Commons:Kandidate fir exzellent Biller

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

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

Wann Dir e flott Bild fonnt hutt oder selwer gemaach hutt, an et dir fir Wikimedia Commons wäertvoll erschéngt, kënnt Dir d'Bild hei erasetzen. Wann no 15 Deeg d'Leit positiv drop reagéiert hunn, gëtt d'Bild an d'Gallerie vun den exzellente Biller opgeholl.

Contents

Virschléi[edit]

Nei Virschléi oder Meenunge w.e.g. ënner folgendem Link bäifügen!

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:Dor blad van beuk (Fagus sylvatica) na langdurige motregen in maart 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2017 at 06:35:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Kloster Paulinzella, Thüringen, 360x180, 170316, ako (1).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2017 at 06:10:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Paulinzella abbey, Thuringia, Germany

File:Flatirons Sunrise.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 23:55:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Flatirons winter sunrise

Image:Tyrrhenische Mauereidechse.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 18:45:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tyrrhenische Mauereidechse / Podarcis tiliguerta

File:AIRPOWER16 - Air to Air SK35C Draken.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 16:26:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Air to Air SK35C Draken
I added this information to the nomination and image description. Thanks --The Photographer 16:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
In case it's not obvious, that was a Symbol support vote.svg Support BTW. - Reventtalk 17:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I was suspecting it about your comment :) --The Photographer 17:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good--Ermell (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support (and a biased vote from Sweden Face-smile.svg) --cart-Talk 11:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Moderate oppose Sorry to break the streak. But while I see this as a QI for sure, we have enough pictures of jet fighters as to consider the bar higher than this one is flying. Compare with the Luftwaffe picture below ... this is static and to me the clouds in the background are a distraction. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Image:Alegría personificada. Carnaval de Ruzafa.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 12:53:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Female in Carnival of Russafa, Valencia
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dorieo - uploaded by Dorieo - nominated by User:Dorieo -- Dorieo (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dorieo (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, not sharp. Needs a personality rights warning tag, too. Nice motif anyways. --Code (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - It has a personality warning now. It's clearly unsharp at full size, but full size is bigger than life size, and this photo fulfills the first of the 12 Elements of a Merit Image in spades, in my opinion: "Impact is the sense one gets upon viewing an image for the first time. Compelling images evoke laughter, sadness, anger, pride, wonder or another intense emotion." And for me, the impact is lasting. My feeling is, if this photo could be sharpened just a bit so that the woman is sharper at full screen, we should support a promotion. I could see this as an iconic image. Dorieo, could you please sharpen a bit? Tomascastelazo, given our previous discussions, I'd be particularly interested in your take on this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful oppose I really love the pose and the lighting and the joy that just pours from this photo. But ... none of her face is in focus, not even her eyes, and that's the least we can ask technically from an image of a person. Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Atura Hotel, Albury NSW.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 08:36:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Superfície - Bordo Trifolio Não Orientável.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 08:11:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mathematical non-orientable surface which the boundaries are the trefoil knot, object is part of the Matemateca (IME/USP) collection.
This is a photo, and no, there is this two. And you don't need to be a expert to compare and see how great the difference is... and why you complaining about that? We may have hundreds of sea shells, churches, mountains ... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 16:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ... and church interiors. Well captured and it belongs to be together with the previous nomination – feel free to make a group nomination next time for similar photos where there aren't many of the same kind. – LucasT 16:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm editing a huge volume of pieces, and this ones they stood out, that's why I didn't put together, I just edited it, and the other 2 weeks ago. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 00:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like it, as I did the last one, but one is enough for me. Charles (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Charlesjsharp ??
This is not the same object, you just vote in favour of one church? One painting? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 23:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I gave my opinion. So far, I did not oppose. So how many similar images, with the same artistic concept, but with slight differences and different colours, do you think should be promoted? 50? 100? 1000? 09:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Around 80.... The difference is not subtle, similar names don't make them equal... Panthera tigris, Panthera leo... And from 20 with the same quality I selected only 2... And how many Mathematical objects do we have in this quality? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Provisional support on fixing the CA on the top blade. Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Case, Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Landsort August 2016 32.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 05:34:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Night view of Landsort
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - So this photo is not busy enough for you? :-) There doesn't seem to be much interest. But the voting period lasts 8 more days, so I will wait a bit longer before considering a withdrawal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I don't really understand the lack of interest, pro or con, in this image. Do you all just find it too subtle to interest you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Flatirons Sunrise.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 22:53:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Flatirons winter sunrise

File:Famagusta 01-2017 img14 Lala Mustafa Pasha Mosque.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 19:47:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Famagusta, Northern Cyprus. Lala Mustafa Pasha Mosque / formerly St. Nicholas Cathedral

File:Contortionist Eliza, "Show Contortion is a Cabaret" 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 18:02:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eliza is a contortionist from Germany
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Steffen Günthel, nominated by Yann (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Yann (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A lot of CA all around. Fixable. Otherwise good. --Code (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Code, "a lot of CA" seems to be quite exaggerated. I see a small purple line on the top of the hat... S.Günthel, could you look at that? Regards, Yann (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - It's a striking photo. I think it would be OK to feature as is, though I expect it to be corrected. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not my cup of tea, sorry... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per Code. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Definitely this pic has some good "arguments" --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "Contortionist", really?? She's just sitting there stiking a pose, looking like something out of a gentleman's magazine. There is no 'wow' in that for me. If it was one of the other photos from the series where she acually do something, I would consider it for FP. Those photos also show just as much of her "arguments" to satisfy the male audience here. ;) --cart-Talk 11:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I hesitated to nominate another one of the series. Ultimately, I find her expression here is better. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done CA removed. However carter was a joke. Composition,light and quality are good...--LivioAndronico (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately there's still some CA at her right arm and on the chair-whatever-thing she's sitting on. --Code (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Code: Could you please leave a note, as I don't see what needs to be edited. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Why am I not allowed to not be 'wowed' by the same things you are? --cart-Talk 12:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
If I may, I think Livio was saying that he was joking, not that you were a joke. In Italian, "Carter, era un scherzo"; no "it" is necessary for meaning in Italian, but I think he left out a crucial comma by mistake. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
So this is how international conflicts are started. ;) Italian has never been my strong side... --cart-Talk 18:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Japanese Municipal São Paulo Market, Brazil.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 16:50:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Japanese Municipal São Paulo Market, Brazil.jpg

File:Horseback wrestlers in Kyrgyzstan.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 15:13:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Two wrestlers on horseback perform during the National Horse Games near Peak Lenin.
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I have a full sequence, but this is the original crop of this image. I could upload others and propose it as a set, maybe. -Theklan (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I guess that depends on what else would be in the series, but I don't think I would vote to feature this picture, due to the tight crop and the other horse overlapping this one's nose. Others may differ, but I find that quite distracting. But then again, this is a very interesting subject with a beautiful background of snow-capped peaks, so I don't want to oppose, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I have this others in Flickr: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. There are some other sports, but I want to make different nominations for best of each kind. If you think one of them is better, I could upload it, cancel this nomination, and start over again. -Theklan (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
None of them seem like FPs to me, but others may have a different opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan; frankly I think this vertical orientation isn't the best framing and a lot of the mountains could be cropped out. (Although I must say this is an interesting take on riding bareback Face-smile.svg!) Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Megazostrodon sp. Natural History Museum - London.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 14:33:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Reconstruction of a Megazostrodon sp in the Natural History Museum, London. Megazostrodon is widely accepted as being one of the first mammals, appearing in the fossil record approximately 200 million years ago
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by User:Theklan - uploaded by Theklan - nominated by Theklan -- Theklan (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Theklan (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not in focus. Charles (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Charles. As this model is not running away, you would be expected to approach pinpoint sharpness to get the photo featured. However, it might be a good Valued Image nominee. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Even without looking at it at full-res, the blurry areas up front are distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

File:30+68 German Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon EF2000 ILA Berlin 2016 06.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 10:24:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eurofighter Typhoon EF2000 (reg. 30+68) of the German Air Force (Deutsche Luftwaffe, Taktisches Luftwaffengeschwader 74) at ILA Berlin Air Show 2016.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info c/u/n by me. — Julian H. 10:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportJulian H. 10:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support wow Ezarateesteban 11:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Great achievement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow. Getting a perfect exposure like this out of an aircraft-against-blue-skye image is not an easy task, as the sun seems to have a tendency to be anywhere but in the right place for that. What's even more, you make it look like an air-to-air shoot. That's what you'd expect to see on the cover page of an aviation magazine or the front page of airliners.net etc. Congrats! --El Grafo (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Outstanding --The Photographer 17:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Excellent! —- George Chernilevsky talk 20:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♠ 03:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- KTC (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nose is a touch out of focus, but you can't always have everything. Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very sharp for this kind of photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Fuente en Baku, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-26, DD 227-229 HDR.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 08:00:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fountain in the Old City of Baku, capital of Azerbaijan.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Fountain in the Old City of Baku, capital of Azerbaijan. All by me, Poco2 08:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 08:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very impressive. The blacks are a little bit noisy and the crop at the bottom almost too tight, but still acceptable. -- -donald- (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There's some striping/bands at the edge of the rear building, which I think is due to the HDR merge. Perhaps one frame can be used here and merged by hand at that location, or some adjustment to the blending tools? -- Colin (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    Colin: I improved that area with some editing. I also used the opportunity to improve the crop at bottom and on the left (that helped to center the image). I also darkened a bit the shadows as the sky was a bit too bright Poco2 18:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very impressive and I'm sure you'll solve the issue mentioned by Colin (which isn't a big deal imo anyway) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per others. Beautiful. And if you decide to de-noise the sky (which I think is not necessary), please keep the stars, as it's nice and impressive to see almost untraily stars in a picture that has this much light in it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support More nice combination of warm and cool. Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Georgia Jvari monastery IMG 9345 2070.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2017 at 22:55:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Alexxx1979 - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Great composition and colors, but quality is slightly low (especially the right side) for a 6 MP image. -- King of ♠ 01:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The fuzziness KoH refers to is clearly visible at full screen on my laptop. Apologies if I'm unduly devaluing this nomination, but it's my impression that we've had a lot of submissions that were of comparable if not greater beauty but also sharper in the foreground and middleground. I don't feel like this is an FP, but we'll see if it will be one, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality and detail too low. I don't see anything exceptional here beyond a holiday photo. -- Colin (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support critics are right as far as technical issues are concerned. But to me this nom is more than just a holiday photo, its composition is excellent --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for the light and composition – LucasT 15:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, sorry. Nice motif, but lack of details. Looks also a bit tilted ccw --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Per Martin (...and 7) --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Грчка црква, Прилеп. (алт.).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2017 at 20:25:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of the Transfiguration, Prilep, Macedonia
  • I like the motif of the church with the vanishing houses in the background.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the explanation. That could work for me if the church had been sharper and there wasn't such a pronounced blue shift; what caused that? Anyway, let's see what other people think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think if we could see more layers of buildings withing the fog... Like sunsets, the mist can be attractive but you still need a compelling composition and luck. The technical quality and size are low, with lots of purple CA. -- Colin (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The only thing I don't like about this photo is the omnipresent purple fringe, but that can be dealt with easily. Otherwise I like it a lot. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Lorenzo Lotto - Madonna and Child with Two Donors - 77.PA.110 - J. Paul Getty Museum.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2017 at 20:17:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

painting by Lorenzo Lotto

File:Kosciuszko Main Range from Charlotte Pass 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2017 at 12:35:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Kosciuszko Main Range and Snowy River as seen from Charlotte Pass lookout, NSW Australia.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Thennicke (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose On first look I wanted to oppose, then thought about it and was actually writing about why I support it. Something felt off, still, so after taking a good look at it again I noticed that indeed the foreground is sunlit. This is a problem because the contrast for the whole image just doesn't work. One would rightfully expect the sun lit leaves to be much brighter, the grass to be more saturated, and the whole scene to have more life in it in general. However! If this is indeed a faithful representation of how it looked in reality and not an "artistic choice" (ie ps work) I'm prepared to retract my oppose and even change it to support. If the look is indeed a choice then sorry, I don't like it. -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It was a cloudy day, so no direct sunlight was involved - what you may be perceiving is that the vegetation actually changes in the distance to a darker shade, with mosses and bog. This is as faithful to reality as I could make it, I assure - I am not a fan of overprocessed images. -- Thennicke (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Look in the foreground. The people walking and the tree next to them have a semi-definied shadow, but the branches closer to the camera cast a clearly defined, dark shadow on other branches. The overall effect looks like someone pulled the highlights down a lot, which pushes it to surreal category in my head. Otherwise I like both the comp and the atmosphere of the upper part of the image. In any case (unfortunately) I think it won't matter much whether I strike this oppose or not. :\ -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I like the composition with the 3 streams, and I think it would be featurable in the right light, but in my opinion, not in this gray light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I guess, as an Australian, where it is almost always sunny, this kind of light is actually special to me (and emblematic of our rare alpine ecosystems), but I understand your perspective -- Thennicke (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I can understand yours, too. When I visited London during the summer in 2010, when my girlfriend and I were hanging out with a Londoner, he specially picked a sunny table for us to sit at, whereas in New York, we always seek out shade. It's all a matter of perspective. But I'd love to see this view during a sunset or sunrise. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Reluctant oppose While I love the idea of matching an atypical landscape for an area with atypical light, especially when said atypical light is actually more typical of that landscape where it is more common, this comes out just too flat, with detail hard to distinguish. Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination -- Thennicke (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

File:National Carillon, Canberra ACT.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2017 at 12:13:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info National Carillon, Canberra, reflecting in the waters of Lake Burley Griffin
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Thennicke (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe a few too bright ...but ok. Nice composition. --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Midday light, too bright, overall nothing special. Yann (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per Yann. Beautiful composition but the lighting can be better. -- King of ♠ 01:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't understand the "too bright" comments; nothing is overexposed, and this is indeed as the scene looked. I assume you have checked your monitors? -- Thennicke (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    I can only speak for myself, but to me "too bright" here refers to the quality of the light, not the quantity. -- King of ♠ 03:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Iceland - 2017-02-22 - Gullfoss - 3684.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 23:38:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Waterfalls of Gullfoss under the snow in Iceland
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by User:PierreSelim - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - How about a winter waterfall? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support And here I thought PierreSelim was just a simple oversighter... Face-wink.svg lNeverCry 23:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    From time to time I visit nice places (and I try to have my camera in my backpack) :) --PierreSelim (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - One of my bucket list destinations... and judging by what's going on at the parking lot in the background, it doesn't appear that I'm alone in that respect. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -However, I would brighten it about half to one stop. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I find it too dark. -- King of ♠ 05:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - Wouldn't you expect winter in Iceland to be dark? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    Everything is relative; you wouldn't expose a bright and sunny day using the same settings as you would for a cloudy day. -- King of ♠ 01:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    True, but the result should still be darker than a bright, sunny day, to be true to how it actually looked and felt. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, but here it really is exposed as if it were a bright, sunny day: 1/640s at f/8 at ISO 200. I usually shoot at f/8, 1/250s, ISO 100 on a sunny day, so this is in fact 1/3 stop less than a typical sunny exposure, which combined with the lower amount of light produces an image that is too dark for my tastes. -- King of ♠ 04:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    I understand. Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great mood --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --cart-Talk 10:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great find Ikan! (if a little unsharp/too much NR) -- Thennicke (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Thanks. I saw it at QIC recently. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Laguna Colorada, Bolivia, 2016-02-02, DD 71-73 PAN.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 21:23:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Laguna Colorada, Bolivia.

File:Grabkapelle auf dem Württemberg Stuttgart Rotenberg 2015 03.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 18:46:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Württemberg Mausoleum in the Rotenberg part of Untertürkheim in Rotenberg, Stuttgart, Germany.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info c/u/n by me. — Julian H. 18:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. — Julian H. 18:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. Excellent quality. I like the little bird on the right side of the cross. --Code (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The bilateral angling strikes me a bit funny, but that's probably the only way to effectively capture the chapel, and the photo gives me a feeling of peace. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this is too wide for a rectilinear perspective. There's strong distortion (warping and stretching), which is noticable in the bowls (not sure what they are). -- Colin (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin. lNeverCry 22:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment An angle of view of 84 degrees is not too wide for rectilinear projection (there are rectilinear lenses such as the Nikkor 13mm f/5.6 that can produce 108 degree horizontal field of view and I have made similarly wide panoramas). However, a rectilinear projection of such width should be used sparingly and carefully. Also, moving trees/misalignment of frames have caused some ghosting on the foliage on the left and right edges in addition to the extreme loss of resolution caused by the rectilinear projection. dllu (t,c) 00:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Apparently each of the 3 frames was 84 degrees wide, not the full panorama. I'm not sure how much overlap there was between those frames, but a rule of thumb in my opinion is to avoid rectilinear images with more than 120 degree horizontal field of view. dllu (t,c) 00:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • 120 degrees is equivalent to a 12mm lens on full frame, which is about as wide as you get for rectilinear lenses and pretty extreme. The EXIF data says 130 degrees for the FOV but if that comes from Hugin, then it doesn't take into account any cropping. It is architectural features such as circular or cylindrical objects, and people, where the eye gets most upset by the distortion. The solution is only to get further back from the subject, if that is possible. -- Colin (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support I like super-wide rectilinear stuff. But I would personally crop more closely to the building - cut out the tree on the right and the sign on the left. Sharpness at the sides is not the best, and this would reduce that problem. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Thank you for the reviews. I do see the problem with too much distortion at the edges here. Getting further away is not easy as it's located on a hill, but I'll definitely try since the location is not too far away from where I live. — Julian H. 12:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Elisabeth niggemann.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 14:05:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Elisabeth Niggemann

File:Lori Berd, Armenia, 2016-09-30, DD 63-65 HDR.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 13:42:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ruined armenian church inside Lori Berd (Lori Fortress), a 11th-century fortress located in the Lori Province, Armenia.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Ruined armenian church inside Lori Berd (Lori Fortress), a 11th-century fortress located in the Lori Province, Armenia. The fortress was built by David Anhoghin to become the capital of Kingdom of Tashir-Dzoraget in 1065. Poco2 13:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 13:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support  ■ MMXX talk 14:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hm, sorry. In this case I tend to the "QI but not FP" section. The light is not that excellent, the front part is in shadow and the stones around the ruin look a little bit messy. --Code (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it quite much, with its large dynamic range, good light and nice clouds. Now, when going into pixel-peeping mode, the boundary between the hill and the sky looks edited at some places, this could be improved. – LucasT 15:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I disagree with Code in this instance. The contrast between the light and shadow is what makes the photo to me, to a large extent, and ruins sort of should be messy, which is why they're ruins. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    This place is 1000 years old, if it were tidy and the construction flawless it would loss its charm. This church is a real relic Poco2 22:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 22:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Code --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Code. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Žadvainių ežeras.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 17:13:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Žadvainiai Lake, Šiauliai district, Lithuania
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mindaugas Macaitis - uploaded by Mindaugas Macaitis - nominated by Hugo.arg -- Hugo.arg (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Hugo.arg (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry,too small for my taste --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice but per Livio. --Laitche (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Livio. lNeverCry 22:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. Very nice photo, but it's just above the absolute minimum size, and we've been featuring photos that look equally great but are multiple times the size of this, therefore with much more detail. Nominate at QIC, where this will be a very good QI, albeit almost too small there, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Juskaiciai II.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 17:14:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Surroundings of the village Juškaičiai II, Šiauliai district, Lithuania
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Lower resolution than 2 million pixels. --Laitche (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC) 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.

File:Hand and power stone bracelets.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 02:51:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Great resolution, and I like the composition. My criticisms are marginal, but I still think that for FP, cleaning up little bits of dirt that we can see at full size is a reasonable expectation. So would you consider this cosmetic digital improvement? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Is the box smoking? What kind of box is it? My first thought is perhaps it's a box to put a pipe in, but who puts their pipe away smoking? The interference of the smoke with her index finger looks iffy to me. If someone can explain this to me, I might support this. lNeverCry 06:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • INeverCry, it looks like a very ordinary incense box with the peace symbol and everything. This is something that goes very well with the power-stone bracelet in the New Age philosophy that many women are into these days. There are shops all over Sweden for items like these. The categories for the file were pretty awful though, I've fixed them. --cart-Talk 11:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek I can´t find the dirt you are taking about, except the skin flakes on the thumb... and in that particular case I would leave it as is, a little wabi-sabi... INeverCry thanks for fixing categories. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No, not that. That's fine. Look at the paper at full size, and you'll see dark spots on it, below her hand. Maybe I'm being too nitpicky, as your photo is at quite a high magnification. I'll think about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you, and my Symbol support vote.svg Support for this unusual nominee. Very nice composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, interesting and different. --Yann (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 20:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice and clean now. :) --cart-Talk 10:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FP to me -- Thennicke (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Different --The Photographer 16:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very different from what we usually see here ... it makes me want to know what the story is, for I know there is a story. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Daniel Case there is a little story... I was photograping the bracelets made by a friend of mine, stricktly catalog-type images for her web page and my daughter walked in... we started talking about displaying the bracelets on a model and doing some experimenting with the few resources we had at hand, and trying to manage the scale issue, the visual elements and so on, and this is one of the images that came out. More important, however, are the problems that this type of photography poses with regards to scale, ambience, etc. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

File:2017 Nikon D5500.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 21:58:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nikon D5500 with Nikkor AF-S DX 18-70 mm f/3.5-4.5 lens
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yet another camera I'd love to have... lNeverCry 06:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, I see nothing special in this that would make it FP-worthy, as this image could be produced by many with even lighting and a DSLR, and the composition is boring. I have many of these images for ebay-auctions. It is a good QI and VI but not FP in my opinion. FP needs wow, something that places it among our finest. Simple but good studio shots alone don't do it I'm afraid. Would it have exceptional technical quality that shows much more detail, I'd vote differently. – LucasT 11:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lucas. There's nothing particularly wrong with this, but it's just a pretty straight-forward picture of a common subject. It deserves its QI and VI badge, and could possibly become FP at several more Wikipedias, but for FP at Commons it lacks "WOW". --El Grafo (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see it as any less FP-worthy than this one. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well, I'd probably stay neutral on that one. At least the Sony is perfectly clean and there's something about the lighting that makes it look much more … uhm … "professional" to my eyes (though I don't really know what exactly that something is). --El Grafo (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Daniel Case, El Grafo, I think the pure white background makes the difference, the photo here has a grey background, making it look more dull/dirty. Having a white background—shadows dissolving into it—is a step up in photographic quality in my book (as long as the object stays well defined) and that is what removes you "seeing" how the sausage is made (the paper background being used). There is a line in perception somewhere. Consider this as a clearer example: File:Canon EF 70-200mm f4 IS USM.jpgLucasT 20:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per others --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

File:View across Botany Bay from Inscription Point.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 21:28:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View across Botany Bay from Inscription Point

File:PIA11178 - The Contrasting Colors of Crater Dunes and Gullies.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 21:28:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gullies in Galle crater, Mars.

File:Wood pigeons (Columba palumbus).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 20:27:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wood pigeons (Columba palumbus) in Oxfordshire
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Even very common birds can pose for you... created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Charles (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - Is this a couple? Can you tell which one is which sex? I observe rock pigeons a lot, and I often have trouble telling the sexes apart unless the male is engaging in mating behavior or puffing himself up while chasing away another male. But sometimes, if I see a couple hanging out on a ledge, I can tell from the relative sizes, the shape of the ceres and the amount of iridescent feathers on the head, neck and upper torso. I'm guessing the pigeon on our left is the female, but I'm not sure and we don't have wood pigeons in my neck of the woods. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It would have been a guess to tell them apart, though the males have slightly larger heads, but from their behaviour on the branch they are for sure a couple. Charles (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I've been trying to figure out why I'm not yet feeling impelled to vote to feature this picture. I think it's because there's so much bokeh above the pigeons in the picture frame. I think that if you cropped out a bit more than half of it, I'd like the photo better and vote for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Happy to do that if others agree. Charles (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The bright bokeh behind the left pigeon is offputting, especially since the birds are light-colored. lNeverCry 06:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose Competently done and a QI for sure, but just not enough wow for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Classic weekend evening atmoshere in home. --Karelj (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

File:McClure Tunnel west.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 20:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

McClure Tunnel west

File:Trouts in the pond.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 18:48:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Trouts in the fishpond
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by BuhaM - uploaded by BuhaM - nominated by BuhaM -- BuhaM (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- BuhaM (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can't see much in focus here. Charles (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the distorted look (not that we have much choice - this is what you would see in real life). The "wow" factor comes from the startling number of trout in such a small area, as well as the splashes of golden color. Strong FP for me. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Charles, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am wowed by the image itself, but not enough to disregard that it should have been sharper for an FP. Sorry. --cart-Talk 11:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 22:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A nice reminder that trout season (for me) starts in a couple of weeks and I better get my license for this year, but other than that no wow for me. A little hard to tell what it is at first, and the pattern isn't striking. Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

File:GNV ATLAS (ship, 1990), Sète cf03.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 18:32:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

GNV ATLAS (ship, 1990)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Daniel is right, and the comparison clinched it for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Photoelasticity - TDK Head Cleaner[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 15:07:39 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Going further back in time than Compact Disc, here is a TDK Head Cleaner. The clear plastic is birefringent and demonstrates internal stress as coloured patterns (photoelasticity) when photographed using cross polarisation. In first photo, the polarising filter on the lens is at right-angles to the polarised light from the LCD monitor behind the cassette. This cancels out all the direct light, producing a black background. In second photo, the monitor was rotated 90°, aligning the polarised light with the filter. This lets through all the direct light, producing a white background. The colours are stronger in the first photo but also switched about (e.g., green and magenta). You can see a Juxtapose of the two images here. For reference, the cassette under normal light is shown in this photo. The pair of images demonstrate how rotation by 90° affects the interaction of polarised light with a polarised filter. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Colin (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What a trip! Reality is overrated. --cart-Talk 15:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support out of pure interest, mostly, and also respect for the great focus on the subjects (the one on the left being cooler to me than the other). I'm still not quite sure I understand what you did, though. Did you produce some kind of spectroscopy? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support of course. Colin has become a masterfully skilled expert on turning banal objects into abstract pieces of art. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 18:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Will never forget the awesome plasticky smell of fresh cassettes. Jm3 (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice! -- Thennicke (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- KTC (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Groovy! Daniel Case (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 19:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Трамвај на Таксим.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 13:33:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Istiklal Avenue, Istanbul, Turkey
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Nice motif, but not outstanding, due to dull light and diffuse focus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad composition and image quality --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As a whole I think this is a nice photograph, though the quality is lacking, especially in the background. Do you know what post-processing was done to this photograph, if any? To me it looks like some in-camera filter was used, though I'm not completely sure. If another copy without post-processing exists, this photograph could maybe be salvaged. WClarke 05:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @WClarke: What you are describing as "lack of quality" is actually out of focus due to depth of field. The image has been post processed, in terms of color grading and levels. There are no in camera filters. I do keep the RAW file, of course.--Petrovskyz (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per all others. Daniel Case (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Private Diwan (Court building) of Shah Safi I of Persia.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 08:31:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Private Diwan (Court building) of Shah Safi I of Persia
  • Please write that info on the file's page, in English so it will be accesseble in the right place. --cart-Talk 15:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportMartin Falbisoner (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --cart-Talk 15:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - Sahand Ace, when was the file photographed? I'm guessing it must have been an analog photo, correct? Because my reaction to it is that it should be sharper, but I understand this is probably a scarce, maybe even unique photograph of a work of art that no longer exists. However, I don't think we have enough information yet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @W.carter:I have written the information in english.
  • @Ikan Kekek:The most productive sites are filter in Iran,this is the cause that i could not apload appropriate photos.I have sent the address of the site which contains the information of this painting
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - OK. They don't indicate this artwork no longer exists, nor do they state when it was photographed. Are you sure the Rijksmuseum no longer owns this work? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not as sharp as we've come to expect of other painting digitizations. Daniel Case (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Daniel and my comments above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Rusting chairs.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 05:01:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Ano-novo-no-Rio-2017.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 03:20:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Brazil
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Gabriel Monteiro - uploaded by Aspargos - nominated by Aspargos -- Aspargos (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Aspargos (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Very festive, but I regret the crop of the largest flower firework on the left. That crop by no means makes the photo bad, but I think it makes it not one of the most outstanding photos on the site. Do you have another version that doesn't have the firework partly cropped out? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that's just how fireworks photography goes - no matter how good your framing and how wide your lens, the biggest burst of the show will always be cut off at the edge of the frame. :) Sort of like meteors and lightning. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the crop's a bit unfortunate but I'm still very wowed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Martin – LucasT 11:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ezarateesteban 13:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'll bite. --cart-Talk 15:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 18:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Some technical shortcomings like CA at the left, but fireworks are difficult to do well. -- King of ♠ 22:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not the sharpest but wow! -- Thennicke (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support  ■ MMXX talk 14:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per King, fireworks pictures are difficult enough to do well that I am willing to forgive minor issues for one like this. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak Support Difficult subject,the crop is unfortunate. -- KTC (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Sunlight and shadows on white cotton curtain.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 21:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sunlight and shadows on white cotton curtain
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info So, either you are going to think that she has completely lost it or you are going to kick yourselves for not thinking of taking something as simple as this photo. ;) Either way, this playful interaction of shapes, soft sunlight and shadows makes me happy. All by me, -- cart-Talk 21:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- cart-Talk 21:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - After about a month of visiting FP candidates my pattern recognition system adapts to spotting 'cart'-pictures. Face-wink.svg This one reminds me of sitting as a kid in the kitchen, spoiling my time and watching the sun in the curtains ... --PtrQs (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It doesn't have a strong enough effect on me to support it as FP, I'm afraid. Part of that is the low contrast and not enough going on for me personally. – LucasT 11:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although shot in the afternoon, the bright color of the light and the curtain makes me think of morning, and my cue to finally get out of bed. The wow for me is in the texture. Daniel Case (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I respect the photo and the fact that you stuck your neck out to nominate it, but it's just not special enough for me to think it warrants being run on the front page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

File:DIG14022 017.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 16:26:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/DIG14022_017.jpg
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jay Godwin - uploaded by Blazoaustin - nominated by Mmxx --  ■ MMXX talk 16:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --  ■ MMXX talk 16:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Seems like a forced expression to me, so I don't find it an outstanding portrait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Flat lighting, weird angle, not a very flattering expression as noted above. Also, while correctable, the description should probably give some indication of who this individual is. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. The bokeh on the right is unflattering too. lNeverCry 22:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, but for me only a random "snapshot". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad crops on top and bottom and completely unhelpful filename (I have long been a fan of hers, but I had to look at the description to find out this was a picture of her). Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination  ■ MMXX talk 14:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Floribeth Mora Canonisation JXXIII J-PII (2).JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 11:39:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Floribeth Mora Diaz during the Canonization of Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Aleteia Image Department - uploaded by Storkk - nominated by Vanoot59 -- Vanoot59 (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Vanoot59 (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Personality rights needed IMHO Ezarateesteban 12:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The portrait is nice, but the background is distracting. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    • It would be great if one can manage to create a less distracting background. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Yann. lNeverCry 22:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm not bothered by the background ... if anything the space to the side makes us curious about what she's looking at. Daniel Case (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not outstanding --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Панорама на Гари 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 00:42:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of the village of Gari, Macedonia

File:Raven Rattle, late 19th Century Tlingit culture; Fort Wrangell, Alaska.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 22:10:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Raven rattle", a rattle used by the Tlingit people of indigenous people from Cascadia. This image is provided by the Bowers Museum.
@Colin: That is all valid criticism. Before you brought it up none of it crossed my mind. In response to your "What's the purpose" question: As an infrequent but repeat user of the Commons grading systems I often do not know which process to use. I came here to get some validation back to the museum that the Wikimedia community had some critique of their submission and also to get some approval of the image in case I distributed it around multiple articles. Overall, I am looking for some image grading to justify more-than-typical reuse of images, and am ambivalent about what form that should take. If an image is suggested to be integrated across languages, and in Wikidata, and elsewhere, then it seems right to me to submit it for grading somewhere. If anyone ever wanted to have talks about reforming the grading process then I might talk about that, because I would not have minded grading process that could have had any of a number of outcomes like "FP", "QI", "suitable for broad circulation in other wiki projects", etc. Right now it is still fairly novel for museums to make media donations, but as this trend steps up, I would like for there to be clearer guidance about what Wikipedians can do to mediate between museums and the Commons community. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no unitary grading system. VIC, QIC and FPC have different criteria. Also, QIs have to be photographed by Commons members, whereas VIs and FPs don't have to. Check the Commons category, but this would seem to be a good VI candidate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled what you were expecting from FP. It's a perfectly reasonable picture, albeit with quite a lot of room left round the subject, and could be used in articles related to the subject. That's not really what we are judging here. While we aim (albeit imperfectly) to determine professional standards of technical quality in an image, we're also looking for something extra that takes it to be among our finest images. We need to be wowed, either by an amazing subject captured well or a mundane subject captured extraordinarily, or by amazing light, or a great moment, etc etc. One could set up a table with an infinite sheet of grey card, some soft boxes and a DSLR and snap away taking perfectly competent photos all day. They could be very useful documents of the collection of the museum and perfectly usable images, but what is special about them? Also, this photo is five years old, so you are not really getting feedback about what sort of photos they should take -- the photographer who took this has probably moved on long ago. Personally, I wish QI was merely a judge of a "professional quality; useful image" and didn't care about the image origins or some of the pixel-peeping that goes on. We lack that kind of grade and it seems to me the most useful one for our re-users because they could eliminate the poor quality images that one would need to be desperate to use. Btw, "suitable for broad circulation in other wiki projects" is unlikely to be a grading criteria. Commons is about more than WMF projects or the concerns of a MediaWiki user interface. I see the Bowers museum has a mission to "enrich lives through the world's finest arts and cultures" and "celebrate world cultures through their arts". If they believe that extends beyond the visitors to their museum, then sharing their collection with the world using freely licensed photos is one way. While Commons doesn't provide a great UI for viewing a collection, it does make it easy to share those images and permit their reuse elsewhere. Surely they should be mainly concerned with taking and offering the best photos they can, rather than worry about the opinions of half a dozen amateurs or their use on Wikimedia projects? Any professional photographer of artefacts will likely give better advice than anyone here can. -- Colin (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Colin. A tighter crop might address some of those issues, but at the cost of making the picture too small to be nominated. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Colin – LucasT 19:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Dome of Cappella Paolina in Santa Maria Maggiore (Roma).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 19:35:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dome of Cappella Paolina in Santa Maria Maggiore (Roma)
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 04:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. We already had a similar candidate here which didn't pass. The main critizism there was that the WB was too cool. This picture here has the same issue. Besides that, I think this one lacks contrast and saturation. Additionally a geocode is missing and the description is far from being sufficient for FP. What do we see? Who painted the frescoes? When were they painted? I still don't get it why you never add an Italian description. You're a native speaker and a description in a second language could be very useful for a lot of users. Just placing one's camera on the floor and uploading the result to Commons is just not enough for FP in my opinion. --Code (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The WB,contrast and saturation are perfect. Geocode and the descripiption is the same of all my other FP however, I do not consider you an objective person as you know.Plus you are so offensive and naive that you think there isn't work behind? Only a camera on a tripod (on the floor probably put you) and that's it? But please be serious. So this discussion is useless as your comment,in my opinion. --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • LivioAndronico, you've been on good behavior (from what I've seen) since your return. Don't backslide and remember what happened before. Is this photo geocoded? Is there an Italian-language description? I see you didn't address those things. And the question of who painted the frescoes is one I've given up asking you but previously wanted to know. I'm tending to find Code's sober expression of opinion more persuasive than your hot dismissal of him. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: say:"Just placing one's camera on the floor and uploading the result to Commons is just not enough for FP in my opinion." it is definitely a nice way of saying something, but treated as a child, especially after more than 100 FP. If for you it is a way of making nice, then I apologize, but I do not consider this, you can ask the saturation, artist, etc., but they are all things that one can "fix". --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Livioandronico2013: I'm sorry if I was wrong regarding the efforts you have to make to create such photos. I'm honestly curious: What else do you do to make such photos of ceilings? I really want to know as I'm always willing to improve my own skills. Concerning WB and saturation I still believe that they are far from being perfect. I know this church very well and that's not what it looks like. But well, maybe you're trying an artistic approach, then it might just be a matter of taste. --Code (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Code:What a question is that? .... Then what do you do more than point a camera on any object? The same is that these kind of photos and that is: perspective, cuts, contrast, saturation, etc. Then if you believe that the saturation etc are not to your taste is ok, but it is not respectful to others, or are more ignorant of you? Also write "Just placing one's camera on the floor and uploading the result to Commons is just not enough for FP in my opinion." is a compliment in germany i think --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Another of these discussions which are leading to nowhere. So sad! --Code (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • if you had not insulted or making fun of other people it do not exist. And you would not be sad. --LivioAndronico (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hovewer ✓ Done Ikan Kekek --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

File:La Fornarina by Raffaello.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 19:33:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

La Fornarina by Raffaello

File:Southern Argentina and Chile.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 19:07:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Envisat image, dominated by southern Argentina
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Envisat satellite, European Space Agency - uploaded by Revent - nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 19:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ezarateesteban 19:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing to distinguish it from any other satellite photo. Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I agree. And very tight crop of the continent's east and west coasts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Daniel. As far as images of Earth from space go, this one isn't among the best; there's very little detail relative to how much terrain is included, and it seems badly oversharpened. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination three days without participation, three opposes, very few possibilities to success Ezarateesteban 12:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Камени гробници на необичните карпи на Маркови Кули.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 13:44:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stone tombs and a rock in the shape of lizard, Marko's Towers, Prilep, Macedonia
  • @Bluerasberry: Well, this stone formation is just one part of the place known as Markovi Kuli or Marko's Towers, which is an IUCN Category III natural monument and is listed on the tentative list of UNESCO world heritage sites.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Daniel. The stone formation is interesting, but there's nothing that stands out about the presentation. lNeverCry 04:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Mute swans (Cygnus olor) and cygnets.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2017 at 21:14:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A pair of mute swans (Cygnus olor22) and six cygnets
Striking support per concerns detailed below. When am I gonna learn to just wait for Colin to vote first? Face-wink.svg lNeverCry 04:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Nice picture. Can you identify the swan and the cob from sight? If so, please note in your file description which is which. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • female on the left (smaller) - I've added annotations. Charles (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love the contrast -- Thennicke (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lyrical. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Thennicke and Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per others, great contrast. – LucasT 08:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
after reading Colin's comments, I agree that the greyscale conversion is too far from reality for me as well, so I strike the support. – LucasT 21:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is one of those selective-colour black-and-white photos. Such processing must be documented on the image page per the criteria. Compare the original version, which has colour showing the brown feathers of the birds. I'd prefer if the colour version had this filename, and the B & W & orange version had a different filename, so that our users were clear they were choosing a processed "arty" photo and could still choose one that represents nature's colours. -- Colin (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Have added the retouched picture template to the file page. Didn't think it was needed for the editing I'd done. Colin is (understandably) mistaken as to the editing process. The original version I uploaded had brown feathers as a result of poor editing. As everyone knows, adult swans don't have brown feathers. I caused the grey by too aggressive reduction of blown highlights! Charles (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The requirements are that "extensive manipulations" "should be clearly described " using the template parameter. It isn't sufficient just to mark the image as "retouched". How am I "mistaken" when you say you did a "BW conversion of the background". Your explanation of the near global desaturation of the scene (including the birds but excluding the orange) due to "too aggressive reduction of blown highlights" isn't credible, and contradicted by your comment below. There are natural real-world midtone greens and browns that have vanished. The green pond water has miraculously turned into black ink. The cynets have lost their natural colour, and adult swans may be generally white but their head and neck are often dirty coloured (see also this and this). The head and neck of an adult swan is a warm white, whereas these look like they've been washed in Persil. I have never in my life seen greyscale swans. This is not the sort of honest photography we require at FPC. -- Colin (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose It has all the proper elements of a good photo, but yet the wow of it eludes me. There is a lack of spark in the photo and the black water looks more like mottled asphalt than a mysterious tern with white fluffy stuff. Perhaps it is the result of the partial BW conversion. Sorry. --cart-Talk 14:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I left in the mottled water as I felt that was a key part of the picture. It wasn't affected by the BW conversion of the background which purely eliminated the green sheen on the water which I didn't like. It is of course supposed to represent family harmony, so 'spark' isn't likely! Charles (talk)
  • To clarify, a 'spark', can also include the feeling of joy/content/bliss/tranquility that goes with family harmony. This just doesn't have that for me. --cart-Talk 15:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No idea what you've done but it looks good @W.carter:. If you would like to upload and replace, that would be great. Charles (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Really? What I did was I took the best of the "shades" from both the BW and the color version (since I didn't have the RAW), converted it (except for the beaks) to B&W. Then, as with all B&W conversions, you need much more "contrast", but not in the conventional sliding the lever thing, rather I upped all the highlights even more and darkened the shadows plus added extra light on some grey areas. Working with it I was thinking that I wanted the photo to look like the swans were floating free in a black starry sky. (Artsy bullshit, I know, but it sort of works.) Ok, I'll upload it over your version (scary!) but you can always revert. --cart-Talk 17:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Move my vote, since I like this version better. You may want to hear what the rest of the gang has to say. Cheers, --cart-Talk 17:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Your version is super! I love the bright white feathers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll take the pics. You edit them. Please........ ps do @Colin: @PtrQs: like what cart has done? Charles (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • So you wanna make my day-job my hobby too? Face-wink.svg --cart-Talk 23:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • For sure. Think of it as a public service. 19:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose As cart mentioned above, by BW conversion the shiny look of the feathers is gone. In color they look brown, but shimmering, whereas in BW the lack of color creates a dull grey. Maybe is is poosible to augment the brown part of the color spectrum (channel?) in the conversion a bit to preserve the nice shiny look? On the other side I feel some lack of balance, as the vertical center lies not on the 'family' but between the swans and their weaker mirrored pictures. This effect is stronger in the full screen view. --PtrQs (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support With cart's version both my concerns have vanished, as the current one even looks more balanced with the tighter crop --PtrQs (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I rather like a full color version. It also seems that the whites are blown out. Yann (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 21:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Famiglia Mancini, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2017 at 16:49:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Famiglia Mancini, São Paulo, Brazil
I rollbacked the noise reduction, let me know if it is more sharpen for you :) --The Photographer 17:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Much more uniform now. Before, there were places that were noisy and/or unsharp. Now, it's all noisy. :-) It's quite an interesting photo, though. I'll live with it and see how I react to it later. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I might've liked to have seen the full fountain, but visually striking and very colorful nonetheless. lNeverCry 18:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, do you have a picture with the full fountain? It looks a bit odd Charles (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Charles and Ikan Kekek --The Photographer 18:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ordinarily I might find this cluttered, but in this case I love the contrasting warm and cool colors. I will also forgive the noise because if it took ISO 4000 to make this work, that's what it took. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely clutter! So this is what your new camera can do. :) You are off to a good start. --cart-Talk 23:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
This camera is actually amazing, however, maybe this picture is not the better example (this picture was taken in low light conditions and without tripod). I was walking over the street and I saw that beautiful shoot in a restaurant. There are some things I still can not understand in the camera, however, I'm slowly learning. The camera is considerably lighter and its small appearance hides a great power. I must confess that I feel like an 8 year old boy receiving a gift --The Photographer 11:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too noisy, and the focus seems to be wrong, in the back wall, not in the middle, or in fountain, the framing is not good, the lack of the bottom of the fountain creates a weirdness, and you could go to 1/18 s hand-held with this lens... The method to sharping was not good, highly increased the noise in a very noisy picture. There is CR in the mirror, and other artifacts in almost all lamps. And in the edges have distortions referent to the 18mm lens. Most of it you can improve.
And this is a opinion, I would prefer a restaurant in service, crowd, with people, movement, especially a cantina.
Keep shooting. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 00:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Nice idea!, let me print 40 pages of forms to ask permission for each people in the restaurant --The Photographer 13:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Just like you request for the homeless? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support convincing and well executed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Reluctantly, now that composition is good - it's just too grainy (check out the table on the left). Charles (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Actually, I think you got the NR about right the first time (perhaps could go a little less) but removed too much of it now and so noise is quite visible without really gaining any sharpness or detail. While NR can removed detail, sometimes there just isn't any more to get, and I find the original sharp enough. Is there any chance to take a photo with a tripod? I'd prefer a version with more NR, closer to to your first version (though with the full fountain). But as a whole, the image is great. -- Colin (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear Colin, thanks for your noise critique. I asked permission to take a photograph, however, it was not allowed to use a tripod. I had only one opportunity to make this photo before the people arrived. BTW, I applied more NR, please, let me know what do you think. --The Photographer 13:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Generally the new version is a good balance between the original and the noisier one. For example, the striped shirt of the man in the mirror is better defined than the first version. However, the map seems to have lost some detail compared to other versions. It's not a big deal, but I know you like to get it right. -- Colin (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Excellent critique, let me see how improve it this weekend. I love your critiques (support or oppose) because you not only show me the problem, you are trying to explain me how fix it. Thanks a lot. --The Photographer 19:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Colin: I rollbacked to the first version adding the bottom (recomendation by Charlesjsharp) and sharpening (recomendation by Ikan Kekek) --The Photographer 16:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I think this is probably the best version, overall, but there are some disconcertingly smudgy areas on the fountain, and while the composition is definitely interesting, I'm not totally convinced by it. Therefore, I'm glad you took this photo, but I will remain neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - We can play NR/sharpening tug-of-war until the cows come home but on the whole, it's a fine image. I think this is one of those cases others have been talking about recently where you've missed the point if you're measuring noise at 100% magnification in a shadow in a corner. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Grainy --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --anghy (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much denoising and resharpening--Ermell (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:MD BOUALAM.South Mediterranean El-maghreb 16.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2017 at 11:38:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION