Commons:特色靚相候選

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:FPC Alemannisch | asturianu | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | English | فارسی | español | suomi | français | galego | हिन्दी | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | молдовеняскэ | norsk bokmål | português | polski | română | русский | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | українська | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | հայերեն | +/−

呢度係成為特色靚相嘅候選區。請留意呢度唔係同每日靚相一樣

要知道之前有乜提名,睇睇:Commons:等色靚相/紀錄

Contents

正式嘅事物[edit]

提名[edit]

如果您認為您已經創作或搵到一張可能有價值的圖片,請將佢加到「提名」部分嘅最頂部。用呢個連結加入。

喺您提名之前,請肯定已經喺相應的圖片加上適當嘅版權標籤

請喺投票嘅時候利用您嘅語言或者使用下面嘅模板

  • 支持 - Support, Yes, Sim, Ja, Oui, Sí, Kyllä, ...
  • 反對 - Oppose, No, Não, Nein, Non, Ei, ...

另外,您亦可以使用模板{{Oppose}}同{{Support}}

您亦可以表達使用{{I love}}代表您喜歡呢張圖片或您想利用{{Neutral}}嚟表達您嘅睇法。

特色靚相候選方針[edit]

  • 14 日投票持間。結果將會喺提名後嘅第 15 日公佈決定。
  • 歡迎匿名貢獻者嘅提名
  • 歡迎匿名貢獻者嘅討論貢獻
  • 匿名貢獻者嘅投票不作計算
  • 提名者不會計作票數。必須另作解釋作出支持。
  • 記住,Wikimedia Commons 計劃嘅目標係提供一個中央式嘅檔案庫,以提供所有 Wikimedia 計劃(包括未來的計劃)裏使用。呢個唔只係於置 Wikipedia 嘅圖片,因此呢啲圖片唔係只針對嗰個計劃作出決定。

要成功登上特色靚相,必須合乎以下嘅條件。

  • 合理嘅牌照 (當然)
  • 最少 5 張支持票
  • 支持/反對嘅比例最少為 2:1 (三分二多數,即最少 67% 支持)

有關點樣處理舊嘅提名,睇睇Template talk:Featured pictures candidates#What to do after voting is finished

更新呢一頁:purge this page's cache

提名[edit]

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:Forte de Copacabana 10-crop.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 03:08:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View to the Guanabara Bay from the Fort Copacabana, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

File:Moscow VDNKh Space Pavilion asv2018-08 img5.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 21:20:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dome of the Space Pavilion, Moscow
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Dome interior of the 32th Pavilion of VDNKh Park Moscow ("Space Exploration" Pavilion, built in 1954) All by A.Savin --A.Savin 21:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --A.Savin 21:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I'm disappointed you weren't able to get the entire dome in the picture. I feel like even if it's partly blocked by other objects, it might be more satisfying for the entire area of the dome to be in the picture, not cropped. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Arcade du Cinquantenaire (DSCF7405).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 15:05:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Arcade du Cinquantenaire

File:Vasco da Gama Bridge B&W (crop).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 09:32:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vasco da Gama Bridge (Ponte Vasco da Gama), Lisbon, Portugal
  • Hi Colin, I know that f/16 probably was chosen for maximising the exposure time but you can do that by using a second ND filter two. The problem is that on Micro Four Thirds, you'll suffer quality loss up from smaller apertures than f/8. f/16 on MFT is the equivalent of f/32 on Full Frame. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think a 16:9 crop would be better: there's too much grey sea. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree, your suggestion is a better crop. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral on technical reasons (regardless of the crop, but I do agree it will be an improvement). Note that B&W does tend to hide flaws such as grain and unsharpness compared to the color image. -- King of ♠ 03:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Schloss-Broich-Eingang-Vorderfront-2019.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 08:59:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Characteristic entry area of Castle of Broich in Mülheim

File:Carved portal at Haw Phra Kaew temple in Vientiane Laos.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 04:25:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Carved portal at Haw Phra Kaew temple Vientiane Laos

File:Wandelen over de Planken Wambuis vanuit Mossel 058.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 16:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Fog
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Walking the Planken Wambuis from Mossel. Morning mist hangs over the Planken Wambuis.
    All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice atmosphere. -- King of ♠ 22:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 08:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Seven Pandas (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Another path with nobody in it. I'm not really convinced by the composition. The weather isn't quite misty enough to be an interesting feature. -- Colin (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Colin. Yes, beautiful atmosphere, but the composition falls a bit flat to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:You need only one soap, Ivory soap - Strobridge & Co. Lith. - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 14:33:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Duna en Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 002.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 12:53:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dune just after sunrise in Sossusvlei, Namib-Naukluft National Park, Namibia.

File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2019 -- 3216-22.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 07:53:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Game reserve in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

File:2017.06.17.-21-Reinheimer Teich-Reinheim--Roetelmaus.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 07:19:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • I was thinking about to nominate both of them because they have very different compositions. But it was or rather is not possible until the current voting period of my other nomination is over. So I had to make a decision and this picture was my first choice. Thanks. --Hockei (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I like that one. Fully elongated vole, seems more active. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I prefer this to the other ones (nicer pose and has straw in mouth). But the flash reflecting off the fir is not the best light. -- Colin (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Fir? What fir? Face-smile.svg Daniel Case (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Plexippus petersi (jumping spider) on a human finger at golden hour.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 00:41:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Plexippus petersi (jumping spider) on a human finger at golden hour
  • Yes, I think you're right :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! Yann (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In general I don't like animals on or with humans (even I made such pictures too ;-) ). But the spider is really good. --Hockei (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In general I don't like animals on or with humans (even I made such pictures too ;-) ). But the spider is really good. --Charles (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

File:В потчётном карауле.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 21:24:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Guard of Honor, Chelyuskintsev Square, Yaroslavl, 2018
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ВладимирФото - uploaded by ВладимирФото - nominated by AKA MBG -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - Is that a huge lens flare in the tree? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good focus to the girls, but what happened with the clouds? IMO also relative small photo to be a FP. I would support this photo for Q1, but it's techincally not good enough for a FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting picture, but the light is too harsh. As a result, the luminous parts seem overexposed. Lens flare in the trees. Beside, the passerby in front of the building spoils a bit the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Per others, quality issues -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Frightening and funny at the same time, these three gunwomen. Apart from technical issues, the guy in the background spoils it completely. It's a shame, it could have been a very special motif. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like the composition, but unfortunately the technical issues spoil it. —Bruce1eetalk 09:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Complicated composition and harsh light. Daniel Case (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Hamburg Notgeld 1 Mark 1921.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 21:07:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

1 Mark "Notgeld" banknote (emergency money) of Hamburg, 1921

File:Saint Gerald abbey church of Aurillac 06.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 15:15:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vaulting in the Saint Gerald abbey church of Aurillac, Cantal, France
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#France
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A couple of days have gone by without votes, so I think maybe more people feel like I do - I'll be the first to say it: The standard for church ceilings is very high, so this doesn't quite float my boat. It has some cool patterns, but that's about it; it's not quite up there with the other photos in the category.--Peulle (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC).
  • Symbol support vote.svg Moderate support It's not perfect, yes, but I like it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peulle. There are lots more "wow" ceilings on Commons, so can't be "among the finest". -- Colin (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Beskid Mały Mountains (PL).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 11:26:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Beskid Mały mountains, Poland
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose On any other photo site, this image would have people (or animals) in it. A movie director would be shouting "Action!". The scene is a great one, but it needs something in it. -- Colin (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg conditional support It's nice, real nice, but the categories need improving.--Peulle (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Beautiful to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Agreed on categories. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    • what is wrong with the categories? English version of the park? --Pudelek (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The categories are fine, but I think you need to add one for crepuscular rays. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Yeah, I immediately thought of Ermell's picture that you linked first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The light and shadow play of the sun's rays should be more contrastful IMO. --Hockei (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Very weak oppose Having done something similar once, I really wanted to be able to support this. But ... per Colin, there should be something to draw us to the center of the frame, or per Hockei the crepuscular rays should have more contrast. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Viru Bog at winter.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2019 at 16:12:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Actually, it's not ... look closely and you can see the color on the tree trunks. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
You're right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
And I'd prefer if it were really black & white. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Spitzkoppe, Namibia, 2018-08-04, DD 14-22 PAN.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2019 at 21:17:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Spitzkoppe, Namibia
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Panoramic view of Spitzkoppe, a group of bald granite peaks located between Usakos and Swakopmund in the Namib desert of Namibia. All by me, Poco2 21:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 21:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks like Mercury after being terraformed. Makes me thirsty just scrolling through it—the very definition of "arid". Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The central frame suffers from camera shake, I guess. Or whatever, the image is unsharp in the center. Very sorry, as it is really impressive. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't find it unsharp. The landscape is very impressive and I really enjoyed exploring the panorama, including the village close to the mountain in the center. However, I think the panorama is tilted. The right side is lower than the left side and the telecommunication tower on the hill on the right side is leaning right. So I think it needs ACW rotation. Could you have a look at that? Maybe it's just a coincidence. --Podzemnik (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Podzemnik: I've applied a slight tilt and some perspective correction, also some extra sharpening, FYI Uoaei1 Poco2 12:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Gnosis (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Szczodre Gody MIR 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2019 at 12:27:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Slavic altair during the festival of Koliada, celebrated in south Poland
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pola lilla - uploaded by Pola lilla - nominated by Wojsław Brożyna -- Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why are the bowls empty? Strange sort of feast with empty bowls. I'm tempted to oppose for lack of food interest. Also, even at preview size, the bread on the left looks like it was crudely Photoshopped into the frame, but I think this is just a consequence of the far too high global sharpening applied to the image or perhaps it was brightened? -- Colin (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice motíf, but the light is unimpressive and the image is quite grainy. I also see green chromatic aberration.--Peulle (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. Also, even without those issues, the background is kind of distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Alfred Stieglitz - The Steerage - Google Art Project.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2019 at 11:33:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Steerage, picture by Alfred Stieglitz, 1907
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Alfred Stieglitz (scan by Google Art Project), uploaded by DcoetzeeBot, nominated by Yann (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It has been hailed as one of the greatest photographs of all time because it captures in a single image both a formative document of its time and one of the first works of artistic modernism. cf. Wikipedia. -- Yann (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would eventually propose File:The Steerage MET DP232922, grayscale.jpg as an alternative: smaller, but less noise. Yann (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - You're the nominator, so which one do you prefer? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Personally, I prefer the grayscale version, but I know some people will object. Ultimately, I don't care which one is featured. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm finding the sepia version below better. But which was original? Did he originally print it in sepia tones or grayscale? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I take it, no-one has an answer for this question? Then how are we supposed to vote, and what criteria are you all using to decide which one to vote for? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: This was recorded as a black and white negative. That's why I prefer a grayscale version. Beside, the color versions vary with time, so we can't really know which tone was the original print in 1907. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree that it's better for the reasons you state. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

The Steerage, picture by Alfred Stieglitz, 1907

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Colin (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support While this one seems slightly tilted compared to the grayscale one, that's fixable, and this one captures more detail. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    Daniel Case the left, bottom and right edges are all straight in this one; only the top is curved. The other image has more tilts, though the top is more symmetrically curved. I suspect they come from different prints. I would be opposed to "fixing" this -- it's a faithful scan by professionals. In the end, the print is what it is. -- Colin (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Трифонов Андрей (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Gnosis (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--KlauRau (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Hemiolaus cobaltina underside aberration.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2019 at 21:22:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hemiolaus cobaltina aberration
  • I can see no 'shadow problem'. No layers have been used. Please explain what you are seeing. Charles (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I couldn't find the "shadow problem" mentioned above. I like the colours, the DoF, and also the butterfly's shadow underneath it. It helps to understand the shape of the wings. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Colin (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I now see the original "unrecorded aberration" was in fact a weird Photoshopping mistake. While I'm sure Charles didn't do it to "invent" a new species, I'm not comfortable with this degree of carelessness. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain . -- Colin (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Multiple stitching errors (see notes). Unfortunately including what you've identified as an aberration. -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You're absolutely right Ryan Hodnett that something very weird has happened during editing. It's not stitching as this was just one image so it must be human error. Apologies. Will reprocess. Charles (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there still an aberration? Where? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No, but I don't think I can change file name till voting process over. Charles (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
You could see the shadow problem what Im talking about here File:Bad union between layers that generates shadow.jpg. User:Podzemnik --Photographer 02:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I can just about see a difference. No layers were used, but a shadow can come from colour noise reduction - that's the only possibility I can think of. See what you think of the new version Photographer Charles (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Do you see any problems with new version? Photographer Charles (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I still see the same problem in lesser proportion. My suggestion is not to repair an image to which a noise reduction has been applied wrongly, but to rethink the way you use to eliminate noise and start the process again but in the right way. --Photographer 15:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Violet-backed starling (Cinnyricinclus leucogaster verreauxi) male.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2019 at 21:26:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Violet-backed starling (Cinnyricinclus leucogaster verreauxi) male
* Sorry, I prefer rule of thirds. Charles (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Blue rock thrush (male) at Gamla Nature Reserve.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2019 at 19:48:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Untitled by Mansour Qandriz (2).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2019 at 06:31:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

untitled painting by Mansour Qandriz
  • Not good enough, I'm afraid. For a file on Commons, I expect there to be a proper file desription.--Peulle (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Interesting and nice colors. I would support with an English description. --Yann (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
+1 Daniel Case (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Gnosis (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now that an English-language description was added. Interesting painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Castle of Montpoupon 19.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 22:02:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Castle of Montpoupon in commune of Céré-la-Ronde, Indre-et-Loire, France
✓ Category added, Tournasol7 (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overprocessed --Photographer 02:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overprocessed --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Those tones in the sky don't like realistic to me and the compo of a nice middle-age castle and the modern asphalt road doesn't work for me either. Indeed I'd have avoided the road and looked for a different angle. Otherwise a nice one Poco2 10:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Loch Lubnaig from the path to Ben Ledi, Scotland.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 18:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#United_Kingdom
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me. I quite enjoy a play of the sun and the fog together with different coloured areas of moss and heather. -- Podzemnik (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Lovely and making my homesick. I wonder if the bottom right is a bit over cooked? If you are using dehaze, for example, perhaps use a mask or gradient to not apply it to near foreground. It just looks a bit crunchy and too contrasty there. -- Colin (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Colin! I'm using only a bit of dehaze (+5) and clarity (+5) for the whole picture. I think the bottom right looks too contrasty because it's a north facing slope without much light. I applied a mask there to make it look more natural. I hope it's better. Greetings, --Podzemnik (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the foreground looks strange and a bit unnatural. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
You think so? Even now after I applied the mask? It's looking OK to me now. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I find that this photo looks good at 40% of its size, which is bigger than 50% of the previous version's size that that one looks good at. At those sizes, I really don't perceive a difference. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Colin (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support wonderful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gorgeous, expansive scene. Pixel-level sharpness could be better but fine given the resolution. -- King of ♠ 00:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Splendid view.--Ermell (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm not a friend of panoramics. But this looks great for me. --Hockei (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Imho the quality of the image does not reach FP bar. The right and left edges are very unsharp (neither the closer nor the farer parts are sharp) - with a multi-image shot this can be easily avoided. Especially the darker parts of the image look imho noisy and partly overprocessed - I guess too much clarity and too much shadow brightening. It looks if the focus is on the foreground (the stony path in the foreground) with the result that the background could be sharper. Motive, composition and light have FP potential, but imho not the technical execution --Tuxyso (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Tuxyso, I agree at pixel level it is soft in places and some of the processing has perhaps contributed to noise. However it is 105MP so if I reduce it 50% you get this 24MP image, which is very sharp, with no noise. So I wonder if the 24MP image had been nominated, would you have opposed? -- Colin (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
      • That's an everlasting discussion... I have to assess the image which is nominated here. The nominee has some technical issues which are avoidable - no unattainable requirements - especillay the sharpness at the very left and very right side and the the editing of darker parts. My very personal opinion: An FP should be a pleasure to view in a scaled version and also in full res version. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I wish you the funds to buy a high DPI monitor so that "full res" has pixels too small for you to peep. Your vote is nothing less than a request to downsize and an insult to those generous enough to donate images full size. This image is 5.3 metres across when viewed "full res" on a standard monitor. The nomination is for a JPG in the repository, not a specific-sized rendering in your browser. Commons is not a publisher. How you choose to view the image is your choice, though made somewhat awkward by the MediaWiki interface. If you choose to view magnified so large it doesn't fit in your room, and view it from 50cm, then the flaws you see are purely down to your bad viewing choices. This kind of vote is harmful to the project. Please consider that while you may choose to downsize your images so they look pixel-perfect at 100%, others do not and should not be punished for that. -- Colin (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I have been absent from COM a few years and must observe that the verbal tonality in discussions changed negatively. In the past the discussions here were very constructive and also valueing. In the current disussion I made an argument with in-detail explanatory statement and Colin repeatedly shortens it to: "Looks bad in 100%, please downscale". Again, and also for [[Ikan Kekek: I do NOT postulate to downscale the image to look better. I only argue that the technical issues which could be avoided by a better shooting technique (more precise focus point, more overapping especially at the edges) and a better post-processing. Please sustain also a deviating (my very own) opinion. There is not only one truth. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that's a reasonable point of view and thank you for clarifying. Note that I haven't voted on this nomination, but have only made some comments above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Tuxyso, the fact remains that if this image had been downsized and uploaded at 24 or 36MP you would not have noticed any sharpness or noise issues. You may have complained about other processing issues, but not those. So, some of your oppose rationale is only present because you are pixel peeping a gigantic 105MP image. You insist that "I have to assess the image which is nominated here" but the image that is nominated here can be viewed by you at any resolution you wish. Just because it is uploaded at 105MP does not mean you have to view it or review it at that size. That is your choice, and one I think that is unfair on the nominator. You also insist it must be "a pleasure...in full res version". So, while you can claim you haven't requested it be downsized, your vote is an implicit message that nominators will be punished with an oppose if they dare to nominate any image that is not perfect at 100%. The consequence of pixel peeping is that some nominators downsize to avoid these kinds of votes. And so we end up getting 6MP natural landscape images at FPC in 2019 when we should be getting 24MP+ images. Commons is poorer as a result.
I feel strongly that pixel peeping reviews harm Commons FP. See User:Colin/PixelPeeping where I noted "a 24MP image is not twice as bad as a 6MP image. It is superior in every way, except to a pixel peeper.". Sure, with better technique and better equipment and better processing, we might have a super sharp and noiseless 105MP image. But we do also have a this image that is the same one nominated here, just rendered in your browser at 24MP. That is the nominated image too, but you choose to find fault when you choose to view it magnified 2x on your monitor. -- Colin (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Livraria Cultura, Avenida Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 02:48:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Livraria Cultura, Avenida Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Brazil
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by -- Photographer 02:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I appreciate the effort, but the sides are a bit too tight all over; I don't think 18mm DX (27mm FX) is sufficiently wide for this kind of shot. -- King of ♠ 04:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chaotic scene.--Peulle (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The "chaos" is what is interesting here. ;o) Regards, Yann (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support per Yann. --MB-one (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the chaos and the subject. Looks like a lovely place. I don't particularly like the composition (on the right: lots of empty carpet, but on the left the man and bookshelf are cut; the floating dragon is cut; the ceiling in the upper left corner is disturbing). The customers in the foreground could be more in focus. There are issues with the banister in several places, looks like stitching errors. -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It seems like the columns are not really straight. Can you fix that please? Otherwise it's a great scene and I'm happy to support it. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Podzemnik ✓ Done --Photographer 20:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Now it seems to me like the customers on the 1st floor are going downwards towards the left side. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It might have worked if it was just the customers on the floor. Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Puelle. -- Karelj (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Großvenediger vom Kröndlhorn.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 21:03:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Instruvtive view to the Großvenediger
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I gave a bit more contrast. --Milseburg (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the juxtaposition between the snow-capped mountains in the back and the green mountain in the front. -- King of ♠ 05:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I feel like it's nice, but not as nice as some of the other mountain shots that I've seen.--Peulle (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Peulle, not anything special --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I understand the opposition, but to me, this is beautiful, well labeled and worth a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not striking enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's good quality anyway, and I appreciate the notes giving information about the different peaks. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not bad, but one of the best on Commons? I don't think so. Basically, too much haze. Yann (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Yann --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Philippe Chaperon - Meyerbeer - Les Huguenots Act I (1896).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 19:26:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Les Huguenots Act I


  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Philippe Chaperon - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info (Since I'm aware that it will be mentioned otherwise:) With en:Template:CSS image crop and its local variants, I don't see any need to crop out parts of an image presentation. That's a hand-painted brown and gold border that was created by the artist, so why remove it? (And it'll give something to crop out if trying to print it:5x4.4 is hardly a common aspect ratio, but you can get it to a few sensible ratios if you have a border to crop.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Would you mind offering a crop version as an alternative? --Yann (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer not to. The main image is not absolutely rectangular in shape, so either a small amount of the edge of the painting would need cropped out, or I'd have to restore outwards the edge of the painting, when, as I said, there's a perfectly good way to make arbitrary crops for thumbnails. And I really don't like changing artistic intent for relatively capricious reasons. Plus, it would be inconsistent with File:Set design by Philippe Chaperon for Act4 sc2 of Aida by Verdi 1880 Paris.jpg, and other future potential images. And it's not like Chaperon does this with every image he makes; it's actually relatively rare, and may indicate something specific, like them being intended for display (the ones they're done on tend to be particularly visually impressive). Oh, and I literally spent 16 hours restoring that fucking border. If I didn't feel strongly about it before - well, I wouldn't have done it in the first place, but afterwards...
In any case, we're not just a place to make thumbnails for Wikipedia (Hell, a number of our featured images here are not and will not ever be used on any Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikiversity, or any other related project). It would be silly to create a situation where a number of possible reuses are made more difficult because we concealed the one most useful for printing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, we can literally just do this with CSS image crop and some surprisingly annoying maths:

{{CSS image crop |Image=Philippe Chaperon - Meyerbeer - Les Huguenots Act I (1896).jpg |bSize= 466|cWidth=370 |cHeight=311 |oTop= 51|oLeft= 47}}

...I am thinking of doing a template to take the equations - which are slightly complex. For example, for a crop of this image, with width X, here's the values you need bSize = X*5084/4035 | cWidth=X | cHeight=X* 3388/4035 | oTop= X*551/4035| oLeft=X*508/4035 - It feels like we can simplify the CSS crop interface by using numbers auto-generated by crop tool (which I used to figure out what numbers to use to form those equations) and plugging them in instead. They're much more readily available. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Bergtocht van Vens naar Bettex in Valle d'Aosta (Italië). Bomen langs bergpad in dichte mist 09.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 16:25:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:ISS-49 Lake Urmia, northwestern Iran.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 13:05:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Photo of en:Lake Urmia in northwestern Iran, taken from the en:International Space Station.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMHO the "real" sharpness is OK, the picture was not sharpened afterwards. --Ras67 (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very interesting and educational satellite image, shows the extent of shrunk due to various manmade reasons. --Gnosis (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

File:004 2018 05 14 Extremes Wetter.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2019 at 21:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lightning strike in conifer.
done, image size now is 13.60 Megapixel, file size is 5 Mpx according to Commons guideline. --F. Riedelio (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@F. Riedelio: Thanks. There are 2 dust spots on the left. Can you fix that? Yann (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint. Fix is done. --F. Riedelio (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tuxyso (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Conditional support on dust spots being cleaned up. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lightning is always worth seeing. But in this case I do not find the composition outstanding. The level of other lightnings in the according FP category is not reached. --Milseburg (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Only light in the darkness, no buildings, no horizon, indistinct tree, I don't find the content very interesting. Compared to other FPs of similar lightnings like File:Port_and_lighthouse_overnight_storm_with_lightning_in_Port-la-Nouvelle.jpg for example, showing some environments, clouds, structures, etc., this one is just empty. But it will certainly become a QI if nominated there -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Not as great as the photo Basile links above, but I like the lines and the image enough to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There's only one physical object in the entire composition, but the lightning itself is what makes the composition work. Of course it's luck that caused the lightning to travel in a particular path, but regardless for me it is worth a feature. -- King of ♠ 00:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hockei (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)