Comment Seems to be leaning CCW. --Dori - Talk 01:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose because of the leaning.--Avala (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Quality not enough for FP. --Karelj (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Quality good but colors could be better and the perspective fixed. I'd support such edited picture, not this one, sorry. --Aktron (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jordanian port-town Aqaba on the Red Sea, as seen from Eilat in Israel, with Edom mountains as backdrop. According to English Wikipedia this is the tallest flagpole in the world - didn't know that till a few minutes ago.
Comment I think this picture is much better than the one on the website. Perhaps it should change to this FP nominee, but I still don't think it is FP quality. --Ltz Raptor (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Do you not think the resolution is a bit low for FP? --Ltz Raptor (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is? I have no idea... It's only the second time I nominate anything, I'm not very familiar with the ruling norms here. Aviad2001 (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2008 (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: Lower than 2 Megapixels
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.
It's on the first line of the guildlines. --Base64 (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
created by Arthur Sullivan (1842-1900) and Wilfred Bendall (1850-1920) - prepared, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
A few words about this: This is one of Sullivan's rarest works - only a handful of copies are known to survive, and I learned later that it was actually a bit of a bureaucratic mistake on the library's part that let me get this to a photocopier and take away a full reproduction - they don't normally allow users to self-photocopy such rare works, but they accidentally gave it to me in the wrong reading room, and so, when I asked, it was treated as a normal book, and I was granted permission to photocopy it in full. In short, very rare book, and we're lucky to have it.
Comment This might be better placed at Wikisource? I know Commons is for media, and it is a PDF, but it seems somewhat analogous to someone taking a screenshot of a Wikipedia article and uploading it here and calling it 'media'. I appreciate the effort you made in obtaining this rare work, and it is interesting indeed, but having a PDF/photocopy doesn't seem to add much, if anything, and I think a better location would be Wikisource. naerii 14:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose agree with naerii, also, this is Featured picture candidates, no feature document candidates. Alvaro qc (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2008 (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: its not a picture.
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-- Rasilon This flower was growing horizontally, and was photographed horizontally. It has now been identified.
Comment It would be nice if we could know what flower it is. --SuperJew (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Without identification it has not much chance --Simonizer (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Simply a beautiful flower (the species is Canna indica and the cultivar probably flamea). Why is this vertical flower shown horizontally and the top cut off ? --B.navez (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Orientation and crop, otherwise it is a very pleasing combination of color and content. -- Ram-Man 22:55, 28 August 2008 (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 not identified on the image page, it is 90° tilted and it is unfortunately cropped.
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 as below (Encyclopaedic value, but for an FP i would like to see the nest from bird's eye view and at best even with birds in it) --SuperJew (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose not identified (tree nor bird), lacks wow. Would support for QI if identified though. Ianare (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose FP candidate spam by nominator --Romwriter (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment he was just a bit over-enthusiastic as it is his first time here. he won't spam again. anyway spam is not a criteria for if it is good or not. --SuperJew (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2008 (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: nothing is identified.
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 Don't like the overlapping of silhoutte and shadow. Nice idea though. --norro 19:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - artsy but not encyclopedic.--Avala (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Encyclopedic" is not a FPC criteria on Commons. naerii 08:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well this image shows absolutely nothing, just a shadow.--Avala (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose it took me about 5 times looking at this photo to realise that it is a silhoette of a car. --SuperJew (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2008 (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 composition is confusing and the subject not clearly identified -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2008 (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.
Oppose The resolution is too low. This looks like a crop of a larger image. At f/4 on a 1/2.5" sensor, this is close to, or above, the diffraction resolution limit. It is simply not sharp enough. -- Ram-Man 03:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice, but I'd prefer to see the whole plant. Also, per Ram-man. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Nice picture which shows a lot of detail of town planning. Gordo (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support (I suppose it's allowed to support my own picture? Anyway: thanks to Tintero for the nomination) -- MJJR (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Common image. No wow. --Karelj (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support “Wow” is no suitable factor in reviewing images of dead objects. --Romwriter (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Common image, sunset, sunrise or evening shot would be much more wow. Or HDR. --Aktron (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Really nice, but that DOF could be better. However, the whole image looks really good so no need to oppose. --Aktron (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Because Nicolas insisted to have me nominating this one before I take a little break :) A unique moment ! -- Benh (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - This is absolutely marvelous :) --Lošmi (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Oh my god, this is the shot I have always dreamt of! And it's more stunning than I have ever imagined! --Specious (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Quality on the seagull not that great, good shot of the scat though. P.S. Before you say it's not easy to take this shot, you haven't spend enough time under seagulls. Aerial bombardment is right. I narrowly escaped a whole squadron unloading 30 feet away from me one day. There is even a whole flickr group dedicated to the phenomena of defecating birds. --Dori - Talk 01:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Thanks for pointing out that this is not a unique subject, but IMO, this is better quality than at least the majority of the photos in that flickr group. Very illustrative angle here, and perfect lighting to emphasize the rear quarters where the action is happening. This shot, in its class, is downright amazing. --Specious (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes of course the quality of the picture (especially the seagull) is not great. But, as says specious, none of the pictures on this flickr group is better than mine IMO (I opened each one full size ;-)). And I think I was only lucky to take this shot: over about 400 pictures, only one of a defecating seagull and with a good quality!!!! -- sanchezn (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completely agree. Your picture is far way better than any picture on that flickr group. You had luck to get moment like this, but hey, that just makes this picture more valuable. Someone might spend hours under "whole squadron unloading" and not get anything even close to this. --Lošmi (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Great moment captured in time. It deserves to be featured just for the risk the photographer took. :P GullibleKit (talk) 08:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Very nice plant, but bad lighting.--Sensl (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. –Dilaudid 18:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support schöne pflanze und schönes foto! Please login to vote -- Sanchezn (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Translation: beautiful plants and beautiful photo! --96.251.134.253 23:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose poor composition and quality --Ianare (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Nice flower for me. It is blue, so some overexposion happens, otherwise the bloom colors would be unrealistic. --Aktron (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Joe Biden, designated VP, with Barack Obama. This is a very fresh shot, taken today and depicting a current news event. But I think the quality is good enough to give it an FPC-shot. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen (talk)
Comment -- A question for those who know nothing about american politcs and polititians: who is the candidate for President? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Barack Obama, the man behind Joe Biden who has his hand on Biden's shoulder. --Dschwen (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe I should explain myself better. I know it is Barack Obama the candidate! But the central and most prominent place in the picture is of Joe Biden. If I knew nothing about them I would readily point to him as the candidate for the presidency. That is why I find this picture a bit misleading. I can imagine many americans, not very found of Obama, making this kind of comment -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The picture is about Joe Biden, Obama is providing only context here. I'm sure most ameriacans will appreciate the fact that there are already tons of pictures of Obama, and I'm sure this one picture with happens to focus on Biden will not distract from Obama. Geez, have I missed a new law that states that every picture with Obama has to have Obama as the main subject?! --Dschwen (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Anyway the picture is very good ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This picture is now history. Great composition, well done! --Specious (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, it is hard to top the crapping gull... --Dschwen (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support For qualty and EV. Seriously, I wonder what has happened to our rules. Images that do not meet the requirements are supported and images that are really eye-catching and meet the rules are opposed. Muhammad 19:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support High technical quality and very notable subject matter Movieevery (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support How early did you show up at the event to be able to take this? --Dori - Talk 01:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I stood five hours in the scorching sun (and got a pretty bad sunburn...), people were fainting all over the place. I took over 600 pictures at the event,many of them essentially blind, camera raised up above my head (the 150mm lens makes aiming quite a challenge). On my userpage is a gallery of the best shots (the gallery of the 500+ out-of-focus, headless, torsoless etc. Obamas and Bidens is onkly on my harddisk though :-) ). --Dschwen (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Sensl this time. If it had been taken a litte more from the front it could have been better --Simonizer (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Obama is half hidden.--Avala (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support As "Obama/Biden" this wouldn't work, but as "Biden introduced by Obama" this is perfect. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Special, yes, but still I find that the attention is pulled to Obama's face, which is obviously not in focus. For me Biden is an unknown (as yet), so Obama peeping from behind disturbs rather than adds to the picture. Maybe when O. becomes president, you may try to renominate? I may change my mind as my oppose is only 'just'. Lycaon (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, nothing special. --Kjetil_r 18:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question how is this nothing special. It is a high quality, free image of the first public appearance of Joe Biden as the running-mate of the first african-american presidential candidate in US history. Sorry, but without any explanation i just cannot take these votes seriously. --Dschwen (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe it is special now because it is the first picture of him at Commons. But we have no timelimited FP status here at wikimedia. So what is in a few weeks or months? Then there are certainly more pictures of him that are very similar. And then the picture isnt very special anymore. If beeing the first is the only thing special about it then for me it is not a FP --Simonizer (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I finally take a decision. --Tintero (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't get that special feeling I get from most of the people featured pictures. Oroso (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, the occasion is special and it is a fine photograph. Thanks to Dschwen for uploading such actual gems to the Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It is special, but Barack Obama attracts all attention from Joe Biden. --Base64 (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Enough special for me. --Aktron (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Good picture and for encouraging people posting good free shots of current news. Thanks to Dschwen. --B.navez (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose a bit blurry on the full size and doesn't have the depth I would excpect --SuperJew (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose FP candidate spam by nominator --Romwriter (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment he was just a bit over-enthusiastic as it is his first time here. he won't spam again. anyway spam is not a criteria for if it is good or not. --SuperJew (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Lycaon (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral as below, a bit blurry. But here there is more depth --SuperJew (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Curved horizon, due to lens distortion, poor depth of filed, due to wrong exposure choice, and uninteresting composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose FP candidate spam by nominator --Romwriter (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment he was just a bit over-enthusiastic as it is his first time here. he won't spam again. anyway spam is not a criteria for if it is good or not. --SuperJew (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Lycaon (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose FP candidate spam by nominator --Romwriter (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment he's just a bit over-enthusiastic as it is his first time here. he won't spam again. anyway spam is not a criteria for if it is good or not. --SuperJew (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I quote Daniel78: "Oppose votes that has absolutely nothing to do with image should not be counted in my oppinion." --Ltz Raptor (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Beautiful shot and lovely composition. I also love the way the slightly blurry ends of the petals blend into the background. The thing that ruins this picture though is the small blurry flower on the right. If you photoshop it out I would support the picture as an FP. --SuperJew (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Without identification it has not much chance --Simonizer (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Purple fringing and insufficient DOF, due to a poor exposure choice. Crop too tight. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose FP candidate spam by nominator --Romwriter (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment he's just a bit over-enthusiastic as it is his first time here. he won't spam again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperJew (talk • contribs) 11:01, 29. Aug. 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Lycaon (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose sorry, the image is perfectly nice but the composition is rather unimpressive. No wow factor at all. R-T-C Tim (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose R-T-C Tim is right, no WOW at all. --Aktron (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Lycaon (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose does not meet quality requirements, it is too small. There are no strong mitigating reasons for me to ignore that --Simonizer (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose amazing picture, just not big enough to fulfill requirements --Base64 (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Hey sorry but I don't know what is going on here and the composition looks "too ordinary". Closer look, different angle and the image would be much better. --Aktron (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Downsized or cropped - in either case, too small for FP status. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This is a very clever piece of photographic work. The exposure and focus is perfect. A meeting between two bugs like this is not easy to arrange. The picture is certainly big enough to tell the story - with good margin. I think this picture should pass with flying colours. Wikipedia is depending of this kind of pictures. --Frode Inge Helland (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, this ain't Wikipedia, fih. --Aqwis (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 8 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Lot's of CA noise in the feathers and a strange colour cast to boot. This bird is greyish with a black cap. Lycaon (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
For comparison (not votable) you see the real colours of a jackdaw to the right! Lycaon (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment But I think that this picture is more artistic than educational. I especially like the colors. --Lošmi (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Strange that the lighting would come so strongly from below also. -- carol (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Hannibal (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC) (good eye direction, this species lacks FP)Reply[reply]
Support Awesome, NOT overexposed as I can see. And if so, that is marginal. --Aktron (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support To me the portrait seems to be OK --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Agree with norro. Considering that this is a tetrapod with a body, merely showing side of the head doesn't do it for me. Samulili (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Come on, the composition is not interesting, colors are grey and the time is generally too bad to take a picture. Yeah, maybe this is some location where snow is realy rare but I've seen nice pictures of snow-covered Algeir and these were also rare. --Aktron (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry to pile on, but the image isn't sharp enough for me. It could have been quite good; the angle was fairly good, but there is a lot of noise and not enough sharp. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I personally don't find it interesting at all. Don't take it bad, but you should be more careful when nominating pictures. Benh (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2008 (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: picture doesn't fulfil requirements (size, stitching errors). Please read our Image Guidelines before nominating.
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 Was this image upscaled? There are numerous artifacts. -- Ram-Man 22:45, 1 September 2008 (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: Image is full of artefacts
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 like the composition, the flower looks like a tree. But the picture is too small for FP. Vassil (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2008 (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: picture is too small.
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.
Правильно было бы назвать изображение Winter Palace at Night. 死亡 (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question к чему Вы это написали? ferrer 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Наверно, чтобы участник не допустил эту ошибку в следующий раз. Vlsergey (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Я говорил не про участника 死亡, а про Канопуса, который продублировал название изображения после своего голоса. Мне интересно, зачем он это сделал, ведь в других номинациях такого нет. ferrer 21:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Просто чтобы объяснить, что где. Вот и всё... Канопус Киля (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Too bright... Киля, попробуй посоветоваться с Alex_Rave / Qkowlew / др. фотографами, как лучше сделать фотку ночью. Как минимум стоит сделать несколько разных кадров "на пробу" с разной выдержкой/экспозицией, и обязательно на RAW - чтобы можно было на компьютере подкрутить свет. Vlsergey (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Very nice. --Pauk (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Too blurry naerii 08:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The images of Kanopus are getting more and more quality as I can see in recent nominations. But this one should use a bit shorter time, 2,5 seconds ruined the lighting in some parts. Well making more images with different time (1s, 1,3s, 1,5s, 2s, 2,5s and 3s for example) and then select some good one is advisable. --Aktron (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Травить участника на основе его действий в другом проекте нехорошо. ferrer 20:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Как ни странно, но проголосовавшие против либо аргументировали свои голоса (Alex_Rave, me), либо вообще не знают Килю по другим проектам. Боюсь, ваше утверждение безосновательно. Vlsergey (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Дададададдъ. :-)) Объективнее надо быть! ferrer 21:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Товарищ Алекс Райв не знает меня по другим проектам? Нет, это не так. Мы с Алексом хорошо знакомы, это совершенно не так. У нас было немало спорных вопросов. Канопус Киля (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Всегда по поводу того, что вы пытались удалить нечто, что приемлют все, кроме вас, или протолкнуть в "избранное" то, что нравится только вам. Здесь - такая же ситуация. --Rave (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Могу добавить чуть больше - Alex Rave и vlsergey - первые соратники участницы Lvova, а её отношение к вам широко известно. ferrer 21:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Очень хорошо известно. К сожалению, оно негативное. За то, что я в своё время проигнорировал настойчивые призывы войти в IRC-Ru Wiki. Канопус Киля (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Угу, я про что и говорю. Ещё и за это, я думаю. ferrer 12:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Да, да, да... а вообще она наш кукловод. Vlsergey (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Я имел ввиду, что я и Алекс Рейв авгументировали свои голоса. Вы считаете, что она надумана, лишь бы не принять Ваше изображение? :) Vlsergey (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Конечно... :))) Она пронюхала и решила меня тут подорвать. :) Все мои коллеги за меня в Ру-ВП! Канопус Киля (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Неубедительность аргументов вышеупомянутых ораторов здесь меня поражает... :-DDD Канопус Киля (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Фотография нерезкая: шевелёнка, так как ИС не спас, и слишком открытая диафрагма. Небо недоэкспонировано, здание переэкспонировано. Номинировать в избранные изображения фотографию, снятую китом на открытой диафрагме и с выдержкой 2.5 секунды я считаю глупостью. Надеюсь, что через годик общения с зеркалкой вы разделите моё мнение. Попробуйте в следующий раз сделать несколько снимков с разными выдержками, разными диафрагмами, лучше наверное даже на максимальном ISO а потом пройтись шумодавом, и сделать из полученного HDR. Вот сравните: моё фото снятое на заре общения с зеркалкой, нормально снятое фото (by Voytek S), и HDR by Юрий Дмитриенко. Ваше фото по уровню ближе всего к моей версии. За то и критикую. --Rave (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Нормальное изображение. ferrer 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Bad composition, palace is blurry, all decorations are overexposed. Для самого Канопуса: когда же Вы обратите внимание, что, пока не поминается моё имя в котнтексте Ваших действий, меня и рядом нет? lvova (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Имхо, лучше быть dick в твоём понимании, нежели как-то ровняться на то, что, по твоему пониманию, срочно надо понять. Если есть подозрения в преследовании - Николай может иск подать, у него там наставник сидит, пусть рассудит. А то приелся ряд участников уже со своими необоснованными громкими заявлениями. lvova (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
А что, на Коммонзе есть наставник и АК? :) Канопус Киля (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
В идеале, при наличии, наставничество распространяется на мозг. Насчёт АК придирка неумна; Николай, напишите иск о том, что я преследую Вас во всех проектах Фонда, и закроем, наконец, эту тему, когда АК примет решение. Если же Вы не сделаете этого, но продолжите свои громкие заявления о том, как Вы воспринимаете мои действия, иск о клевете напишу я. Договорились? lvova (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Количество голосов на исход в целом не влияют. См. Википедия:К удалению. :) А я о чём говорил? Важны аргументы, а не число голосов. Паппетов можно наделать, и что...? Канопус Киля (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Николай, Вам сейчас показалось, что в обсуждении есть паппеты (кто, если не секрет?), или же что я будто бы не аргументировала свои слова? lvova (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lvova, ладно, закрыли эту тему, не нужно ни с кем судится, никому это не нужно. Канопус Киля (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fointain on the Neva River. (second version the image) Канопус Киля (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the image is too noisy and blurry. Lycaon (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The image is a night shot and >10 megapixel. This is far away from beeing a FPX case. --norro 19:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Seems like a tilt. Muhammad 19:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - nice night shot of the fountain but there is nothing that stands out about it. - Peripitus (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - per what Peripitus wrote.--Avala (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support the water, colors and light makes this picture beautiful --SuperJew (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- No wow, yes, but actually this is not the aim of the creator: this is an illustration, which wants to illustrate something (as the name sais :) Manuel R. (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2008 (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 DOF is too narrow.
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.
A beautiful Painted Lady butterfly in a sunny day, collecting nectar from a Lantana camara flower. Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry Joaquim. Pretty colours, good sharpness but the composition is awful. I dont like that the butterfly head is squeezed in the lower left corner --Simonizer (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Very good quality of the picture, but the floor ruins the naturalism of the setting. --Ltz Raptor (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. — Lycaon (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- A little bit of noise, but it pops! Xymmax (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nothning such interesting, wow totaly missing. --Karelj (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Sad that it's in English ... Ianare (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Enough WOW for some supermarket.. But I understand that some attacking aliens in the background can make it much more interesting :-) No, really quite nice image and better than some other shops I saw when visiting Katowice. --Aktron (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - bad composition, we just see one part of the animal. --Avala (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Why is it bad composition, when only a part of the animal is shown? There are other featured pictures where you can see only a part fo the animal. --Abauseind (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment A picture of the entire animal would be an entirely different photo. Someone can submit that and we'll vote on it separately. IMO, it would be more valid to complain that this part of the animal could be shown better. --Specious (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Great composition, but unfortunately, the mouth is not sharp. --Aktron (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Are you kidding me??? Look at the droplets of liquid... Look at the flames curling back towards the performer's face... I think the nom's a fine human being for granting GNU on this, I'd probably be tempted to keep rights to it. Xymmax (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- A superb composition and an obvious candidadte for POTY 2008. Yes, we could say this was a lucky shot if we didn't know the work of Luc Viatour. Congrats, Luc ! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - too dark and not notable. Nothing is important about 1982 and this bridge I think for us to have a FP from back then and not today.--Avala (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, unsharp, and the lights are distracting. would prefer a photo taken in the early evening/daytime. naerii 08:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This is very good night shot, and i like the thing that it was taken in 1982. It has the old time spirit. --Lošmi (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Great night shot, good scan. As for historical importance, one thing is the present view is missing two buildings ... Ianare (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The composition is too cluttered, and too little wow. Aesthetically it is pleasing, though. Crapload (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose sorry - too dark and unsharp --Böhringer (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support One of few images reminging us "older times". And this one is really nice... sharp, no compression or overexposion. And the twins are in the background :-) --Aktron (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the background is much too distracting. R-T-C Tim (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I included the office tower in the background, in an attempt to oppose the "new cathedral" to the "old cathedral". As a matter of fact, that office tower mimics a bit the cathedral's architecture; it was actually named "Place de la Cathédrale" originally, and today is called "Tour KPMG". Tango7174.
Oppose No wow, unfortunate composition. Needs perspective correction. Lycaon (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Little bit small, but nice contrast = wow +. --Karelj (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I really like the idea of "old cathedral" oppose to "new cathedral". --Lošmi (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposeThe idea is nice the conversion is not IMO --Simonizer (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- I don't like the white spots (not only in the sky) and the composition. The tree in the foreground isn't necessary. Perhaps you should have taken it a little bit more from the right? Manuel R. (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Interesting idea, but I don't think it works here. The tree on the left makes the image feel cluttered, and there is not enough detail in either the church or the building behind to justify FP. The lights are way too bright also, perhaps a daytime shot? naerii 23:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Tilted CW, now detail in the structure, not sharp, blown highlights, not FP-material, sorry. Lycaon (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Noise and oversharpened --Base64 (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The compression ruins it. Otherwise I'd support such image because it is nice in a thumb like here. --Aktron (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Looks very nice as a thumb yes, I do not see any significant tilt. However as stated above the image quality itself is very bad. Looks like what I get from my mobile phone. /Daniel78 (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Bad light colouring on the floor - where the light comes through a door. --Ltz Raptor (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support definitely like :) --Sailko (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
weak oppose i like the image but there is CA on the edges of the light on the floor and it isn't very good quality --SuperJew (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 8 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - bad composition. I don't think that there is any value to the image of the sign closeup.--Avala (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It shows the method of cutting the letters out of sheet metal and attaching them to the sign afterward, called demountable copy, as opposed to cutting them out of vinyl and sticking them to the sign (direct-applied copy). Demountable copy is only consistently used in Kansas and sporadically in other states. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - OK then I change my vote.--Avala (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of blown highlights, size and awkward composition. MER-C 10:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This does fall within the guidelines. So FPX does not apply in this case. --norro 15:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Only remove when you support please. Lycaon (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Wonderful. --norro 21:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like the reflection of the clouds and the picture is very sharp. You can see the scratchings and texture of the sign. --Lošmi (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support — unique composition necessary to capture the subject matter (demountable copy) on a a sign that would otherwise require a scissor lift to achieve a more regular composition. A little editing with contrast levels to bring the sky back in line, but otherwise I find it a different perspective of a sign normally seen whizzing down the highway at full speed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Illustrative, but the lower left of "22" is out of focus, sorry. --Base64 (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose composition doesn't convince me --AngMoKio (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Please try to keep comments constructive and assume that everyone who submits a picture does it believing they have something of FPC status. Focus on encouraging people to improve Bastiquedemandez 20:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure if you have something like this at commons, but I'm from enwiki, and we have a policy called Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Thank you ever so much for thinking that my image is of such poor quality that you assume I'm joking by nominating it, though. </sarcasm> —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Shoot the photograph again with a greater w:depth of field to ensure at the very least the number 22 is entirely in focus. Shoot with the sun in a different position or behind a cloud to eliminate the blown highlights. I don't think this is a photoshop fix. Bastiquedemandez 20:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, this particular sign is in another state from me (it is in Emporia, Kansas and I live in central Oklahoma). I'll be in the area around the end of September but as I'd only be swinging by there en route to somewhere else I wouldn't have a lot of control over the time of day I'd be around there. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Well this image is quite original, so it is interesting, but some darker colors would be advisable. The sky is overburned, the sign itself has quite a bluish hue. Aktron (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, I hope this doesn't make me seem arrogant, but I get the feeling that this is pretty much a random shot from a session of experimenting with different angles. --Aqwis (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose interesting, but not FP. if you're sure of the importance of the pic, try nominating it to VI --SuperJew (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 6 support, 13 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose where is the wow? It is just a dog walking on a wall. Not to mention that the dog is blurred and the composition is off. R-T-C Tim (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose same as R-T-C Tim, no wow --SuperJew (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Agree with R-T-C Tim. Or I just don't understand the picture. --norro 16:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -- obviously, I disagree about the DOF. I did this on purpose as an artistic choice. I think the unusual DOF enhances the photograph. This is supposed to be a a pleasing photo, which to me, it is.Rasilon (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC) comment by anonymous user. Lycaon (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the blurry blossoms in the front distract --SuperJew (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2008 (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 has an improper DOF and is not identified.
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, dull composition. --Aqwis (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - I am afraid I have to concur. If the shot were taken in a more "artistic" context, it could have struck a featured nerve, but the subject here is simply unremarkable. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, The lighting/shadows make it quite dull, I don't think the technical quality is all that great, and the composition is as AD says, unremarkable. I think maybe if you'd taken it from further back it might have helped. naerii 10:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Looking at it again, it does need noise reduction in the shadows. It is interesting, though, the way in which a subject the photographer can find attractive may be considered "unremarkable" by others. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like it but I think it's a bit too crowded as a composition, with elements that don't go together. --Dori - Talk 00:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question just what is this a map of and in what language is it? Also, is there any particular reason it is oriented to the North-East, this is non-standard. R-T-C Tim (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose all detail washed out by the cameras noise reduction. unfortunate framing (too little space on the bottom). --Dschwen (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The thumb is really impressive, but overall image quality is low and the baby seems out of focus. Very nice capture though. --norro 08:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I don't think the baby is so out of focus. But I do think it is the essence that makes this picture worthy. --SuperJew (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but the picture is too blurry and there is some CA at the leg of the baby --Simonizer (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose CA, as outlined above. naerii 23:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for outlining it. The only one I think is an issue is the one at the ear. the top right one I still can't see it's purple. And the lower one (if exists) isn't CA, but effect of the wall. --SuperJew (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i think you need to recalibrate your monitor. naerii 09:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose That is not because it's BW and artistic these trees need not to be identified. Also a picture of the future (look at the date) --B.navez (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment In a picture like this, where you're not looking at the features of the tree because it is a certain tree, but it could be any tree ID isn't necesary --SuperJew (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes no sense ! Don't let romantism overwhelm your reason. If it were animals, no matter an elephant or a slug ? This is a pleasant picture not only for its aesthetic qualities (otherwise abstract figures would do the same) but also for its cultural context. Not all kinds of trees, not all sorts of mountains, not all meadows and not any combination of them might arise such positive feelings. The very reality of this picture is only able to bring the breathing of it, even if you are unaware of it. And it works, we are transported to this place of Tyrol. That is why I think it is important to give the clues : naming the places and the species as a minimum of respect to the watchers. Because also black and white photography is somehow an easy way for manipulation, it's better to make it completely honest. You know, these trees are larches (Larix decidua) and it would be a completely different impression if it were spruce or beech or pines. Don't you prefer to know what makes you feel so, rose scent or jasmine, pepper or vanilla ? One could tell just from this only picture so many things about how nature and men have made this lanscape and why so many people find it so fine. I just wanted two or three words more from the uploader. I will do it myself and change my vote but I'm a bit disappointed to see how basic exigences are so easily blown out when under the charm. --B.navez (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Great. That only one opposing vote I can see has no arguments about the quality of the picture itself. Interesting. --Aktron (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Nice picture with good quality. But what does it show? If it should show the alps, what about the trees, standing in the center? If it should show the trees, why are they in darkness? I think the value of this picture isn't enough high to receive the status FP. Manuel R. (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Vignetting, and I fail to see the reason for turning a colour image into boring artificial B&W. Which is completely different from the B&W film of early days. Lycaon (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I see a good reason, it looks great! /Daniel78 (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The trees are too centrally-placed to make a good composition. This image would not succeed in colour, so why in B&W? Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, very nice and artistic. --Aqwis (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Can't imagine any use in WP projects since b/w --Sailko (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Voting period was over - Benh (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Bad crop. The hands should have been included - down to the waist. The rest of the arm on the left and right too. --Ltz Raptor (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Looks very natural--Sensl (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, noisy and outright bad composition. Sorry. --Aqwis (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 4 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose not identified, not close enough to lizard. Would support for QI though. --Ianare (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...where it woul fail too because of the missing id. --LC-de (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose FP candidate spam by nominator --Romwriter (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment he was just a bit over-enthusiastic as it is his first time here. he won't spam again. anyway spam is not a criteria for if it is good or not. --SuperJew (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Quite nice image. Hey we are voting now featured image, not featured description, so that is no problem for me. --Aktron (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - No ID, photographic quality not good enough. Again, a wrong exposure solution was chosen. Not a good idea to have the camera in automatic. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Some parts are overexposed, but I like the composition. Vassil (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Agama not identified. Lycaon (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Encyclopaedic value, but for an FP i would like to see the nest from bird's eye view and at best even with birds in it. --norro 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose not identified (tree nor bird), lacks wow. Would support for QI if identified though. Ianare (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe because the image is about the nest not the birds.--Avala (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose FP candidate spam by nominator --Romwriter (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment he was just a bit over-enthusiastic as it is his first time here. he won't spam again. anyway spam is not a criteria for if it is good or not. --SuperJew (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nothing is identified, which unfortunately renders the image worthless for FP but also for wikipedia. Please try to find out the species you are capturing before submitting to Commons. Lycaon (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Beautiful picture. Maybe could do with a bit of cropping at top and/or sides to make the margins a bit more even and center the flower. --SuperJew (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose due to focus and DoF issues. The subject separation is nice. -- Ram-Man 23:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose FP candidate spam by nominator --Romwriter (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment he was just a bit over-enthusiastic as it is his first time here. he won't spam again. anyway spam is not a criteria for if it is good or not. --SuperJew (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I've always dreamed of taking a picture of a lightbeam. Could be better if the lightbeam came down on something. Could be funny/interesting to photoshop someone into the picture with the lightbeam falling on him/her like an angel ;) --SuperJew (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Boring fore- and middleground. --norro 16:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Bad composition. If you crop about 15-20% of the bottom of the picture it would be better. --Simonizer (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose FP candidate spam by nominator --Romwriter (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment he was just a bit over-enthusiastic as it is his first time here. he won't spam again. anyway spam is not a criteria for if it is good or not. --SuperJew (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment At ISO 100 on a Canon SLR, I'd expect the quality to be much higher, but the detail is all smudged like it came from a much poorer camera. Strange. -- Ram-Man 03:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral for now. Only the tree is in focus. Thats a pity. Otherwise nice mood, colours and composition. I would remove the blurry bird at the right top of the picture --Simonizer (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support As above, the mood, composition and colors are excellent. The image is not nearly as sharp as I'd like, but in this case it is more than useful in its current state. -- Ram-Man 22:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The colors are exceptionally beautiful, but the composition is weak. Crapload (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose FP candidate spam by nominator --Romwriter (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment he was just a bit over-enthusiastic as it is his first time here. he won't spam again. anyway spam is not a criteria for if it is good or not. --SuperJew (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The sky is too alien-looking for me. --Aktron (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral i like the colors and composition but it is a bit blurry and is ruined by the blurry bird in the corner --SuperJew (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Shame it is not sharp. Lycaon (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 supports, 4 opposes, 2 neutrals => not featured. Benh (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Beautiful colours! Looks like a painting. --SuperJew (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not that exceptional, just a regular sunset with a desert tree in front. R-T-C Tim (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Agree with R-T-C Tim. Nice sunset, but composition is not special enough to compete with the other millions of sunsets. --norro 16:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As far as sunsets go, this seems above average to me, but the composition here is too flat. It lacks the spark to make it truely exceptional. -- Ram-Man 23:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose FP candidate spam by nominator --Romwriter (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment he was just a bit over-enthusiastic as it is his first time here. he won't spam again. anyway spam is not a criteria for if it is good or not. --SuperJew (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support What spam, this image is nice. --Aktron (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice shot, but I think there isn't enough focus on the bike itself. Maybe without the bike it could be a feature or zoom on the bike, but like this it is just a good picture --SuperJew (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose FP candidate spam by nominator --Romwriter (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment he was just a bit over-enthusiastic as it is his first time here. he won't spam again. anyway spam is not a criteria for if it is good or not. --SuperJew (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Oppose votes that has absolutely nothing to do with image should not be counted in my oppinion. /Daniel78 (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Even thought this is my picture, I do agree with you, regardless. --Ltz Raptor (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The best one in "Dune" series. Nice catch of biker in the air, sharp, and wow. --Lošmi (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Too much chromatic aberration. /Daniel78 (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I like the general concept, but right now it isn't that special. It would be better if it was richer in yellow-orange-red colors of fall. (maybe later in the season?). also, as daniel said, there is CA in the top left corner (but it can just be cropped out. --SuperJew (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice autumn, reminding me one really nice american movie. But there are much nicer pictures and even such are not featured. --Aktron (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose No wow. Although this is good, the guidelines say that "pictures should be in some way special." I believe that other images illustrating very similar things are better, and this image is not particularly special. Despite my comments, I believe that this is an excellent image, just not FP excellent in my opinion. Anonymous101talk 18:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - head-on images are never very good looking - for a feature images I would want to see detail of the beak as well. R-T-C Tim (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Supportwhat are you looking at!?? (Needs a lot harder cropping as the look are so intense) Jeblad (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The stitching can be seen near the red building. Also IMO the image is to big (18M) --SuperJew (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment How can an image be too big? Aren't we building the Commons for the future? In a few years 18 megabytes won't seem large at all. --Specious (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Nice image, great resolution, valuable image, no issues visible even at full resolution; I could not see the stitching. Anonymous101talk 18:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a white line next to the red building. Also, don't you think the image might be a bit to big? on my average speed computer it took about 15 minutes to load. --SuperJew (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The white line is not a stitching error, it is one of the ropes of the window cleaning platform. It is present in the original pictures. And when FPC is now becoming a place where contributors are encouraged to upload lower quality images, then something is going seriously wrong. --Dschwen (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's in the guidelines that "We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible". --Lošmi (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very nice Daniel, you have caught the whole skyline of Chicago in a beautiful picture. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very nice picture and also the shadow came out nicely between the lines. nice composition --SuperJew (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Good resolution, sharp, nice quality, good composition and the shadow came out amazingly. Anonymous101talk 18:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Nice catch but unfortunate crop of the arm. Also, the background is a bit distracting -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, bad crop, bad light. --Aqwis (talk) 08:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Bad Crop, Light and Background. --Ltz Raptor (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A traffic controller in the Michigan Avenue, Chicago, showing the characteristic sweeping gesture and elegant posture. The blurred car in the background adds dynamism to he picture. Created by & nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose not enough focus on the traffic warden. also no wow, (as said above:"characteristic") --SuperJew (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The picture is good but somehow lacking in personality, vividness, if I may put it that way. Samulili (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Much wow for me, created by the blur of the car. Muhammad 10:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support No reason to oppose. Well the lighting should be better but that means different weather etc. --Aktron (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not enough focus on the traffic controller. Distracting leaf at the bottom of the picture - in the middle. --Ltz Raptor (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As above - mainly focus. --Karelj (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Don't like the composition (car behind). If she were surrounded by moving cars, that would be better. --Dori - Talk 00:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. Maybe if there was more than one moving car, not in the centre. Tbc (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose as above, car is quite distracting --Nerzhal | ?! 16:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Voting period was over - Benh (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 10 supports, 10 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral I like the picture, but I don't like the tight crop on the left. --Lošmi (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a function of the original photographer's framing. Durova (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose no wow. just a statue of Beethoven. Also, left side is in shadow --SuperJew (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, I agree with SuperJew. --Aqwis (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Just a statue of Beethoven, perhaps, but a very good picture, with an excellent balance between light and shadow: obviously the work of a skilled photographer. However, I agree with Lošmi that the crop on the left is not the best possible one. A tighter crop on the right could improve the composition. -- MJJR (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well it's rather difficult to get good freely licensed photography of three dimensional artwork. I was tickled to find this example from 1895 in a high resolution scan, but dagnabbit if you folks aren't hard to please... Durova (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not that hard to fix. I can do that, but I'd clone more space from the left, rather than crop it from the right. If it's ok. --Lošmi (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I propose uploading the individual images, as these can then be arranged in a size and shape which fits the individual use. As an image set you could try nominating them for a Valued image set on COM:VIC. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Thank you for advice. I accept your suggestion
Oppose edges are not so good. --Lestat (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose flower is blurry. I also never understand in these pics what's supposed to be the subject --SuperJew (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose That flower is not a big deal, but the edges of the butterfly are extremely sharp. I think some editing was done and it is nothing nice. I'm sorry, I can't support this picture. --Aktron (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 03:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support A Native American at the Indian Summer festival in Milwaukee. I'd like to see what people think of this one. I like it though I'm guessing the background will annoy some. --Dori - Talk 03:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting, feathers cropped on top, not too sharp where it has to be. Lycaon (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Lycaon, as well as "WTH man? How many birds do you have to kill so you'll look pretty?" --SuperJew (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination OK :) --Dori - Talk 12:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposeThe right leg is cropped and the cement is an ugly background. Vassil (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The crop is awkward, the leaves in the bottom right and the top left look odd, and the background is not enough of a contrast to make out the crocodile clearly. And is it me or are there some strange shadows there? naerii 10:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the shadows are a result of the "forest" canopy above. IMO it gives it a more reaistic "foresty" feeling--SuperJew (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose FP candidate spam by nominator --Romwriter (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment he's just a bit over-enthusiastic as it is his first time here. he won't spam again. anyway spam is not a criteria for if it is good or not. --SuperJew (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This one is nice, no matters how many others were posted here. --Aktron (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support But give it a break with the hitting the wall and seeing what sticks routine. --Dori - Talk 12:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the pic has no dynamic and thus no wow. You should try panning shot next time. They wheels look here as if the bike wouldnt drive at all. --AngMoKio (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Would it be better if the sand was not shot up at all? I was just wondering, because I have many like that, but I thought that those had no "wow". It is the moving sand that adds movement to the picture, giving it character. --Ltz Raptor (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No the sand is ok. But especially the wheels look as if the vehicle didn't move at all. It also adds dynamic if the background is not sharp but has a motion blur. You can get all that with panning shots. It takes some time to learn it, but once you have a feeling for it, it is really fun. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Intense noise reduction in the sky, selective noise reduction on the subject, JPEG artifact removal, Recover highlights, minor contrast adjustment, minor colour desaturation, Tone Curve: Brighter Lights, Tone Curve: Darker Darks, Smart Sharpening on selective edges, minor white balance tint adjustment
Support It looks much better now. Thanks, Base64! -- Ltz Raptor (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Very much oversaturation, that's not what misty Swakopmund looks like!. Lycaon (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Have you ever been to Swakopmund? By commenting on how "misty" Swakopmund is, is you reference this or this? I am asking this, because the first image is not a good representation of the sand at Swaknopmund. --Ltz Raptor (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what thought too. I searched the images of deserts in google, here. And also the category in Wikicommons. --Base64 (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The dunes around Swakopmund are typically shrouded in mist often exacerbated by sand storms. And yes I've been there. Lycaon (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you refering to the saturation of the sands or the saturation of the entire image? --Base64 (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or what specific channel of saturation you are talking about. Everything could be fixed, can you provide some samples of Namib Desert, or even fix this image by yourself? Thanks--Base64 (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the pic has no dynamic and thus no wow. You should try panning shot next time. --AngMoKio (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
View of Rathen, the Elbe river and the Elbe Sandstone Mountains; created, uploaded and nominated by LC-de -- LC-de (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Beautiful landscape composition --B.navez (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Very good composition and point of view mitigating the minor posterization in the water -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Very good perspective. Sad the the upper peak is bright and has a green film at the border of brackground to peak. But it seems that this doesn't matter since its a quality image. Amazing picture. Manuel R. (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Excellent image, nice perspective, the bird is nice nd sharp and it relaly stands out from the backgound. Anonymous101talk 13:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral nice shot...but the crop is a bit too tight for me. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose composition doesn't really convince me... It is not clear what the actual topic of the pic is. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Hey great, white flowers and with colors and exposition very fine. And the bee is quite sharp. Such pictures I like and I tried take to. --Aktron (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose agree with AngMoKio. also the blurry flowers at the back are distracting. --SuperJew (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Red sunset at Porto Covo, west coast of Portugal. Risky nomination: all sunsets are beautiful, etc. But I believe this one is among the best, including the existing FP. Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Excellent image, meets the requirements, seems to be one of the best images to illustrate a sunset. Anonymous101talk 13:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Just one more sunset, there is nothing in the image that could tell me this is Porto Covo. Alvaro qc (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Yeah, just another sunset but this one is nice and well done. The clouds and the size of the sun makes it fine. I don't know how something reminding us that the picture was taken in Porto Covo could be added... --Aktron (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose beutiful sunset, but you can't really see that it's at sea. and there is a cloud between the sun and the sea which IMO destroys the effect of sunset --SuperJew (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nothing special--Sensl (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, while the sharpness is probably not the most important thing in this kind of pictures, it is very unsharp. Even more importantly, I feel that it's just a regular sunset - to say it in Commons words, "nothing special" - with a standard composition and the usual evening light. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for purely decorative FPs that don't necessarily illustrate a specific subject, but at least be a little creative and inventive! --Aqwis (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very special sunset. One of the best i have seen. --SvonHalenbach (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Either motion-blur, or the focal plane is behind the bubble. In either event, sharpness is lacking where it matters. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice picture, but unsharp. --Eusebius (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose nothing special--Sensl (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, too unsharp, sorry. --Aqwis (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The subject separation and composition are great, but the DoF is very shallow and it is not that sharp (as Aqwis said). The lighting also places unfortunate hot spots on much of the main subject. -- Ram-Man 22:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Now that is what a picture of a flower is supposed to look like. --Ltz Raptor (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question - A good one, Derek! But I can't believe you used f/2.8 and 1/1600 ... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
This flower is very flat, so it was mainly a matter of camera positioning (I had no tripod). As you can see, a few of the tips are slightly out of focus, but not enough to be distracting, and certainly not enough to degrade its usefulness. Also, this lens is spectacularly sharp wide open. Since this was shot straight down, the large aperture eliminated the background. -- Ram-Man 22:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I really wish people would put more of the fower into the shots. I find these flower-head-only pictures kind of boring and less encyclopedic than they could be. Somewhat more irrelevantly, I also wish the Wikipedia thumbnail software didn't create all those ugly artefacts around the flower head - look between two of the petals in the thumbnail. It sure doesn't look like that at full size! Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd love to do it, but they almost always fail. When it comes to plants, reviewers here are often extremely picky. -- Ram-Man 00:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, I suppose. But I'm not sure I like where it's led us - flower heads abstracted from their surroundings or any other part of the plant. I don't want to oppose - it's a very good photo. I just wish that the situation was not such that what used to be a minority is now, say, 70% of the flower photos we get. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I consider this FP material primarily because this illustrates the feeding so well. It also has good subject separation. -- Ram-Man 22:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Beautiful. I like the colours. Vassil (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose colors of the butterfly are dull. Also, if the only reason it is FPC is because it illustrates the feedin propose it to "Valued Images" --SuperJew (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not only, but primary. It is the "wow factor". Value is certainly a requirement for a FP, although perhaps some people don't consider it as much as others. For me it is of critical importance. -- Ram-Man 15:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Can't "feel" the main subject, the flower's too bright and distract --Sailko (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Valuable yes, but colors detract enough wow for me. --Dori - Talk 16:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Focus seems to be slightly offset toward us ; resulting in poor details on the wings. Benh (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Just realising voting time is over... - Benh (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, Blurry and Tilted. Why did you chose a completely open diaphragm when taking this picture? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your comments Gordo (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2008 (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 Overexposed, Blurry and Tilted. MER-C 02:10, 7 September 2008 (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.
Neutral, I can't help but feel that the white balance is slightly off. --Aqwis (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't know under which conditions this picture was taken, but small FOV panos are the easiest to stitch so I expect no stitching errors (especially from Diliff), and there are plenty (enough for me to raise the issue) of them. Not sufficiently to spoil this great picture I'd admit. Benh (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I once raised the issue here [1]. You can call me picky (though It doesn't take long to a trained eye to notice them), but why making such huge pictures if it's to introduce errors ? and I insist : I believe it's not hard to fix. - Benh (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't call that picky (I didn't see that many as I only checked for a minute) as the ones in the water are not even indicated! Lycaon (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I dont see any errors, too. The picture looks great! Ok, there are errors, so I unwillingly Oppose. --Lošmi (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Some obvious stitching errors indeed. Lycaon (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support No stitching errors for those who are NOT searching for them. --Aktron (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Actually I was searching for them (though not pixel by pixel) and I couldn't find them. --Dori - Talk 16:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Nice Pano, i don't see errors as well -- Andreas.Didion (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The stiching errors are minor. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, why bother about a minor problem as a stitching error (or twenty). It is only featured picture ;-). Lycaon (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I could hardly see them even when they were pointed out in the link above. But maybe I was too quick, I really would like to the FP's to be very good. Push me some more and I might oppose :) /Daniel78 (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And it's not like author isn't a sort of expert in stitching and could not fix. If you find typos on articles, would you leave them there ? - Benh (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok I am removing my vote, also because this is already featured as you mentioned. Interestingly no one mentioned stiching errors in that voting session. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guess our efforts have been in vain ;-0. Lycaon (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could still nominate for delisting, but that would be very extreme !! I find the picture great, and having it featured doesn't make me sad at all. Benh (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, I have to agree with Lycaon. The quality of new FPs has been degrading lately, and this should not be allowed to continue. --Aqwis (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The water is quite far from the close part of the image. So it is not as nice as it could be, sorry. --Aktron (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Thanks for nominating, Tintero. @Aktron: The water ist not the main subject here. The main subject are the 10 million years old stone deposits --Simonizer (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - a perfectly solid image, but unremarkable, and I find the cars and particularly the orange truck in front to be very distracting. R-T-C Tim (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Digital removal of the cars is I think not possible and physical could be also because of it is a road with traffic. :-) And as can be seen no better angle for shot is available. --Aktron (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment just because it is not possible and if it was it would be FP doesn't make it FP. My picture was turned down because of leaves covering the crocodiles feet and the background. Maybe they're were supposing I would just get down, move the crocodile to a better background (and hope not to get bitten on the way)? --SuperJew (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, poor composition. Wouldn't it be a better idea to photograph it from the other side, perhaps? --Aqwis (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
This side was build by the romans to impress their enemies and is therefore the more interesting (or main) side. For the other side look here --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other side could also refer to something like this: Certainly a more dramatic view of the building. Haros (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose should have been perfectly centred and aligned to be interesting. --Eusebius (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, it's the Eiffel Tower. Considering how many thousand shots are taken of this building every day, it should be possible to do better than this very touristy shot. --Aqwis (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 supports, 4 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support A very good picture with pleasent, soft tones, good komposition and the calm mood of a fisherman's day on a river. It is also highly relevant for an article on ther subject. A good candidate with no technical flaws. --Frode Inge Helland (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Small technical issues (little bit of chroma noise in the dark parts) are largely mitigated by the wow in this picture. Note the encroaching South American invader: Eichhornia crassipes. Lycaon (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It is great that Kanopus is taking so much pictures and he tries to nominate quite a lot of them. As I am watching the nomination page quite frequently, I can see a lot of candidates. But unfortunetaly several mistakes were made here. The sky is great but the detail is totally ruined by ISO 800 (ISO 100 would do much better work with longer time - this also improves the artificial lighting in the distance) and tripod instead of that ballustrade is much advisable (well the top part should be at least straight, not so oval and curvy (makes camera unstable). Kanopus did nominate Winter Palace in St. Petersburg I think and such image was quite close for FP positive votes, but this one is one step back. --Aktron (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not enough wow and a bit too bright for my liking. There are more photogenic specimens of this species around. Lycaon (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The motive and the composition are a bit too trivial. The background should be more interesting for an excellent picture. Debianux (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 supports, 4 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm reopening this for one day because I closed this a bit too soon. I'll take it away from the page tomorrow night. Sorry for the inconvenience. Benh (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karelj (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
created, uploaded and by nominated Jnpet -- Jnpet (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Image of nudibranch, Chromodoris magnifica. Taken at Batangas, Philippines. -- Jnpet (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2008 (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 subject is completely out of focus
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 Interesting way to singlehandedly reject this image. Focus is not an issue. Jnpet (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guidelines state that the subject has to be in focus. Here only the brown sponge the nudibranch is sitting (feeding?) on is in focus. Q.E.D.Lycaon (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Lycaon is right. There are probably more than one reason for the general unsharpness of the image but one of them is the focus. Notice that the somber base (rock?) below the creature is more in focus than the animal. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Focus. Not easy underwater but. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment If you created a species category and associated that with the image page, I would suggest nominating it at COM:VIC. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Just a simple photo, but quite fine for me. --Aktron (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, seems tilted. --Aqwis (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The composition does not work well, in my view, as the water's edge divides the picture into two equal halves. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like the symetry of the composition. Vassil (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral untilt it please and i will support this nomination, because this is really great.--Jeses (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Also missing wow for me. Lycaon (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The white background is full of dirt --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC) voting time was over - Benh (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Image is too small. Please read the guidelines before nominating. Lycaon (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SupportDeleted FPX, IHMO this image is nice and size is not substantial here. --Karelj
Oppose There are no "strong mitigating reasons" for this image to be smaller than the minimum 2Mpx. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I think it's too small, maybe, it would have been acceptable if the quality was better -- sanchezn (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Would have ignored size issues, but the picture is blurry, probably because it was run through a median filter. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, I agree with MichaelMaggs. This is a regular picture of a regular subject, so no reason to allow it to be smaller than 2 megapixels. --Aqwis (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Too small. Better resolution and such a image would be FP for me. The composition looks great with the clouds :-) --Aktron (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose if only it was bigger --SuperJew (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 4 supports, 9 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Excellent quality and sharpness at 1000mm. What lens/extender combination was used to achieve this focal length? Freedom to share (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Wonderful. -- Ram-Man 16:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Excellent portrait. Haros (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
retouched the white dot on the tail, horizontal mirrored (because the numbers on his footring are mirrored in the Original). Maybe better maybe not, its up to you.
i really dont want to annoy anyone, and i never took part in commons-polls, but in the german wikipedia we decided to take the edited version as candidat. --User:Tmv23 (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Great quality but the composition does not convince me. The bird is gray, background is gray and the sand is? Gray! --Aktron (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be difficult to get a picture of a Piping Plover perching on a nice photogenic green tree as they live and breed on sandflats. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know and I understand. But still, there is really too much gray for me :-( --Aktron (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like this picture. I took it at Bréhat Island in Britany. I give it a chance! -- sanchezn (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, the cut-off boats in the foreground and to the left in the picture are distracting. In addition, I feel the light is a little harsh. --Aqwis (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes! it's a pity but the boat was partially hidden by a roof just in front of me... and I can't disagree you about the harsh light. -- sanchezn (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question A nice picture, but there are lots of jpeg artefacts visible, especially in the background. Do you have a version that has been less compressed? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Excellent image regardless of artefacts-thetimeisnow6 September 2008
Oppose - Good composition and colours, unacceptable pixelation. A heavy hand with Photoshop or too much compression? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
It is few level revision and trimming to have gone in photoshop. Because I nominate an original image doing neither the man-made processing nor the trimming, please watch it.Thank you
created, uploaded and nominated by Jnpet-- Jnpet (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Image of nudibranch Phylidiella pustulosa. Taken at Batangas, Philippines-- Jnpet (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2008 (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: object is out of focus --Jeses (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2008 (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.
I don't know what happened to the last nomination, why it didn't get closed regularly . But the old nomination should stay to document the last nomination. You shouldn't reuse the old nomination. And btw: You also shouldn't delete the content of delist-nomination after the voting. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am aware of the page history functionality. Again: An old nomination page shouldn't get reused. Just create a new nomination page - this way previous nominations of the same picture are traceable. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do you create a nomination page with the old writing still on it? Mr. Mario (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Quite a good but ordinary picture that is not very sharp and has an image noise. In addition the pink frame confuses me and the trees cover a big part of the church which is pity. Debianux (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
The pink "frame" apeared propably after correcting CA. I have removed it. Thank you for that hint. --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, I agree with Debianaux. --Aqwis (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This is one of the most highly saturated flowers that I've ever seen. It is very difficult to photograph without clipping the red channel or severely underexposing the picture to compensate. This is both detailed and avoids the clipping problem without being too dark. -- Ram-Man 02:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Support- It's very good, and you did an excellent job at getting the truly vibrant colour to come out. However, I really do with we could see the rest of the plant, so we could get an idea of how the flower looks in context. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Weak oppose in favour of alternative. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Traditionally images like this have not been promoted over the flower closeup, but there has been a recent demand for images in greater context, so here we go. Whichever has the most and strongest support should become a FP. -- Ram-Man 16:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose pixels are too visible, was it enlarged?. Alvaro qc (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you are looking too close to the monitor (like an inch away) or you have a 6-bit per color monitor and are seeing an LCD display artifact? This was not upsampled and is the same resolution as the other image. There is nothing wrong with this image. -- Ram-Man 00:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Comment: No, no, and no, I'm in the same monitor in which I see all the FPC, and the are not pixels in most others, I see clearly pixels in the thumb and in the full resolution image. Alvaro qc (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Reply[reply]
Make the picture bigger? You mean more magnification? The standard for a FP is 2MP of resolution, which this far exceeds. I continue to not understand this point. -- Ram-Man 02:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Magnify" it, like the size when you click on the picture. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes of course I did that. It's fine. -- Ram-Man 11:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please note that Wikipedia's Thumbnail software seems buggy at the moment - on the image description page, for instance, the thumbnail softare is actually adding artefacting that isn't there if you look at the full resolution version. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I think this is more striking. naerii 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support This is what photos of flowers should look like: A vview of all of the plant, not just the bit that appears for a few weeks of the year. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose pity though that only the "bit that appears for a few weeks of the year" is sharp --SuperJew (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose There really is some visible pixelation in this version. Lycaon (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- It was really hard to take this photo (It was behind glass in a museum), but when I saw it at home I just went wow. It's not manipulated in any way, so if anyone wants to enhance the quality, feel free... Hedning (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question do museums have copyright on the items in them? because there are many who don't allow photos so they can sell their postcards and souverniers all the better --SuperJew (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Museums have no copyrights at all. The maker of the cross could have, but he died more than 70 years ago, so the representation of the cross is in public domain. The photograph has rights too and he allows free use. Of course, if they want, Museums may forbid photos because they are private places, not because they have copyrights (except for modern works).--B.navez (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Top in the dark, feet blurry. --B.navez (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Having the lens wide open means that the depth of field is too small. The on-camera flash has created unattractive lighting. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No flash were used. The light used is the light in the museum (very dark). Object is behind glass and about 3,5 x 3cm big./Hedning 10:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The CP 9 AF was the last single-lens reflex camera produced by japanese facturer Chinon -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose no wow, purely illustrative. try VI --SuperJew (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose What could be featurable ? Looks like a picture on a sell catalog. --B.navez (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The camera is scratchy and dirty. Some editing in Gimp/photoshop is advisable. --Aktron (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Image of Clark's anemonefish, Amphiprion clarkii. Taken at Sipadan, Malaysia. -- Jnpet (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose lovely colors and alien looking eyes on the annenome, BUT the tail end of the fish and half the anenome is are blurry --SuperJew (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose common composition for a sunflower (prefer Van Gogh's) --B.navez (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose I'm getting really tired of flower head pics, and it's particularly unnatural for a sunflower head to be seen without at least some of the stem. They bend downwards due to the weight. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The original was nice, this one is not.. even thum of the original is much nicer. --Aktron (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose not the best of paintings --SuperJew (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support It's not a painting, it's a lithograph: the most common type of mass-produced colour work until the rise of half-toning in the early 20th century. Lithography is a challenging medium, and this is a particularly good example of it. Plus, it's encyclopedic and useful. I'm really, really tired of people voting oppose because they have no idea what they're looking at. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dromedary camel in outback Australia, near Silverton, NSW. This picture is a featured picture on English Wikipedia. -- 72.249.135.22 19:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
nomination withdrawn by 池田正樹 23:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC) and reinstated by myself. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral blurry leaves covering frog distract, but the pic is to nice and detail is to good for me to really oppose. would be nice if scientific name was in description on page as well as category. Why was the pic withdrawn and then renominated? --SuperJew (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
I do not nominate it by myself again. I think that it is the problem of the system. The scientific name is Hyla japonica.Thank you
Question Why is this image not used in any wikipedia? --Romwriter (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
I have no idea sorry Thank you
Oppose no wow, spiderwebs in the background not the nicest --Sailko (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In a picture of a spider, you find spider webs distracting? This is a new record here at FPC. --Reflection of Perfection (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Almost there, but the somehow cluttered composition spoils the effect. The bar for spiders and insects is very high... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
I can understand that it was said you.However, it is with plain nature and mimesis of the spiders that I wanted to express.I want to challenge it simply because an insect and the bar of the spider are expensive.Thank you
Support Not perfect crop. Matching colours of spider and flower is one of the values of the pic. Spider webs are not bad on a picture of a spider. --Javier ME (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Obviously nothing wrong with the colour combination here. The crop, however lets it down. Maybe landscape orientation would've been better? Lycaon (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support wow! beside that is highly encyclopedic, cause you can perfectly see how the mantes eats a bee. --Lošmi (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It looks great in full view, but as as POTD (e.g.) it doesn't show much. But worse (for me) are the cut tarsi of the left hindmost leg. Lycaon (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Created by Lorenzo Suárez de Figueroa, 1577. - uploaded by Alakasam - nominated by Alakasam -- Alakasam (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The first map of the city of Cordoba (Argentina), was made in 1577, by Lieutenant Governor Don Lorenzo Suarez de Figueroa. The document gives an account of a city with 10 blocks long and 7 wide (70 blocks). The image shows that the lands were divided into 4. It governed for the neighbors, as the land of religious orders were not divided. Alakasam (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Interesting document, but very poor quality photocopy not FP-worthy. Lycaon (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but the scanner has been set to scan as black & white rather than as greyscale. That produces a rather poor copy. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Nice resolution, lighting and sharp but the composition makes me uneasy to support this. So neutral. --Aktron (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What an absurd reason to oppose! Muhammad 09:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I naturally love panoramas, but the composition is not good. There is no real foreground and the cropped trees are not a substitute for that. Furthermore, less than 1000 px high is quite narrow for a pano... Lycaon (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried different locations to take pictures from, but there were always obstructions. I had to climb on top of a sheet of metal roofing to take the pictures. Even then, there were quite a few obstructions such as roofs of huts which needed cropping hence the lack of foreground and the narrowness. Muhammad 17:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
created, uploaded and nominated by Jnpet -- Jnpet (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Image of a banded sea krait, Laticauda colubrina. Taken at Lembeh Straits, North Sulawesi, Indonesia.-- Jnpet (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Ugly background and lightening, undefined composition --Sailko (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose if only it was darker... if only, if only --SuperJew (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Excellent composition : the swan dream team. --B.navez (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Yes, the composition is very good but not the quality of the image. It is underexposed and lacks detail. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Species caracteristics (mainly beak pattern) too difficult to see.--oskila (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although it's appreciated that one justifies an oppose, this isn't required - Benh (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, lovely image (I mistook the swans for geese at first glance, by the way) but quite ordinary. I think you can do better. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose too dark. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Voting time is over - Benh (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 supports, 8 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Very good composition but akward postprocessing (posterization?), look at the sky and the green of the meadow is too harsh. --B.navez (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per B.navez. Over-saturated and awkward artefacts in the sky. Lycaon (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
StrongKeep OK, first of all, it is in colour, which is highly impressive given that colour photography was still in its infancy in the late 19th century. Second, it is a great and valuable image. The age is an asset, not a weakness. Freedom to share (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep --Aktron (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Taking such picture again now is unable and the quality is good. Voting time was over - Benh (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep -- What do you mean by "this might not be a picture at all"? I don't understand your point of view. Guérin Nicolas(messages) 13:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Voting time was over - Benh (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 Delist, 9 Keeps, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Benh (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I do not like this composition. I believe, that differnt angle of view on this bilding can give much better result. --Karelj (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral I'm not sure if the perspective is wrong or this building is built that way, so I'll remain neutral. --Leafnode 19:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Yes the perspective looks ok to me (I have an image from the same location). But there seems to be some vertical stripe pattern in the sky on your image, any post processing or did it came out of the camera like that ? /Daniel78 (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I'm not convinced by the composition either, and I do see a "grid pattern" (?), can someone confirm me I'm not crazy ? Benh (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oops Apparently Daniel78 saw it first, and confirms me am I not :) Benh (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, I dislike the composition, the sharpness is poor, and I too see a disturbing pattern in the sky. --Aqwis (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Pine Processionary Moth is a forest pest, causing serious damage to pines while in the larvar state. This one is an adult male (notice the shape of the antenae) and is holding its wings upright to get them dry. It was rescued by me from a swimming pool and put at the sun. Less than an hour after, it was caught by a wasp (here). Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't know, I don't like the colors... and as a whole the body of the insectoid is not sharp as I'd like to see for FP candidate. --Aktron (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose distracting background and not much wow--SuperJew (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Hey this would look great if it would be taken in a church. But this one is quite nice also.. I mean the light going from the upper left corner... --Aktron (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support one of the best pictures of people on commons. --Jeses (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate perspective, too much background, face covered with spots of light and shadow. The main subject is ousted. --Romwriter (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A Marmelade Fly (Episyrphus balteatus) seeking pollen in a Bindweed flower (Convolvulus arvensis). This species of hoverfly is among the few flies capable of crushing pollen grains and feed on them. Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral wings and flower edges are blurry, but the bee itself is very sharp and well done --SuperJew (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
- In macro shots the typical DOF is of the order of a few milimeters. Having both the hoverfly and the flower on focus is just not possible -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose sorry, flower+insecta becoming too boring... --Sailko (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -- Better not giving any explanation for opposing. Boredom is not a valid reason and invoking it is ungraceful -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Boring image" is exactly the same as "no wow". --Aqwis (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Really Wow. Well we've got a lot of such pictures recently but they are of a quite fine quality. Why not support each one if each one of these is nice? --Aktron (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose weak oppose, but it's a pity the hoverfly is partially hidden by the flower... -- sanchezn (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
created, uploaded and nominated by Benh (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
This is a 3 exposures blended shot. Otherwise, the bassins would be overexposed and the walls dark. - Benh (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support One can see the barrier on the bottom corners, but I couldn't do otherwise to catch most of the bassins. I think it still look appealing, enough for me to nominate. -- Benh (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Why are there some areas that looks pixelated (for example some of the edges of the rightmost basins) ? By the way it looks like you have a "dead" pixel. It's purple and just a bit to the right of the big light in the background. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are problably sharpening artifacts, which I think appear when I sharpen soft edges (I most of the time apply a sharpening of 4 or 5 (on a 10 scale) on DPP on my landscape pictures). I used a 10-22 lens at 10mm, which isn't razor sharp on the corners at that focal, probably hence the pixelisation. I don't know how I could fix this, and doesn't find the issue annoying for now (or am I too lazy ?) but if the consensus goes with you, I'll try to fix. I now noticed the dead pixel... aaah it's time I change my body... Benh (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I checked more carefully. My unprocessed RAWs already have the same artifacts, in a lesser extent. Sharpening has amplified them. - Benh (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it can improve a picture, like any tool, but that it has to be used wisely, like any tool... which apparently wasn't the case here. I rate sharpening level 4 on DPP as being moderate. If you take a picture in landscape mode with a Canon 400D, it already has a level 3 sharpening. I'll try to remove the artifacts when I have a bit spare time. Benh (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try the following: Open your RAW file in photoshop. Duplicate it and add the filter High Pass. Change the radius to 1,2 pixels. Then change the blending mode to soft light or hard light. If you want specific areas too be sharper, you can use the overlay blend and brush out the parts you don't want to be sharpened. You will now have a sharpened image without the sharpening artefacts. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll give this a try (but in Gimp :) ). thanks for the advice ! Benh (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Yeah it is not perfect in technical quality but the composition is I think awesome! support added by Aktron -- Benh (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a wall --you can check it here. It was a difficult shot (indeed, the image is formed from six different shots) because there was no easy point where you could get a good perspective of the "towers". Regards. --Dodo (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The grey part makes the perspective better. --Resped (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The image could be cropped to take out the gray part or it could be altered digitally to dissapear the gray part. Alvaro qc (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I like the picture quite a bit, but downscaling is throwing away information (as if you would discard every other bone on an excavation!!). Lycaon (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment True. I downscaled the image from that one you linked. I tried to sharp it in its original size, but the result wasn't satisfactory. Perhaps my knowledge about touched images up is too short (I use The Gimp (like Photoshop) running on Ubuntu Linux). So, I thought downscaling it was the best decision to show a general view of an archaeological excavation, and, sincerely, i think i got. Anyway, if any of you can improve the original image (it's my own work) do it. I assembled three images to do this panorama to avoid showing scaffolding, like here. You can see two simultaneous archaeological level excavations: the first where the most of the people is, and the second under the planks. The first one is a Homo heidelbergensis camp and the second, is the level where the first remains of Homo antecessor appeared. I think you should vote the posted image and not the rest. Mario
Comment Superb detail. Please someone edit the image so that the darker parts of the original (like the person in red on the lower level) get more visible without downscaling it this much. --Javier ME (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support All details recognizable. Downsampling is good for a picture if it removes noise and not information, but some people will never understand that. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Thanks everybody. If you like or not the image, you can also vote it in the Spanish Wikipedia (here) or in the English one (here. Mario
Oppose Photographic quality is very good, but it shows only confusion and some people on the bottom of big hole. --Karelj (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I'm not sure what's the subject of this picture. If it's the process of excavating, I'd crop it and leave only top half, but that would cut one person in half. Generally - messy, too little space to the right vertical panorama makes it look strange. --Leafnode 19:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support with my congratulations ! It gives back very well the atmosphere of archeolgical excavation where apparent confusion (which is in fact strict organisation) is a fundamental feature of the topic. Panoramic assemblage is an excellent idea for such an impressive excavation along a cliff and it minors visual impact of scaffoldings. Quality is very good and downsampling doesn't make any trouble. --B.navez (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support "vertical panorama makes it look strange", which is not bad. This is a good composition for this kind of excavation. --Javier ME (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I'm not saying it's bad - only... strange ;) It looks like the bottom pit was being dug almost horizontally :) --Leafnode 12:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like composition. --moralist (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Unique angle and composition, color is good, atmosphere and value is high. Visual impact is great Wiggler101 (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support In my opinion the best picture on commons of a cross-country skier. The dynamic and power of that kind of sports were captured very good by the photographer. -- Jeses (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't like progressive JPEGs. --Dori - Talk 02:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I don't like opposing images for nil reason. --Romwriter (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Perfect sport photography IMO. --Lošmi (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Perfect --norro 10:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Podpora krajana + kvalitní fotografie = commonismus :-) We haven't got so much sport FPs here and this one is quite nice. Aktron (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - I distinctly remember opposing an image like this a few months ago. It is my opinion that the crowd results in a lack of centralisation on the desired subject, and that the piece is generally confused. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - I deslike the composition. Also the angle doesn't emphasize the motion of the subject -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral I don't think if this picture has some commons value... --Aktron (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
The image has a high ethnological value. See the image in the full resolution and look at the faces of the schoolchildren with the different signs, clothes, turbans and so on. In this school are schoolchildren of many religions and social strata in the caste system of India together in one school and in one school class – over one hundred years ago in Sirkazhi, Tamil Nadu, India.
Very true...this is also what fascinates me about that picture. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support you are so right. and for a picture that old quality is more than ok. --Jeses (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Needs a serious cleaning up to remove scratches and dust spots and to balance exposure. I doubt whether the overexposure on the right can be fixed, though, as the whites seem totally burned out. Also, it is only sharp in the centre. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
This is a scan without any change from the original photo made in the year 1896. The original photo is a used and scarred document. You can see the technology and the possibility of the used wide-angle lens in a full-length foto from the nineteenth century. I think: the Wikimedia needs documents – not nice pictures. What’s the rule of the game in the Wikimedia? --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Overexposure and little wow. Crapload (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment To oppose a wide-angle photo that was made over 110 years ago bcs of overexposure and non-exsiting sharpness at the borders is a bit unfair imho. Considering the age of the photo it is actually very sharp...apart of the borders. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - The picture needs to be restored. Maybe the overexposure can also be partially corrected. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
created, uploaded and nominated by Tsui -- Tsui (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- IMHO the image captures a characteristical moment during one of (gypsy-)jazz guitarist Harri Stojkas concerts. Tsui (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment could be wider (it was made with focal length 180mm, so capturing whole person wouldn't be a problem), to shallow DoF (f/5 with 180mm). But this photo has something - I'll think more about my vote. --Leafnode 19:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Can you tell me which lens you used? --AngMoKio (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM ... and since I bought it a few weeks ago, I don't want to miss that IS ever again ;-) Tsui (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A great lens...I also have it :-) --AngMoKio (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
created, uploaded and nominated by -- Sfu (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Hard to oppose that one when I nominated a shot of mine taken in similar conditions below... Quality is very good, but I think point of view is too low and that it's slightly too bright. A darker picture would have given more appropriate mood maybe. Benh (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like the composition, quality and "Indiana Jones look" of this picture. --Lošmi (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Yeah, quite like Indiana Jones.. but this is much likely... Ashes to ashes (Prach jsi a v prach se obrátíš). --Aktron (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support after thinking about it for a while i decided to support it. I think indiana jones perfectly fits. --Jeses (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't have obvious issue to raise to oppose. But I don't find anything attention-catching on that one. - Benh (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Interesting subject, but unfortunately cropped --Romwriter (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment If the train model was specified on the image page. This would be a good candidate at COM:VIC -- Slaunger (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Lots of CA (e.g. front of the car), some chroma noise and unfortunate lighting. As well not sharp enough for a static object. Lycaon (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The name is "Touring by Road," and the car and trailer are the central illustration of the activity of touring. Being almost entirely in shadow, they're not very prominent. Moreover, they block the background scenery, which illustrates the goal of touring. The telephone pole and wires don't help either. Not being a concrete object, touring is hard to illustrate. This photo would be more successful if it clearly featured the vehicles within beautiful scenery. Also, with late light like this, you might get very pleasing colors by turning off the camera's automatic white balance. Fg2 (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)No reason given to oppose. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Reasons are encouraged but are not mandatory. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, interesting, but the composition is very snapshotty. --Aqwis (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. /Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Why did you remove the nom ? I put it back. If you want to withdraw, please do it following instructions on top of that page. Benh (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not sharp, poor composition. Lycaon (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, per Lycaon. --Aqwis (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, composition is quietly very nice but because the image lacks something, I thought (at first) maybe there's another photo that would better represent this flower (in my hometown we call them Lilies of the Valley but I heard once that some people call them poisonous--if I remember correctly, corrections welcome). I agree this photo is lovely though. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support very nice.-- 69.140.152.55 18:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Even though I nominated this, this support is deleted because this was anonymous.Mrmariokartguy (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not an impressive subject, with dust and scratches; and the right side is not in focus. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Crop too tight, poor angle, causing a disturbing geometric distortion, and object too dirty -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose ac Alvesgaspar --Lestat (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, a product photograph has to be no less than perfect to achieve FP status on Commons. This picture is quite far from perfect, having a poor DOF, odd angle, non-white background, dusty subject, and halos around parts of the edges of the subject (upper right corner). --Aqwis (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A female Goldenrod Crab Spider (Misumena vatia) capturing a bee (cf. Andrena sp.). Notice the perfect colour match between the spider and the flower. Spiders usually inject the venom at the back of the victim's head, where the nerves are concentrated. Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support So perfect colours match that I first thought from the thumbnail that it was only a bee on a flower. You know my opinion about harsh flash lighting, but I think it's too much a nice catch to have it not featured. Benh (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It’s a pity but unforunately the bee is too dark. Debianux (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
created, uploaded and nominated by Rignese (Otourly (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC) has just corrected the page)Reply[reply]
English: Studiant are throwing stones on the police of Senegal
Oppose Low quality, very noisy image, boring composition Jacopo (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2008 (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 lacks quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2008 (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.
Oppose, indeed; the voise is visible even at 1264x842 pixels resolution. --Aqwis (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2008 (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: too grainy
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.
Keep Yes, but very good picture of the coin. --Lošmi (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keepand speedy close Coin collecting is a major hobby, and coins are also importnt ot Archaeology, not to mention being, in a few cases, the only images we have of historic rulers. No valid reason to delist given. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep It's just a coin ;-) Lycaon (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Too much pressure............BOOMMrmariokartguy (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC), but I won't withdraw, no matter what.Reply[reply]
Delist clearly not a genuine coin of Clement XI pontificat time in 1707 (just have a look on what quality it could be at this time [2]), so this picture is just a good photography of a commemorative coin : no historical value thus doesn't warrant featured status IMO. --B.navez (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are comparing used, worn, coins with an unused one. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No it was not a matter of worn state, but a matter of coining technics. In 1707 it was not possible to coin such regular pieces. But this is not a coin, this is a medal (of course, who have ever seen a coin more than 10 cm large in diameter ?). It means it is a unique handcrafted large piece (you can see the work of the sculptor Ferdinande Sevo in the metal) and historically genuine (I have checked the signature). This good photography of historical value (nothing to do with coin collecting hobby) warrants featured status.
About coins larger than 10 cm. Sweden used larger coins which were in circulation called plate money between 1644 and 1776. They came in many different sizes and the biggest ones weighed 19.7 kg (16 daler sm from 1644). Some images. /Daniel78 (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
Voting period is over now :) I'll close this tonight. Benh (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its resolution is too small to be a featured picture under the current guidelines. Its resolution from its image page is 939 × 1,400 pixels. (Original nomination)
Oppose Slightly lower time should be better, that building in the very center of the picture is a bit ... overexposed. --Aktron (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't help it, that the building is illuminated in such a manner. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I've got several pictures like this one too. There are two possibilities... to have the whole image black and that building nice or having is as it is now :-( Such lighting was reason for me to say oppose to one of Kanopus Kilia's promising images. --Aktron (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I love dusk shots but time here was a taaaad too late I think. middle building is overexposed, which is a fault since it's the main subject. Finally, I'd have prefer the building taking more of the frame. You live in Amsterdam... you can try again :) Benh (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was a little late with taking this picture, because I took another picture earlier from the other side which you are looking at in this picture. When I wanted to leave I saw the moon and decided too give it a try. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose subject too dark. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC) voting period was over, but this won't change the results anyways - Benh (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Reply[reply]
result: 2 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Massimo Catarinella. -- Lycaon (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support i know how it might be difficult to have good pictures with a dark sky. Quality is good enough, nice colour composition and artefacts (illuminations) gives to me a nice impression. Guérin Nicolas(messages) 12:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, uninteresting composition. --Aqwis (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Frog Queen, a not so common Frog (Rana temporaria); created, uploaded and nominated by LC-de -- LC-de (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposeIt is a good solid picture of an actually very common frog, but compared to this FP it is not one for the FP series IMO. I don't like the flashlight and the too-much-in-focus grass in front. Could you provide the EXIF data for the file too? Lycaon (talk) 06:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, I agree with Lycaon. --Aqwis (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like picture and composition. Debianux (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Needs a lot more of sophistication to have a chance of promotion. The present Foucault pendulum animation FP looks like this -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe, though,t aht the path praced out in that - even allowing for exaggeration - is wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I have a hard time seeing the blue line correctly, to me it looks like the pendulum swings up much higher on one side than the other. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately my camera is not up to date but it is so difficult to have so many steps of Agaricus sp. growth at the same time that I think this picture is very interesting. --Salix (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Though maybe a few tiny tweaks to the levels would make this even better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Sorry, but what do you mean exactely? --Salix (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposeNot properly identified (generic level in this case is surely not sufficient) Too small (under 2Mpx) and too tight crop. Lycaon (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, it is identified: Agaricus arvensis. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Too small (1600x1200 is less than 2Mpx), and no mitigating reasons. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Common image, not enough quality for FP. --Karelj (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
created by User:Yug - uploaded by Yug - nominated by Yug
Info
Technical macro photograph of a a 40mm Hogna radiata, Adult Female, left side. The background provide a scale by small light-blue dots (accordingly, I intentionally keeped them). I then improved the light (Gimp), and added a more readable scale (in grey). Tools use: Image:Macro A4.svg, Image:Macro scales.svg, Image:Canon PowerShot S5 IS-full.png, an Hogna radiata and a good sun. -- Yug(talk) 10:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment this photography is candidate to be a feature picture of commons (the image database of the wikipedia), not to be a « feature artistical photography ».
Support good and smart photograph, very encyclopedic (technical view + scale + cleaned up background + helpful file name), showing and illustrating well the subject. Yug(talk) 13:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Good, but not outstanding capture. Crapload (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - A quality image but lacking the necessary wow. I deslike the artificial background -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The neutral white background is here to both avoid en:chartjunk and provide the scale. If the aim is to describe the Hogna radiata, there is no need of complex natural background which are chartjunk. For the scale, the background have doted lines with small soft dots every 0.5mm. Yug(talk) 16:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, what is the point of the background? --Aqwis (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dots (every 0.5mm) are here to give the scale. Yug(talk) 16:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral -- A beautiful flower and a quality image. But the crop is too tight and the background a bit distracting. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Unbalanced composition. The crop is too tight and the building in the background is disturbing -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm reopening this for one day because I closed this a bit too soon. I'll take it away from the page tomorrow night. Sorry for the inconvenience. Benh (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karelj (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Crop problem, there is some black pixels on the left side remaining. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose A place I'd like to see, but obvious tilt to the right and straight composition, with horizon cutting the picture in the middle... - Benh (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Crop issues, especially with the tops of the trees. Freedom to share (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral It is a darn good panorama, congratulations! Just a little short on wow for a FP. Thanks. Barabas (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral as above, an excellent panorama, but no wow, I would like to see this better as a Quality image. Alvaro qc (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I will nominate once I have fixed the flaws. Thanks for voting Muhammad 11:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Composition confusing at first, but once one has a good look on the image, the effect is amazing. Freedom to share (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Beautifully done, so much so I can't believe it but I have never seen the mountain, if ever, this close. Well done. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Also photo is more valuable because of its subject matter (today's color featured picture is of a less well-known mountain). At least here in the U.S. I have heard of Mount Blanc and Montblanc. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, interestingly enough, today's picture almost shows where my photo was taken from! Also note that Mont Blanc du Tacul and Mont Blanc are two different mountains, though very close to each other (and one route up Mont Blanc goes through Mont Blanc du Tacul). --Nattfodd (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow. I didn't know there is more than one Mont Blanc. Thanks for your reply. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support ça faisait longtemps ! I agree with Lycaon, but am really impressed by the composition of the picture (what a sky !). Benh (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't see a reason for black & white here. --Jeses (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I don't see a reason for colour. --Nattfodd (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do see one : I personaly find it hard to get such a contrast on the sky (without a polariser filter). One way to get this result is obviously to... increase contrast, but at the risk of giving your picture an overprocessed look. Turning it to B&W might allow to shortcut this problem. Another thing I have noticed is that a picture's red channel has a much darker sky and similar mood to this picture. Maybe Nattfodd use one of these tricks (did you ?). Benh (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I used a dedicated software for the B&W conversion (Nik Silver Efix Pro). I don't know what exactly it is doing behind the curtains, it could indeed manipulate the red channel. But if there is indeed more contrast in the sky, the difference with the colour unprocessed version isn't huge. It was after a big storm, with another moving in and lots of wind, which may explain the unusual light quality. --Nattfodd (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merci beaucoup pour l'explication - Benh (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Impressive shot, rare view. Interesting. Wiggler101 (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
: according to the source of the picture and the related license policy, the applied licensing is CC-BY-NC-SA which is not allowed on Commons. Please send an OTRS authorization to release this picture under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL. Guérin Nicolas(messages) 12:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I double license my images when I post them here, as I've done for all the previous ones. If this isn't good enough for you, feel free to delete them. --Nattfodd (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't want to delete it, i just told you that there's a conflict of license. You may solve it quick by adding on the picture of your website (here) that "such picture is released under the licenses CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL". Sorry this is Commons' policy, nothing to do with the good quality of the picture. Guérin Nicolas(messages) 12:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And my practice has always been to double license my pictures for wikimedia. I don't want to relicense them on my website, as I just upload them here as a courtesy to wikimedia (and seeing some of the reactions, I probably shouldn't bother). This has never been a problem before, but if you think it is, then the only solution I see is to delete the pictures, as I won't relicense them on my website. --Nattfodd (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nattfodd is correct. If you dual-license every version of the picture, the dual-licensing is pointless. --Aqwis (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question I don't know much about licensing, but as I understand it the the image is already under two licenses which is allowed as long as one is good for commons. So is the reason purely that Nattfodd do not want to mention that on the homepage rather than a problem with the licenses used ? /Daniel78 (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nattfodd : if you are the copyright holder of the pictures, you have the right to license them as you wish. Just to be sure that you are the original copyright holder (i.e. the holder of the website where the pictures were first released), send an e-mail to the OTRS system (it takes 5 minutes...). Support Anyway, i support the nomination of this picture. Guérin Nicolas(messages) 15:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still don't see why I need to contact the OTRS while I am the copyright owner and have uploaded it to wikimedia under a fitting license. --Nattfodd (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Extremely confusing, very dark and creepy: Support - Luctor 13:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Nice composition, with colors it wouldn't be as scary as it is now. -- moralist (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose scratchy and overprocessed --B.navez (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry, Böhringer, you can do better than this. The composition is a bit boring (maybe too symmetrical) and the image quality is not good enough, lacking sharpness and detail -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, simply no wow, sorry. --Aqwis (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral nice colors, but the sky is blown out --che 23:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
These are the original colors of Nikon D 300. It is only a white sky in this part of Germany at this time (10th September). Try to change the color of the sky with Photoshop. There is no blue sky. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think sky was white either, because of the lighting. Maybe metering was done on dark parts hence the blownout sky (?). Benh (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Yes sky is too bright. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2008 (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 sky is blown and the image is tilted. MER-C 08:17, 23 September 2008 (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.
Oppose Common subject. Good, but not outstanding capture. Crapload (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, I am sorry, while this is an above-average picture of a beautiful flower, it just doesn't come close to the standards set by our other featured pictures of flowers. --Aqwis (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, too common a subject; and it doesn't really offer anything over the other flowers already featured. --MozillaMan(talk) 19:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 supports, 3 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cliff Palace in Mesa Verde National Park is thougt to be the largest cliff dwelling in North America. It was built by the ancient Pueblo people (Anasazi) in the 12th century.
I'm pretty sure the shade is the point - these are in the middle of the desert, more or less. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral, a very interesting subject, but it is too oversharpened for me to support. If this was done to conceal poor sharpness (detail), I would recommend rather downscaling it than sharpening it excessively. --Aqwis (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I disagree with Aqwis, and don't see where it's oversharpened, but I also think it's slightly overexposed (this is debatable). This isn't my reason to oppose though. Just that the people give it the "casual shot" touch, and kill it IMO. Benh (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I don't see any overexposure. That may be just the color of the rocks under the sun. —LaPianista(T•C) 01:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Very interesting subject, great location, very good composition. I do like people there since they give a great sense of scale. I do not think it is oversharpened. I am fine with the amount of details too. But highlights are overblown. I just checked a histogram of a highlight, and clearly it is overexposed, by a significant margin. I feel sorry, I truly do, but I see no other choice but to vote against it because of this regrettable but substantial technical mistake of the photographer. Barabas (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Main subject has poor details because it's lost in the "haze" (correct english ??), this makes the photo not so appealing to me as a result. -- Benh (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, the white balance seems to off several places in the image. Perhaps some of the stitched pictures (if this is a stitched panorama) had a different white balance from the rest? In any case, I agree with Benh. --Aqwis (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
created, uploaded and nominated by Simonizer (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
An older one of my pictures. But i didnt nominate it yet, because there were many highlights in the clouds and the colours were a bit oversaturated. Some days ago I found the old RAW-File and I have been able to correct those mistakes. Now I can give it a try --Simonizer (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I dont want to be self-aggrandising but I love the composition -- Simonizer (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral -- Composition is great (as usual) and quality is good. But I find the whole a bit boring, sorry. A little more colour might bring the needed grain of salt. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral I like the expression. Very good portrait, unfortunately, the photograph is not sharp enough. Vassil (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like this fellow!MartinD (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Seems like it's smiling --Javier ME (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose For a zoo shot the quality should be better. --Dori - Talk 23:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose I prefer the more complicated - and thus more interesting - double rotation of Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, animations should be as simple as possible while still being able to explain a concept. --Aqwis (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Much better than the other one -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support over the other version.--Avala (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - I like this version better. -- TheWB (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The other image is too complicated with the reflections. /Daniel78 (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
created, uploaded and nominated by Tsui -- Tsui (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Swiss singer Francine Jordi during a concert in Vienna, in a pose quite typical for the style of music she represents. -- Tsui (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support go for it :) ..very well done. --AngMoKio (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- The colours from the leaves are bleeding out making these little halos of fuz around each leave. (Giligone (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Oppose Agree it looks overprocessed. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I don't know what this picture is about :-( --Aktron (talk) 10:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose what/where is the "blackstone reflection"; no clear main subject. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 0 support, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Vi må kunne repræsentere dansk mad bedre;-) Den har ikke den wow, der skal til for at få en FP. Billedet er dog interessant og værdifuldt som illustration af denne klassiske ret. Jeg foreslår derfor, at du nominerer den som et værdifuldt billede på COM:VIC under scopet "Kogt skinke med brunede kartofler og grønlangkål" oversat til engelsk. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, I agree with Slaunger. --Aqwis (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Oh, I'm sorry I overlooked the QIC and VIC - it's clear to me that my photo belong there if at all. But I still would like to ask: Giligone, what part of the photo do you find too dark (I don't think I agree with you on this? If it is too dark, could I just adjust brightness with GIMP? Slaunger, thank you for your comments, but I would like to know how I could represent Danish cuisine better? And again sorry for being in the wrong place. Nillerdk (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the dish is very representative for a typical Danish New Years dish, but I doubt I will give many users much of a wow-feeling. In case we wanted to do that it would perhaps rather be one of the dishes from the modern Nordic kitchen reinventing the use of Nordic ingredient. You know food of the kind served at Noma. That is delicious food which looks good. But the photo fits very well into what is emphasized at VIC. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose subject (the moth) is totaly underexposed. --Jeses (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Not enough detail due to size, underexposure and lack of DOF (why such a large shutter speed?) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, unsharp (lack of detail). --Aqwis (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Not so bad for me. The composition is major plus. --Aktron (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not even that bad, but I find the object in the lower part of the center very disturbing. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support US governement is responsible for the architectural composition and the foreground pole, not the photograph. Very impressively detailed and well ligthed picture.--B.navez (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose and Comment - The Wikipedia FP, nominated below, is much better than this one. Please take some time to view both in the original size (256x256)! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I agree with Alvesgaspar that the other image looks better. This one has too many reflections. /Daniel78 (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - per what Alvesgaspar and Daniel78 wrote.--Avala (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose agree with above -- Gorgo (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support small, but i like--Econt (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment First FP nomination, maybe a bit naive... --Eusebius (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Yes, maybe it is... Good composition of a nice building but image quality not good enough, with noise (and poor focus?)badly affecting sharpness and detail. I wonder why this exposure solution (1/1000, f/4 !) was chosen. Anyway, maybe the camera is to be blamed for most of the faults. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
very weak oppose I need to see other votes.(But a nice first nomination considering that this is a QI and a VI) Mrmariokartguy (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, very unsharp and oversharpened. I also dislike the composition, and it is tilted. --Aqwis (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral -- I do like the composition a lot. But image quality is not good enough, there is noise in the sky and an overall lack of detail -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 supports, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It seems a bit fuzzy over all to me. Not quite sharp. Is there anyway you can fix this? (Giligone (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Comment hmm... for me is sharp --Pudelek (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, I have pretty much the same to say for this as for the other picture. --Aqwis (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I noted the same thing: the low sharpness and the limited definition of the subject produces an effect similar to a painting or a print. Not very interesting (but nice the strange effect). --sNappy 19:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, unsharp. In addition, the bridge itself is severely overexposed. --Aqwis (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but that bridge is white. If it was "severely overexposed", you could not see details in the concrete. Check with showfoto, for instance, only small details of the bridge and part of the clouds appear overexposed when you turn on the overexposure indicator. Rama (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral, I still think it's a bit too unsharp, but I'm changing my vote to neutral as I don't think that in itself is a reason to oppose in this case. --Aqwis (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Noise and blotch in the sky, overexposed bridge -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bridge is not overexposed. It is white is reality. Check it. I welcome criticism, but this is factually wrong, and there is no excuse in repeating a mistake that has been discussed two lines above. Rama (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, there is a local maximum at the right extreme of the histogram (value=255), corresponding to part of the bridge and clouds (yes, I did verify), and reflected in a severe lack of detail. If this is not overexposure... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
overexposure in the image, as underlined by showfoto
There are only small points that are overexposed on the bridge, and an area in the clouds (see the image on the right). You did not complain about the clouds, though, because white coulds is not shocking, while a white bridge is. The problem is that, like Aqwis and myself, you intuitively expect concrete to by a darkish gray, not white. I understand the first impression, but the second, less so. Rama (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The term "overexposure" means "too much light", not necessarilyy "burned out" (255). And we know some picture has too much light when detail is affected. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The lack of sharpness is slightly concerning, but I really enjoy the vantage point, and the subject as is depicted against the blue sky. Great shot. I support. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- This is a good shot from a fairly unique angle. A bit fuzzy but still excellent. (Giligone (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Err no, sorry to disapoint you, but the angle is not unique. There is actually a plateforme at that spot. User:Ikiwaner has a similar image. I would have tried to get a truely unique angle, but it was just too dangerous (there's a cliff at this point). Rama (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is the platform in question :) [3] - Benh (talk) 05:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't think it's a bad picture at all, and I agree that bridge isn't overexposed (I compared with other shots found on the internet). But this picture misses a little something to me (I wouldn't have nominated it if I had taken it myself). Some minor issues : It has surprisingly lot of noise in the sky, I expect Zero noise from a 5D at low ISO, but maybe I'm wrong. Also CA is very noticeable (and easily fixeable with Canon's DPP if you shot in RAW and use a Canon lense ?). Benh (talk) 05:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I am also disapointed wth the noise. The image is a direct jpg from the camera, maybe I would have had better to develop it from a raw by hand. I hope it is that, because else I can't think where the problem comes from. Rama (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Is this an edited or unedited JPEG from camera? --Base64 (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is unedited.
I had to shoot jpg only to limit memory consumption, maybe I should make more efforts to save the raw as well. Rama (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EXIF: Software = digiKam-0.9.3, the JPEG was saved with higher compression. JPEG out of camera should be around 3.8MB. --Base64 (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now you mention it, I must have passed it through showfoto and possibly adjusted levels. Sorry, I had genuinely completely forgotten when you first asked. Rama (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The issues above does make the overall impression not good enough. Already mentioned but I was mainly thinking of the CA, unsharpness and overexposure. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support That overexposion is really marginal and the image is quite nice for me. --Aktron (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Too much blotchy artefacts in the sky (compression?) and blown highlights. Lycaon (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question What is the smudge in the upper left corner? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is viewable as sensor dirt, with some weak chromatic aberration effect. --Twdragon (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Interesting shot from unusual viewpoint, vivid colors, some chromatic aberration compensated by other advantages. --Twdragon (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose sky too dark (imo), CA, sharpness --Simonizer (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 5 Support, 5 Oppose, 1 Neutral -->not featured --Mr. Mario (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Clean picture, but very tight crop on the bottom and needs a little perspective correction I think. I might change my vote if these issues are fixed. Benh (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What kind of perspective correction are you thinking? (Giligone (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I updated the photo with a less severe new crop. This one isn't cut off at the bottom. I also tweaked the perspective a bit. (Giligone (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
It looks a bit better if I remember, but lines still converge. This isn't so distracting actually. Have you noticed some small stitching error ? I'll keep my oppose until it's fixed :) (sorry). I hope someone else than me will give an opinion... I know I can be very picky with stitching stuffs. Benh (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yea, I know there are a few minor errors, I've tried fixing them in PS with some success. I don't blame you for noticing them. I would have done the same were it not mine. I like the photo anyway and thought "why not try?". Here Image:Perimeter Institute Pano edit2.jpg is my last best edit.(Giligone (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
It's still very obvious... unfortunately :(. Benh (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I still like it. --norro 18:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Very striking image. Are you just annoyed that none of your pics was promoted? These nominations seem a bit POINTY. -Nard the Bard 18:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Good image, should not be criticised for not conforming with newest guidelines. The FP bar is constantly rising, which is why the resolution limit was set up and this image goes above this bar. Freedom to share (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Image is sharp and beautiful. Just under the guidelines. -Nard the Bard 01:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Only just under current size criterion. We don't automatically delist every picture that just fails existing criteria. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep nothing wrong with the photo --AngMoKio (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period : from 21 Sep 2008 to 30 Sep 2008 (included)
Info
Flowers of Water Forget-me-not (Myosotis scorpioides); created, uploaded and nominated by LC-de -- LC-de (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice image, really good composition, but dof would have to be wider for an fp. Freedom to share (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose A beautiful composition and a good background color but the DOF too narrow (not only the furthest folwers aren't defined but also a little part of the nearer petal isn't well difined). --sNappy 18:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Very good subject, popular view style, some oversharpening detected. That is recommended to restore the sharpening level from original camera image for effective luminance noise prevention. --Twdragon (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral I like the flowers in front, but the farthest flower is blurred. Mr. Mario (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 Support, 2 Oppose, 1 Neutral -->not featured --Mr. Mario (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment A nice picture, but I don't get why you've uploaded it to Wikipedia. This is not a photo forum, but an encyclopedic website. I don't see any EV in your picture. Wikimedia Commons might be more about the photograph itself, but it is related to Wikipedia. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've seen other photos of this style rated FP so I thought I'd try. (Giligone (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Comment This is not Wikipedia. It is Wikimedia Commons, and in addition to supporting the encyclopedia projects, it supports many other projects that are not encyclopedias. Fg2 (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SupportThis is a composite image made up from around 150 seperate photos taken at: 18mm, f10, ISO-100, 1/200sec. Impressiv--Guérin Nicolas(messages) 16:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually I find this rather sad than impressive. 150 pictures and still all that we get is 4.3 Megapixels :-(, which doesn't leave much detail at all in this distorted projection. --Dschwen (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose unnecessarily low resolution. The subject itself has no wow - all that is really impressive is the projection/stitching technique. Looking through this flickr group, the above image is insufficiently impressive - Peripitus (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -- Some have raised the issue of resolution of the above entry. Admitedly for 150 initial 10MP photos it is quite low. So I've uploaded a higher resolution version available hereImage:Sphere UW HiRes.jpg. This version is around 3 times the resolution, roughly 12MP. (Giligone (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
80% of the area is just plain blue sky, 15% is just a patch of grass, the rest are pretty non-descript buildings. 150 10MP pictures should certainly give more than 12MP in the final output (I have images from 45 12MP pic which end up at over 30MP). So thanks for the effort, but this is still way below my expectations. What's bugging me even more is that the picture is essentially just a gimmick. Any other picture of that subject wouldn't stand a chance here. Just because most people haven't seen a little planet pano the are wowed. Someone pointed out examples of better little planet panos. It doesn't seem like a good idea to feature such a pano just because of the novelty factor, if it isn't one of the best examples. --Dschwen (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Pretty cool dwarf planet. lol --PedroPVZ (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Subject not that interesting, not enough detail, pretty good work though. --Dori - Talk 22:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose --Very high concept, but this picture distortion looks not some pretty for most of common users --Twdragon (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support So what, the zoo is full of animals. Or should we close all zoos? Is this a political vote? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Good portrait but obvious zoo features don't make it a featurable picture.--B.navez (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
QuestionSo this picture would have received your support if the nominator had forgotten to mention it being taken in a zoo? Muhammad 19:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
--2008 photo of one painting of a billiard table by w:Georges Braque circa 1950
Neutral --Much noise, maybe and what some term technical errors but it captures something; if the image isn't deleted as a copyvio it might be art and not encyclopedic--who knows? I appreciate feedback and can accept a deletion for any reason to save reviewers' time. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2008 (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: of very poor photographic quality: the object is cropped, rotated and not centered, the image is unfocused and there are disturbing reflections. Please read carefully the guidelines before submiting art reproductions -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2008 (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.
Oppose Very little is in focus. The bar is very high for insects. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Too blurry, also color composition is unsatisfyingly dull Wiggler101 (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2008 (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 of very poor image quality: general unsharpness and overexposure. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2008 (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.
Oppose Composition is not strong enough, with many distracting elements around the edge of the frame. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2008 (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 composition is cluttered and the image quality is not good enough (flower is unsharp and overexposed) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2008 (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.
Oppose -- I own that camera, but why it is a featured nominee puzzles me Wiggler101 (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2008 (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 subject is poorly cut out (e.g. the bottom of the viewfinder) and cut off.MER-C 02:26, 15 September 2008 (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.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the sky is blown. MER-C 02:25, 15 September 2008 (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.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the photo is small and full of artefacts for which there is no mitigation.
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.
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 upscaled and shows the ugly artefacts as a direct result.
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 (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the resolution is too low (1,600 × 1,200 pixels) and there are no strong mitigating reasons. G.A.S 11:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1600x1200 is above two megapixels, so no guideline violation. --norro 13:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From the Guidelines for nominators: "Note that a 1600 x 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level."--oskila (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose not much of a "main" subject; hills are a bit too shady. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2008 (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 has a poor composition, with a large dark foreground. Low resolution is not mitigated -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2008 (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.
Info
Support -- RealRoy (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment Seems to be leaning CCW. --Dori - Talk 01:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose because of the leaning.--Avala (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Question Do you not think the resolution is a bit low for FP? --Ltz Raptor (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Mrmariokartguy (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
.JPG)
Neutral as below, a bit blurry. But here there is more depth --SuperJew (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_d1.jpg)
Keep
.jpg)
.jpg)
-1.JPG)
.jpg)
--Berthold Werner (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
retouched the white dot on the tail, horizontal mirrored (because the numbers on his footring are mirrored in the Original). Maybe better maybe not, its up to you.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
-left_01.png)
Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
-1.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_delisted){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
-left_01.png,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){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}
-1.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lower_Manhattan_from_Staten_Island_Ferry_Corrected_Jan_2006_errors.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){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[2]](http://www.anythinganywhere.com/commerce/coins/coinpics/vat-k712%20yr9-1.jpg){kind=link}
-left_01.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
