. Lycaon (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Support Good resolution and informative skyline. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Support As long as there are no stitching errors. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Support --Lošmi (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karelj (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar -- Gorgo (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per Alves. --99of9 (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose (Oversharpening)artifacts, blurry at the right, background just grey and indistinct. Qualitatively not featured --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 16:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /TheHighFinSpermWhale 05:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2010 at 23:14:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Junges Gras.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Junges Gras.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2010 at 22:11:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Opernturm.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Opernturm.jpg
Support -- Der Wolf (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment - there's a lot I like about this image, but there is a strange artifact to the left of the streetlamp. Can this be fixed? Jonathunder (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Done;) -- Der Wolf (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
There's still an arm hanging in space between the left frame and a streetlamp. Jonathunder (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Conditional Support : extremely detailed, sharp, well lit and well balanced, with an unfortunate ghost on the leftmost edge. May I suggest, in addition, that a suitable template such as Template:FoP-Germany be added to the file ? --MAURILBERT(discuter) 01:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose changed vote, see below. sharpness and details are great, thats true. but for my taste the perspective correction is overdone at this one. Sorry. --mathiasK 07:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per mathias - the perspective looks unnatural --Schnobby (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Info A few minutes ago, I uploaded a IMO better version. I think, that the perspective now looks quite natural;) -- Der Wolf (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
perspective is ok, but now its tilted ccw. When this is corrected... bgmathiasK 15:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't see any tilt.. -- Der Wolf (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how, but it's gone. Now it is a grat picture with awesome sharpness and it shows the building really good. changed my vote, now Support! bg mathiasK 16:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose subject and perspective have no wow for me. --Taraxacum (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Overdone perspective correction. Building in photo has parallel edges, but the eye expects it to show perspective (the more distant top to appear narrower), so the result is an optical illusion making the building in the photo look wider at the top. - MPF (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2010 at 23:29:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Audi e-tron (Edit1).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Audi e-tron (Edit1).jpg
Question The original has just been featured, so I am a bit puzzled with the purpose of this nomination? You do not describe the retouching done by you on the image page, could you please flesh that out a bit? --Slaunger (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
He (she?) replaced the background with black. But as you mentioned the retouching should have been described, and I´m not shure whether this edit is really neccessary. It was a car show, so the guys in the background were acceptable for me (especially since they were rather dark and not covered by DOF). Nikopol (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I prefer this cleaned version over the original --Muhammad (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment The retouches that I made was removing people from back as well as removing their reflection on the Audi glossy base, I think both for FP and for educational purposes, it is more preferable than original version, a fun way to compare both images: if you have IE7 or higher, FireFox or any other tabbed browser, open both versions in tabs, then switch between tabs, and compare them, I think my edit is much better than original image, but of course thanks to "Der Wolf im Wald" for taking this high quality picture. LiveChocolate (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
@Muhammad, so please support it :) LiveChocolate (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hehe, glad to Support --Muhammad (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment Livechocolate, as the others have mentioned, on the image summary page you need to add a description of what you've done. The usual way is a template called: retouched (with double curly brackets around it). --99of9 (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Support replacement now. --99of9 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Support I also prefer this one, IMO it's more useful, but please add a description of what you have done by adding {{Retouched|description of modifications here}} to the image page. ■ MMXX talk 13:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Done I have added the template. LiveChocolate (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Support Support new version, and has voted for delist old version (look below all candidates) --George Chernilevskytalk 08:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Neutral - The shadows of the removed people on the right (white ground area) are annoying me. Original featured version is IMO better, background looks unrealistic here. -- Der Wolf (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2010 at 13:40:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gewöhnlicher Löwenzahn.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gewöhnlicher Löwenzahn.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2010 at 13:36:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zug Langzeitbelichtung.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zug Langzeitbelichtung.jpg
Support This is really nice concept. I always liked such pictures, especially with Bratislava Nový Most in background... (that's just an suggestion for some other eventual FP ;-) Aktron (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Support Quite dark, but I like the composition. And we don´t seem to habe many FP like this. Nikopol (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Support --Simonizer (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Support Well worked image --Herbytalk thyme 15:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but I don't find the composition so exiting, that it would mitigate the problems with noise and overall quality. —kallerna™ 11:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I think a better background composition would help. --99of9 (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The idea is great, but not developed enough. Different perspectives and locations could improve the result by much. --S23678 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 17:43:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hohenzollernbrücke Köln.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hohenzollernbrücke Köln.jpg
Neutral Sharpness and contrast are astonishing, composition is also working. On the other hand the highlights are plain yellow, which is very salient given their size. Nikopol (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Support Very good sharpness/DOF/light/colors. There are a few minor blown areas, but I can accept that. It is a pity that there is no EXIF information regarding camera settings. I was curious to see which settings were used to capture this one. --Slaunger (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I added the EXIF information manually in the description;) -- Der Wolf (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2009 at 19:26:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Canon EOS 400D.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Canon EOS 400D.jpg
*Oppose EOS 50D gives you 15MP to play around with in a studio shot. Why leave us here with just over 2?--Korall (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment I had to crop it, so the resolution decreased. Besides a resolution of more than 2mp is enough for such an object without small and fine details. -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, and 640kB are enough memory for everybody as well... --Dschwen (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Question Why did you choose to crop the shadow on the right? --99of9 (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion the shadow is irrelevant for the encyclopedic function of the picture. In thumb view the camera would be smaller (in the same image size) if the sadow would not be cropped and you could not see the details of the camera as good as now. -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
InfoAn earlier version was a high resolution image so I reverted. Its better now IMO, but the shadow is still cropped. I willing to support a crop with the shadow is seen in full.--Korall (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose QI and maybe VI (maybe I shouldn't say it, but this one lacks the "wow"). —kallerna™ 17:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Support Resolution seems to be high enough. -- Nicolas17 (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Support it is best photo in category, nice look --George Chernilevskytalk 13:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose too shallow DOF for such a static picture (the flash for example is quite unsharp). — YerpoEh? 09:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Partly per Kallerna however it really isn't sharp enough in my view either. --Herbytalk thyme 13:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2009 at 21:42:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Krokusse violett.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Krokusse violett.jpg
Comment I would say, it looks overprocessed. Saturation has been exagerated, brightness has been overly enhanced ; furthermore, it seems that some sharpness enhancement has been applied, leaving a weird fringe around the left ridge of the centermost bud. --MAURILBERT(discuter) 03:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Oversaturated—kallerna™ 10:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Info I have decreased the saturation. -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Support I just like violet colors :) The out-of-focus of the distant plan is also good. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Sharp, good use of DOF, nice colours. Schöne Arbeit!. I cant see any oversaturation here, not by any stretch of the imagination. Can you please show me the part in the picture where the colours are blurred caused by oversaturation, kallerna? --Simonizer (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment Now i have seen that he has changed the saturation after your comment --Simonizer (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Info View from South Rim near Yavapai Point into Grand Canyon, Arizona, USA. All by me. -- Wolf im Wald 23:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Wolf im Wald 23:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Hazy, unfortunately the light is not compelling. Bland colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Neutral For me this is a great photo because of the contrast between the incredible landscape and the wonderful clouds, but the light and colours spoil it, sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your review! I am not very happy because of the flat light too but I thought it‘s a nice view with the clouds. -- Wolf im Wald 02:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Done @Wilfredor and Sea Cow: I fixed distortion & noise and uploaded a new version. Thanks for your review! -- Wolf im Wald 17:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Question Would a bottom crop to remove the half boat improve the composition? Half person would need to be cloned out. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for your suggestion Charles! I'm not entirely happy with the boat either. But I really like the reflections on the water and I wouldn't like them to be cropped so much. So I believe it looks better without cropping, but I think it's a matter of taste. -- Wolf im Wald 17:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Weak support Personally I am fine with the foreground etc. being out of focus – the subject is the tower, period. (“Photography consists of sharpness and unsharpness”, my father used to tell me; one can read more about this idea e.g. in Feininger’s photography textbooks.) And I understand the choice of f/5.6; modern lenses, combined with modern high-resolution sensors, often excel in sharpness already at f/4 and show diffraction starting already at f/8, even more at f/11. So if the photographer wanted to make the most of the tower, he has done well. It’s just a pity about all the ugly stuff (scaffolding etc.) around which really degrades the overall impression, sorry; while all the foreground and background can very well be out of focus, they are still parts of the composition and therefore influence the overall impression. --Aristeas (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Weak oppose The amount of detail is great, but the overall composition/rest of the scene doesn't work for me. — Rhododendrites talk | 02:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Strong support Simply wow! -- Radomianin (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
--LivioAndronico (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
08:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Abstain as author. -- Wolf im Wald 14:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Overexposed sky --The Photographer (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
aghith 06:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
Oversaturated —kallerna™ 10:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Hist._Route_66_--_2012_--_1.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
