Commons:Ehdokkaat suositelluiksi kuviksi

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:ESK)
Jump to: navigation, search
Ehdokkaat suositelluiksi kuviksi Ehdokkaat suositelluiksi kuviksi        Statuksen poistoehdotukset Statuksen poistoehdotukset

Alla on tämänhetkiset ehdokkaat suositelluiksi kuviksi. Huomaa, että tämä ei ole sama asia kuin päivän kuva.

Ehdottaminen[edit]

Ohjeita ehdottajille[edit]

Lue läpi Commons:Image guidelines ennen kuvan ehdottamista.

Alla on yhteenveto siitä, mitä tulee tarkastella arvioidessa kuvan sopivuutta suositelluksi kuvaksi:

  • Resoluutio – Yleensä kuvat, joiden resoluutio on alle kaksi megapikseliä, on hylätty. Alle kahden megapikselin kuva voidaan hyväksyä vain poikkeustapauksessa. Huomaa, että kuvassa, jonka resoluutio on 1 600 × 1 200, on noin 1,92 megapikseliä, joten se on kelvoton.
Commonsissa sijaitsevia kuvia voidaan käyttää muuhunkin kuin tietokoneen näytöllä katselemiseen. Niitä voidaan tulostaa tai katsella suurella resoluutiolla olevilla monitoreilla. Emme voi ennustaa, millaisia laitteistot tulevat olemaan tulevaisuudessa, joten kuvan tulee olla niin suurella resoluutiolla kuin mahdollista.
  • Fokus – kuvan tärkeimpien kohteiden tulisi olla teräviä.
  • Edusta ja tausta – edustalla ja taustalla olevat asiat voivat olla häiritseviä. Tarkista, että edustalla olevat kohteet eivät peitä mitään kuvan kannalta tärkeää ja taustalla olevat kohteet eivät pilaa asetelmaa, esimerkiksi katuvalo ei näytä tulevan jonkun päästä.
  • Tekninen korkealaatuisuus – suositellun kuvan tulee olla teknisesti korkealaatuinen.
  • Digitaaliset manipulaatiot eivät saa vetää nenästä kuvan katsojaa. Kuvassa olevien kauneusvirheiden korjaaminen on sallittua, jos korjaus on tehty hyvin ja sen tarkoituksena ei ole vääristää kuvaa. Hyväksyttäjä manipulaatioita ovat rajaus, perspektiivin oikaisu, terävöittäminen, sumentaminen ja valotuksen sekä värien korjailu. Monimutkaisemmat manipulaatiot ovat sallittuja vain, jos mallinetta {{Retouched picture}} käytetään kuvaussivulla. Kuvauksettomat tai väärin kuvatut monimutkaiset manipulaatiot ovat kiellettyjä.
  • Arvo – päätavoitteenamme on erottaa arvokkaimmat kuvat muista. Suositellun kuvan tulee olla jotenkin erikoinen.
    • Auringonlaskuista otetut valokuvat ovat kaikki vähän samanlaisia (Valokuvia)(Suomessa otettuja valokuvia)
    • Yökuvat saattavat olla hienompia, mutta päiväkuvista ilmenee yleensä enemmän tietoa
    • Kaunis ei ole sama asia kuin arvokas

Teknisiä yksityiskohtia käsitellään kohdissa valotus, asetelma, liikkeenhallinta ja terävyysalue.

  • Valotus – valotuksella tarkoitetaan valokuvauksessa kameran filmiin tallentuvaa tai digitaalikamerassa valoherkän kennon tallentamaa valon määrää. Valotuksen tulisi olla sopiva. Laajat ylivalottuneet alueet ovat usein häiritseviä.
  • Asetelma – asetelmalla tarkoitetaan kuvan esineiden sijoittumista toisiinsa nähden. ”Kolmoissääntö” (esimerkkikuva) on hyvä nyrkkisääntö siitä, millainen on hyvä asetelma. Kolmoissäännön ideana on, että kuva jaetaan kahdella pystyviivalla ja kahdella vaakaviivalla yhdeksään osaan (3×3). Pääaiheen sijoittaminen tiukasti kuvan keskelle on yleensä huonompi vaihtoehto mielenkiintoisuuden kannalta kuin pääaiheen sijoittaminen johonkin neljästä viivojen muodostamasta risteyksestä. Horisonttia ei tulisi sijoittaa kuvan keskelle, vaan jommankumman viivan keskelle. Kolmoissäännön avulla saadaan luotua dynaaminen kuva.
  • Liikkeenhallinta – liikkeenhallinnalla tarkoitetaan sitä, miten liike näkyy kuvassa. Liike voi olla terävää tai epätarkkaa. Jompikumpi aina ei ole paras vaihtoehto, vaan tärkeintä on aikomus havainnollistaa jotain. Liike on suhteellista kuvan kohteisiin verrattuna. Esimerkiksi valokuva ralliautosta, joka näyttäisi olevan paikallaan taustaa vasten, on huonompi vaihtoehto kuin valokuva ralliautosta, joka näkyy terävästi, mutta jonka tausta on sumuista, koska tällöin liikkeen huomaa helposti. Tätä kutsutaan ”panoroinniksi”. Toisaalta valokuva hyppäävästä koripallon pelaajasta, joka näyttää olevan paikallaan taustaa vasten, on hyvä sen epäluonnollisuuden takia.
  • Terävyysalue – terävyysalueella tarkoitetaan kuvan kohteen terävyyttä ympäristöön verrattuna. Terävyysalue valitaan jokaisen kuvan kohdalla erikseen. Suuri tai pieni terävyysalue voi huonontaa tai parantaa kuvan laatua. Pientä terävyysaluetta voidaan käyttää erottamaan pääkohde muusta ympäristöstä. Näin katsojan huomio kiinnittyy haluttuun kohteeseen. Suurta terävyysaluetta voidaan taas käyttää tilan havainnollistamiseen. Lähtökohtaisesti syväterävyysalue muodostuu sitä lyhyemmäksi, mitä suurempaa aukkoarvoa valokuvaaja käyttää. Vastaavasti pientä aukkoarvoa käytettäessä syväterävyysalue voi ulottua kuvan etualalta äärettömään. Aukon arvon lisäksi syväterävyysalueeseen vaikuttaa kuitenkin myös objektiivin todellinen polttoväli ja toisaalta kohteen etäisyys kuvaajasta.

Alla käsitellään vielä grafiikkaa.

  • Terävyys – pääkohteiden ääriviivojen on oltava teräviä.
  • Kolmiulotteisuus – kolmiulotteisuuden on oltava laadukasta. Parhaiten tämä onnistuu siten, että valo tulee kohteen sivulta. Yleensä kuvaajasta päin tuleva valo ei onnistu luomaan kunnollista kolmiulotteista vaikutelmaa, vaan se johtaa litteään vaikutelmaan. Paras valo ulkona on aamulla tai illalla.
  • Värit – värit eivät saa olla liian kylläisiä.
  • Tekstuuri – kohteen pinnan on oltava kolmiulotteisen näköinen ja laadukas.
  • Perspektiivi – kuvan tulee olla kolmiulotteinen.
  • Tasapaino – kuvan kohteiden tulisi olla tasapainossa keskenään. Suurta määrää kohteita ei tulisi jommallakummalla puolella.
  • Mittasuhde – mittasuhteella tarkoitetaan kuvan kohteiden kokoa toisiinsa verrattuna. Yleensä meillä taipumus esittää pienet kohteet pieninä, mutta toisaalta pienen kohteen esittäminen suurena luonnossa suurta kohdetta vasten on myös hyvä tekniikka, esimerkiksi kukan esittäminen vuorta vasten.
  • Symbolinen tarkoitus – huono kuva vaikeasta aiheesta on parempi kuin hyvä kuva helposta aiheesta.
Valokuvaaja ja/tai sen katselija voivat tarkastella kuvan kohdetta puolueellisesti. Kuvan arvoa ei tulisi arvioida arvioijan kulttuurillisen taustan perusteella, vaan se tulisi arvioida kuvan kulttuurillisen taustan perusteella. Hyvä kuva ”puhuu” katsojalle herättäen sellaisia tunteita kuin ilo, sympatia, herkkyys, suru, inho, viha ja raivo. Hyvän kuvan herättämät tunteet eivät ole vain positiivisia.

Uuden ehdotuksen lisääminen[edit]

Jos sinusta tuntuu siltä, että olet löytänyt kuvan, josta voisi tulla suositeltu kuva ja jonka kuvaussivulla on hyväksytty ja totuudenmukainen tekijänoikeusmalline, toimi seuraavasti:

Askel 1: Kopioi kuvan nimi alla olevaan laatikkoon ja paina nappia ”Luo äänestyssivu”.


Askel 2: Noudata avautuvalla sivulla olevia ohjeita.

Askel 3: Lisää ehdokaslistan alkuun seuraava koodi:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:KIRJOITA TIEDOSTON NIMI TÄHÄN}}

Äänestäminen[edit]

Käytä äänestäessäsi seuraavia mallineita:

  • {{Support}} luo lopputuloksen Symbol support vote.svg Support. Käytä mallinetta, jos kannatat kuvaa suositelluksi kuvaksi.
  • {{Oppose}} luo lopputuloksen Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Käytä mallinetta, jos vastustat statusta.
  • {{Neutral}} luo lopputuloksen Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. Käytä mallinetta, jos äänestät tyhjää.
  • {{Comment}} luo lopputuloksen Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. Käytä mallinetta, jos kommentoit jotakin.
  • {{Info}} luo lopputuloksen Pictogram voting info.svg Info. Käytä mallinetta, jos informoit jostakin.
  • {{Question}} luo lopputuloksen Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question. Käytä mallinetta, jos kysyt jostakin.

Jos kuvan ei ole mahdollista päästä suositelluksi kuvaksi, lisää äänestyssivulle {{FPX|KIRJOITA TÄHÄN, MIKSI KUVA EI VOI OLLA SUOSITELTU KUVA}}.

Perustele aina mielipiteesi. Muista allekirjoittaa lisäyksesi. Allekirjoittaminen tapahtuu kirjoittamalla ~~~~ kommentin perään tai painamalla työkalurivin painiketta Button sig.png kursorin ollessa sopivalla kohdalla.

Statuksen poistoehdotuksen lisääminen[edit]

Jos jokin suositeltu kuva on mielestäsi kelvoton suositelluksi kuvaksi, voit ehdottaa suositellun kuvan statuksen poistoa.

Sellaisissa äänestyksissä tulee käyttää mallinetta {{Keep}}, joka luo lopputuloksen Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, halutessasi statuksen säilyvän tai mallinetta {{Delist}}, joka luo lopputuloksen Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist , halutessasi statuksen poistoa.

Luodessasi uuden äänestyksen, toimi ohjeen mukaan:

Askel 1: Kopioi kuvan nimi alla olevaan laatikkoon ja paina nappia ”Luo äänestyssivu”.


Askel 2: Noudata avautuvalla sivulla olevia ohjeita.

Askel 3: Lisää ehdokaslistan alkuun seuraava koodi:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:KIRJOITA TIEDOSTON NIMI TÄHÄN}}

Käytäntö[edit]

Yleiset säännöt[edit]

  1. Äänestys on auki tasan yhdeksän vuorokautta ehdotuksen tekemisen jälkeen.
  2. Käyttäjätunnuksettomat käyttäjät saavat ehdottaa ja keskustella, mutta eivät äänestää.
  3. Ehdotus ei ole ääni. Ääni on annettava erikseen.
  4. Ehdottaja voi vetää ehdotuksen pois lisäämällä {{withdraw|~~~~}} äänestyssivulle.
  5. Wikimedia Commons ei ole vain Wikipedian kuvavarasto, joten kuvia ei tule arvioida vain Wikipediaan soveltuvuuden perusteella.
  6. Jos kuva ei saa muita kannattavia ääniä kuin ehdottajan viiden vuorokauden kuluessa ehdotuksen tekemisestä, poistoäänestys tulee lopettaa.
  7. Mallineella {{FPX}} merkitty poistoäänestys tulee lopettaa 24 tunnin kuluttua mallineen lisäämisestä, jos muita kannatusääniä kuin ehdottajan ei ole.

Statuksen muutos[edit]

Kuvasta tulee suositeltu kuva, jos se täyttää seuraavat vaatimukset:

  1. Kuvaussivulla on hyväksytty ja totuudenmukainen tekijänoikeusmalline
  2. Vähintään viisi kannatusääntä
  3. Vähintään kaksi kolmasosaa äänistä kannattavia
  4. Saman kuvan eri versiosta vain yksi saa olla suositeltu kuva. Siitä kuvasta, joka on kerännyt eniten kannattavia ääniä, tulee suositeltu kuva.

Statuksen poistoehdotuksen kohdalla sovelletaan samoja sääntöjä. Jos statuksen poistoa kannattavia ääniä ei ole tullut ehdottajan äänen lisäksi viiden vuorokauden kuluessa ehdotuksen teosta, äänestys tulee sulkea.

Ohjeita äänestyksen lopettamisesta on sivulla Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished.

Arvostele hyvien tapojen mukaisesti[edit]

Muista, että kuva jota kommentoit on jonkun tekemä. Älä käytä sellaista tyyliä kommenteissasi kuin ”Vihaan kuvaa”, ”Kuva on ihan ruma” tai ”Kamala kuva”.

Katso myös[edit]

Sisällysluettelo[edit]

Contents

Ehdokkaat suositelluiksi kuviksi[edit]

Jos uudet ehdotukset eivät näy tällä sivulla, purge this page's cache.

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:Kifli made with spelt flour (Serbian cuisine).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2018 at 15:42:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kifli made with spelt flour
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Food
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Kifli made with spelt flour. My shot. --Mile (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mile (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It may not have that cozy homemade feeling, this is more like going to a very good restaurant or cafe and being served this. I wouldn't mind that at all. :) --cart-Talk 16:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Kitchen garden on a Mekong bank.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2018 at 14:52:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kitchen garden on a Mekong bank

File:Tarvisio Rio del Lago Raibler See mit Fuenfspitz 10032015 0505.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2018 at 07:13:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lake Predil with Cinque Punte in the background, Tarvisio, Italy
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This photo invites the viewer to look forward, along the left bank with the trees, and then at the space between that bank and the hill and further forward to the peaks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful oppose Great composition, per Ikan, but gets too unsharp too quickly. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First, I'm not targeting you... (I've been opposing all ur noms recently). But the composition doesn't catch my eyes... For this sort of photo where the foreground plays a great part in the composition, I believe a wide angle is more suitable to get dramatic converging lines (at most 16mm on your full frame). And also, the light doesn't help (I often oppose mid day lighting photos). But a picture is worth a thousand words :) : [1] Benh (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Recology Lodal Garbage Truck 14425 in San Francisco.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2018 at 02:27:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Lōdal Evo T-28 waste collection truck operated by Recology in San Francisco.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've uploaded it. Feel free to add it as an alternate to this nomination. Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with "antiseptic" images for a project that's about encyclopedic images. dllu (t,c) 06:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I don't think FPC is about encyclopedic images; that's more VIC's brief. But how do I add an alt? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I wish the FP project was about encyclopaedic images, but it isn't. I'm not in favour of artifical backgrounds for this sort of image. Charles (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I'm not sure about the background yet in terms of FPC. But in any case I think it would make an excellent VIC, so I've gone ahead and nominated it there (→ nomination subpage). --El Grafo (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm normally not a huge fan of background replacements at FPC, but I think in this case it not only works but also raises the bar for similar works to come. The masking is very well done even when pixel-peeping, and so is the artificial shadow beneath the truck. The flat lighting that makes the original photograph a bit boring-looking is perfect for this almost drawing-like illustrative image. And finally, yes, I am actually "wow"-ed by this transformation of a meh photograph into a very educative illustration. --El Grafo (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support More or less per El Grafo. I also like that looking at it at thumb, I get the toy truck feeling. --cart-Talk 16:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral For some reason, I prefer the composition on the original, where the truck lies along the abscissa and the verticals are slanted. Not a huge fan of the background replacement either. - Benh (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Seattle Great Wheel, Seattle, Washington, Estados Unidos, 2017-09-02, DD 16.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2018 at 00:11:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Seattle Great Wheel, Seattle, Washington, USA

File:Vista de Seattle, Washington, Estados Unidos, 2017-09-02, DD 07-08 HDR.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2018 at 20:30:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cityscape of Seattle seen from after sunset from 701 on 5th Avenue.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Cityscape of Seattle seen from after sunset from 701 on 5th Avenue. All by me, Poco2 20:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 20:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ermell (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Moderate Symbol support vote.svg Support - A bit more noisy than the very best panorama pics, but I think that if this is the best quality you can get, it's sufficient, and the view is beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support HalfGig talk 01:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like night cityscapes. Just curious: Since Ikan Kekek pointed out noise, why not drop the ISO from 320 to 100 to reduce noise and make the exposure time longer to accentuate the car trails? For what it's worth, I don't think the noise is a big deal at all. Other minor technical issues include: mountain ridges on the left have a halo above them, probably due to using the "clarity" or "detail" slider in Lightroom; the logos of the Hilton and Sheraton hotels on the bottom right appear doubled (reflections on glass, perhaps?) dllu (t,c) 02:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Quite noisy and a bit blurry in the details. --Granada (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Was thinking the same as dllu (but it's an oppose, sorry ;) ). A bit dark for a 2018 night shot also. - Benh (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Corallus caninus.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2018 at 13:34:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Emerald Tree snake or Corallus Caninus in the Baltimore National Aquarium

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Price Zero|talk 04:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Münster, Westdeutsche Lotterie -- 2018 -- 0417.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2018 at 08:25:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Facade of an office building of the Westdeutsche Lotterie, Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

File:Houtzagerij Sagi Tschiertschen 06.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2018 at 08:23:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects # Switserland Sawing machine, detail.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Water-powered Sawmill, Sagi Tschiertschen. Built c 1920. sawing machine. Detail. The color and atmosphere of this photo evokes memory memories from the fifties of the last century. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - When I saw the thumbnail, I didn't expect to support this picture, but at full screen, it's a really good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lines intersecting with crop in just the right way makes it work very well. --cart-Talk 10:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Two other images of the same series of this sawmill are already featured. I see no need to have one more. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent image. The other two images Uoaei1 refers to are of totally different parts of the sawmill. Saying this one can't be an FP is like saying "we have two FPs of different parts of this same French church, so we can't have another". I have no problem with this current FPC being an FP at all. It's an excellent image and deserves FP status. Just my two cents. PumpkinSky talk 12:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Uoaei1. It isn't like "different parts of the same church". It's the same saw, just from different angles. So it is more like different views of the alter, taken on the same day with the same light and same processing. I also don't think it is fair-play to nominate in this way without declaring the previous noms. FP is about "finest", which includes choosing from one's own shots of the same object. -- Colin (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan and cart. Daniel Case (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose One of those pics where I think the perspective (vanishing points) doesn't fit. And not sure what is so remarkable about it to start with. - Benh (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan and Cart HalfGig talk 01:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Colin. The composition isn't bad but it is pretty typical and unremarkable. dllu (t,c) 03:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:ReichstagSala.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2018 at 16:58:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hall of the German Parliament

File:Peterborough Cathedral Central Tower Ceiling.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2018 at 16:08:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Aftermath of January 2018 North American blizzard 14.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2018 at 15:40:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Asian Pear in blizzard
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Rosaceae
  • Pyrus pyrifolia branches, Asian Pear, Shinko cultivar, in blizzard aftermath. -- PumpkinSky talk 15:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- PumpkinSky talk 15:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A very genuine composition with pastel colors. I do enjoy this image quite a lot. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Johann. In addition, the main branches are on the rule of thirds line and very sharp. This almost looks like it was taken looking up to the sky but I'm pretty sure it was taken looking into the fallen snow. HalfGig talk 18:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Delicate, with what feels to me like a Japanese aesthetic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. What do we see in the background? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. I presume the background is a wall? Daniel Case (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice colors and the double textures make the image. Suggestion: I think I would crop just a sliver of the bottom to not get that last ice blob cut. Just the branch makes for a cleaner finish. See note. Or perhaps clone out the blob. --cart-Talk 10:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Johann Jaritz, HalfGig, Ikan Kekek, Martin Falbisoner, Daniel Case: @W.carter: All, thanks for the supports! So that everyone knows, the background is not a wall. HalfGig was on the right track, it's fallen snow on the ground. These are the low branches on an Asian Pear tree. The camera was on a tripod and aimed downward at a sharp angle. Cart, I will look at your suggestions. PumpkinSky talk 12:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: I tried to clone it, but since the ice is also over the twig, it still looked weird. So I went with the small crop. I agree it looks better. Thanks! PumpkinSky talk 12:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Carnegiea gigantea or Sahuaro or Saguaro.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2018 at 02:44:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @ Benh & Charles, I have looked all over for that mythical 5 fingered sahuaro! I will come across it one day! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice - you could always clone out the sixth finger!! Charles (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Cettarames (ship, 1980) cf06.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 20:04:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Paraboloide circular 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 19:12:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Circular paraboloid generated by '"`UNIQ--postMath-00000001-QINU`"'.

File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2018 -- 0380.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 17:45:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Game reserve in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 17:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- XRay talk 17:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Beautiful, excellent composition -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- PumpkinSky talk 20:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Balanced composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I thought that was a herd of deer at first, but I don't see the antlers. Are those goats? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately too much of the bottom is in shadow for me. -- King of ♠ 03:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A bit ordinary in my opinion - Benh (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice, but a bit too unsharp --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a good nature shot, but there are so many of these on Commons that it would need something extra special to earn the title 'one of the best images on Commons'.--Peulle (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support HalfGig talk 18:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Snapshot. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Snapshot? Please explain. --XRay talk 05:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Dobrota, Bahía de Kotor, Montenegro, 2014-04-19, DD 11.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 13:11:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the town of Dobrota, a location of about 8,000 inhabitants in the Bay of Kotor, Montenegro.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Montenegro
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info View of the town of Dobrota, a location of about 8,000 inhabitants in the Bay of Kotor, Montenegro. All by me, Poco2 13:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 13:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dull lighting, and feels a bit too much like a holiday shot anyone would take, sorry. - Benh (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for your appreciation, once more, Benh (I talk about the comment, not about the vote) --Poco2 14:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Not dull but misty, and very well captured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • See no mist here. But a picture is worth a thousand words... [2]. We're far from that here. - Benh (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • There are of course different degrees of mist. Most of the mist in this picture is not in the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't know what you are talking about, but guess you refer to the low clouds. No. The light just renders uniform and dull on the subject itself. But anyways, we're mostly fighting about words. - Benh (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No fight here. Fog is just clouds on the surface. When it becomes no longer mist (=fog, IMO) is a judgment call. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not very exciting; the light is not the best, there is no reflection in the water to help either.--Peulle (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    There is no reflexion? I'm speechless --Poco2 15:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe he talks about the "specular" bright reflections? - Benh (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, I mean that the relection is not good enough to provide any extra wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like light and reflections. IMO FP. Only a minor problem: The waste in the water, especially the green spot at the right. --XRay talk 17:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    XRay: ✓ Done, thanks, Poco2 18:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I see lots of reflexion on the water surface. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Peulle; it also seems a bit soft. I wonder how this would look in bright sunlight. Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Bergtocht van Vens naar de Pointe Oilletta in Valle d'Aosta (Italië). Zaaddozen van alpenflora langs bergpad in dichte mist boven Lac du Joux (1930m) 08.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 05:40:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Chamerion angustifolium.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Rain and mist give this plant in decline a new dimension. Plant photographed on a mountain slope above Lac du Joux (1930m) in Valle d'Aosta (Italy). All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support PumpkinSky talk 14:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 17:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not keen on the busy background - Benh (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Fusiturris similis 01.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 21:57:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A shell of Fusiturris similis (Bivona Ant. in Bivona And., 1838)

File:Eutropis macularia (bronze grass skink) eating a frog.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 14:10:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eutropis macularia (bronze grass skink) eating a frog
I think the snake is taking care of the crop just fine ... Face-smile.svg. Daniel Case (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
One of those hand-in-mouth moments we all dread. Charles (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done New upload with changed crop, thanks Charles for the suggestion, though it's different from your note, that I find too extreme. I want to reveal the shapes of the two animals, and cutting that much would hide the bodies, that I find interesting here. Concerning the frog, unfortunately I was unable to identify the species. Any clue welcome ! -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
New crop is good. Charles (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ivar (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yuk! ;) --cart-Talk 19:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Benh (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ermell (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This photo has a big impact. You have to feel sad for the frog. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jakubhal 23:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 23:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Just horrible.., for the frog.--Cayambe (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Harlock81 (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The snake seems to be particularly fond of frog's legs ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Samuele2002 (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Development of hogweed bud[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 13:44:04 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info These were three of about a hundred hogweeds growing along a ditch. They grew under almost identical conditions and were selected for a series to show the development of the bud from first stage up to just before blooming. All by me, -- cart-Talk 13:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- cart-Talk 13:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment trouble is, the backgrounds are all so different (and little depth of field). Charles (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The ditch was not uniform in color and I liked that the different color schemes matched the different plants, giving each photo a softer look than a very contrasting unform green or something like that. The focus is just on the plants and not on the background. These plants are really big so they are all focus stacked and the background was about a meter or so behind each plant, so not so "shallow" DoF. Just covering the middle plant required eight photos to get the entire plant sharp. The scale here is a bit different than 4 cm butterflies. :) Are you suggesting I should only nominate one of them and skip the set thing? --cart-Talk 14:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I only looked at the First bud which is not in focus, but the others are nice and sharp if over-exposed. I just don't think they work brilliantly as a set, perhaps the different sizes is a problem too. Charles (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Strong support --Claus 17:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good and very nice Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Benh (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support PumpkinSky talk 21:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ermell (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Works for me. The bud may be a little less sharp than the others, and I wouldn't mind a little more sharpening of that frame if it could help, but I think it's good enough to be an FP, as are the others. It's also OK with me that these are 3 different plants - that's clearly indicated in the file descriptions. One question: The top of the last one isn't already blooming? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No, only the stamens have emerged and the petals are still unfolded and curled up around the center of each flower. When it blooms, the petals will become much larger and the whole shape of the plant will go from the "ball shape" and form a "disc" of flowers. --cart-Talk 23:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed I did some very light selective sharpening on the First bud. --cart-Talk 15:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that's nice. I would have clicked "thank", but I don't see a link to the nomination page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No problem, Ikan. :) These set noms are always a bit tricky to handle IMO. If you want to get hold of the nom page, you have to first click on 'edit' and after that just cancel your editing whitout doing any editing. That will set you on the set nom page. On that subject, I was looking for somewhere to add the category for this nom, couldn't find it though. AFAIK promoted set noms also show up in the 'normal' FP categories. --cart-Talk 15:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Common tiger (Danaus genutia genutia) male underside.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 13:29:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

male common tiger butterfly (Danaus genutia genutia)

File:Ely State Theater.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 08:25:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ely State Theater, 234 E Sheridan St, Ely, Minnesota, USA. Viewed from the north.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United States
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by User:McGhiever - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The only drawback I see to this photo is that it's pretty small for a new FP. However, it's pretty close to perfect to my eyes and in my opinion does justice to the clean lines of this classic Streamline Moderne movie theater. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support +1 --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support awesome, and easily large enough for this kind of subject. --El Grafo (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --cart-Talk 13:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wolf im Wald 15:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Strong support The third-place finisher in WLM USA 2017, an entry that I strongly supported all through the process as more technically accomplished than the top two. Glad to see it getting the respect it deserves here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I really like the side lighting - Benh (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ermell (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 23:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find the right side not perfectly vertical, but still acceptable -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The building is leaning in and the resolution low. --XRay talk 17:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per XRay, I expect more than 4 MP resolution for relatively easy to capture images. -- King of ♠ 07:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The shadow on the right spoils it, and the building is obviously in a bad condition, thus no wow for me. Also per XRay and King --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:20171122 Khone Phapheng Falls 3923 DxO.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 08:02:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Khone Phapheng Falls. All by me -- Jakubhal 08:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jakubhal 08:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Exciting and quite good, IMO. The sky helps by creating more drama. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support PumpkinSky talk 11:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wolf im Wald 15:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support dramatism adds something special Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Because I would crop away the top part to improve -in my view- the composition, and get rid of the overexposed part in the process. - Benh (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As technically good as it's going to get, I guess ... but so dramatic! Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ermell (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support though I agree with Benh: the clouds are very nice, but sometimes you have to make some sacrifices to improve the overall picture. -- King of ♠ 06:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 17:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find this enchanting. I like the way it converges in the back center. HalfGig talk 18:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 21:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportMeiræ 01:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Golden Euonymus in January 2018 North American blizzard.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2018 at 21:46:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Golden Euonymus after blizzard

File:Sable antelope (Hippotragus niger) adult male.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2018 at 15:30:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Adult male sable antelope (Hippotragus niger)
  • Technically impossible to be otherwise I think with a black animal without digital manipulation. Charles (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Dear Charles it is absolutely possible and please, take a look to the note "black shadow", It's a total black shadow that loss completely details aforementioned by dear King and you could up the shadows in lightroom to fix it, however, do it selective and careful because the result could be unnatural. Also you could simply buy a cheap anti hars contrast lens. A hug --The Photographer 01:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Background not as sharp as maybe it could be, but it's not the subject of the image. I like the composition ... as if you'd caught him stepping out of the bathroom or something. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --cart-Talk 10:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Proud guy very well portrayed.--Ermell (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 23:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I'd like to see more of the hind legs, but what you got is sufficient for an FP, and those antlers are memorable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment horns, not antlers... Charles (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I didn't know the difference and looked at w:Antler. "Antlers are extensions of an animal's skull found in members of the deer family. They are true bone and are a single structure.[...]In contrast, horns, found on pronghorn, sheep, goats, bison, cattle, and many other bovine, are two-part structures. An interior of bone (also an extension of the skull) is covered by an exterior sheath grown by specialized hair follicles, the same material as human fingernails and toenails." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, the real practical difference is that antlers are shed and horns aren't. Charles (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Martinus Rørbye, Portræt af maleren C.A. Lorentzen, 1827, 0218NMK, Nivaagaards Malerisamling.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2018 at 14:05:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Painting by Martinus Rørbye

File:Zámek Kačina (by Pudelek).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2018 at 12:58:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kačina castle, Czech Republic

File:Bamberg Bahnhof Güterwägen mit Drahtrollen 0342.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2018 at 11:38:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cable reels on freight car in Bamberg cargo railway station.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ermell (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp only in the center but very interesting image -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Basile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support So you find a row of wire bales interesting but not a row of silage bales. ;-) Anyway, it's a good photo along the subjects I like so of course I'll support it. --cart-Talk 12:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I didn't write that I find the bales uninteresting. Thanks for supporting.--Ermell (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per cart ... I thought it was one of hers at first. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 23:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 18:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support HalfGig talk 21:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 21:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportMeiræ 01:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Nyctanassa violacea in La Manzanilla.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2018 at 01:29:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose A little noisy all over. Was it darker than it looks (hence the high ISO)? Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Cloudy day... so the high ISO is because a) I want some depth of field, the birds are very jittery, and although I try to focus in the eye, they move, so it is at least f8. and b) Because I am shooting at anything that appears, some fast, some slow birds, I want to somewhat freeze action. So it is a compromise between quality and technical necessity. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg regretful oppose I think the composition and focus are fine, and I like the bug flying over the bird's head, but the feathers just don't look natural. Perhaps too much noise reduction? PumpkinSky talk 03:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Looks pretty good to me, and I have an emotional response to the photo because I sympathize with the relaxed-looking bird who's about to be attacked by that mosquito. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ha ha, I was going to suggest to delete that mosquito, but Ikan's reading of the story gives a good reason to keep it :) So, for me it's a beautiful photo and I have no problem with a bit of noise mostly visible in the background (sure it would be better to correct it, though). More than 16 Mpix is quite a good resolution, and the head of the bird is sharp. There are enough interesting details in that image IMO and the composition is fine -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ermell (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 18:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Buiobuione - India - Jaipur - Galtaji Temple - monkey.tif[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2018 at 16:30:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Macaca mulatta, India
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Cercopithecidae_(Old_World_monkeys)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Buiobuione - uploaded by Buiobuione - nominated by [[User:{{subst:Buiobuione}}|]] -- Buiobuione (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Buiobuione (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very grainy from ISO 1000 Charles (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Can't look at it in large image viewer because it's a .tif, but I'll take Charles' word for the graininess; besides, we have a lot of pictures like this already and it just doesn't stand out. Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Daniel Case - it's not outstanding.--Peulle (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support objection, gents! Yes, the image is grainy but its resolution is huge. So don't pixelpeep at 100% - just scale down a bit and everything's fine. The composition is very appealing imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
It's a tiff file, hence the huge size. Resolution is only normal. The sharpness is poor as well as the graininess problem. Charles (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
6,000 × 4,000 is much better than the average resolution for a subject of this kind - and the absolute max res the 80D offers --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely! I agree with Martin, quality looks fine. -- B2Belgium (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg reluctant oppose This is certainly not a bad picture, much better than anything I have ever been able to achieve in this direction. The noise is acceptable for me at sizes suitable for normal viewing, but its over-all quality is nothing to be excited about. The subject is cute, but it has tough competition in that department and, as already mentioned above, it doesn't really manage to stand out there. The composition is a bit too centred for my taste, a tighter crop on the left and more en:lead room on the right would be more pleasing imho. The dark eyes and lack of a en:Catch light make it appear a bit less … well … lively than other pictures we've seen here before. You could certainly argue that these are just minor details, but I think these details are what separates a very good from a oh my Bob, this is awesome picture. --El Grafo (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you all for your opinions and dedicated time to view my picture - Buiobuione 14:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment but please sign it -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Strullendorf E-Werk 9173915-Pano.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2018 at 14:43:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Strullendorf hydropower plant on the upstream side
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ermell (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Daniel Case. Good mirror effect but the building has nothing special -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I think the building and reflection are fine, but the building feels bulky in width, so I feel hemmed in by the crops on both sides and want the relaxation of more room. I have no idea whether that was possible, but the result feels tense to me in a way that I think doesn't go along with the intended mood of the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Ermell (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Janaki Temple--IMG 7555-Pano.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2018 at 09:04:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The temple is popularly known as the Nau Lakha Mandir (meaning Nine Lakhs). The cost for the construction of the temple was about the same amount of money: Rupees Nine Lakhs or Nine Hundred Thousands and hence the name. Queen Vrisha Bhanu – of Tikamgarh, India built the temple in 1910 AD. In 1657, a golden statue of the Goddess Sita was found at the very spot, and Sita is said to have lived there.

File:Evolution of a Tornado.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2018 at 06:47:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Evolution of a tornado
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by JasonWeingart, nominated by Rhododendrites. — Rhododendrites talk |  06:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done composite of 8 images showing the evolution of a tornado as it moves across the landscape. — Rhododendrites talk |  06:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Simply staggering. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Illusion of Natural Phenomena, that may penalize the (less impressive but) real ones. How close is this photomontage to the reality ? Where are the 8 original images used to generate such artificial composition ? How much alterated are the original colors and contrasts with Photoshop ? What is still natural in this imaginary scenary ? Why a single tornadoe couldn't be enough, or a video ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Why lol? Yes, it's cheaper here. That's what happens when a photographer who usually sells his work decides to release an image with a free license on Commons. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Unwarned customers will pay 49,99 $ for the wage and material on the website, while they will only pay for the material when informed that the licence is free. This relative wage is lol for me -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As an image with impact - superb! --Alandmanson (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I agree with Basile. It's a striking photo, but as a single composition, its form doesn't work for me, and as something of educational value, a non-composite set of 8 photos or a composite with lines between each exposure would be real and therefore more useful. And I'll bet that each of the 8 separate compositions would work a lot better than this single one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Combining multiple exposures in one image is as old as photography. We don't require other techniques (such as large panorama stitches or HDR tone-mapped images) to be accompanied with the separate exposures or the RAW file so you can judge if it has been altered too much. Perfectly valid format to express this "evolution of a tornado", even if you can think of or even prefer alternatives. See Category:Multiple exposure and File:Johnnie Walker Splash.JPG, File:La Jolla Cove cliff diving - 02.jpg, File:Solar Eclipse May 20,2012.jpg, File:Acropoclipse.jpg. @Basile Morin, Ikan Kekek: not sure your preference for an alternative presentation format (which isn't on Commons) is in itself a valid reason to oppose. It's a multiple exposure photo and should IMO be judged as one, not as "not as good as a video". -- Colin (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I judge it as wanting formally, to my eyes. However, it's certainly interesting. I'm going to cross out my oppose vote because of that, but not because of your point about techniques: Each photo has to stand on its own as a work of art, information or both, and I think it's also fair to judge whether a particular method is more successful in one situation, rather than another. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is a completely fake scenery, that gives the illusion of a tornadoe with 7 centers. We can't devine it's a photomontage without reading the description, contrary to a traditional motion picture where the subjects are usually well delimited and can be isolated on the surface. Then a valid reason to oppose this FPC is simply this scenery doesn't exist, and is certainly impossible. Although it gives the false impression of an incredible phenomena, completely transcendent. How was the sky really, now we know there was 8 pictures inside ? Amazing what we can do on Photoshop. So can we compose a completely unreal landscape, with a bit of blue sky there, some shadows here, a big cloud in the center, and then allege the creation is natural ? Sorry an artificial landscape doesn't match for me with the word of natural. That's my main reason to oppose and even if not share by everyone, I hope this idea is acceptable here -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • You do comment in bad faith. Not all photos needs to be realistic, and here the photographer doesn't try to deceive anyone (or, unintentionally, only the ones who don't read captions and are allergic to novelty or different approaches) - Benh (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Your comment gives a misinterpretation of mine -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with both Colin and Basile and I end up at the side of 'oppose'. Yes, it's a spectacular photo and the technique is well-established and all but I think it goes a bit too far in merging these photos. If only some element in the pic made it very clear (without reading the description) that it was made up from separate images, it would be fine. It would have been easy to keep say the ground from each individual photo, the resulting photo would have had sharp lines at the bottom separating the shots. That would give you a hint of what's going on, but here every effort has been made to blend these pics as seamlessly as possible and the photo can be misinterpreted. In the examples given above, the whisky shot (pardon the pun) is not a photo-merge as stated on the file's page (trick not merge, there is a difference), we are pretty sure we only have one sun and one moon here on Earth and it is clear to most people that the jump from the cliff is not made by a string of cloned women. --cart-Talk 10:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Hmm. The image is titled "Evolution of a Tornado", and I'd expect any usage of it to be similarly captioned. I didn't need to be a meteorologist to work out this was one tornado, photographed multiple times. Is it a requirement to know exactly what you are seeing without a caption? Would you know what this photo is without some help? What about this photo which most certainly "doesn't exist, and is certainly impossible". Do some viewers might think this is a clever group of seven athletes? I think the allegation that the photographer "allege[s] the creation is natural" is dishonest and unfair, Basile, as is the claim it is "completely fake". A complete fake would be where someone replaces the sky in a photo, or superimposes a big moon from another shot. This is no more fake that long exposure photography or flash photography have the ability to create images our eyes would never see. All photography plays with time, shortening it, lengthening it, or slicing it up. The actual scene here, photographed 8 times, is real, and combined into one image. "Natural" would deny any form of photography or manipulation of light that wasn't available to the human eye unaided. Natural is this and unnatural is this. Natural would disallow star trails and most of our deep space images. -- Colin (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive image. The fact the the image is not "real" and have been processed does not change this. I assume almost all FP's are processed. The fact that the image does not contain a disclaimer or explanation does not exclude the image from being FP'ed. --Pugilist (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Colin convinced me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Colin. Photography often makes things visible we otherwise wouldn't see (at least not that way). In this case the author fully informed us about what he did and the result is great. I can't see anything wrong here. Additionally, multi licensing perfectly legitimate. --Code (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A VI to be sure but, as other opposers have noted, misleading as it presently stands. Daniel Case (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I may not have voted one way or the other otherwise, but I'm going to Symbol support vote.svg Support simply because of Basile completely uncalled for personal comments. -- KTC (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Please vote only on the merits of the photo. Votes should not be used as a way of "getting back" at users or something like that. If you have a problem with someone, please take it to COM:AN where such issues are handled. --cart-Talk 23:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • COM:AN is for situations where administrative action (e.g. a block) is required. This is just someone insulting a photographer in order to justify their oppose vote. Many of the admin curators on this site don't think highly of photographers either, so going there would be about as helpful as asking Trump to help settle the gender pay dispute at the BBC. -- Colin (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Good idea, then now I will always Support KTC, just because the concept is so clever -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Colin. --Harlock81 (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment By a strange coincidence, Jason Weingart has 24 storm photos published in today's Guardian newspaper. The image here was donated to Commons as part of the "Wiki Science Competition 2017 in the United States". -- Colin (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportThis is my image. The reason I didn't simply run 8 images across with no blending is because it's been done, countless times. I try to be different when I can, which is tough anymore because of the amount of work out there. The reason 8 images were used for 7 stages of the tornado is because I wanted to include the updraft (the main part of the storm) which had become obscured by low level clouds by the time tornadogenesis started occurring. Certainly wasn't trying to be deceptive. I think the title "Evolution of a Tornado" is description enough. I also have the timelapse the image came from posted on all of my outlets, not hard to find with some minor searching. Beyond actually putting all of the stages together to one image, what you see is pretty true to life, even that blue sky that hung around for a bit. The entire reason I gave away my rights was I thought it would be cool to compete in a science-centered photo contest. I have added a note to my site saying the image is available for free through Wikimedia Commons. Thank you all for the kind words and the nomination. I am honored. No matter what your feelings are about the image or me, it got folks talking and that is what good art does. I take that as a huge compliment. JasonWeingart (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Jason, welcome here ǃ Very nice to meet you on Commons, and your explanations are so instructive. Also that video showing where the images come from (between 0:43 and 1:16 as it seems) helps a lot to understand how the whole was mixed together. Maybe a link to this film would be great in the description. But you're definitely an excellent photographer and camera operator. So, first of all, don't be upset if what I'm saying is not to promote your composition here (which looks different from a traditional single shot), as you may have many other supporters in this area who may be so enthusiastic and think differently. Also, most of us are not only votants but also creative photographers who regularly struggle with strong oppositions for submitted works, see for example those interesting pictures somewhat exceptional but however not promoted Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Melon_leaping_on_Awaji_Island_(10504964235).jpg or Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Loojang_05.05.2017_-_Sunset_05.05.2017_copy.jpg Secondly, one of the main reasons I'm not fan of this present piece is that it doesn't ressemble to your other works (from your website). Nearly all of your other creations seem to come from one single shot, whereas this special one is a photoshop montage (technically good). Actually, that's the reason why I suggest above to sort it among the many other (excellent) computer-generated creations. You say you tried to invent something new by merging these pictures, because slicing the image has already been done countless times. This originality is definitely respectable and innovative. Though, is this attempt a success ? In my view, it's impossible to look at this montage without interpreting a supernatural supercomplex tornado. Even if I know it's an educative picture showing the evolution, I think it just feeds an unreal representation of something natural. And that's my main problem with this particular creation. Not sure I would have opposed one of your other "simple shot" beautiful photographs. On the video, it seems that the blue sky is far away from the dense part of the dark cloud. Also I tried to slice this picture in seven vertical frames, to observe the first slice, then it's hard to believe that tornado here on the left is located so close to the luminous area. Saying this just from the video I observed, so this is more a question to you than a statement. Is this first frame sliced on the left really realistic on a scientifical aspect ? But apart from the blue sky, which is another concern, this represention close to "true life" with 7 merged tornadoes on the same visual is still too far from a traditional "natural phenomena picture", usually shot in just one push of the shutter button. Playing with time is not playing with space, then the statement "yes all the featured pictures are digitally-manipulated" is inexact. There's a limit to such manipulations before considering the picture is similarly designed. That's mainly a photoshop creation with big parts assembled, combine and merged, so what you finally see is definitely not "true life". It's more an idea. Anyway, thanks Jason for taking some of your time to talk with us ! Hope to meet you more often here. See some of the great creations we already have on Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Basile, we get that you prefer a simple one-frame image, or a video. There are other forms of photography, which are perfectly respectable and reasonable ways of viewing the world. Good enough even to be entered to a science competition rather than a "Photoshop fakes" competition. Many photos of natural phenomena are the result of processing multiple shots, whether that is focus stacked macro, exposure blended starry sky + landscape, tone mapped sunsets, long exposure light painting, star trails, pretty much all astronomy photos, and on and on. The first time one sees a light painting photo, one may not appreciate that the image was never all there. So this presentation is novel to you and you find it illusory. We got that two days ago. Can we now move on? All photos play with time: it is the defining feature of a photograph vs any other form of visual art. -- Colin (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This shot is amazing, and useful. Agree with Colin - Benh (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Colin. -- King of ♠ 02:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Outstanding work and high encyclopedic value. Thanks for sharing! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Colin and others. — Draceane talkcontrib. 21:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Elderly refugee portrait captured in Khazer frontline camp. Northern Iraq, Western Asia-2. 10 November, 2016.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2018 at 21:36:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed Please be patient with new FPC users (I mean the creator/uploader) who aren't used to all the formal stuff.--cart-Talk 23:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Thanks, cart. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- PumpkinSky talk 01:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose Nice colors, enigmatic facial expression, interesting topic, but not extremely sharp. See at 2 Mpix. Also the categorization could be improved (gender, kind of portrait, facial expression, posture, clothes, etc.) -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --cart-Talk 10:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- per Basile and because of the green an red CAs along the headscarf --Llez (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose Per Basile and Liez.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support For the expression, which just says it all; it outweighs the blurred stubble and CA for me. Daniel Case (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support HalfGig talk 21:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Adolph Tidemand & Hans Gude - Bridal Procession on the Hardangerfjord - Google Art Project.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2018 at 20:14:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bridal journey in Hardanger

File:Long stack of pink white and blue silage bales.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2018 at 14:54:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Long stack of pink white and blue silage bales
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info In a way this nom is related to the discussion at a delist request a bit further down the page. After the first failed nom of these bales, I took some comments made by Poco and Martin to heart and decided to re-shoot. I waited for the perfect day with lots of sun, right time of day (angle of light), no wind, tripod, best camera, everything for making perfect photos. Right. Still Mother Nature had a surprise waiting for me when I got back home and looked at the photos... The "Poco version" was shot across a field and got the most of it (pixel peeping required). This is the "Martin version", shot at shorter distance so not affected. :-) All by me, -- cart-Talk 14:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- cart-Talk 14:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Darn, Mother Nature can be a mean old *bleep* sometimes. I like the "Poco version" a lot, but yeah, the more hot air you get between you and the subject, the more pronounced the heat haze :-/ Anyway, this one's good in its own right, smells like summer for me. --El Grafo (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I can nominate it as "Natural phenomena". Face-grin.svg --cart-Talk 15:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I'm talking about the other photo that cart linked above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not so special for me. In my country you see this at every farm.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Same here.:) Some photos are more about how they are made than the rarity of the subject. --cart-Talk 20:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Enthusiastic support as I had liked the first nomination. This one really works ... perhaps we could tell people that it's a giant marshmallow farm? Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a good quality image, but I do struggle to find any wow. Maybe related to the thing, that my father is also a farmer or to the thing, that I'd like to see more space around all of this (foreground is ok but the upper part - meh). Kruusamägi (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support I kind of wish we had the light from this photo in the other composition. :) Something about the crop on the right is unsettling, like I wish that either the rear bales were fully in frame or even more cut off. Alternatively, is this perspective corrected? It seems like the left side should be moving back towards the back of the shot a bit more, rather than the tops and bottoms having roughly straight lines across the frame. Regardless, it's an interesting, visually pleasing subject, and otherwise technically nicely done. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  23:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Rhododendrites: Well, you saw what happened to the light at the other photo, so a no-go, sorry. (There is this too, but it also suffers from heat haze and so far I've not heard anyone say that the haze is a cool feature.) :) Both sides are a bit cropped since there was so much junk on the farm around the bales and such things had been commented on in the previous nom. With this crop, a small perspective correction was made since it fitted better with the framing. I can of course provide the whole original photo if need be. --cart-Talk 23:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Although the picture is well executed, I have problems to find something extraordinary here.--Ermell (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Daniel Case, Gulliver's marshmallows ː-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others, sorry --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but even after looking at it several times day after day I don't see the point here. --Code (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Riocreuxia torulosa 2017 12 30 3824.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2018 at 10:32:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Riocreuxia torulosa
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by Alandmanson -- Alandmanson (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alandmanson (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful. A little bit less noise would be nice, though -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Basil PumpkinSky talk 12:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral For me the picture is not perfect. a lot of noise and disturbing elements. Also too few Pixels.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The plant is beautiful, but I'm just not feeling this as an FP, I think because I'd like a somewhat longer DoF and warmer light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support HalfGig talk 21:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Freistadt Pfarrkirche Nothelferaltar 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2018 at 09:36:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

High altar (Altar of the Holy Helpers) at the parish church Freistadt, Upper Austria. Anonymous master of the Danube school (Lienhard Krapfenbacher?), around 1520.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info High altar (Altar of the Holy Helpers) at the parish church Freistadt, Upper Austria. Anonymous master of the Danube school (Lienhard Krapfenbacher?), around 1520. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very fine photo. -- Johann Jaritz (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support PumpkinSky talk 12:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Image seems to need perspective correction. (See horizontal line over the upper windows). Also a strange vertical glow on the right. Left and right below the photo is not really sharp.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @Famberhorst: I did a minor perspective correction with the altarpiece as reference (not the window). The greenish vertical glow is light from the next stained glass window on the right. --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ermell (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Perspective correction not convincing.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'm having trouble feeling this as an FP, and I compared 3 of your previous FP winged altarpiece photos to this photo, to help myself understand why and make sure I wasn't misremembering that they were sharper. File:Stift Ossiach Kirche Flügelaltar 01.jpg has more contrast and is (or at least feels) sharper. File:Wien Deutschordenskirche Flügelaltar 01.jpg also has more contrast, including the helpful presence of some paintings that refresh the eye with a contrast of texture and medium, and it's a spectacular motif. File:Pfarrwerfen Kirche Innenraum 01.jpg also looks sharper to me and has the bonus of some beautiful stained glass windows. I think the motif in this photo could be an FP, but since you can't make it have as much contrast as the others, it would in my opinion need more nearly pin-point sharpness and perhaps different light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @Ikan Kekek: This one is a bit older than the ones you mention, and I have elaborated my techniques in the meantime a bit. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the symmetry here. Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Quebec city, Canada 07.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2018 at 01:40:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Quebec city, Canada
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Canada
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by -- The Photographer 01:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support love the gold light. PumpkinSky talk 02:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per PumpkinSky. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♠ 04:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - It's a pretty picture, but it doesn't feel spectacular enough or have a special enough composition to my mind for me to consider it an FP. I actually think a vehicle in front of you (closer than the corner, maybe someone on a motorcycle or bicycle) and something more recognizable in the sky (discrete clouds or maybe somewhat warmer light) would help the composition a lot and might make me react differently, but I also know there are many more spectacular motifs in Quebec. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice angle, but the upper chimney looks weirdly stitched. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I have the same impression like you but it's not a striched image. I will upload the RAW file Daniel Case will find the raw file in the file description :P. --The Photographer 15:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Michielverbeek (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not bad, but not special enough to be FP. Yann (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Dyker Lights (62317).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2018 at 21:44:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Christmas lights in Dyker Heights, Brooklyn
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Dyker Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York, is known for its residents' elaborate Christmas lights displays ("Dyker Lights"). All by me. — Rhododendrites talk |  21:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportRhododendrites talk |  21:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Great job! Having tried (and failed) to shoot some much less elaborate X-mas lights, I know how bleeping hard it is to get them in focus. However, I think File:Dyker Lights (62281).jpg is much better. It has a more coherent composition, good lines and the contrast between a sparkly tree on the left and a dark normal one on the right plus no cars. Just my opinion, let's see what the rest of the gang thinks. --cart-Talk 21:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agree great job with a tough subject. My Christmas light photos always have the lights blurry. Of the two mentioned. I'll think on which I think is best. PumpkinSky talk 22:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @W.carter, PumpkinSky: Thanks. I took a lot of pictures that night and only uploaded the ones I like, so would be happy to swap out the nomination if we see support for it. The reason I have a weak preference for this one is just that I find it cleaner, and prefer the composition from the street rather than from the sidewalk. No cars would be ideal, sure, but given how crowded it gets there I'd have to take the picture in broad daylight to get a remotely head-on shot with no cars. I was just happy for a short break in traffic so I could move my tripod where I wanted it, without the dark blur of people in front for this one. :) I also like this one for the intensity of color, despite the house itself being obscured. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't like the third one at all. While I am still undecided about the first two, I lean toward the one currently at FPC, this one, because of the reasons you mention. PumpkinSky talk 23:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support While I could support both of the first two, I keep coming back to a slight preference for this one, so I'm casting my support for it. PumpkinSky talk 23:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I would support cart's preferred photo, too, and I'm not sure which one I like better. I don't think the 3rd one is an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per my oft-restated belief that Christmas-lighting displays in the U.S. (and quite a few other countries) are not covered under FoP. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Daniel Case: I opened discussions in several fora about this and haven't seen much of an argument that the lighting arrangements themselves are copyrightable. As someone else put it, they are typically just following the form of the structures that are already there. Toys, characters, sculptures, etc. sure, but they aren't here. Aside from that, if it's an FoP issue, it should be deleted, and if it's deleted the FPC fails regardless of supports/opposes. On the other hand, opposes here don't actually do anything to resolve the FoP matter. Or am I misunderstanding your intention? — Rhododendrites talk |  04:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: I saw one of your discussions. "[J]ust following the form of the structures that are already there" is not by itself enough, IMO, to keep a Christmas lighting display under the threshoold of originality for purposes of U.S. copyright law. Someone putting up those lights still has choices as to what color to use, what type of lights, and how to space them. I consider those creative choices analogous to the ones that sculptors are presumed to have made regarding how their work will look from certain angles, in certain light, and in context to their surroundings that render all photographs of those sculptures derivative works, at least in the U.S.

Technically, yes, a DR would be the better way to deal with this, but when I do so I would like to include all the relevant images, and there are a lot of them. For now it's just easier to bring this up everytime someone nominates an image of Christmas lighting or someone in costume as a copyrighted character. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

  • @Basile Morin: Thanks. To be clear, though, my response to Daniel's vote above is less about arguing whether or not there is an FoP problem here, and more that I would like to see Daniel support or oppose based on the merits of the photo, and to use proper channels to deal with a FoP issue (even leaving a comment here about a DR, if it comes to that). I don't like the idea of saying a whole category of images cannot go through FPC because someday there could be a DR and maybe the community will support deleting it. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The Eiffel was a special 100th anniversary display, undoubtedly professionally done. Can anyone show us one single documented case of a Christmas display in America actually being copyrighted? PumpkinSky talk 19:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Basile Morin That's in France. I was asking about America, where this FPC was taken. PumpkinSky talk 12:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Piedra del Tormo, Fombuena, Zaragoza, España, 2017-01-04, DD 56.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2018 at 20:50:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Evergreen oak (Quercus ilex), Piedra del Tormo, Fombuena, Province of Zaragoza, Spain.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Evergreen oak (Quercus ilex), Piedra del Tormo, Fombuena, Province of Zaragoza, Spain. All by me, Poco2 20:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 20:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not near as good as the other, which wasn't good enough for FP in my opinion, and not so rare of a sight (I personally shot several similar photos, but I keep them for myself as souvenir). - Benh (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 00:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although I think it could lose a bit of sky at the top. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Not only could it lose some sky at the top, but also some foreground at the bottom, particularly the unsharp lower right corner. Right now, this is not an FP to me, but if you tighten up the form with crops something like what I suggest, I think it will be. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    Ikan: will upload a new version tonight. I see what you mean. Poco2 12:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    Ikan: ✓ Cropped and pinging @Benh, Ralf Roletschek, Daniel Case: for information Poco2 20:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Thanks, Poco. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I actually think even more cropping on the bottom could improve the picture further, but that's to your discretion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Colors look to be washed out, quite ordinary to me. Yann (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Poco2 20:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


Statuksen poistoehdotukset[edit]

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:Kifli made with spelt flour (Serbian cuisine).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2018 at 15:42:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kifli made with spelt flour
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Food
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Kifli made with spelt flour. My shot. --Mile (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mile (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It may not have that cozy homemade feeling, this is more like going to a very good restaurant or cafe and being served this. I wouldn't mind that at all. :) --cart-Talk 16:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Kitchen garden on a Mekong bank.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2018 at 14:52:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kitchen garden on a Mekong bank

File:Tarvisio Rio del Lago Raibler See mit Fuenfspitz 10032015 0505.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2018 at 07:13:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lake Predil with Cinque Punte in the background, Tarvisio, Italy
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This photo invites the viewer to look forward, along the left bank with the trees, and then at the space between that bank and the hill and further forward to the peaks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful oppose Great composition, per Ikan, but gets too unsharp too quickly. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First, I'm not targeting you... (I've been opposing all ur noms recently). But the composition doesn't catch my eyes... For this sort of photo where the foreground plays a great part in the composition, I believe a wide angle is more suitable to get dramatic converging lines (at most 16mm on your full frame). And also, the light doesn't help (I often oppose mid day lighting photos). But a picture is worth a thousand words :) : [3] Benh (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Recology Lodal Garbage Truck 14425 in San Francisco.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2018 at 02:27:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Lōdal Evo T-28 waste collection truck operated by Recology in San Francisco.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've uploaded it. Feel free to add it as an alternate to this nomination. Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with "antiseptic" images for a project that's about encyclopedic images. dllu (t,c) 06:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I don't think FPC is about encyclopedic images; that's more VIC's brief. But how do I add an alt? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I wish the FP project was about encyclopaedic images, but it isn't. I'm not in favour of artifical backgrounds for this sort of image. Charles (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I'm not sure about the background yet in terms of FPC. But in any case I think it would make an excellent VIC, so I've gone ahead and nominated it there (→ nomination subpage). --El Grafo (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm normally not a huge fan of background replacements at FPC, but I think in this case it not only works but also raises the bar for similar works to come. The masking is very well done even when pixel-peeping, and so is the artificial shadow beneath the truck. The flat lighting that makes the original photograph a bit boring-looking is perfect for this almost drawing-like illustrative image. And finally, yes, I am actually "wow"-ed by this transformation of a meh photograph into a very educative illustration. --El Grafo (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support More or less per El Grafo. I also like that looking at it at thumb, I get the toy truck feeling. --cart-Talk 16:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral For some reason, I prefer the composition on the original, where the truck lies along the abscissa and the verticals are slanted. Not a huge fan of the background replacement either. - Benh (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Seattle Great Wheel, Seattle, Washington, Estados Unidos, 2017-09-02, DD 16.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2018 at 00:11:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Seattle Great Wheel, Seattle, Washington, USA

File:Vista de Seattle, Washington, Estados Unidos, 2017-09-02, DD 07-08 HDR.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2018 at 20:30:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cityscape of Seattle seen from after sunset from 701 on 5th Avenue.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Cityscape of Seattle seen from after sunset from 701 on 5th Avenue. All by me, Poco2 20:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 20:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ermell (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Moderate Symbol support vote.svg Support - A bit more noisy than the very best panorama pics, but I think that if this is the best quality you can get, it's sufficient, and the view is beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support HalfGig talk 01:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like night cityscapes. Just curious: Since Ikan Kekek pointed out noise, why not drop the ISO from 320 to 100 to reduce noise and make the exposure time longer to accentuate the car trails? For what it's worth, I don't think the noise is a big deal at all. Other minor technical issues include: mountain ridges on the left have a halo above them, probably due to using the "clarity" or "detail" slider in Lightroom; the logos of the Hilton and Sheraton hotels on the bottom right appear doubled (reflections on glass, perhaps?) dllu (t,c) 02:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Quite noisy and a bit blurry in the details. --Granada (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Was thinking the same as dllu (but it's an oppose, sorry ;) ). A bit dark for a 2018 night shot also. - Benh (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Corallus caninus.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2018 at 13:34:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Emerald Tree snake or Corallus Caninus in the Baltimore National Aquarium

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Price Zero|talk 04:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Münster, Westdeutsche Lotterie -- 2018 -- 0417.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2018 at 08:25:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Facade of an office building of the Westdeutsche Lotterie, Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

File:Houtzagerij Sagi Tschiertschen 06.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2018 at 08:23:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects # Switserland Sawing machine, detail.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Water-powered Sawmill, Sagi Tschiertschen. Built c 1920. sawing machine. Detail. The color and atmosphere of this photo evokes memory memories from the fifties of the last century. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - When I saw the thumbnail, I didn't expect to support this picture, but at full screen, it's a really good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lines intersecting with crop in just the right way makes it work very well. --cart-Talk 10:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Two other images of the same series of this sawmill are already featured. I see no need to have one more. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent image. The other two images Uoaei1 refers to are of totally different parts of the sawmill. Saying this one can't be an FP is like saying "we have two FPs of different parts of this same French church, so we can't have another". I have no problem with this current FPC being an FP at all. It's an excellent image and deserves FP status. Just my two cents. PumpkinSky talk 12:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Uoaei1. It isn't like "different parts of the same church". It's the same saw, just from different angles. So it is more like different views of the alter, taken on the same day with the same light and same processing. I also don't think it is fair-play to nominate in this way without declaring the previous noms. FP is about "finest", which includes choosing from one's own shots of the same object. -- Colin (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan and cart. Daniel Case (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose One of those pics where I think the perspective (vanishing points) doesn't fit. And not sure what is so remarkable about it to start with. - Benh (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan and Cart HalfGig talk 01:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Colin. The composition isn't bad but it is pretty typical and unremarkable. dllu (t,c) 03:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:ReichstagSala.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2018 at 16:58:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hall of the German Parliament

File:Peterborough Cathedral Central Tower Ceiling.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2018 at 16:08:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Aftermath of January 2018 North American blizzard 14.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2018 at 15:40:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Asian Pear in blizzard
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Rosaceae
  • Pyrus pyrifolia branches, Asian Pear, Shinko cultivar, in blizzard aftermath. -- PumpkinSky talk 15:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- PumpkinSky talk 15:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A very genuine composition with pastel colors. I do enjoy this image quite a lot. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Johann. In addition, the main branches are on the rule of thirds line and very sharp. This almost looks like it was taken looking up to the sky but I'm pretty sure it was taken looking into the fallen snow. HalfGig talk 18:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Delicate, with what feels to me like a Japanese aesthetic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. What do we see in the background? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. I presume the background is a wall? Daniel Case (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice colors and the double textures make the image. Suggestion: I think I would crop just a sliver of the bottom to not get that last ice blob cut. Just the branch makes for a cleaner finish. See note. Or perhaps clone out the blob. --cart-Talk 10:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Johann Jaritz, HalfGig, Ikan Kekek, Martin Falbisoner, Daniel Case: @W.carter: All, thanks for the supports! So that everyone knows, the background is not a wall. HalfGig was on the right track, it's fallen snow on the ground. These are the low branches on an Asian Pear tree. The camera was on a tripod and aimed downward at a sharp angle. Cart, I will look at your suggestions. PumpkinSky talk 12:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: I tried to clone it, but since the ice is also over the twig, it still looked weird. So I went with the small crop. I agree it looks better. Thanks! PumpkinSky talk 12:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Carnegiea gigantea or Sahuaro or Saguaro.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2018 at 02:44:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @ Benh & Charles, I have looked all over for that mythical 5 fingered sahuaro! I will come across it one day! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice - you could always clone out the sixth finger!! Charles (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Cettarames (ship, 1980) cf06.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 20:04:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Paraboloide circular 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 19:12:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Circular paraboloid generated by '"`UNIQ--postMath-00000002-QINU`"'.

File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2018 -- 0380.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 17:45:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Game reserve in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 17:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- XRay talk 17:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Beautiful, excellent composition -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- PumpkinSky talk 20:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Balanced composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I thought that was a herd of deer at first, but I don't see the antlers. Are those goats? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately too much of the bottom is in shadow for me. -- King of ♠ 03:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A bit ordinary in my opinion - Benh (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice, but a bit too unsharp --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a good nature shot, but there are so many of these on Commons that it would need something extra special to earn the title 'one of the best images on Commons'.--Peulle (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support HalfGig talk 18:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Snapshot. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Snapshot? Please explain. --XRay talk 05:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Dobrota, Bahía de Kotor, Montenegro, 2014-04-19, DD 11.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 13:11:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the town of Dobrota, a location of about 8,000 inhabitants in the Bay of Kotor, Montenegro.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Montenegro
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info View of the town of Dobrota, a location of about 8,000 inhabitants in the Bay of Kotor, Montenegro. All by me, Poco2 13:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 13:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dull lighting, and feels a bit too much like a holiday shot anyone would take, sorry. - Benh (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for your appreciation, once more, Benh (I talk about the comment, not about the vote) --Poco2 14:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Not dull but misty, and very well captured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • See no mist here. But a picture is worth a thousand words... [4]. We're far from that here. - Benh (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • There are of course different degrees of mist. Most of the mist in this picture is not in the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't know what you are talking about, but guess you refer to the low clouds. No. The light just renders uniform and dull on the subject itself. But anyways, we're mostly fighting about words. - Benh (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No fight here. Fog is just clouds on the surface. When it becomes no longer mist (=fog, IMO) is a judgment call. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not very exciting; the light is not the best, there is no reflection in the water to help either.--Peulle (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    There is no reflexion? I'm speechless --Poco2 15:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe he talks about the "specular" bright reflections? - Benh (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, I mean that the relection is not good enough to provide any extra wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like light and reflections. IMO FP. Only a minor problem: The waste in the water, especially the green spot at the right. --XRay talk 17:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    XRay: ✓ Done, thanks, Poco2 18:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I see lots of reflexion on the water surface. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Peulle; it also seems a bit soft. I wonder how this would look in bright sunlight. Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Bergtocht van Vens naar de Pointe Oilletta in Valle d'Aosta (Italië). Zaaddozen van alpenflora langs bergpad in dichte mist boven Lac du Joux (1930m) 08.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 05:40:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Chamerion angustifolium.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Rain and mist give this plant in decline a new dimension. Plant photographed on a mountain slope above Lac du Joux (1930m) in Valle d'Aosta (Italy). All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support PumpkinSky talk 14:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 17:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not keen on the busy background - Benh (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Fusiturris similis 01.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 21:57:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A shell of Fusiturris similis (Bivona Ant. in Bivona And., 1838)

File:Eutropis macularia (bronze grass skink) eating a frog.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 14:10:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eutropis macularia (bronze grass skink) eating a frog
I think the snake is taking care of the crop just fine ... Face-smile.svg. Daniel Case (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
One of those hand-in-mouth moments we all dread. Charles (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done New upload with changed crop, thanks Charles for the suggestion, though it's different from your note, that I find too extreme. I want to reveal the shapes of the two animals, and cutting that much would hide the bodies, that I find interesting here. Concerning the frog, unfortunately I was unable to identify the species. Any clue welcome ! -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
New crop is good. Charles (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ivar (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yuk! ;) --cart-Talk 19:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Benh (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ermell (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This photo has a big impact. You have to feel sad for the frog. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jakubhal 23:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 23:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Just horrible.., for the frog.--Cayambe (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Harlock81 (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The snake seems to be particularly fond of frog's legs ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Samuele2002 (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Development of hogweed bud[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 13:44:04 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info These were three of about a hundred hogweeds growing along a ditch. They grew under almost identical conditions and were selected for a series to show the development of the bud from first stage up to just before blooming. All by me, -- cart-Talk 13:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- cart-Talk 13:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment trouble is, the backgrounds are all so different (and little depth of field). Charles (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The ditch was not uniform in color and I liked that the different color schemes matched the different plants, giving each photo a softer look than a very contrasting unform green or something like that. The focus is just on the plants and not on the background. These plants are really big so they are all focus stacked and the background was about a meter or so behind each plant, so not so "shallow" DoF. Just covering the middle plant required eight photos to get the entire plant sharp. The scale here is a bit different than 4 cm butterflies. :) Are you suggesting I should only nominate one of them and skip the set thing? --cart-Talk 14:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I only looked at the First bud which is not in focus, but the others are nice and sharp if over-exposed. I just don't think they work brilliantly as a set, perhaps the different sizes is a problem too. Charles (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Strong support --Claus 17:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good and very nice Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Benh (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support PumpkinSky talk 21:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ermell (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Works for me. The bud may be a little less sharp than the others, and I wouldn't mind a little more sharpening of that frame if it could help, but I think it's good enough to be an FP, as are the others. It's also OK with me that these are 3 different plants - that's clearly indicated in the file descriptions. One question: The top of the last one isn't already blooming? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No, only the stamens have emerged and the petals are still unfolded and curled up around the center of each flower. When it blooms, the petals will become much larger and the whole shape of the plant will go from the "ball shape" and form a "disc" of flowers. --cart-Talk 23:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed I did some very light selective sharpening on the First bud. --cart-Talk 15:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that's nice. I would have clicked "thank", but I don't see a link to the nomination page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No problem, Ikan. :) These set noms are always a bit tricky to handle IMO. If you want to get hold of the nom page, you have to first click on 'edit' and after that just cancel your editing whitout doing any editing. That will set you on the set nom page. On that subject, I was looking for somewhere to add the category for this nom, couldn't find it though. AFAIK promoted set noms also show up in the 'normal' FP categories. --cart-Talk 15:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Common tiger (Danaus genutia genutia) male underside.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 13:29:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

male common tiger butterfly (Danaus genutia genutia)

File:Ely State Theater.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 08:25:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ely State Theater, 234 E Sheridan St, Ely, Minnesota, USA. Viewed from the north.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United States
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by User:McGhiever - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The only drawback I see to this photo is that it's pretty small for a new FP. However, it's pretty close to perfect to my eyes and in my opinion does justice to the clean lines of this classic Streamline Moderne movie theater. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support +1 --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support awesome, and easily large enough for this kind of subject. --El Grafo (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --cart-Talk 13:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wolf im Wald 15:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Strong support The third-place finisher in WLM USA 2017, an entry that I strongly supported all through the process as more technically accomplished than the top two. Glad to see it getting the respect it deserves here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I really like the side lighting - Benh (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ermell (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 23:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find the right side not perfectly vertical, but still acceptable -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The building is leaning in and the resolution low. --XRay talk 17:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per XRay, I expect more than 4 MP resolution for relatively easy to capture images. -- King of ♠ 07:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The shadow on the right spoils it, and the building is obviously in a bad condition, thus no wow for me. Also per XRay and King --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:20171122 Khone Phapheng Falls 3923 DxO.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 08:02:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Khone Phapheng Falls. All by me -- Jakubhal 08:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jakubhal 08:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Exciting and quite good, IMO. The sky helps by creating more drama. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support PumpkinSky talk 11:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wolf im Wald 15:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dэя-Бøяg 16:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support dramatism adds something special Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Because I would crop away the top part to improve -in my view- the composition, and get rid of the overexposed part in the process. - Benh (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As technically good as it's going to get, I guess ... but so dramatic! Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ermell (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support though I agree with Benh: the clouds are very nice, but sometimes you have to make some sacrifices to improve the overall picture. -- King of ♠ 06:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 17:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find this enchanting. I like the way it converges in the back center. HalfGig talk 18:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 21:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportMeiræ 01:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Golden Euonymus in January 2018 North American blizzard.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2018 at 21:46:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Golden Euonymus after blizzard

File:Sable antelope (Hippotragus niger) adult male.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2018 at 15:30:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Adult male sable antelope (Hippotragus niger)
  • Technically impossible to be otherwise I think with a black animal without digital manipulation. Charles (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Dear Charles it is absolutely possible and please, take a look to the note "black shadow", It's a total black shadow that loss completely details aforementioned by dear King and you could up the shadows in lightroom to fix it, however, do it selective and careful because the result could be unnatural. Also you could simply buy a cheap anti hars contrast lens. A hug --The Photographer 01:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)