Oppose This suffers from a combination of minor issues that add up. The DoF could be higher or the camera better positioned. The lighting is very flat and lacks sufficient contrast. The crop is a little tight or the composition is wrong with the dragonfly pointed "out of the picture". If this were a high resolution image, I might support, but at the minimal resolution, there are no mitigating factors here. Richard Bartz has many dragonfly images that do not exhibit these issues that make good references for what I prefer. -- Ram-Man 01:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose very bad quality --kaʁstn 16:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a 65 year old photo. Did you read the descripton? Yann (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I read the description. Okay, it's a little rash. I've delete the FPX, but I think, that this picture has no chance --kaʁstn 16:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, my thinking war wrong. Sorry --kaʁstn 18:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The image meets the requirements, doesn't look too bad AND is 65-year-old. →Ditithepenguin — 17:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Considering the big resolution and age, quality is atleast enought. It's very strong photo! —kallerna™ 17:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support very good picture from 1944... Otourly (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral It is not possible for me (HDSL, but low flow) to load this image in high resolution. I suggest to make a derivated work in medium resolution. --Barbetorte (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support — one of the finest images of the liberation. Of historical value and of good quality for the time. Booksworm (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Unsharp -- downright blurry in the corners, really sharp nowhere ; colours all wrong ; vignetting. Nothing special -- it's a trivial shot of passing mecanised grunts, composition and PoV are not breathtaking. No wow factor. Rama (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Incidentally, it might be appropriate to rename this image in a way that does not blindly parrot propaganda from the 1940s. Rama (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but not FP per Rama. Lycaon (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Changed my mind ; this isn't FP for reasons above, but overall white balance, which could be corrected. --Romanceor[parlons-en] 00:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you please explain why you oppose? Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rama is right. I know that this image is very old, but there are better images of this age. -- Pro2 (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Better images of this event? Could you show them to me please? Yann (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) He said "better images of this age", not "better images of this event"
2) We would not feature sub-standard photographs for the only reason that they'd be the only ones of their event. That is Valued Image, not Featured Picture. Rama (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - A good picture, there must be very few images of this quality of such an historic occasion. The technical quality of the image is not one hundred percent, but given its age and rarity (a freely licenced colour picture from this age), I definetely support.Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Quality is not very good (the sky is uneven). --Estrilda (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For me this pictures is a tiny sensation with lots of value - It shows a male (left) and a female (right) of the Beautiful Demoiselle (Calopteryx virgo) in a direct comparison.
SupportOpposeIs she chasing him? ;-) Switch to oppose due to errors. Maedin\talk 18:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really. She was laying eggs before and he watched/observed that very carefully. Every once in a while they took a rest, mostly not together - but in a rare moment ... "click" • Richard • [®] • 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aw, :-) That does sound like a tiny sensation with lots of value! Maedin\talk 18:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Now you can die happily ;-). Lycaon (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Changed my mind per Diti. Lycaon (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Sadly, I'm not surprised. Disappointed, yes, but not surprised. I've been expecting this for several hours. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Like usually by Muhammad Mahdi Karim --kaʁstn 14:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - When I see it as a beautiful flower growing amidst the dead foliage of its species, the ugly dead foliage doesn't bother me any more. Downtowngal (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral great quality and colors but I'm not convinced by the composition : the space in front of the flower should be greater than the space behind it. --ianaré (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose in my opinion the composition is a bit cluttered. Quality is good though. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Composition. The flower is pointing the wrong direction. There are also no mitigating reasons for the minimal resolution (to quote the requirements "it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible"). Certainly a QI, but not enough wow for FP. -- Ram-Man 01:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mitigating reasons are required if the image is below the 2mp requirement. --Muhammad (talk) 05:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mitigating reasons are required whenever an image violates any of the basic requirements, not just when an image has too low of a resolution. This allows us to accept images that are special but violate the rules (too low resolution, too much noise, unsharp, etc.). We feature pictures that are most useful. Intentionally downsampled images are intentionally not as useful and thus violate the rules, as quoted above. There is no good reason for this. -- Ram-Man 11:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment There seem to be a slight overlap of the A and B squares. And why are the colored squares made transparent ? /Daniel78 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Request I retuched this "overlap". I think, that transparent colors look good. But if you consider that should be change - isn't problem. --Michał Komorniczak (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Maybe it's educational, but not impressive. Featured pics should be.--Tired time (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per above + vector version seems to be autoconverted from PNG one, what makes this file pretty heavy and not very "neat". Masur (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Low value. “Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that […] almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others” —Commons:Featured picture candidates. →Ditithepenguin — 09:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question to Diti: How about the quality? I mean the file is only 500kb but also with 2,490 × 1,512 pixels, how come? It is special in that it's not about a sunset but about a rare footage of mountains in Iran. I don't believe we have many images of that area.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment If it is about the mountains than the problem is that they are way too dark. As guidelines say "Every important object on the picture should be sharp, considering the idea of the image." Here they are only a black spot. Mountains photographed in this manner wouldn't make the photo valuable, even if they were in Pluto, because you can't really see them--Tired time (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support For me it's in some way special! --kaʁstn 13:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - The image is pleasing to the eye, but there are a lot like it. Given that it is not really posible to tell where the image is by the photo, there are no decript landmarks etc, then it is just a picture of a sunset, and there are many like it. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, no encyclopedic value. —kallerna™ 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support 90-year-old coins in this quality are imo featured --kaʁstn 15:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose for now “Poor” depiction of the coin (look at the shadows and the size). →Ditithepenguin — 16:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Good use for documenting, but not special & of medium quality -- H005 (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 18:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose No wow for me, should be eye catching. And 90 years is not that impressive--Tired time (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No WOW is ever a ridiculously subjective justification, since one image can be extremely useful. --The Photographer (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well it is in the first paragraph of the guidelines: "Featured pictures candidates should meet all the following requirements, must have a “wow factor”". Yes, "wow factor" is subjective, but featured pictures do need it. If you think it is valuable, maybe it should be nominated in valued images. But could you tell me please, how it is valuable, in what sort of article it could be used? (No sarcasm. I am asking because I have a collection of old coins myself and after seeing your nomination I wondered, if I should photograph some of the for wikipedia too, but I couldn't think of an article, where it could be used.)--Tired time (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Best preserved is the currency for the time. At the moment I'm developing material for inclusion in a detailed article. Thank's --The Photographer (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Quality is not good enough, which doesn't take away the EV of the image. Try FPC in en:WP -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Definitely has the WOW-factor, by far outweighing any technical flaws (not that I see any, actually). MartinD (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Overburnt, noisy, dark on some areas. —kallerna™ 14:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Impressive quality given the circumstances. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support If those opposing wish to go out and take a better picture, they are more than welcome to. Until that time, however... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Precisely. :) When you have an EF5 tornado bearing down on you, the quality of your image is the last of your worries. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I looked through the corresponding WP article to verify the F5 in the description since it doesn't look like an F5 at the time of the photo. Confirmed, so no problem. It's a privilege to have such contributions here. Ikluft (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per Kallerna. This is the absolutely standard subject for macro photographers (Flickr has 33.849 of it), for that I expect a more aesthtical approach to make it somehow special regarding the subject. What I don't like the most is the plastic bowl with the handholds and the cramped composition as well the tight crop (top + right side). Rudimentally good in technical terms but not exceptional in an aesthetical respectively compositional manner. • Richard • [®] • 23:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support: Good photo, but the black background is very unnatural --kaʁstn 06:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The current FP (Disclosure: My image) for this species is superior mainly due to better white petal detail (from the lighting choice) and slightly higher resolution. -- Ram-Man 00:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I have to agree that the black background is detracting from the image. Maedin\talk 08:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Could be a good example of overprocessing, though. --Yerpo (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, sorry. It's the second time I nominate a picture on FP and the verdict is the same :D Will be more attentive in future. --Gikü (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I tried too create a vector myself some time ago. --Muhammad (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Ambigrams are fascinating and I'd gladly support this one if it weren't for the kitschy border and background colour. Also, the border should be symmetrical in respect to a horizontal axis. Finally why is the text (apparently) rotated ccw? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Would anyone object if I move this from candidates for removal to current candidates? ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done Ahh, it was already listed here too :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Too much dust spots and fibers/hairs and annoying color tint. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support At the resolution you could make a nice big print and the dust spots would be barely noticeable. There is some posterization but I don't mind as it's a quite beautiful picture. --Calibas (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Strong support, if there is such a thing here.;) MartinD (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - weak quality, not special enough aesthetically. Downtowngal (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Maybe it's not perfect technically, but aesthetic impressiveness overcompensate that--Tired time (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. It doesn't have just a little posterisation, it has extreme posterisation. Probably as a result of a poor scan or poor processing. Diliff (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I would have problems voting for this image as a QI due to serious vignetting issues. So is it valuable enough for FP? Not to me.
Oppose I like it and would consider supporting, but not while there are dust spots that should be cloned out. Maedin\talk 11:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose This is either tilted (as above) or just needs a good distortion correction. I'm too lazy to figure out which it is, but if it were fixed I might be able to support. -- Ram-Man 01:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support definitely not the best, but a good photo. I like the snow hills in the background --kaʁstn 19:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate choice of projection spoils it for me. I can't tell what's straight or curved... Lycaon (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The verticals are perfectly vertical (as they should be), the horizontals are curved due to the panoramic effect: no problem for me! Nice picture, good composition. BTW: the 'snow hills' in the background are rather mountains, I presume. -- MJJR (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose as Lycaon. My first impression is "Are those roofs really curved?", rather than "what a beautiful/interesting scene." I know it's easy to criticize; I don't have to go out and make a better picture. Sorry. Downtowngal (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose No wow. There are a lot of featured micro pictures already, I think we should only feature the very best of them --Tired time (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Good work has to award --kaʁstn 12:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Great work, but technically just under minimum size. Can it be gotten any larger? The larger we can get it, the better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Adam Cuerden. should've been FPX'ed on size. Lycaon (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose A bit tilted and I think not the best photo of Diliff --kaʁstn 12:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, I don't think it's tilted, it's just distortion due to the focal length. --Aqwis (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Looks tilted and I feel the white balance is a bit off. Would also be better without that airplane. /Daniel78 (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support It's a good image, the presence of the aeroplane is really neither here nor there. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support It's a main flight path in London, so seeing aeroplanes there is standard. Like Aqwis, it's not tilt, it's a small amount of natural distortion. Maedin\talk 15:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Sweet, it would scraping itself. But please the next time take a photo with the tail --kaʁstn 19:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Unidentified and badly cropped. Lycaon (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Cute but the lighing is very dull. Can't say it's underexposed but it could do better with a tad more photons :-) • Richard • [®] • 23:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Support: A very good photo with good quality, but the backgound... In thumb I can't really see the motive... --kaʁstn 19:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Very nice quality. The background is too distracting for me though. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The background looks natural to me. --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
Background are inshore, breakers zone. This crab protected by the Law in Ukraine: animal Red Book list. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support It does look confusing in thumbnail, but it's very clear at full size. I don't see why its thumbnail should detract from its worth as a featured picture. Maedin\talk 08:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Pretty but not special. FP guidelines state, "Our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others." Downtowngal (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This does not mean we must not support any sunset pictures anymore. This one I find indeed special due to the open glass roof skeleton and the extraordinarily clear rays. -- H005 (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The vertical lines are not vertical. I'd also prefer to see the clock face-on. It is awkward the way it is now. Architecture can be rather dry, so any defects take away from the "wow". -- Ram-Man 01:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is tilted, underexposed and unsharp.
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
The image is not tilted and the brighter, more colorful flag is meant to contrast against the background in the setting sun. This image was taken after a day of reconstructive efforts on the peninsula (due to Hurricane Ike), so forgive the amateur camera.--DaFoos (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The flag-pole itself has been tilted from the excessively high winds of the area. That tilt was meant to be reduced. --DaFoos (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was for the horizon, the flag-pole is tilted 1.34° CW. So wind tilt is probably 2.39° CW. Lycaon (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Is it tilted? --kaʁstn 12:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry i don't understand the meaning of tilted, but this photo is not modified by any program. I took it by placing the camera on a level surface and set the shutter speed to a couple of seconds as i remember and f to around 8 so the info on the photo is not correct.It was almost night when it was taken so the scene was not as bright as it seems here.. Mbilgen (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As i understand, this is taken during the evening. Most of these kind of panoramas are taken ether at night, or during the day and I think it is so for a reason, because this picture just doesn't do the trick. A bit too dark for me. And looks good only when zoomed a lot. Close call though--Tired time (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose regretfully. Shot a little too late. Agree with Tired time. Downtowngal (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but just adding some light isn't sufficient, it's overall too dark and, to me, simply not special enough. Also, the horizon ist not horizontal. -- H005 (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Nominated this image, as I have tried to take a similar image of the same landscape before, however it can be quite dificult to get an unobscured picture. This I think is a very succesful attempt.Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Low quality, grainy, especially the sky. Too much jpeg compression I think--Tired time (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nothing special... --kaʁstn 13:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is it nothing special? It's a high-quality and useful image that satisfies all the criteria as far as I can see. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It barely shows the smoldering parts of the briquettes. A more colorful image would be better. Downtowngal (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Set Candidate - Henry Holiday's Illustrations to Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark, featured[edit]
Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 00:05:53
First off, I apologise for this formatting: It's hard to set up 10 plates simply and cleanly when they switch between landscape and portrait.
Right. These are the original illustrations to Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark, a sequel of sorts to "Jabberwocky". Full descriptions below. These have been the subject of at least some critical comment (see en:The Hunting of the Snark, for instance), since they were approved by Carroll, and he specified some aspects, such as the snark never being distinctly seen. This set is pretty much complete: I believe there may have also been a cover illustration, but I don't know if it was by Holiday, and mine lacks it. I'll try to pick that up at some later time.
Rather long explanation of the images
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
1. Opening Stanza to Fit the First:
"Just the plce for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.
2. The crew. [Too many stanzas to quote]
3. End section of Fit the First. The Butcher has said he can only butcher beavers:
Yet still, ever after that sorrowful day,
Whenever the Butcher was by,
The Beaver kept looking the opposite way,
And appeared unaccountably shy.
4. From Fit II: Depicts the Bellman's map, which is equally useful everywhere.
5. Fit III:
"But oh, beamish nephew, beware of the day,
If your Snark be a Boojum! For then
You will softly and suddenly vanish away,
And never be met with again!"
6. Arguably, opening to Fit the Fifth (The text appears in slightly different form in Fit the Fourth - where the image is printed - but the actions depicted aren't carried out until Fit the Fifth)
They sought it with thimbles, they sought it with care;
They persued it with forks and hope;
They threatened its life with a railway-share;
They charmed it with smiles and soap.
7. Fit the Fifth: The Butcher and Beaver hear the song of the Jub-Jub bird, and this causes the Butcher to begin a lengthy lesson to he Beaver (and strange creatures watch). Afterwards, they become friends.
8. Fit the Sixth: The Barrister's Dream. Pretty much the whole fit. The snark is in the foreground, in barrister's robe and wig - the nearest to an illustration of it in the entire set.
9. Fit the Seventh: The Banker's Fate. He is attacked by a Bandersnatch, and goes insane. Unlike normal terror, his face goes black, and his waistcoat white.
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, no provisions are made to feature sets on commons. As always, it would have been nice to have discussed such nominations before putting them on FPC. Lycaon (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw that announcement, did I miss the discussion? Lycaon (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was discussed in advance, and a set has run successfully before. It's a bit late to store up your complaint for after the person has spent days cleaning up and preparing a huge set of images, and then to suddenly object when the work is done, and the nomination runs, particularly when you specifically say you saw the announcement. As the FPX template says, "Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support." - I would appreciate that being done as soon as possible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you point me to that discussion? The previous nom is irrelevant for me as I was out of the country that time. Lycaon (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nonono, You know what I'm talking about, that's the statement, not the discussion :-(. Lycaon (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I specifically asked for how people wanted it to run, and asked for any comments. I cannot force people to comment, but you say you were aware of it, so why did you wait until after this went live? Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Well done on the restoration. And yes, Lycaon, you should have raised any concerns when Adam asked. Very bad form to wait until now. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't remember you approving at that time? Bad form? Lycaon (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had no problems with the set being nominated, and no suggestions to offer, seeing as the last set went so well, so I didn't see too much point in commenting. In effect, we gave our implied consent by not objecting. There is no rule that states I have to comment on a proposal, but if I am given the chance to do so, as you were, and do not, then it is bad form to object later. I trust Adam, and while his subject matter may not excite me as much as some, I appreciate the effort he puts in, and consider your actions and manner an insult to both him and his work. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abstain As for videos, I think the guidelines/information should be updated and approved for new formats before voting. /Daniel78 (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment agree with Daniel78. I often said that the guidelines should get updated before we nominate restorations here. In my opinion those pics here are a QI or VI, but a FP?! We don't even know how we should judge restorations. I often saw restorations here that lost a lot of details compared to the original, still many users voted with 'pro', which can't be the right way imho. So i think we have to set up guidelines otherwise it makes no sense to nominate restorations. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With respect, we've had restorations here for about three years. I'd happily write up guidelines, but we also don't have guidelines for a lot of things, like diagrams and illustrations. This seems irrelevant to this specific nomination. In any case, the restoration work here was minor and limited. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn't the place to propose a sudden halt to a practice that Commons has routinely done for years. Durova (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Some are good, others are (very) plain. One is amost white, one is almost black. And trying to get so many image to be featured at once is not very fair IMHO. --Estrilda (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a complete set: I think it gains value for being complete that it doesn't have alone, as it makes Commons a really strong resource for The Hunting of the Snark - which it wasn't before this, and wouldn't be if it wasn't complete. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rhellica gymnadenia (flower spike is 22mm high), close to Gletschertafel, Lötschental, Switzerland. Everything by Lycaon (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral This has a very pleasing composition, which is why I am not opposing. Taking photos of saturated reds like this is extremely difficult to do without blowing out the color as in this picture. The DoF is a tad on the shallow side as well and it could be sharper. -- Ram-Man 01:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anonymous votes not allowed. --Yerpo (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Good composition and exposure, but not very sharp. Would support for QI without reservations, but FP... not so sure. --Yerpo (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - bad qualitiy -- Pro2 (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose – Quality, value, white balance, shadows could be better exposed --Ernie (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The scenery is beautiful, but not special enough. Sharpness is good, but some areas too dark. Also, the fog in the background is hiding too much to see the mountains, but is not enough to be impressive. -- H005 (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - I have to agree with Tired time. And, the huge shadow dominates the composition without adding anything of value. Downtowngal (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - I have to agree with Tired time. --Zuffe (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it's an interesting photo, but fuzzy and no really Wow --kaʁstn 15:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I find more wow in this type of pictures than in insects' macros... but I very well understand it's just my opinion (of course not for the context which I don't care, but for the subject : people). --Romanceor[parlons-en] 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support an interesting photo--Claus (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Interesting people on the stairs. Well chosen. --Dereckson (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - The photo doesn't tell us anything about the manifestation except that some photographers were tired. Well-composed but not valuable. Downtowngal (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This is because the subject is not the demonstration ; it is the public of it. Am I the tired photograph ? --Romanceor[parlons-en] 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - No, you're not the tired photographer. The people in focus look tired, or maybe just cold! Actually, I disagree that the people in focus are "the public" of the demonstration. But that's another discussion. Downtowngal (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like the picture, which tells a story --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Really interesting and I would feature it, but the noise reduction dropped all the details away. :( →Ditithepenguin — 08:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CommentHelophilus species are resembling each other quite a bit. H. pendulus is a hoverfly occurring in Central and northern Europe (incl. Iceland) ([1], [2]). It does not occur in North America. H. groenlandicus ([3]), of which I unfortunately didn't find an illustration yet, and H. hybridus ([4]) at the other hand are holarctic species, also occurring in Canada. You should re-evaluate your identification. Postponing support until then. Lycaon (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the PDF: an old but interesting key. I'm even less convinced now ;-). These flies are difficult, and the distinguishing features (face, hind femur/tibia) are not clearly visible on the picture. I think we need the opinion of a syrphid taxonomist here. Lycaon (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support But a wrong ID is far worse than no ID at all. I would appreciate it if you could investigate! Maedin\talk 07:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Architecture is very static and often very dry. This does not have any real wow. Most high quality architecture photos like this should be QIs. -- Ram-Man 01:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Good quality, but the subject is not interesting enough--Tired time (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Not only the architecture in a Baroque taste matters. For me, it is valued view. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Thx, George. This building is IMHO an important view for Hamburg because its directly over the "Landungsbrücken" in St. Pauli, the central place of the port of Hamburg. But next time I will prefer to propose a macro of the tiny little fly on the third window of the second floor. *g* --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Touché. Macros and landscapes. It is simple though: nature's creations are more often beautiful than human creations. Downtowngal (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment One of the tasks of Wikipedia is to show the architecture of our cities. The answers here are not only critizising my picture what would absolutely be OK and I wouldn't have said a single word, but general contras against any picture of the real buildings in our cities are IMHO a problem for our project. --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I can sympathise with you Mbdortmund, insect pictures seem to occupy most of the limelight in this section. I enjoy them, but I wish we could have an 'Insect Free Month', so that other pictures could be concentrated on. As for your picture, sadly, I don't find a view like this particularly exciting; photos of buildings need something unusual (for example, perspective, colour or setting) too really stand out. This one is a real example of what I like to see. If you like, I can show you a couple of others I think are great; maybe they could inspire you? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment 1. We need more of the great macros, too. 2. The picture you named is great. --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Was probably OK when he made it and has undoubtedly some historical value, but time has destroyed it for FP I'm afraid. Lycaon (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
This is Louis Daguerre's famous "Boulevard du Temple": the first photograph to successfully record a human being. 1830s technology required exposure times of over ten minutes; the shot captures a man at lower left who stood still. Durova (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I'm a bit wary to oppose here as I don' want to be shouted at as too often happens with the oppose for certain images these days. But this image is too far gone to become FP. I agree wholeheartedly with /Daniel78. Estrilda --Estrilda (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Had to think this over a couple of days. Occasionally the historical importance of a photograph makes it unsuitable for restoration. This is one of those times. Yes, it's rough. Yes, it's decayed. Yet envision this as cutting edge technology for 1838-1839, and it's stunning. One of the landmarks of photographic history. Durova (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed them by hand - uploaded over the original. This was shot hand-held so unfortunately minor stitching faults resulted. Hopefully they've all gone now. Diliff (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination
They're fixed... bit hasty to withdraw, isn't it? Diliff (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support There still some errors left, but hard to spot, and the overall quality is great. Just that sun reflection to the top right looks a bit artificial - I suppose this has been added through some piece of software? -- H005 (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it's just an actual reflection of sunlight on the glass building. I don't willingly falsify my images. Diliff (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Has lots of value. Looks good as a thumbnail and is of high resolution. -- Ram-Man 16:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Drat! I was going to do this, but ended up helping someone else try, who never quite finished. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support very good quality, image is interesting --ianaré (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Well done, but just one of too many well-done flower pictures -- H005 (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support countering previous oppose. I don't think 'too many well-done flower pictures' is a valid opposition argument. Lycaon (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You complain about an invalid opposition argument and then you do this? The GFDL v.1.2 is not only an acceptable license, but has been the "preferred" license for many years. I know you've read Commons:Licensing, but perhaps it bears a reminder. There are no licenses allowed by the Commons that should bear this type of reaction. -- Ram-Man 00:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Restrictive license prevents me to support.Lycaon (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is nothing wrong with the GFDL 1.2 and the fact is that it is one of many acceptable licenses allowed on the Commons (Commons:Licensing). This comment is nothing more than a personal opinion that does not belong here and has nothing to do with the rules for evaluating FPs (and could potentially sway other voters incorrectly). If you don't like the license, don't vote. -- Ram-Man 00:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My vote is per de:Wikipedia:Lizenzvorlagen für Bilder. Images on Commons should be usable on all wikimdia projects. I didn't oppose because of the good quality of the image, though I can't support for said reason. Lycaon (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's totally rediculous. There are hardly any images here that qualify under your overly restrictive terms. Since Wikinews uses the CC-by-sa-2.5, only those images that use (or explicitly allow) creative commons licenses (of the correct version) would be acceptable for your standards. Creative Commons licenses are too weak copyleft and they do not adequately defend the rights of copyright holders and provide too easy a way for abuse in violation of the whole purpose of copyleft, which is to increase the number of works available under free licenses. Why don't you just oppose and say "Not a Creative Commons copyleft license or weaker". It has never been the mission of Commons for all images to be useful for all projects, as that is extremely difficult since not all current (and future) projects must conform to the same licensing terms, nor are all images even useful for all projects due to their specific content. The fact that you site a German Wikipedia article has nothing to do with the Commons and further supports my position that this is not a valid argument to make here. Until Commons policy changes to support your opinion, I ask that you withdraw your comments. This is not the proper forum to push your own personal philosophical and/or political opinions on which licenses are the "best". You show great disrespect to those of us who believe in the standards of copyleft and free images but don't happen to agree with you. -- Ram-Man 00:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might have been totally ridiculous if I had opposed. I didn't, I just can't support. Please next time react like this to real opposers. Lycaon (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support A little noisy at high-res, but not fatally so. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support nice composition and colors --ianaré (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Could be a shower head for those who play with lysergic acid diethylamide • Richard • [®] • 20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
due to its organic nature, I figure it would be better for eaters of psilocybe ... --ianaré (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what a wonder ;-) --kaʁstn 14:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Nice picture, hard to get one like this as it seems to be always raining in this part of England. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Blimey, kaʁstn, this was only uploaded yesterday! Maedin\talk 16:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw the nomination at the German Wikipedia ;-) --kaʁstn 13:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- I've been experimenting with panoramic pictures a bit, but it will take a long time to get them as good as this, if ever! MartinD (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Wordsworth would be proud. Although I am having trouble getting it to open at full size. Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Overall good quality, but no wow, foreground too dark, and just too much on it. Also, more than half of the picture is water. -- H005 (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I declined this at QI not only because of the black background but for the overly-tight crop and the blurriness at the edges. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Missing Qualiti Image, bad crop, bad sharpness in front and end of flower. HBR (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Spring Gentian (Gentiana verna) is a species of the genus Gentiana and one of its smallest members, normally only growing to a height of a few centimetres.
I don't want supprot but I can't oppose. Very good photo, but the background... I can't really see the animal, but it's just the normal background. So Neutral --kaʁstn 09:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The description says it's an example of camouflage. The animal and background contrast aren't a problem for me because it does what it says. It's a good photo. Ikluft (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposeSharpness and object are excellent, but lightness is not balanced, very dark on the left side. -- H005 (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
I've spend some extra light on the left, much better now IMHO, but I have to revert that sharpness is excellent; it was just too dark before to see the blurry part at the toad's rear end. -- H005 (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose A little bit to low DoF, which makes none of the presented individuals clearly visible. + not sufficient species descriptions, but that can be easily fixed. Masur (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Well done, I don't know if u used flash but the sparkles make it exceptional. I also like the DOF.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Good composition, but bad quality. What kind of objective do you have? —kallerna™ 19:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral The overall quality and DOF isn't that bad - it's a good solid shot. It's a pity that the wing tips are blurry - I assume the wind has blown towards the wings. • Richard • [®] • 21:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
I took this picture with my old Tamron AF Aspherical LD 28-200 mm (15 years and really lackly so its everytime a fight to get a nearly sharp picture). Unfortunately i don't have any other objektives yet. At the top of my wishlist stands the Tamron 90mm Macro. But the money... ;-) Richard is right, it was really windy that day... Greetings --Leviathan (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question What do you mean with authentic close-up ? • Richard • [®] • 17:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hallo Richard, mit "authentic" meinte ich lebensnah (oder auch lebensecht). Damit wollte ich ausdrücken: Als ich das Bild das erste Mal sah, hatte ich das Gefühl, diese Hornisse ist noch mitten in der Bewegung, kommt jeden Moment aus dem Bild gekrochen und berührt mich mit dem linken, ausgestreckten Vorderbein ;-) -- Ra'ikeTC 19:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understand Before I did wonder about the term authentic because of the wood lath where the hornet is resting. Being a hobby biologist recently I had liked seeing this animal resting on a plant or the hornet nest like Alves Gaspar supplied us once with his fantastic poster of Wasps - but on the other hand hornets meanwhile are a synanthropic species so the lath should be ok. I like it and indeed it's an impressing picture but must give a Neutral because of low DOF (f/2,8) ,the missing crispness at that size and the addressed environment. Nice going! • Richard • [®] • 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Low DOF (f/2,8), the missing crispness at that size and the addressed environment. (Per Richard Bartz) —kallerna™ 16:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The DOF maybe is a bit too low, but in this way it imo assists and reinforced the action of that animal. -- Ra'ikeTC 10:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image features a Panthera pardus with a very high quality. Very sharp image, the warm colors contrast to the actual nature of the beast. Very good depth of field with clear and sharp distinction between the foreground and background. I don't think we have such a good picture of a Tiger on Commons. created by tropicaLiving - uploaded , nominated by Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Crop could be less tight, but pic is good nevertheless--Tired time (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Agree that it would be improved by showing more of the paw in the corner, but the animal has so strong a presence that I support it anyway. Fg2 (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose In general, only very few zoo images deserve the status of FP, imho. I don't find this breath taking. Samulili (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Perhaps I am more tolerant of cropping than the voters above me, but it does not seem to affect the composition in any major way. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I updated the image with a wider crop. Tell me what you think.
Support This is better, I don't understand why you submitted the cropped version in the first place though? Lycaon (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Image updates should be uploaded as seperate images and displayed separately on this page. This adds confusion. I support this version though. --Tom dl (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Restrictive licence (not best practice and contradicts the note at Commons:Licencing). Minimal resolution (it would be great to see more detail on the spider's body).--Commander Keane (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per Durova --kaʁstn 08:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Did you know that 1.2 only pictures are banned at german WP. • Richard • [®] • 13:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good for us this isn't the german WP --Muhammad (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rather sad, because it cannot be used at that project. Why that restrictive license ? • Richard • [®] • 16:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In what way is it more restrictive ? /Daniel78 (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am also interested why you use this restrictive license? --AngMoKio (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Very interesting shot, but rather small. A crop of the real action would leave the image below size requirements. Lycaon (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC). Restrictive license is not helping, but not the main reason for oppose.Lycaon (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have ten other featured pictures with the same resolution and license. What has changed since then? --Muhammad (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The visibility of the license issues has changed, I'm sorry. Lycaon (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are at least two (1, 2) other images currently on the candidates' page with the exact same license and none has received any oppose based on "restrictive license". For what it's worth, you even supported one. --Muhammad (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can see no changes to the criteria and 1.2only is still considered a free license per commons. --Muhammad (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Muhammad, somebody said: "Soap and water and common sense are the best disinfectants". Too bad not everybody knows how to use them :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry :(. Why the licence? It would definitely be FP with better licence & resolution, and you can make both of them better with new upload. —kallerna™ 17:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this passes as an FP, I will probably upload a higher resolution once I get faster internet in a month or so, but I am afraid the license will remain the same. --Muhammad (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
just out of curiosity: how did you get your 9mb panos uploaded? This pic here in the original resolution wouldn't even have half the mb-size of your panos. Furthermore I'd be really interested why you insist on that license? Many of your photos are really great, also this one, but with all those restrictions it is really getting difficult to support. ..and as Richard mentioned on german WP those 1.2 pics aren't welcomed anymore. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hehe, I spent hours uploading those and I had faster upload speeds then. Seriously though I spent more than 6 hours to upload this. I like this license because most of my images are also available for sale as stock images and a completely free license would render my sales ineffective and thus I would be unable to buy more equipment and upload better images. This is a win win situation for wiki and for me. --Muhammad (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why we should feature commercial pictures and pictures which can't be used in a associated project (deWP) ? • Richard • [®] • 20:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikimedia is a separate entity from deWP and there are different rules. It was deWP though that decided not to use 1.2only images. In my opinion, they are losing quite a large amount of pictures for a crappy rule. --Muhammad (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That license issue is a bogus reason IMO. Equipment is not that expensive. I made 950€ from my pictures which are all on commons under cc-by-sa in the last two years. I'm not using stock sites. You are better than me so you should have even better chances with free licenses. People use images all over the net when the license is not too restrictive (and with attribution → e.g. see here). This is publicity and the odd sale follows. I don't advertise my pictures, but interested parties still find them. Lycaon (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't want to whine but I've already spent app $1500 on equipment and for a student living in a third world country, that is a lot. (Average Tanzanian earns that much in 4-5yrs without expenses). With a restrictive license, rich companies who can afford to spend money, are prevented from exploiting photographers. Attribution is good but at the end of the day I am not gaining anything (apart from a little exposure). For the few earlier images I had released under the cc-by-sa, sure people use them but not one person has been willing to pay, and quite rightly so. If a single line of attribution allows you free use, why not? Sounds like slave labour to me--Muhammad (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In 95% of cases, my CC-BY-SA images just get treated as public domain for use. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, Muhammad, it is not me. It is only only 1/4 of me , 1/4 that the African Wild Dog has not finished just yet.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Ignoring the license debate (it is a valid license, after all); I look forward to seeing a larger resolution version of this lovely picture, so it can grace my desktop. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Can someone explain to me just why the (perfectly valid) 1.2 license is not accepted on the German Wiki? And why this picture (and every other wiki) should suffer because they've made that choice? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question is answered by Muhammad already. If 1.2only were just as free as the other license on commons there would be no reason for him to cling to it to protect his commercial interests. --Dschwen (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The focus of some people (not only) in the German Wikipedia is set on free commercial use, an idea which got strong in de since the cooperation with de:Bertelsman, Spiegel and de.wikipedia in the biggest lexical portal in Germany. Since then some of our Wikipedians struggled successfully to forbid the upload of GFDL 1.2 pictures on de.wikipedia. That does not mean, that it is forbidden to use 1.2 photographs from the commons as far as I see. Hundreds of them are used to illustrate articles of de. GFDL 1.2 is a free licence and is only a problem for commercial printers, as far as I see. Another problem for the opponents of 1.2 is that it is not possible to change the license without the allowance of the author/uploader of the pictures. --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose low resolution on the main subject. And argiope is not a satisfactory id (or are we getting the full id also after this gets featured?). --Dschwen (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Id has never been a FP criteria (though some think it is), this is not QIC --Tony Wills (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The id till genus is acceptable and we have numerous FPs id'd only till this level. Expecting a complete species id from a picture is impractical and impossible for the majority of the uncommon species. Re the low res on main subject, the whole image covers the subject. And as I mentioned, a larger version will be uploaded in max a month --Muhammad (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)--Muhammad (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what is the rush in nominating this now? --Dschwen (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose as Muhammad will upload a version with higher resolution I oppose this one. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will upload the higher resolution over this one, and that too only if this one is featured. --Muhammad (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So should we make a deal here: you get a little FP sticker for all you pictures to make you happy, and in turn you upload full resolution for all your pics? Sorry, but this has a bitter aftertaste. --Dschwen (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I won't have much time later (presently on vacation). Once I know which of my pictures are the "best of the best", I can upload higher res of these only effectively using my time. FWIW, I think your tone could do with some practice. --Muhammad (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The licence issues don't belong here. The licence is valid and accepted on Commons and is not part of the FP criteria, so there really isn't any more to say on the matter here. As for the ID issues, we recently had an FP promotion for a completely unidentified cactus. It is not an FP requirement that there be a species ID—that's a QI rule. Now, with those two things out of the way, I support because it's an excellent image and satisfies all of the requirements. Maedin\talk 19:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - the crop is ok, because it shows that the interesting weaving is not throughout the entire web. Downtowngal (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - as Downtowngal. A lower crop would hide the seemingly ordinary outer web, which presently adds to the photo. 72.173.26.4 22:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support License sufficient, crop good as outer area of web needed, size within guidelines, can't deny just because a better one might be uploaded. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose sorry, but noisy and to low resolution! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is below size requirements.
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Oppose I cannot recognize anything in this picture (except that it's one of these birds.). And not bautiful at all, sorry. --Afrank99 (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose What's this for? It's hard to distinguish the pavo from the background, and it's in a weird and untypical position. -- H005 (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
I am not sure I understood your question " What's this for?" What is for? The image? It is for Commons and wikipedia. The position is very ttypical for a bird that is grooming his tail, and it was what he was doing. I wish I were able to turn my head as he does .--Mbz1 (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those long exposures (5 seconds on the link provided) are actually easier shots to get - but they're entirely a different style and result. This one with 7 shells exploding in a 1/40th of a second exposure is far more difficult to get and takes a fair amount of luck as well. Also, what specifically didn't you like about the crop? I cropped it with intent to preserve the widest shell and aspect ratio. But cropping can be adjusted (such as not worrying about the aspect ratio and cutting more off the sides) if it makes a difference. Ikluft (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the crop I meant that the whole firework isn't on the photo and there's too much of black area on the sides. —kallerna™ 16:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Uhmm yes, I have to say that it's not exeptional enough • Richard • [®] • 21:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like this as it is. I think it is high-quality, high-value, and has impact. Maedin\talk 19:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Looks too ordinary. No wow. --Afrank99 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I shouldn't have bothered trying to retain the aspect ratio of the original photo. Fair enough - this alternative addresses that. I also encourage reviewers to observe that this is not the same kind of photography as a long-exposure shot of fireworks. As I mentioned above, this is a 1/40th sec exposure with 7 shells in various stages of exploding. The illumination of the smoke clouds from earlier shells shows there is focus and detail. It's in effect an action shot, which is very difficult to get with fireworks. Submitted again for your review... Ikluft (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - This is an excellent encyclopedia illustration of 'simultaneous fireworks'; the smoke clouds contribute to the effect. But for FP a more beautiful (but less accurate) long exposure is more appropriate. A good and useful photo, just not FP. Downtowngal (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I know it was a difficult shot to get. But fireworks pics need color, which these shells just don't have. There's no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI, when I downloaded the photos from the camera into the laptop after the show, one of the leaders of the fireworks crew was watching as I stepped through them. For this one, his one word was indeed "Wow!" That was what led me to submit this one. Ikluft (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Since there obviously are white fireworks, color isn't a requirement on its own - the different types of fireworks photography are not better than the others. It distracts the issue to say it isn't a different style. The guidelines say the value of a photo is enhanced by how it adds variety to the collection. I recommend a look through Category:Fireworks to see exposures of more than one second are very well represented, and are the ones that should hardly be considered special. They're analagous to photos of sunsets, which the guidelines address specifically. Ikluft (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Looks too ordinary. No wow. --Afrank99 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Interesting idea, good lightning, sharpness, and overall image quality but I think the composition is weak. For me there is not a clear idea with the composition and the cropped text distracts. --Slaunger (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger. Good effort. Durova (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral just the cropped text is bad --kaʁstn 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, actually I have virtually the same pic showing the entire balloons with all the text, but I find that perspective boring, whereas this one draws some tense out of its incompleteness, which I liked very much. But well, that's a matter of taste, and taste is undebatable, so of course I'm ok if you all think otherwise. -- H005 17:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ Slaunger, The "idea with the composition" is that these balloons are so huge that they are even larger than your field of vision, impossible for the eye to catch them completely. But never mind, if this idea doesn't come across to you, it has probably not been a good one. ;-) -- H005 (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi H005, I see your point, and sometimes I also like unusual crops, be it of a face, or some object, and this one is close at getting to me, it catches my eye somewhat, but still leaves an impression of being messy and point-and-shoot-like. I agree with you that just capturing one balloon or two together can easily lead to a quite uninteresting composition as well, so some amount of creativity in capturing it is called upon.
Neutral -- Good quality, but cropped too tight on the left and right, and the other soldier is disturbing. -- H005 (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Maybe removing the background completely would be an option, but otherwise I don't see how the problem tight crop vs. disturbing other soldier could be solved more satisfactorily than this. Furthermore the most important things - face and accouterments are clearly shown. --Curnen (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The other soldier is indeed problematic --Tom dl (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, but please if you can, add EXIF-data. —kallerna™ 14:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd love to but "Save for Web & Devices" in Photoshop seems to remove the EXIF. Not sure if there's an option to disable it. --Calibas (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Err, why don't you use the usual "save as" diealogue then? -- H005 (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The way Photoshop translates jpegs into the actual image is different than the way web browsers translate the image. There's no standard way to read a jpeg file, so the brightness, contrast and color can vary. The "Save for Web & Devices" option writes the jpeg in a way that web browsers will "see" the image in relatively the same way Photoshop does. So "Save for Web & Devices" usually creates something that looks a lot more like the picture you see in Photoshop than "Save As" does. Compare the two, often they vary quite noticeably. --Calibas (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'save for web' also uses higher compression, resulting in poorer quality. I understand you are worried about how it looks in browsers, but our main concern should be in providing the highest possible quality. --ianaré (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you sure it's lower quality? The file size at maximum for "save for web..." is actually larger than "save as". I don't think a higher compression would have a larger file size. And even if I did lose a tiny bit of resolution, is not correct color and contrast an important part of image quality? --Calibas (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I noticed my images look better on 'save as', but on closer inspection it was other settings that affected them ... In looking at the manual, the only difference is in Exif info being removed in 'save for web'. Both types allow you to embed the ICC color profile, BTW. --ianaré (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done Added exif. The "convert to profile" option basically does the same as "save for web" without tossing the exif data. --Calibas (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The sepia tone lends it an atmosphere of unreality...otherworldliness...exactly what midnight brings... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Too distorted (see the top of the image). Also quite noisy. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Great lighting, really impressive, but unfortunately the front part is far too distorted, and the center lacks sharpness. -- H005 (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Sharpness, noise, stitching, ... everything has become much better since the previous version. -- H005 (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Comment I did two new versions, I changed the projection angle a bit and I added a colored version to show how the panorama was made. Enfused images were also used to make both new version. Dunno if this might be enough or not, now this might be ok for making the sets as 'VI' (since it explains how the images are stitched together). See template:St Maximim - Hugin for more details about that. Esby (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a silly question, but how do you do a 210x180° indoor panorama without distorsion? Esby (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With DxO or Fisheye-Hemi I guess. But there are people to dislike distorded images, I personnally prefer distortion, more aesthetic. →Ditithepenguin — 23:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trying to put half of a sphere on a plane will always show up distorsion, rectilinear images just can't be achieved in such case. For those who don't understand what I am saying, take a world map (usually with a mercator projection), looks at the greenland and at the artic area, and ask yourself if there is no distorsion present, now takes another one, centered elsewhere, with another projection, you'll notice there will be always one or several area that appears as distorted. Esby (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So spherical distorsion should be replaced by cylindrical distorsion? Esby (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support A lot of work I appreciate. --Curnen (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: Voters may not have been aware of the new version. If it may change the outcome, please consider nominating again. Maedin\talk 16:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
The image was cropped not downsampled--Mbz1 (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
Few years ago Kalapana was a very nice, little town with blooming gardens at the Big Island on Hawaii. In 1990 it was buried by lava flow. Most homes were destroyed, but few including famous painted church were moved to other locations. There are no paved roads, no any utilities, no even cell phone services in Kalapana. There is only w:lava, and now new lava is coming back. Just few hundreds meters down new lava enters the ocean File:Three Waikupanaha and one Ki lava ocean entries w-edit2.jpg, yet the trees have no problem in growing up and even blooming in Kalapana, and few people came back and rebuilt.
Question - Is this photo of a part of the town that used to have houses? Are the houses on the beach the last remaining houses? In other words, is the site special? Downtowngal (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your question, Downtowngal. More than 100 houses were destroyed by the lava flow in 1990 in Kalapana. The town used to have streets and gardens. They had their own church. They are there no more. The church was moved to a safer location. The streets and gardens were covered by lava. Some kids went to school, and came back to see their houses on fire. People tried to make a desperate bargain with Pele ,the goddess of fire. They threw bottles with wine to the approaching lava in hope Pele would have some pity on them. It did not help. There were many heartbreaking stories. One young family had volcano insurance. Their policy was canceled with no reason, few days before the lava was about to destroy their home. Their friends helped young couple to move the entire home to a different location. Today some people came back to Kalapana. There are few houses here and there. I do not think there is a beach there, but I am not sure about this. I've never approached any of the houses. It is a private property, and they do not like tourists to come around. I understand them very well. IMO this site is very, very special. I hope I answered your question, but if I did not, please feel free to ask me more. If I am still around by that time, I sure will respond .--Mbz1 (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Thanks, Mbz1. I wish the photo were sharper, but the composition symbolizes the meaning of the site so well I make an exception. Downtowngal (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Diti! Is this a comment or support? I am asking because you said "support" in the edit summary, but I see no support in the nomination --Mbz1 (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, it was a support, I forgot to use the template. :) →Ditithepenguin — 16:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
weak Oppose It is a nice composition...but for the quite easy conditions I also wonder why it isn't really sharp. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
There was strong wind at the site. Here's the image that was taken at the same day and which shows a steam devil at volcanic plume w:File:Steam devil.jpg. Steam devils form, when strong wind is present.So "conditions" were not easy at all.@AngMoKio. I believe now, when you learned more about the contitions, you could safely change your weak oppose to weak support --Mbz1 (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
really a clever plant there...it simply doesn't care about the wind. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not sure I follow you. You said the image "isn't really sharp" under "easy conditions" . I said the condition were not easy because of the wind, and now, if I understood you right, you say that the plant "simply doesn't care about the wind", which to me means that you believe that the plant is sharp enough. You see, no matter what it is time to change your vote for "support" .--Mbz1 (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know I just wondered why the plant isn't affected by the strong wind? --AngMoKio (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I understood this. I am asking what does it mean "the plant isn't affected by the strong wind". Do you believe that the plant is sharp enough?--Mbz1 (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, unfortunately I don't think that the plant is sharp. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But if it is not sharp, how do you know that it is not sharp because of the wind?--Mbz1 (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You said it is not sharp because of the wind, not me. I don't know why it is not sharp. I just wanted to say the plant doesn't look like as if there is a strong wind. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have never said anything was not sharp at the image. I said the conditions were not easy because of strong wind, and I proved strong wind with another image. On the other hand, when you say that conditions were easy, and the plant is not sharp, but not because of the wind, it is what is called "speculations" in the court of low, and speculations they are.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose slightly, also my impression is that the photo gains most of its unnatural atmosphere from image processing, but of course I might be wrong. Would love to see it in a RAW format.-- H005 (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question The colours are great, but as I assume the picture does not look this way anymore, do we know that they ever looked so bright and saturated? -- H005 (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I don't know the real painting. But I like this image for all the above reasons and also because we can see that the faces have several simultaneous expressions. --Zyephyrus (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose If this is to be a faithful reproduction of the real painting, then i believe the colors are unacceptably too vivid and saturated. Jeez, they are supposed to be sitting in a scenery of greenery, and now the overall yellowish-greenish hue of the painting has been so strongly removed that they are left against a pinkish-white background. I'm sorry to say that this, imho, makes no sense. --MAURILBERT(discuter) 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose as per my question above and until someone provides sufficient evidence that these colours depict the actual painting. -- H005 (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Of course the colors don't represent the actual painting, any painting this old is going to be quite faded. This is probably a far more accurate reproduction of what it looked like right after Renoir painted it, than what is currently hanging up in the museum. We touch up old photographs all the time here, why not paintings? --Calibas (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With "actual painting" I did intentionally not exclude how it looked right after it had been painted. I just fear that if through image processing you e.g. simply make everything red that today is brown this might be far from what it looked back then. E.g. all the branches in the background look orange, not brown, I'm not convinced that Renoir made them look that way. -- H005 (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there's any way to tell precisely what it's supposed to look like. The lighting and the camera are always going to alter the colors. If the whites look white I'd say it's close enough. If somebody wants to drop the saturation a touch I'll vote for that too, but this version looks fine to me. --Calibas (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
Here, a knowledgeable contributor on wp:fr pointed me to the zoomable painting on the Art Institute of Chicago website. This should be assumed as reflecting best the way it looks today. It is far less yellowish than usually seen, yet far more subtle and muted in tones that the candidate. This contributor also mentionned that "Impressionists didn't paint in oils but in spirits and they would not varnish their paintings, so those don't become yellowish with age. Linseed oil and varnish cause yellowing." Thus, i'd guess that we are used to see old photographs of these paintings, and that the photographs yellowed way more than the actual paintings... --MAURILBERT(discuter) 00:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
Also, here is the original version from the .torrent with a color card, converted to JPEG format but otherwise unmodified. The TIFF version is too large to upload to Commons, but if anyone wants it, just open the .torrent in any modern BitTorrent client and tell it to only download that file. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Seeing Ilmari Karonen file, I will nominate the other file. Yann (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: Only macro found on commons of the red spotted newt active in its natural habitat, with a good amount of detail present. -- Tevonic (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose because of low DOF. Nose, eyes and tail are very blurry. The image's uniqueness might qualify it for a quality image however. -- H005 (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but quality is not up to par for FP. Lycaon (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Another aggressively de-yellowed painting. I agree that the present appearance of the painting is the result of years of varnish yellowing and dust and grime deposits. Yet, do we know for sure that it ever looked this way ? The greenery is not green any more, it's moss... In comparison to that rendition, i believe this candidate is overdone. --MAURILBERT(discuter) 13:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: The lack of pictures from Ukraine; the monument to prominent Ukrainian hetman (ruler) of XVIIth century in the oblast center Cherkasy-city (Central Ukraine). --Turzh (talk) 07:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Agree with Mbz1 -- H005 (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, and no wow. If it's a rare image, try COM:VI. --Afrank99 (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Yeah, quite blue and no wow indeed. --Aktron (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment No FP quality indeed, but excellent encyclopedic value. Please do continue uploading images from Ukraine! -- MJJR (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Great view and nice composition, particularly the reflection, but resolution too low IMHO, even if it just meets the 2 MB criterion, and the similarity between "horizon" and "horzontal" is no coincidence ... ;-) -- H005 (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose composition is ok. But the photo is tilted (or distorted) and sharpness is also just so-so --AngMoKio (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - All puppies are cute and this puppy is very cute. According to the American Kennel Club, retrievers (Labrador) have been the most popular dog in the world since 1998. For good reason. But that fact imposes an extra burden on the photographer. Cuteness is not enough. The background is messy. Sorry. Downtowngal (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Definitely QI, but ordinary composition. Also, the shallow DOF makes the head look glued onto the body like a mask. Downtowngal (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment IMO the composition could win, if the head alone will be shown at the picture. I will probabably support it then. I am not asking for a bigger resolution, just for another crop from your original. Could you please include information where the images of Zebra and Cheetah cub were taken in the images descriptions? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I will upload a cropped version butit will probably be too small for com FPC. Would appreciate your vote at en FPC when I nominate it there, though. --Muhammad (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose as per Mbz1. I'd appreciate geolocation, although not an FP req. -- H005 (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question What are the colors of the stars based on? bamse (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Updated star colours using Wien's Law to calculate the perceived wavelengths, based on the most recent estimates that I could find for the star's surface temperature. Temperatures and sources are noted on the image details page. Thangalin (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. The texture/material is based on what? Some stars range in color from yellow to red. Please correct me, but I don't think the temperature/wavelength is known to astronomers on this scale. Besides it would likely change over time. bamse (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commentbamse: See the Hertzsprung-Russel Diagram for details. Temperature can be determined. See the Antares page for details. Planet texture maps are mostly from Celestia Motherlode and in the public domain (Earth was from a different site, but also PD). The textures for the stars are simulated, mostly based on textures from our Sun. Yes, the colours will change over time. I will update the image 10,000 years from now (if I remember). ;-) Thangalin (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I remember the Hertzsprung-Russel Diagram from my high school, but that was not my question. Sorry for being so persistent. I have no doubt about the planet textures, since the details can be observed through telescopes or via space crafts. My problem is with the stars which are much further away. You say that you simulated their textures based on the texture from our sun. Can you tell a little more about the simulation part? Also, if I wanted to determine the temperature of "VV Cephei A", should I look at the yellow or the red parts of it? bamse (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I downloaded a few pictures from SOHO and created texture maps from them. The texture maps were applied at various opacities against the base colour of the sphere (derived through Wien's Law). To determine the temperature of VV Cephei A, look at its average colour, rather than its variances. Thangalin (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Do I understand correctly that the textures of the stars (except the one of our sun) are chosen for beauty rather than based on scientific grounds? If that is the case I would be glad if you added a note in the image description. In any case the description should state that the average color represents the temperature (through Wien's law). bamse (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome. Since we have no textures of distant stars, all the star textures are based on the Sun, for aesthetic purposes. It would be misleading to state the average colour represents the temperature for a few reasons. (1) Star temperatures are determined within a range. (2) Wien's Law works best with large stars, such as red giants. (3) The colours are likely close, but are not exact matches due to texture map opacity levels and procedural shaders. It would be simplest to state that star colours are estimated (and Saturn's rings are slightly larger in the picture than to scale). Thangalin (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support looks OK to me (but I'm no expert) --ianaré (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Wow. But I thought the biggest stars were blue? →Ditithepenguin — 23:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The colour of a star depends on its size and temperature.
Yes, and the bigger the star, the bluer it is, isn't it? →Ditithepenguin — 11:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment same stars seems to appear in absolute different colours, isn't it? --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The same star will vary in colour from one picture to the next due to slight differences in lighting. (The spheres and materials, however, were imported directly from one scene into the next. The spheres were resized, but colour settings never changed.) Thangalin (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This image was reviewed for technical accuracy by Stephen Shawl for inclusion in a K12 astronomy textbook. Thangalin (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Excellent quality and great encyclopedic value. Congratulations! -- MJJR (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very well done. Intuitive, informative, interesting, impressive... Ikluft (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment it would have been nice if we could access the original 3d format. How did u create this anyhow? Great image.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blender 3D was used for the models, lighting, and rendering. The GIMP was used to assemble and label the six renders into a single image. Saturn's rings were difficult to get right (which is why the previous versions lacked them). I used Wolfram Alpha to calculate each sphere's base colour. Then simply calculate the relative sizes of spheres in terms of their representative solar radius (in other words: divide some numbers). Thangalin (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could u add this info to the description of the file? With links to where you got the textures or possibly adding the textures themselves to commons and linking to them? BTW. The shadows pose a problem in the image as they go somtimes to the right, left and center depending on their place. For consistency I'd propose using sky light so the shadows wouldn't be that sharp. The crop on the image 3 is also very tight. It would be best if this was widened.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The shadows are consistent: the spotlight is always over the second-to-last sphere (to emphasize Saturn's transparent rings). Consequently, all shadows to the left of the second-to-last sphere point left and all shadows for the last sphere point right. Softening the shadows will blur the ring shadows, making it harder to discern the pattern of light passing through (take a close look at Uranus for the fine shading details). The crop on images 3 and 5 are too tight and will be resolved. (Betelgeuse should be further right for more space near its name.) Thangalin (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Episyrphus balteatus, usually called the Marmalade fly, is a relatively small hoverfly (9-12mm) of the Syrphidae family, widespread throughout all continents.
I hereby award you Richard this one-of-a-kind 100 FPs barnstar for your 100th FP--Mbz1 (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose cute pic, but I see nothing out of the ordinary (the fact that the child has autism is impossible to tell). --ianaré (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment My opinion, this pic is ordinary because is a cute pic.--Econt (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Following Ianaré's point, the eyes look too attentive to the outside world to imply significant autism, unless this child has Asperger's Syndrome which would probably not be easily diagnosed at this age. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose other opposers + personality right problems --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose — Cute photo, but it's nothing special. Also the image page says that this image is eligible for speedy deletion since the subject of the picture has not (or cannot) provide permission to release it under the current license. Acablue (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Unidentified. Try Eristalinae for starters. Lycaon (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Identification is no criterion in FP, but DOF is far too low. Sorry, otherwise a great image. -- H005 (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Bad crop, the building is probably symmetrical, either make it appear this way or completely concentrate on a particular part, but this seems just indecisive. Also, please add geolocation. -- H005 (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Very little of the subject is in focus. Might make a nice horror film poster though. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course it has as much value as many other images of the people and their activities. What value have those images [6], [7],[8],[9]? The nominated image might have more value because as I mentioned you could see the subject of their effort too, and because it shows to what extand people will go to take an image, and how hard is to stand at slippery rocks. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't actually recognize the subject. --che 14:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The subject of the image is "Photographers".--Mbz1 (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant "subject of their effort". For a featured picture of photographers I would expect something more obvious; I had to look on 100% magnification to realize that the lady is not stoning a fish. --che 00:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I asked about the subject of their effort only for fun :). Of course "the subject of their effort" cannot be FP , yet the image in whole could be FP IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I sure could, as soon as you support the image :)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - see my comment below at Agave americana R01.jpg. The FP guidelines IMO are biased, because high aesthetic quality is more difficult to achieve in pictures of people and buildings than it is in macros and landscapes. The images of people you point to have (much) higher aesthetic quality but arguably less usefulness than your image of photographers. But the guidelines are the guidelines. Downtowngal (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, you are new here, and do not know me well. You cannot imagine how hard I fought for the value of FP images. I used to oppose many images for "no value". I used to say that it is encyclopedia and not good quality image photo contest and so on, and so on. I lost my fight, and I do not oppose the images for that reason any more. There's no use. The nominated image has value IMO. As I said you actually could see the subject of the girls effort, and this could give you an idea of the habitat of the animals. You could also see how hard it is to enter the ocean at a typical beach on the Big island of Hawaii, where sandy beaches are big, big rarity, you could see the different colors of the ocean. On the other hand I cannot agree with some of your more or less the same oppose reasons. Please see my response here--Mbz1 (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose besides that it is tilted the picture doesn't convince. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
smaller than the usual minimum, but I've never seen a photograph anywhere showing blade development at the apex of a giant kelp. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose That argument might qualify it for COM:VI. For FP, photographic quality and a visual WOW! are required, neither of which I can see here, sorry. I suggest trying valued images instead. -- H005 (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is of too low quality, particularly noise and unfortunate lighting
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Oppose due to lack of sharpness -- H005 (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I was thinking about the image. Yes, it might have been sharper, but I like it very much. Took some time for me to figure out what it was :) --Mbz1 (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I like this image very much too. It's astounding and hilarious. But I'm afraid that the sharpness is a little bit below FP requirements. I really regret... -- MJJR (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support the sharpened version. The lighting and composition are so attractive and the photo is not easily reshot. Downtowngal (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Lycaon, although I see the improvement. -- H005 (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question What I'm wondering is, is this even a free image? I'm not sure freedom of panorama applies, given that the balloon is presumably not permanently installed in public. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Cars and planes are not permanently installed in public, either. --Lošmi (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I think this a very valid point. Obviously freedom of panorama does not apply, as it is not permanently installed. (Btw, according to the coordinates the camera was in Switzerland, although the balloon possibly was in Austria. The latter has freedom of panorama, Switzerland I don't know.)
Cars etc. are not a good example, as these are not considered "art", but just things of everyday usage. This might be different here. At least the creators of the balloon call themselves "Künstler" (="artists"), and they are called artists in publications, so the balloon could be considered a pice of art, which unsually must not be reproduced on Commons. -- H005 (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Comment Perhaps it is justified as a public event with the clear wich to be represented in Media and Internet. I think we would get no problems here in Germany but I'm not absolutly shure about Austria. --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Useful picture of a less common flower. Sorry to make one negative comment, though - DOF and general sharpness are a little disappointing, though overall it is still good. The contrast between the flower and the background works very well. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The big Island of Hawaii is growing by an hour. All brand new land (sorry lava) that pours in the ocean, creating new shoreline, belongs to the state, but if a new lava gets atop of the old one, the prior owner still keeps his rights. The owners home was covered by lava in 1990. Now they try to sell their new/old lava. The steams at the background are volcanic plumes from at least two ocean entries of the lava. There is a helicopter nearby to show how big the thing is.
Info
created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose — It's nothing special. Nice photo but not really informative or educational at all. Acablue (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Informative" or "educational" is not a criterion here as far as I know. bamse (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support IMO very informative. I was not ware of such an incidence occurring. --Muhammad (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Fascinating story but the picture itself doesn't tell the story. Plus the lack of sharpness. Downtowngal (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If any picture here tells a story, this is the one. The picture shows lava desert, sign for sale and volcanic plume from new lava entering the ocean nearby. It it shows a helicopter to see the size of the plume. It is a great story for ones, who know how to read it. IMO the image is sharp enough.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I love pictures that tell a story, and this one does it for me. As for sharpness, well, I tend to concentrate more on the composition and narrative of a picture more than absolute technical quality. Feel free to disagree, but in this case I think the sharpness is adequete. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 14:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support A little bit noisy, but I think thats forgivable. -- Curnen (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support After downloading it and trying some noise reduction myself, I think it's better with a little noise - any removal needs quite strong luma noise reduction, which blurs out details in the shadows. Great shot! --Tom dl (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose quality (noise and sharpness).--Mbz1 (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Tom dl, but I doubt that with all those noise image has a chance, so I tried to denoise it a bit anyway. --Lošmi (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment – I think the best way to get noise out of this image is to downsize it. It is lare enough to allow a little resizing. According to the EXIF data it was shot with ISO 6400 (!!). For such a high ISO it has quite alot of detail though. Amazing what modern CMOS sensors are capable of. --Ernie (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support a really great shot made under difficult conditions --AngMoKio (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Great shot and great job denoising it. The resolution is high enough that I don't see any problems with the sharpness. --Calibas (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Excellent shot. -- H005 (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice job on denoising, yet lots of CA most of all at the right arm. I do not like how the face came out. I am the first one to forgive those problems for the images that have big EV. IMO (and I underline IMO) this one does not. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment
@Lošmi: Thanks a lot for removing the noise, you did indeed a fantastic job. (I almost went nuts trying, because of the artificial fog wafting on stage adding to the usual noise)
@ Ernie: Yes, the photo was indeed shot at ISO 6400, which was the most reasonable balance between shutter speed and noise, because I needed to shoot hand-held out of a crowd of celebrating fans in front of the stage. Less than 1/160s at 400mm was at least for me impossible [Although I tried ;-)]
@Mbz1: Sorry, what does CA mean ? and EV ? By the way, I agree that the picture has some flaws in it and can live with it beeing rejected because of them. ;-)
Oppose Looks still great as thumbnail, but in large it looses too much detail. It's a good concert pic (mood, perspective, expression, ...) , but with the fog machine running you need a lot of luck and good light conditions (or a camera in the highest price range) to get an image without noise. -- Cecil (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 14:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose IMO the lower part of the image (most of all the lower middle and the right lower corner) are not sharp at all. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral As per Mbz1, plus it's somewhat impressive, but no real "wow" ... -- H005 (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Looks like one of my 5000 holiday snapshots. No wow, sorry. --Afrank99 (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image is not a snapshot. This is a good image, which has some problems that made me to oppose. May I please suggest to you to be a little bit more polite in your comments? Remember you'te talking about somebody else work. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry (Alvesgaspar!), I did't mean to step onto anyone's feet. I'm just trying to express my opinion on the image, and it's far, far away from being something special IMHO. And even being a good image is not enough for FP. For me it still looks like a snapshot (how do you know it's not one?), sorry again. --Afrank99 (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Otherwise really good, but per Mbz1. —kallerna™ 20:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Impressive close-up with lots of sharp details of the main body, but unfortunately DOF is too tight, legs and antennae are extremely blurry. -- H005 (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I think the dof is ok here. I accept that the legs and antennae are out of focus, but considering the angle and extreme change of plane, this seems acceptable. Maedin\talk 12:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
QuestionWas it alive? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly the antennas doesn't look very vital but I may be wrong. • Richard • [®] • 15:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Male Sarcophaga fly feeding on honey. Males cannot be identified easily to species level without killing or anesthesia, people at www.entomologie.de said. That shouldn't be my job :-) Otherwise a good study IMO.
Support Gross. You didn't feel like capturing it and dissecting it's genitalia to determine what species it is? I don't blame you. --Calibas (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Great light, low noise, but the DOF does not completely cover the main object. -- H005 (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - useful for an encyclopedia, but no wow. Downtowngal (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I would respectfully disagree with Downtowngal on this. Freezing rain is supercooled water that freezes to ice on impact with an object on the ground, coating everything with ice. There are many good images of such objects on the commons, with some of them being more colorful than this one. However, the amount of ice here is incredible, and I could not find an image which conveys buildup on a similar scale. For this reason, I believe the unique composition, educational value, color, and lighting warrant consideration for FP. I agree with H005 that the DOF could be improved, but disagree that this detracts from the image. Tevonic (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, such a significant buildup of ice is exceedingly rare (unless of course the branch is situated directly under the gutter...) –Juliancolton | Talk 16:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Missing wow and I don't particularly like the light. Lycaon (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "wow" comes from the sheer depth of the ice, as noted above. Freezing rain usually accumulates to less than a few tenths of an inch, and I estimate this is at least 1 1/2 inch thick. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It looks really nice, but no EV. Just another too photoshopped sunrise-photo, sorry. But it's very beautiful. —kallerna™ 20:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lack of EV is exactly why I sent it here. Beyond a graduated blend, no photoshop work has been performed. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EV = "encyclopedic value"? (I should know this...) –Juliancolton | Talk 02:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
“EV” stands for “Educational value”. I see one, a perfect representation of a sunset taken with a low exposure time. Suitable for articles about photography. →Ditithepenguin — 13:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And hopefully, it will illustrate Noodle's entry in the Featured Photographers page, when he eventually gets one. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you mean the "Meet our photographers", then I'm already there. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The subject of the image are swans, but they too far away and too blurry to see them good, otherwise nothing special IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's an argument against its misleading name, not the picture itself. -- H005 (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree, and edited my oppose.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It's a nice graphic, but doesn't have the wow for FP. Downtowngal (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Hopefully 3 is an acceptable level of spam. -- Noodle snacks (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Stunning picture, but IMHO looks too artificial probably due to post-processing. Also, I noticed a lot of chromatic aberration. -- H005 (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Chromatic aberration is unavoidable at wide angles. The lenses able to avoid it cost two good months of salary. →Ditithepenguin — 13:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Easy enough to photoshop out if it is a deal breaker Noodle snacks (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question What are blue particles in the sand?--Mbz1 (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The saturation was boosted the saturation artificially. This isn't normal practise for my images though. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Wow! Technically not perfect but good enough. - Ukuthenga (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed. Although it could get positive feedback from photo magazines, it doesn't present encyclopaedic values enough, to give it a featured status. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral I like the concept - there is a lot of drama which makes me want to support it. But I agree with the comments about the post-processing, and wonder why you went from what seems to be the original 10Mpx to below 3Mpx (if I have calculated correctly). It would be interesting to see this at original resolution, and with a bit less fore-ground sand as a variation. This has a tremendous feeling of drama which makes it stand out from the common crowd. Well done for that. (And the blue particles in the sand look like the sky reflected of something such as shells.) -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't like to oppose but: DOF isn't great; we manage better for insects, and this was a static subject. The composition isn't great. I think this may be a tad too bright. It feels somewhat overexposed. On their own not enough to oppose, but the three together are, sorry. Maedin\talk 22:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The photo is a freak. It seems to have little encyclopedic value. But it is evidence of an abnormal situation that is not always easy to capture photographically. For this I overlook the noise. Downtowngal (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support We need more humorous FPs. I put it up on reddit [10]. --Calibas (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not enough value (according to me) for Commons. There is noticeable vignetting, noise, and the polarization of light because of water gives an unaesthetic result. It may be a rare shot, but I cannot see this one featured. →Ditithepenguin — 13:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Agree with Diti.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Funny, but quality is just average. -- H005 (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- It's a real pity, such a marvelous photo, the wings are excellent, but the head is very blurry. -- H005 (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - too unsharp -- Pro2 (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Weird bokeh, it's the first thing I look at in this picture (it should be the zebra's head). →Ditithepenguin — 10:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose No clue what bokeh is, but background looks strange and very distracting. -- H005 (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The odd bokeh's probably from an extreme telephoto mirror lens. Anyway, it's a good photo and that isn't enough to make me oppose. Time3000 (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I recognise that different things appeal to different people, and usually, if I'm not interested in the subject, I don't vote on an image. This picture, however, seems to me to be of a completely ordinary composition, with nothing setting it apart from any other picture of the same species. The subject of the picture is not particulary apparant, and blends into the background, making for a cluttered shot. The view of the plant is unremarkable, and reveals very little about it, and leads to a very shallow DOF. Kudos to the photographer for the high technical quality, but just not featured, for me. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, neither subject nor photographic quality. -- H005 (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Agree with George. Also, the photo shows the agave in the dry, sunny conditions it likes in the wild. You can see a baby plant emerging on the left side of the mother plant and younger plants nearby. A more aesthetic approach would not be as informative. Downtowngal (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment But FP ist primarily about aesthetics, for informative pictures we have COM:VI -- H005 (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Well, I am confused. The guidelines say "Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special,..." Actually, these two sentences can be contradictory. What is very valuable may not be special (see simultaneous fireworks), and what is special is not always valuable (see smoking fish). Usually I make high aesthetic quality an absolute requirement. (You caught me here making an exception.) In practice that policy ends up limiting the kind of images that easily qualify for FP to landscapes, macros and existing high-quality artworks. Other kinds of images (buildings, some plants, objects) face a higher standard because they are not as intrinsically aesthetically pleasing. We even had a big debate about whether the extremely valuable 1838 photo should be FP! So I would appreciate some discussion on whether the guidelines should be revised, or a pointer to a previous discussion of this bias problem. Downtowngal (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Meerkats are always cute and funny, this one is IMHO not exceptional enough. But I'd support it as QI. -- H005 (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
It is the only image of Meerkat at Commons that shows a Meerkat laying on his back. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like this picture, a pity some visible noise appears in shadowed areas though. →Ditithepenguin — 22:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Cute subject but not a particularly interesting composition and the lighting is poor - harsh sunlight and deep shadows leaving one eye mostly hidden. - Peripitus (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Yes, I was going to say the same thing, but I couldn't recommend brightening the eye a little more, due to the noise there is already. →Ditithepenguin — 23:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Bit noisy, but acceptable. The crop is bad, the black area is not symmetrical. Also geolocation would be appreciated. It'll have my support if all this is fixed. -- H005 (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Hmm yeah the crop ruined a bit. Fixing this make me to vote in favor. --Aktron (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nah. Well the colors can be edited to make this picture look better, or even some more GIMP edits can make it a FP material, but this one is unfortunately not. --Aktron (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Noise, chromatic aberration, lens reflexes. Also, either choose a long exposure time to smoothen the waterflow or a short one to freeze it, but this is indecisively in the middle. -- H005 (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Opposeagree with H005 concerning the exposure time...was about to write exactly the same :) --AngMoKio (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- no wow, technical quality is not spectacular --che 23:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Communicates the mood well, but doesn't have any special elements in the frame to make it distinctive, the 'best of the best'. Downtowngal (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Hmm I think there are many different ways how to take a picture of a forest. And much better shots of course. --Aktron (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose This shot does not stand out among forest-shots. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Sorry, but for something which I find to be of engineering and scientific interest, this image does not inspire me. The same view at 20mpx, or zooming in on one section at 4mpx might work. With apologies for a negative comment. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I'd prefer different exposure, something a bit darker. --Aktron (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I nominated the image because it looks as the tree has a face - two eyes, a nose and a mouth. So I thought it was cool.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I first saw it in thumbnail size I actually thought it is the backside of an elephant :) --AngMoKio (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Mostly confusing, and not interesting enough to be FP. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment You should tilt it to give a vertical result, as it is sometimes used by reviewers as a reason for opposing. →Ditithepenguin — 08:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Many ghosting/stitching problems. For example see the palm trees in the bottom. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Quite spectacular as a thumbnail, but I was a little disappointed that the clarity in the top half of the building does not meet expectations - was the wind blowing the cranes? I am curious - does the building really have that curve? The top is perfectly perpendicular, but the bottom leans to the left. Given that Dubai is a city built on sand, it is probably going the way of the Tower of Pisa, but they are building the top to a true vertical. Nice picture - will be of particular historical interest if the building tips over! -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image contains disturbing ghosting
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Comment I can straighten the bottom, but then the top is out of kilter. I'm wondering if there is some sort of distortion in the image or atmosphere. Ktr101 (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
otrs covers it. I got the higher res which aren't available on Flickr anyway.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Why do you state flickr as the source if it's not from Flickr, but Flickr jast has a downsized copy? Do you have a licence for the higher res pic then? -- H005 (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been sent via OTRS. Which means the author of the image consented to the higher res version on Commons.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Great composition, low noise, but oversaturated and strong vignetting. I'd say QI, but not FP -- H005 (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose There seem to be a lot of detail lacking in the trees. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Daniel78 and H005. Not even worthy of QI. Lycaon (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the higher resolution of the same image is featured already. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delist per nom. One of this reasons would've been insufficient, the three together make for a delist. Lycaon (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
The image was nominated here and did not get promoted. After that the quality of the image was improved.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I needs new crop and the quality isn't FP-material IMHO. —kallerna™ 14:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose as kallerna. It is oversharpened to the point that everything glitters. Lycaon (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question to Kallerna: What exactly do you mean by "quality isn't FP-material"? Sharpness and lighting is excellent, I think. And the crop, ok, it could be centered better, but not really an issue IMHO. -- H005 (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And besides it is already FP material on English Wikipedia. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I agree that this has been oversharpened. The original that Mbz linked to is better. I'd support that one, :-) Maedin\talk 22:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your comment, Maedin. The original image was added to the nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If he's got it down to the family, that's pretty dang good for a photographer. Not all of us are biologists and expecting photographers to identify every species is just going to result in misidentification. If it doesn't already. --Calibas (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course being a biologist has nothing to do with getting an id for an organism. It is about being able to obtain useful information, and that is what wikimedia is all about, isn't it? Lycaon (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Identification is no criterion in FP, sharpness and exposure are excellent, the crop is not. The fly alone would have been better. -- H005 (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I would like to see this identified to better than family, but as identification isn't an element of FP criteria, I cannot justify opposing based on it. As for the crop, I think it is great—it is giving it dynamic and target and movement. As for the sharp capture of a flying subject, I think it is excellent. Kudos to Thomas. Maedin\talk 20:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I agree with Maedin - this sharp a picture of an insect in flight is quite something. I only wish I could have done it. Zoomed in, the insect alone looks impressive. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Great picture. The only problem is filename, I have no idea where it was taken. But that is not a matter of technical quality or composition of this image. --Aktron (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Doesn't work for me. The green dot is very distracting, the DOF is irritatingly shallow. Nice idea though. Maedin\talk 15:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - The image could be great, but it has too shallow DoF. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 17:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 06:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Result: 6 Support, 5 Oppose, 0 Neutral => not featured. ☩Damërung☩. -- 04:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not identified (try to start at Syrphinae or at least do the effort to ask at http://www.diptera.info). And please, if you must upload unidentified organisms, do place them under the relevant unidentified xxx categories. Lycaon (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Per Ernie. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 17:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Vote added after close of voting period. Maedin\talk 06:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Result: 2 Support, 2 Oppose, 0 Neutral => not featured. ☩Damërung☩. -- 04:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Some minor stitching errors indeed (which could easily be corrected btw), but in general a great image. FP quality! -- MJJR (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
stitching errors corrected - Thanks for the hint --Böhringer (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Ich hab mir gedacht, ich schau hier mal wieder vorbei und dann seh ich dieses Bild. Gleich einlogen und supporten. Traumhaft schön, Friedrich! --Simonizer (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - What a beautiful landscape, great detail, great resolution. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 08:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like the detail of the eyes, including the water droplet. (And I am enjoying seeing photos more clearly on a new monitor instead of my fading, 8-year-old CRT.) -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In looking through the guidelines (and complete guidelines) for featured pictures, I don't see any mention about identification or GPS coordinates. Am I missing these guidelines somehow? --CopyrightFreePhotos (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I quote: "Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others". Images of organisms that are not identified obviously have a very low value as to usability. For some groups (e.g. Diptera), there are very good and accessible resources online to help you with identification. The (small) effort is upon the nominator. Some groups are however very hard (e.g. Coleoptera) and then a higher taxonomical level (e.g. genus) should be acceptable. Lycaon (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The value of a great picture doesn't depend upon it's description or information - the picture has inherent value. That is why identification is not included as a guideline - it's about the picture, not about written information. Besides, this is a community. If someone needs something identified, let them identify it and share it, that's what a Wiki is all about - community involvement. To disqualify a picture based on it's written information is a tragedy. --CopyrightFreePhotos (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Interesting scene. (And I think I am now seeing true colours having just replaced my fading old CRT monitor with something more modern.) -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Obviously, I'd like to know how a shot from an helicopter and some lava being shown can make this a Featured Picture? Besides, why is it cropped (or erhm downsampled?) Assuming the camera can go up to 3888 x 2592, an horizon would have been nice... Esby (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not sure I follow your comment/question. Are you against featuring lava images in general? Are you against featuring images that were taken from a helicopter in general? Have you noticed by any chance that the image shows a fissure vent, not only the different lava flows? Have you read the articles the image is linked to? Were you able to learn something new from that reading? The original image did not show the horizon either. The camera was pointed mostly down. I cropped the image the way I believe was better to see the lava and the vents. The size of the cropped image is more than 2 times bigger than the required size.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's simple; I don't see any wow in this picture. Honestly I'd be for having this image promoted as VI or QI, but not as a FP. I know that lava is rare, that helicopter are rare (althought it's relative to where you actually are for both) but still there is nothing special in it to my eyes. I know some (commons) guy that is in Iceland right now with a good camera, are we going to make his pictures of geyser/volcano FP too, supposing he used an helicopter? Esby (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the response. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May I please ask you to be a little bit more specific?
Are you opposing because you are against featuring any lava images at all?
Are you opposing because you are against featuring any images taken from a helicopter at all?
Are you opposing because you are against featuring any cropped images?
Are you opposing because you are against featuring any images that do not show a horizon? --Mbz1 (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Although I might maybe hang this pic on my wall as I like the colours and the structure, I really miss sth to get a feeling for the size of that structure and also a horizon would be helpful to get a general feeling for that landscape. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - As AngMoKio: no sense of scale or orientation. The abstract structure is not special enough imo to reach FP status. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CommentHonestly IMO all those talks about horizon, scale and orientation sound funny to say the least. It is impossible to have a scale and/or to show the horizon in this kind of image. The similar image is not easy to find on the NET. I did a search on Flickr and Google and did not find any. The image has big EV. Many features of this image do not even need a scale to be encyclopedic. For example different colors of the lava. Well, there is nothing new in those opposes. I learned a long time ago that quite a few reviewers here will rather promote number tenth European honey bee or few images of the same bird taken in the same zoo than a really unique, one-of-a-kind image, but, no worries, next time I will ask my husband to jump down to create a scale just for few shots, you know, and I will ask the pilot to fly as close to the mountain as possible in order to take an image that will show both the lava and the horizon. If the helicopter will crash, it will not go down in vain. Just think what a great scale it will create for all other photographers, who will happen to fly by :)--Mbz1 (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I think its a picture worth a promotion and therefore I support it. On the other hand, I think the passion demonstrated by Mbz1 when reacting on criticism might be a little exaggerated. I myself know to well how it feels, when you took great efforts to take a picture and somehow feel, that others don't appreciate that. Nevertheless, a little more objectiveness would probably help both sides. --Curnen (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Lacking any sense of scale. Lighting and sharpness aren't ideal. Arguments of EV are weak here, in my opinion; they hold more weight at en: (for example). Maedin\talk 16:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Good color balance and resolution, but the shot is to close, as per Maedin, lacks the logical scale. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 08:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - This is a beautiful, clean image, and there is just as much artistry and effort here as in the many images of insects on plants. But those achieve FP because we are not accustomed to looking close-up, and this image may not achieve FP. A perfect example of the guidelines' bias. And now I'll shut up about them. Downtowngal (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I totally agree. There are way too many close-ups being shoehorned into the FP process. --Ernie (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The central part of the image is cool. I mean the angle of the front building, this looks good. --Aktron (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral – The composition does not convince me. I think the picture would look alot greater if the house to the left was not in the center of the image. --Ernie (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Prefer and supported the R05 version instead that is a closer and gives a better view of the building. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The technical qualities of this photo are excellent, but the photo does not stand out for a FP IMHO. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral -- Good shot, sharpness, light, perspective, noise are excellent, but a tad too ordinary IMHO for FP and much distortion in the edges. -- H005 (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like the exposure. Well some much different shot like soon before sunset might be better but this is quite fine. --Aktron (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Cluttered and oversharpened (halos). Lycaon (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no halos. Could you please point out one?--Mbz1 (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The most obvious one is near the top center, where the dark rock partly occludes the waterfall (e.g. around pixel 1140/280). I think I can also see some around the leaves at the bottom right, (e.g. around 2325/890). And, while I'm looking closely, there seems to be some rather noticeable chromatic aberration visible in various places (e.g. foam spot at 1040/1645, branch at 1905/5, top of waterfall and branch at 1080/35). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The overall composition is not interesting. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Could you be polite by telling the reason of your opposition? --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Well, composition does not do it for me... the human brain wants to read text in images, and there is truncated text in the image, so that doesn´t work... take this as a tip... the cropping is off somewhat... The lights are dull... and if it a picture of signs, regarless of the place, their are not the most visually attractive signs... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An unique and interesting angle of a NATO AWACS (Airborne Warning And Control) aircraft. Even better, the picture has been taken by a member of the community, not a member of the military.
Oppose Nothing special, a plane from the bottom. This is not excellent. Quality Picture OK but really not an exzellent Picture! HBR (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose regretfully - a too-rare photo of a female and baby, in an interesting relationship. Almost there, but the wow requires thinking about the photo; the wow is not immediately apparent. P.S. The photo title has three misspelled words. Downtowngal (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, before you knew that I am a bad photographer. Now you know that I am a bad speller too. Oh well... :)
I don't think you are a bad photographer. Personally, I prefer to look at your images (and those of Tomas Castelazo), which are not perfect technically but make me think. But the FP criteria require something special, which I understand to be an immediate visceral aesthetic response. Downtowngal (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I somewhat agree with Downtowngal's view, and also the mother is much too dark. Providing there aren't areas completely black or assuming you have the RAW files, you could try using a shadow/highlight adjustment. Maedin\talk 16:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope you do understand that, if two gorillas, sitting so close to each other, and the color of one of them is OK, it means that the color of the second one is probably OK also, which means that the color of female gorilla is natural? --Mbz1 (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral For the reasons given by Downtowngal; I'd support it if it was taken in the wilderness. But technically it's good, hence neutral. I do not think the mother is too dark. -- H005 (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose nice scene...but for FP a bit too ordinary. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This vote by a person, who takes lots of images of the birds in captivity, and does not even mention this fact in the nominations really surprised me, and IMO it is better to have a single image of gorillas as FP than two images of the same bird taken in the same ZOO few minutes appart. BTW your "too ordinary scene" reminded me a story my co-worker has told me. She took her 3-years old to ZOO. The boy was not amazed by anything and kept saying "boring, boring, boring..." At last my co-worker cried :"What do you want? You want animals to dance for you?!" That story is about 3-years old, AngMoKio :) And what in your opinion would not be "too ordinary scene", if I may ask? AngMoKio, I take your votes personally.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All I say to this: First of all taking votes personally is always a bad choice. I only vote for or against your pictures, it has nothing to do with you (although you attack me personally now) - you know exactly that I also voted pro for some of your pics. I tried several times to put things straight btw us on your talkpage. I learned now that this makes no sense and I won't do this anymore - it simply leads nowhere. Concerning the pic (and this what it all should be about): The composition is too ordinary - the pic might very well work as a QI or VI but imho not as FP. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might be a "bad choice" , but it is how I feel, and I'd rather say it clear and loud. BTW you still did not answer my question. What composition in your opinion would not be too ordinary? It is not so often a baby gorilla is born in a zoo. This fact alone already is making the image somehow special IMO. The image was taken the way that a viewer will never guess that it was taken in a ZOO. Isn't that interesting that a baby is so small that he is almost hidden behind the grass? Isn't that interesting that he has his finger in his mouth as human kids often do? Anyway as I said earlier, and I repeat it one more time, IMO it is much better to feature "too ordinary scene" of a single image of gorillas than two the same images of the same bird taken in the same ZOO. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that constantly mention my pics of birds (which have nothing to do with this topic here) makes it obvious to me, that it is not about the pic for you but some kind of personal fight. So it makes actually no sense to discuss things here. This pic simply doesn't convince me - fact! You have several pics that do convince and for which I voted pro. Anyway as I said earlier, and I repeat it one more time: Don't take my votes personal! --AngMoKio (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder why you are going to be fooled to justify yourself and get psychologized for an oppose vote. Polls consist of many votes and I don't understand why some votes get boiled thoroughly. Maybe ... after Hans it's you ;-) It seems that there must be permanently a bad guy (or more) around who will be teased so long as he/they say something very direct ... and in the end Milla leaves Commons and you will get a sore conscience ... This kind of working atmosphere is very counterproductive IMO. • Richard • [®] • 17:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your comment..sorry, saw it a bit late. I agree it can't be productive if people don't dare to oppose any more. I think I was always fair with my votes and always gave an explanation. ...but for some reason I seem to be one of the bad guys in Milas eyes. I regret that thus tried several times to put things straight between her and me. Unfortunately I was not successful. But I don't feel responsible for the fact that she left commmons, and I hope this is true - my few "fights" with her were not that severe. She had several others that might be more likely the reason for her leaving. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Brilliant picture, but I wouldn't feature anything whose title was misspelled. Support if the image could be moved. INVERTED (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
I requested the image to be renamed. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The spelling of the name is corrected. It might be a good reason to reconsider some of your opposes --Mbz1 (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The expression of the mother, the folded arms posture, the expression on the baby, its eyes looking at the photographer - that says wow :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The composition seems a little unbalanced. A different crop and maybe a little rotation might improve it. Otherwise it's a great picture. --Calibas (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Blurry, noisy, focus, low contrast. No chance IMO. -- JovanCormac (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is blurry, noisy, out of focus and has very low contrast.
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Question Previous versions and the image at the Capitol website [11] are more yellow - can you explain why this one is more accurate?Downtowngal (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I only nominated this picture for its quality, I did not know that the image had other version, if the version more yellow is the accurate I nominate this version. Sorry but my English is not very good. Ivan03 (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Largely for historical significance. The colour difference seems like different white-balance settings or light used to digitise the picture. I looked for an alternative copy on the internet, but did not quickly locate one. But Wallbuilders has the text of the Declaration [12], and a useful on-line library of historical documents; and the original document does look rather yellow, showing its age. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Result: 2 Support, 0 Oppose, 0 Neutral => not featured. JovanCormac (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Bees are usually fast moving so it is difficult to get them "well composed" for their portrait. And it is interesting to see the different varieties of "common honey bee" (I think I have photographed 5 or 6 this year). I like the level of detail on parts of the bee, but it is too far off-centre, and needs a bit more "wow" factor. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Focused subject only covers 10% max, too small to be a descriptive picture of a common insect, and the rest of the image is 95% blurr. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Isn't 10% + 95% = 105 %? What do you think about the version 2? —kallerna™ 11:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Otherwise superb, but the crop isn't perfect (see the legs). —kallerna™ 06:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It looks great in thumbnail, but in full view it misses crispness and the crop of the legs is indeed unfortunate. Lycaon (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Beautiful painting by one of the most famous French painter. Huge size. I cropped the black border. Yann (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but also here, the colour rendition is wrong. The addition of a colour chart on this copy however offers the chance to get this correct. Maybe with some advice of the "restorers" around? Lycaon (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And now? I tried to correct the white balance. Yann (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment You should update the image info, it still say it has not been color corrected. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support rare pic of humans with a nice composition. Maybe a slightly tighter crop would be better to cut away the worker on the left but this is also ok for me. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Nice one. It's got feeling, personality and action. --Calibas (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Good industry photo and engaging portrait. Maedin\talk 06:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Something about the mood and the curving road vs. the straight pipe. (This looks better full-size than thumbnail size.) Downtowngal (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Missing location and too brief description. For my eyes also too dark. --Karel (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose A little blurry on the caterpillar, too. -- JovanCormac (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Good picture, but location is missing. --Jklamo (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Location is not a requirement for FP, therefore, not a reason to oppose, and in fact, unfair. This is a construction related photo that illustrates an important point in the construction process, so location is irrelevant. Culverts are often seen installed and covered, thus hardly seen in this particular stage, which is the interesting part. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment So do you prefere comment: No WOW? No problem, if you like... --Karel (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment No, me prefere objective, guideline-based, serious photographic critiques, not this Wow-O-Meter, lazy man´s oppose technique that contributes nothing. ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- It is an historic picture (1987). Neither the station or the train exist anymore. Is a scanned slide. The scanning of old pictures should be encouraged. Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Although the technical quality of the picture is not flawless, I tend to support it. The subject is interesting and 'historical' (as it doesn't exist anymore). The original slide seems to be very good. The scanning is rather good, except the halos in the sky near the electric wires, probably due to oversharpening. Anyhow, I fully agree with Smiley.toerist that the scanning of old - and also of not so old - pictures from the pre-digital period should be encouraged here at Commons, especially when they show objects or situations which profoundly changed or even disappeared since then. No doubt that the slide collections of many Commoners contain a lot of useful and valuable images. -- MJJR (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose We should not encourage very visible jpeg artifacts, and if this is valuable it sounds more like a VI candidate than something for FP. The composition is not very good either and the quality is far too low; colors seem wrong plus the visible halos. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Hmm does not look like somewhere in Europe. But I like this one. --Aktron (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose This has terrible quality, and not enough educational value to make up for it. -- JovanCormac (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 12:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support It is difficult to have mountain picture wich is not ordinary and stands out. I like the balance of green and rock. It is not a valley view (looking upp) or a mountaintop view (looking down), but has both. The cloud shadows add a playfull element. Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Unforunately, it's heavily JPEG artifacted. The image itself would have been worth featuring if not for that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Picture is too static... props are frozen, thus depriving the image of a sense of motion. In a back to front motion, a slower shutter speed is able to freeze the plane´s movement, and at the same time blurr the props. Composition and angle of view uninteresting. There is no dynamics in image. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Don't mind the non-blurred propellers, but it's not a very exciting angle. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Common image, nothing special. --Karel (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment How common is a photo for which you have up to 5 seconds to take it, once a year? ;) →Ditithepenguin — 22:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Karel is referring to the composition, rather than the circumstances in which the picture was taken. Not to cast aspersions on your photo taking ability, but pictures of military planes against a blue sky are quite common. The fact that it was taken at a special event does nothing to ease the lack of (for want of a better word) 'wow'. Technically, every picture is special, as you can never take the same picture again. But that does not mean that every picture is featured. Please, keep your photos coming though! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you a lot for the precision! I sure will, but I'm waiting for my “own Featured Pictures” to come out, so far I only have a some out of thousands of photos. I'll try again… later. ;) →Ditithepenguin — 21:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Interesting result with the long exposure time blurring the waves. My apologies for a negative - The white line on the seaward side of the foreground rocks due to the "sharpness" setting is in conflict with the overall pastal shade of the picture. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support it is just an atmospheric shot but a really good one. Can seldom resist long time exposures. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support A bit uninteresting when at the thumbnail, but it looks great at the full resolution. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support It's going to pass with this much snow falling, but I still want to be on the record as saying this meets FP criteria. It could calm you down just looking at it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - There is a dramatic difference between the original and the restored version in what the colouring is concerned. I wonder if this kind of correction is the right thing to do with old manuscript maps. Is the medium paper or vellum?-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Library of Congress staff have confirmed the scanner was miscalibrated; the coloration on the unrestored version is affected by the miscalibration. Durova (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removing discolourations, stains folds and cuts is what a restoration is about. The Venus of Milo is yellow because of the varnish and as such different from how it looked when the painting was fresh. Your argument is an old one and imho a clean crisp look provides the best illustration. GerardM (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removing dirt and varnish physically so that the original colours are restored is a common and accepted practise. Doing it digitally is a totally different thing because we only can guess what the original looked like at the time it was made. In this particular case I find the background tone too bluish even if the medium is paper, as I suppose. An old argument is not necessarily irrelevant or wrong. A clean and crisp look provides the best detail but may be considered unacceptable in historical terms. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What you are saying, basically, is that restoration includes elements of esthetic discretion. People who do restorations have been discussing that a long time (it's graphic art after all). If you'd like to discuss that in more depth at another venue, and try your hand at it, then by all means let's take it to talk somewhere. Durova (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Manuscript old charts are often considered as works of art. And exactely as with other paintings, I don't think that aethetic discretion in the restoring process is acceptable in these cases. In some libraries and museums, when we order a high definition digital copy of an old map, it comes with a color target which was photographed together with the original so we can reproduce its exact colours. Stretching the concept of digital restoring as to consider it as a form of art is hardly acceptable when the object is an historical document. Maybe the best place to discuss the issue is here, where the images are being evaluated. In this particular case I would consider to support the image if the colours were faithfully reproduced from the original, which doesn't appear to be the case. As I have stressed before, we at FPC evaluate the merits of images not of the restoring process. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't see any "wow" here. --Calibas (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Per my comments above, as the original colouring appears to have been strongly manipulated in the restoring process. That is, in my opinion, not acceptable in a historical manuscript chart. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I'm not sure some people realize the technical complexity of both making the original image, and the restoration by Durova and myself. If this doesn't have the "wow factor", then I don't know what does. —Ynhockey (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - don't find Alvesgaspar's argument convincing - during restoration, it's usual to change the aged paper back to white. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support It's a reasonable choice: It's on paper, and the technology to make reasonably white paper is not a particularly recent innovation. At worst, the colours might be slightly off the original, but well within the original artistic intent. Other versions can be made to reflect other aesthetics. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Are we judging the restoration process or the result. I thought this is just FPC we look at the result as an image. I thought the discussion about Featured restorers came to the conclusion that FPC is not for judging the restorers skill or process? --Tony Wills (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Precisely. But because this is an old manuscript chart (which were usually decorated by artists), it is expected the image to reproduce faithfully the colours of original. Exactely as if it were Leonardo's Mona Lisa or Picasso's Guernica. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There isn't any point to a standard that mechanically requires reproducing the colors of a miscalibrated scanner. Durova (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Crop is too tight and background is too cluttered. Lycaon (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose There are many was how to take picture of such a car and more interesting ones. For example something in sunset with good reflections of the light, but not this, parked cars like this one we have thousands here. --Aktron (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the lovely "Gangstas" in the background cannot convince me... --Mbdortmund (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose While nothing is wrong with this picture, and it certainly adds to the article, its overall value and aesthetic appeal IMO is simply not high enough for FP status. -- JovanCormac (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The left side of the photo is considerably unsharp. It lacks a better resolution as well --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose good concept, but the camera produces distortions and flat colours here. --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose This is a nice picture with good composition, but inacceptably blurry. The colors could be a little more vibrant, too. Sadly, no FP material. -- JovanCormac (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support About 2/3 of all FP seem to be insect pictures, but still this is too beautiful to not promote. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment IMO the four images of the same dragonfly should be nominated in one nomination as alternatives. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral While this is the best of the dragonfly set, IMO it could use some cropping on the top right. Will support if done. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support would be perfect if the light gras would not disturb a bit the harmony --Mbdortmund (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Result: 2 Support, 0 Oppose, 1 Neutral => no quorum. ☩Damërung☩. -- 02:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support As a set, or as all 4 views combined into one single image. Any single one is good. As a set, they constitute a very informative view of the dragonfly, including behaviour. I have put my support with this one image, which I like along with Lib-Quad 2, for the angle of view and the action in the scene. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like the action in this view in the manner in which the dragonfly is holding on to the stalk. As I have noted, I would like to see all 4 views combined into one image (with a little cropping so that the insect is the main detail). -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose On second look, this picture is the height of mediocrity. It's composition is so standard you could train a robot to take photos like these all day long. While it's technical aspects are well done, the straight lateral view, the centered subject, and the even green bokeh in the background make for a horribly predictable photo. Dull dull dull. --Calibas (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Calibas. Nothing new. I don't know why he nominated it and shortly after started this opposition, but come on - he is right. --Aktron (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I was making a point, I'll leave it up to people to figure out what that is. I think I was also kinda drunk at the time. --Calibas (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Looking at the sequence of votes makes me think some people are born leaders ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Depth of field is too shallow; just look at the rock: It appears as if everything but the locust has been blurred out. -- JovanCormac (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh? Why would you want to rock to be in focus? You'll notice the grasshopper is the subject of the photo, not the rock. And if you're implying I purposely blurred parts of the photo, I didn't. --Calibas (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I apologize, you misunderstood me. I'm not implying you actually blurred the rock. Of course you didn't. The rock is just so out of focus that it appears as if it has been blurred out. The blur also covers the tip of the leg facing the viewer, and is quite uneven (there is a spot on the left side of the rock as well as a triangle beneath the grasshopper that is sharp). For these reasons, I believe this shouldn't become a FP. Maybe it can be edited a little (I think it would actually look better with an evenly distributed blur on the rock). -- JovanCormac (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
created by User:Seedfeeder - uploaded by User:Seedfeeder - nominated by Simon Speed Before this image was created en:Mammary intercourse was illustrated with File:Mamintb.PNG which elicited almost continuous complaint and even attempts at image removal. With the substitution of this image the complaints simply stopped. It is now used on 16 Wikipedias. -- Simonxag (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
In response to the simple removal of this image I have changed the image to a link. This is not an acceptance of the principle of censorship, but in the hope that a policy will be agree on the talk page. --Simonxag (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support As nominator - we need to celebrate our best sex educational images. -- Simonxag (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose While this picture is certainly more neutral than the previous one, I believe it could (and should) still be somewhat more clinical. I agree though that we should feature sex ed images if possible. -- JovanCormac (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - I'm with Richard (I mean, with what I suppose it is his opinion...). Love and sex are to be celebrated freely and intensively: through practise, not illustrations. That is part of my western culture but I accept, of course, a more oriental approach to the matter (though not fashionable any more...). Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose I think the image is a very good illustration of mammary intercourse. I do not think it should be more clinical as JovanComac suggest, nor do I agree with Alves, that sexual practises should not be celebrated as illustrations. It should be natural and educational, which I believe it is - sort of - maybe the breasts of the female are "more outstanding" than average, which could lead to more ordinary "equipped" girls seeing the image get some feeling of insufficiency. The reason I do not support is because the image quality simply does not quite have the finesse, aesthetic qualities and detail level (the wow) I would like to see in such a drawing. To get an idea, see, e.g., File:Anime Girl.svg for comparison, which has an erotic theme (yes I know this image has an sexual educational purpose, but I hope you understand). I could recommend nominating the image as a Valued image candidate within the scope "mammary intercourse" though. --Slaunger (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the resolution is too low.
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
This does not actually have any neon gas in it! (seeFile:NeTube.jpg). Something this misleading should not be featured! (Original nomination)
Delist Please log in to vote. Lycaon (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC) -- (en.Nergaal) 18.74.6.182 19:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This looks like a usual neon light to me, and I don't think that it's misleading. BTW, you have to be logged in to vote. --Lošmi (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's misleading because it says "Neon", NOT "Neon sign". As the tube is definatly not filled with neon, it is definately misleading! 18.251.7.152 06:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep It never purported to be a picture of Neon, it is clearly an excellent example of a Neon sign. --Tony Wills (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delist Voters were mislead when they voted for it to be featured. Also no wow.--Tired time (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I don't agree that they were mislead. As Tony Willis said, this is not meant to be association for a gas, but for a neon sign, or neon light. This is a picture of neon light, not a gas. --Lošmi (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment They were. Read their comments in the original nomination. Here I'll cite the most obvious ones, that prove my point: "The Idea is not new, as far as I remeber I saw a similar Artwork (Neon written in Neon-light) on an exposition about minimal Art..."; "It is nice picture because of the nice connection between text (subject) and object"; "...Those neon lights can be very powerful". You say, that it is not associated with a neon sign but not with neon gas. But neon sign by definition is made out of neon or other similar gas! The beginning of en.wiki article Neon sign says: "Neon signs are luminous-tube signs that contain neon or other inert gases at a low pressure". And "neon light" redirects to "neon sign" so it's the same. In a talk page someone already noted, that the lead image (which is this one) is misleading.--Tired time (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment What is it filled one if not "neon or another inert gas"? Plrk (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment --> wrong image describtion, wrong gas (chemical element) describtion, wrong categories. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done Fixed description and categories. The subject is a "Neon sign", not the element Neon, the original voters were talking about "Neon signs" and "Neon lights", whether they understood that all "Neon signs" do not contain Neon gas is probably irrelevant. This is commons, not en:wp, a delisting proposal on the basis of image qualilty would be more appropriate. :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image is still overexposed. It is possible to make it better. A quickly taken photo for example here. This is also a neon sign, but filled with known gas: pure helium. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Result: 4 Delist , 3 Keep, 0 Neutral => not delisted. JovanCormac (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S.: had to chose 600px as the generation of new thumbnails is currently broken. --Dschwen (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Reply[reply]
Question Have you tried an rectilinear projection? I think it would look better from that point of view. --S23678 (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, tried it, but it makes the sides very distorted and unnatural looking. --Dschwen (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - I don't think that this projection works very well. The fact that it doesn't look natural in rectilinear only speaks against the image.--Avala (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reason for nomination: High-quality render, encyclopedically relevant. As an added bonus the NASA logo doesn't appear anywhere on the image, freeing it from any restrictions, in addition to being public domain already. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - I don´t really like it, but the picture itself not only meets the requirements, but it´s also an excellent photo that should be FP. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 20:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral - I wish I could support this, but the face is hidden and the expression is not visible enough. Downtowngal (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ever heard of neutrality and educational value? ;) →Ditithepenguin — 01:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Request - The picture looks good in small view, but looking the actual size can be seen a little image noise (maybe just a non-noise blur), so it will be more suited if someone fix this. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 08:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Size and low quality. --Karel (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support- Although I know that there are concerns about the quality, the setup of the photo makes this worthwhile. Ktr101 (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support By far the best picture of Kuwaiti oil fires we have, good quality with respect to its age. --Jklamo (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I think that insect images like this have added value from the multiple viewpoints. With one single viewpoint, you may have a "pretty picture" in terms of something which looks nice to hang on the wall. This multiple of 4 viewpoints has added educational value, and is one step towards providing a 3-d image within the limitations of this medium. The one change I would suggest to this version would be to swap the left images top-to-bottom and bottom-to-top purely to reduce the discontinuity of the background colours. Merci beacoup, notre ami, pour un image tres informatif. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The image looks very nice in thumbnail, but is quite noisy, not sharp and suffers from disturbingly blown whites. Lycaon (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I can tolerate the blown whites (although some digital editing to darken these would be helpful since it concerns a major area of the picture) in the interests of getting the exposure correct on the insects. Likewise I can tolerate the graininess (digital noise) in some parts of the picture, chiefly the background behind the insect in flight. And I can tolerate some lack of sharpness on the insects compared with some images we have this month. What I see here is the achievement of photographing this pair of insects, including one in flight, achieving something special with a comparatively difficult subject. That is for me sufficient mitigating circumstance to tolerate the imperfections, and congratulate you on an interesting picture. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I attempted to improve the image. Reduced noise selectively in the background and darkened the blown highlights in the blossom. I also added some fake structure taken from an image of a cloudy sky. Since I hate to spend longer in front of the screen editing than taking pictures itself, my image editing skills a on a beginners level, so someone might want to try her/himself. I will provide the RAW file in that case - contact me. --Curnen (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Good but not excellent. For me it looks to plain -> compared to this nice picture the composition is very weak (looks randomly mixed). In addition the technical realization isn't top notch (much too harsh flash and blurry) , so if there was at least a nice composition or a shining feature I hadn't opposed, sorry. Btw. f/22 ? • Richard • [®] • 16:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Ok, I am not really surprised I couldn't impress the top-notch macro photographer here ;-). The composition was pretty much limited by the actions of the flies and the very limited dept of field my lens have. If you tell me, how you apparently manage to freeze an insect on a specific location, light it properly and photograph it with these insane details and dept of field, I am very eager to improve. I also like to know why the f/22 attracted your attention ? To less, to much ? --Curnen (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Matthias, f/22 is much 2 much. Your lens is working on the limit with that setting. Have a look at the MTF (resolution) Chart (it's the 3rd chart from top) where you can see that beyond of f/16 the performance is going trash-ways :-). If you used a different lens than the one on the chart the results are rather similar. With the crooked setting that you used (to force the cam) there are only photons of your flashlight visible that's why the background appears black - I know it's a midnight rendezvouz ;-) With 1/200 you don't need much flashlight, probably even none. To get more DOF raise the distance between lens and subject. Double distance * 400-800 ISO * f/14-16 * 1/200 would have created a much nicer, sharper and natural looking result. • Richard • [®] • 19:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot for your explanation. My logic until now was: Closer is better, because more pixels, more details. --Curnen (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which isn't wrong but depends on what you like to do. • Richard • [®] • 23:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose sorry to also spoil the party a bit (it will most likely get featured anyway)....but the bar for macro is really high. It is a nice catch but the quality lacks a bit. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're not spoiling a party. I like the honest feedback here, much better that this Flickr "Wow, Nice pic" stuff. I simply will keep on trying and sometimes annoy you with another nomination of one of my photos ;-) --Curnen (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i browsed through your pics and I am sure your number of FPs will increase soon. I really regret that your concert pic didn't make it. Rock on! :) --AngMoKio (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - It has image noise when seen in full size, and has distracting background. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 20:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Ok, next time I will shink my pictures to two Megapixels exactly and noise will be no problem. Background ? Actually I don't see much of a background at all, but maybe I am not imaginative enough ;-) --Curnen (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Lighting is too harsh, image not sharp enough. Maedin\talk 19:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
created, uploaded, and nominated by Maedin (edit by Diliff)
Info
A view of Forde Abbey, from the gardens. Situated in Somerset, UK, Forde Abbey is an 11th century building, originally a monastery, that has been modified and partially reconstructed in later centuries. It is now a private residence and the house is partially open to the public. The surrounding 30 acres of gardens are award-winning and include a 160ft (~49 metres) fountain and an arboretum.
Support Nice compo, weather rather 'English' though ;-). Lycaon (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Good detail and lovely composition. Diliff (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support (And those of us who have been struggling with English weather wonder how you managed to find a day with a few minutes of sunshine as bright as that. No, I must admit that I did find a little sunshine myself, at Ilam.) -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few clouds, but it was actually a hot and sunny day. I managed to get a touch of sunburn, anyway! I just hope that weather returns soon, it's been raining every day for the past week now, :-( Maedin\talk 07:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Quite nice, yet ordinary composition. --Aktron (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The tress and flowers are very noisy --kaʁstn 16:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support DOF could have been slightly higher and light a tad less dull, but still enough wow for FP. Lycaon (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Lacks clear information about where the photo is taken. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Canton Fair takes place at the Guangzhou Guoji Expo Center, Yuejiang West Rd, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sky is noisy, which is unacceptable as the picture is lacking in aesthetic and educational value. -- JovanCormac (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Being educational is not one of the requirements here in commons, but the image does present some noise. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 21:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aniruddha.Raste This is a photograph of Whipcord Cobra Lily or [Arisaema tortuosum]. As per my current knowledge no image of this plant is available on wikispecies, Hence submitting.
Oppose The sheer amount of noise and blur is too much for a FP, given the fact that this is an inanimate object and thus not particularly challenging to photograph. -- JovanCormac (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It may be educational, but it is not at all impressive. Featured images should be. Also english desciption is needed--Tired time (talk) 22:58, 21 Jul y 2009 (UTC)
Please tell me where it says that English descriptions are needed ? GerardM (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given that this is a SVG it is actually beneficial that there is no text in this picture, it makes it useful in other languages as well. GerardM (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not only is this not FP material, I do not even think it is a good picture. At first glance (also, at second and third) there appears to be no difference whatsoever between the two wombs pictured! I am sure this can be done much more clearly, and while saving space. -- JovanCormac (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am in the process of getting a high resolution uncompressed copy of this very picture from the Nationaal Archief. I have a fair chance that we will get this and make it a restoration as part of our Vingboons restoration project. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Please consider to wait for the restoration..Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, No consent was given of a recognisable nude child not in a public place. Lycaon (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the photographer uploaded it on Flickr. That's a sufficient consent. Yann (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support One more of our species. ;oD Yann (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Support, but I would prefer it being rotated 180 degrees. --Curnen (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral The picture is beautiful, of course, if only someone could get a little more detail out of the legs... -- JovanCormac (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - the question is, how to show messiness artistically, so that the viewer says "THAT is the definitive image". Downtowngal (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Downtowngal is probably right. After thinking thoroughly about it, I am now pretty much convinced, that the image is composed. Otherwise I don't know, how these totally black, extremely sharp, completely noise free shadows should be explainable. Also I can't believe the size of the sun in relation to the foreground, also the dept of field is quite high considering the 200mm telephoto lens at f8. Either way hats off for the photographer or digital artist, but before I don't know for sure, I prefer not supporting it. --Curnen (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Noise reduction on the shadows or they were originally so dark it wasn't needed, the sun appears so large in relation because of perspective distortion from a 200mm lens, and the dof isn't that large, the mountains in the background aren't in focus. It's fully possible to get a picture to look like this with very little or no editing. --Calibas (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This is a no-brainer, one of the most amazing pictures on Commons. Promote ASAP. -- JovanCormac (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - f 8, 1/350, ISO 100. A lot more than color/exposure correction was involved here, and I'm not sure I trust the integrity of the image. Downtowngal (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand why it is unnecessary. Sometimes you make a perfect picture in terms of composition, exposition, and so on, but the colors are not that good. By removing the colors, you make an “almost perfect” photo look stunning. →Ditithepenguin — 01:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support but I'm missing the crocodiles in the water ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The last crocodiles became extinct a few years ago, but the alligators and the hippopotamuses are doing very well, thank you. -- MJJR (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Love the pastels which are very appealing and I could forget the finger where the animal is resting on but DOF is 2 shallow here to impress me. You had a great chance --> here <-- to come very close and do a e.g. retro macro with propper time. • Richard • [®] • 16:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Oppose Not impressive enough and I don't know why, but I don't like the background --Tired time (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Lacks of colors (maybe setting exposure compensation to 1 or 2 EVs can help you to catch dark tones and colors), and weird bokeh. →Ditithepenguin — 01:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Result: 2 Support, 2 Oppose, 0 Neutral => not featured. JovanCormac (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I don't see how it is valuable and it is not aesthetically pleasing enough for me to ignore it. Also colors are too intense for my taste, maybe saturation should be decreased a bit --Tired time (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Very good restoration but still no wow. Also too much sky, I suggest cropping. There is something wrong with the top of the image anyway, corners seem bent--Tired time (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - GerardM (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I am appalled by the motivation of the above oppose ... repeat after me, this is a restoration, it is not a digital snapshot.. it is important to maintain its original shape, it is extremely encyclopaedic... reallyReply[reply]
Comment Well I agree that it is important to maintain it's original shape if we for example use it as an example of artist work, but if we use it to illustrate the subject of the image, then maybe the sky is space consuming and does not add anything so... It's something like here. Well I am not so sure, maybe you are right. Anyway, no wow--Tired time (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The argument about lack of 'wow' is an odd one: this is the only time in history that the United States Capitol has been burned; the Library of Congress calls it one of the most important and stirring images of the early republic. To the best of my knowledge it is the only surviving depiction of this event. Durova (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - As User:Promethean said on enwiki's FPC, "This is an invaluable image with a lot of EV. Excellent restoration work Durova." I definitely see a major wow factor here. NuclearWarfare (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Excellent restoration, great encyclopedic value. This picture adds meaning to a significant event in American history that words alone cannot convey. This is a truely once in a life time image. + my own words used above Promethean (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Interesting, well done. Yann (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support As others. The deviation from the "Rule Of Thirds" works here because the eye is drawn to the end of the tunnel, as well as the texture of the walls compensating for the single colour. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral - Doesn´t have anything special in my opinion, but the image does not have any bad qualities either. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 21:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Could you crop it again? IMO crop isn't ideal at the moment. —kallerna™ 07:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what's crop? sorry I can unfortunately no english --Böhringer (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
"Crop" bedeutet schlicht und einfach zuschneiden, wahrscheinlich meint er, dass rechts oben etwas weg soll. -- JovanCormac (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oh, vielen Dank - da hat er wahrscheinlich auch recht. --Böhringer (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose – I think this image lacks some depth of field. I guess it was a little windy. The cropped version does not look too bad though. --Ernie (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Supportreluctantly Composition is great, noise is low, but focus could be a little better. -- JovanCormac (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Leaf on foreground is distracting, posterised background. —kallerna™ 12:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I like the picture but it looks like it got kinda mauled in the editing process. --Calibas (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Cute frog and the inclusion of the plant gives a good feel of the environment it lives in. --Calibas (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Please crop first! The white border is unneccessary, and downright distracting on the left. Those photochromes always hold great value, and I would love to see this one as a FP. Will change to "support" if done. -- JovanCormac (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not quite square, but maybe if I cropped it as tight as possible without cutting things off, then filled in some missing information... Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've noticed that, yes. But I was thinking that you could crop along the edges of the picture and then stretch it to become square... -- JovanCormac (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, see what you think about what I did do. It's uploading now, and should be visible in a minute or two. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great job on the cropping. Changed vote to "support" as promised. -- JovanCormac (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A simply stunning shot of the immediate aftermath of the Crossroads Baker atomic test. The level of detail is amazing, as is the size and quality. Must be viewed in full to appreciate it.
Support Wow - nice. But I hope, that nobody on this planet will see something like that in reality in future! --Karel (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support A wonderful illustration of human ignorance. A great picture of a colossal mistake. "Oh boy, we can split the atom, now let's blow shit up" --Calibas (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For those that are interested, I've found some more pictures, which may give a clearer explanation of what happened. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that the image resolution is lower than the guideline amount, but those are only guidelines and I think this is an astonishing image otherwise. Created by José Goulão - uploaded by Rezter - nominated by Rezter -- Rezter (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose While this picture is certainly nice and atmospheric, I do not think this compensates for the low resolution. -- JovanCormac (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Did you try to get a higher resolution from the author? The pic is really great but a higher resolution will be necessary I guess. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't requested one no. I assumed that he deliberately chose to upload the image at that resolution because it was what he was comfortable releasing under a free license. Granted that is just me assuming and I could have requested, I still don't think the resolution should be that big of an issue. Rezter (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I wouldn't assume this. He's got a lot of photos there and he probably doesn't want huge upload times. Also, releasing all of your photos at a high resolution is quite different from releasing only one. I think you would find him accommodating. A lot of Flickr members that mark their Flickr photos as "All rights reserved" are still happy to release an image or two, if you express an interest and explain what it could mean for him as a photographer. It requires some effort, I know, but in this instance I think it would be worth it. If he says no, oh well, no harm done, :-) Let me know if you don't do it though, and I will. Maedin\talk 11:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It is for sure worth asking. The reason for this specific size simply is, that the guy has no Flickr pro account. The image size that can be downloaded from a free flickr account is limited to "large" to reduce the load on the servers. If he would upgrade to a pro account, the original image size (probably much larger) would become available for download. But of course he has it on his hard drive, so why not asking ? It will probably not be a problem to mail you the original file. --Curnen (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just browsed through the flickr-account of that guy. Wow...it is difficult to find a concert pic I wouldn't support. I think it is really worth asking him if he wants to share some of them with us commons-people :) --AngMoKio (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commentper the picture description on Flickr, "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Portugal License." That would make it ineligible for Commons. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting, because he has issued it under share-alike 2.0 on Flickr and it has passed Flickr review. Maybe he is in the process of changing his licenses but as you probably know a license can't be revoked. Rezter (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think he's using a license that doesn't have a perfect counterpart among the Flickr default choices, which is why he explicitly states the license in the picture description. Of course Flickreview wouldn't pick up on that because it only compares the Flickr settings. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm pretty certain you can select non-commercial on Flickr. I don't think it's a matter of "picking whats available". See this for example. Rezter (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I contacted the user and he has removed the NC-ND license. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- I know that this is the oldest photograph, and I was suprised that this wasn't nominated before, so here goes. Ktr101 (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
There seems to be at least some disagreement here. National Geographic reports ([13]) another photo as "The World's First Photograph", although by the same inventor. This should certainly be settled before promoting, and in the relevant Wikipedia articles as well. -- JovanCormac (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment – I think this would do better as a valued image, unless there is a better quality version of this picture. --Ernie (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I agree, more about value than FP. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Could use some color balance, it's blue. Same with the one below. --Calibas (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
Thanks, Calibas. You see now two different versions with color balance. Thank you, Peripitus, for the alternative images from this file and from the next file. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alternative, not featured
Comment White balanced altered (fixed I hope ) - Peripitus (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler. The image shows the speed of the running African Wild Dog. Because of that are the moving parts of the body not sharp. The African Wild Dog is running up to 5 km at a speed of 55 km per hour. Only 3000-5000 African Wild Dogs lived 1997 in the wild. African Wild Dogs are endangered. -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment IMO looks bit underexposed. Could you upload new version, maybe with bigger resolution? —kallerna™ 17:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose This suffers from a combination of minor issues that add up. The DoF could be higher or the camera better positioned. The lighting is very flat and lacks sufficient contrast. The crop is a little tight or the composition is wrong with the dragonfly pointed "out of the picture". If this were a high resolution image, I might support, but at the minimal resolution, there are no mitigating factors here. Richard Bartz has many dragonfly images that do not exhibit these issues that make good references for what I prefer. -- Ram-Man 01:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Neutral It is not possible for me (HDSL, but low flow) to load this image in high resolution. I suggest to make a derivated work in medium resolution. --Barbetorte (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Request I retuched this "overlap". I think, that transparent colors look good. But if you consider that should be change - isn't problem. --Michał Komorniczak (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
Question - Isn't the coin supposed to be round? These images look oval. Downtowngal (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
chromatic aberration, geolocation missing. —kallerna™ 16:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Overprocessed, way too sharp and so. →Diti the penguin — 23:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Done Ahh, it was already listed here too :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
.jpg)
.JPG)
Abstain As for videos, I think the guidelines/information should be updated and approved for new formats before voting. /Daniel78 (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC).jpg)
.jpg)
nomination? As per HBR --George Chernilevsky (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
_in_San_Francisco_Zoo.jpg)
_in_San_Francisco_Zoo_1.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(6).jpg)
_(8).jpg)
_(6).jpg)
_(2).jpg)
.jpeg)
_EDIT.jpg)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
_in_San_Francisco_Zoo.jpg,_withdrawn){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_(6).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(8).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(6).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(2).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpeg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(2).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_promoted){kind=link}
_(7).jpg,_not_promoted){kind=link}
_(3).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(by).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(by).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(16).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_in_San_Francisco_Zoo.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_in_San_Francisco_Zoo.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(uncorrected).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(6).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(8).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(6).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Felicidade_A_very_happy_boy.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PortraitGirl2005-1a.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Photographer.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Girl_with_styrofoam_swimming_board.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Keep, 0
_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg)
_(7).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(7).jpg)
_(3).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(3).jpg)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg)
,_by_John_Trumbull.jpg)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg)
_(by).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(by).jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg)
_(16).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg)
_(by).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(by).jpg)
_(16).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(16).jpg)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg)
Strong support Wow. What a picture! -- JovanCormac (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg)
_-_edit1.jpg)
