Commons:Kandidater till utvalda bilder

Kandidater till utvalda bilder på andra språk:

Det här är kandidater till att bli utvalda bilder.

För ett arkiv av tidigare nominerade se: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log

Det finns också en kronologisk lista av utvalda bilder.

Nominering[edit]

Om du tror att du har funnit eller skapat en bild som kan anses värdefull, lägg till den här nedan i sektionen för nomineringar, högst upp i listan, med hjälp av den här länken (Hjälp). För det behöver du inte ha en inloggning, även anonyma användare får nominera.

Men innan du nominerar, kolla upp så att bilden har lämplig bildbeskrivning och licens.

Omröstningsregler[edit]

Röstningen pågår i 9 dagar. På den 10:e dagen blir resultatet fastställt.
Om en bild efter 5 dagar inte fått någon mer positiv röst än från den som nominerade, så kan kandidaten tas bort ifrån sidan.
Nomineringar ifrån oinloggade bidragsgivare är välkomna
Bidrag ifrån oinloggade bidragsgivare till diskussionen är välkomna
Röstning från oinloggade bidragsgivare räknas inte
En nominering räknas inte som en röst, men den som nominerar får rösta

Den som nominerar en bild kan när som helst ta bort bilden ifrån omröstningen

En kandidat kommer att bli en utvald bild om följande krav uppfylls:

Lämplig licens (så klart)
Minst 7 stödjande röster
Förhållande mellan stödjande/motsättande röster på minst 2/1 (minst två tredjedels majoritet)
Två olika versioner av samma bild kan inte båda bli utvalda; endast den med högst antal stödjande röster blir utvald.

Röstning kan göras med "{{Support}}" (stöd) eller "{{Oppose}}" (ej stöd), neutralitet kan anges med "{{Neutral}}".

Ta bort utvald-status ifrån bilder[edit]

Efterhand kan standarden för utvalda bilder ändras. Bilder som tidigare var tillräckligt bra, kanske inte längre anses vara det. Här listas bilder som du tycker inte längre förtjänar att vara utvalda bilder. Då behövs 2/3 majoritet (och minst 7 röster) som håller med om att ta bort utvald-statusen ifrån bilden. Om inte 2/3 av de röstande håller med om att ta bort den, så är bilden fortsatt utvald. Här röstar man med {{Keep}} (bilden förtjänar att kvarstå som utvald) or {{Delist}} (bilden förtjänar inte att kvarstå som utvald). När du nominerar en bild här, ta med länken till den ursprungliga utvald-bild-nomineringen (den finns under Länkar på bildens beskrivningssida. Använd den här länken för att lägga till en borttags-kandidat.

Kandidater[edit]

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:Gobio (Gobius cruentatus), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2021-09-10, DD 62.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2022 at 21:27:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Gobiidae_(Gobies)
Info Red-mouthed goby (Gobius cruentatus), Arrábida Natural Park, Portugal. This species of goby is native to the Eastern Atlantic Ocean from southwestern Ireland to the coasts of Morocco and Senegal, and also in the Mediterranean Sea where it occurs in inshore waters at depths of from 15 to 40 metres (49 to 131 ft) in areas with rocky or sandy substrates or in meadows of sea-grass. Gobius cruentatus can reach a length of 18 centimetres (7.1 in) TL. It may also be found in the aquarium trade. Note: if successful it would be the first FP of the genus Gobius. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Children learning to play the local drum in northern Region of Ghana 03.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2022 at 20:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Musicians and singers performing
Info created and uploaded by Sir Amugi, nominated by Yann (talk)
Question Or the category should be Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Children?
Support -- Yann (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not seeing a personality rights template. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have added {{Personality rights}}. --Aristeas (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I’m not seeing (as the title suggests) "children learning to play the drum", I’m seeing one child holding one and others standing in the background unconnected. Well, that might be me, but it’s a bit misleading: a caption should not be necessary for understanding an image, putting it into context. Pushing this issue aside, next thing I see a cluttered and busy background, and the crop with the cut-off hand (and head, in the background) is really a bit unfortunate. Zooming in, the focus appears to be on the drum’s near edge, the face laughing so happily is considerably unsharp. Adding the blueish colours to that, while it’s certainly a nice and moodful image, I do not see one of our very very best ones here. --Kreuz schnabel 22:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically imperfect, but we have very few images on this subject. I'm already tired of seeing photos of outstanding buildings and giving less importance to places where there are no developed western things or where there is no means of buying super cameras to make perfect images. --Wilfredor (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having been twice to Ghana I sympathise with Wilfredo's comments, but the camera is good quality. However, 1/160 sec was not fast enough to ensure that the child's face is in focus (or the autofocus needs recalibation). The child's hand has also been cropped. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moroccan Berber.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2022 at 19:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing people
Info created and uploaded by Dieglop, nominated by Yann (talk)
Support -- Yann (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Площадь Тверская Застава (вид сверху).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2022 at 19:09:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Russia
Info A busy road intersection at Tverskaya Zastava Square in Moscow, Russia. Created by Mos.ru - uploaded by Александр Мотин - nominated by Александр Мотин -- Александр Мотин (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Александр Мотин (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special about this spot, image quality isn't satisfying. --A.Savin 20:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oxford Union Library.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2022 at 13:42:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#United_Kingdom
Info created by Mdbeckwith - uploaded by Mdbeckwith - nominated by Mdbeckwith -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image join errors (see note), and the composition makes the table look too prominent which detracts from the rest of the elements. It should be called "the Oxford library table" --Wilfredor (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the joining error going, fixed it to the best of my ability. Mdbeckwith (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thure de Thulstrup - Battle of Shiloh.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2022 at 20:23:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical#1850-1900
Info created by Thure de Thulstrup - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. I'll bet you were aiming for a July 4 nomination. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would've been nice, but there was no way I was doing this in a day, even with a head start. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent restauration, as always. --Aristeas (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done restoration work. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gebarsten bloemknop van een Kogellook (Allium sphaerocephalon) 15-05-2022. (d.j.b) 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2022 at 15:24:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Amaryllidaceae
Info Cracked flower bud of a Allium sphaerocephalon. Focus stack of 17 photos.}}
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not very sharp and the background is blotchy. I think the benchmark is higher than this. Compare the definition on George's Alceanomination and the shortcomings (probably of the camera) become obvious. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's not that bad, but imo this is a better version, but it needs some cloning and a bit less sharpening. --Ivar (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO it’s not unsharp, it has just not been oversharpened in post-processing. – However I would agree that the version mentioned by Ivar would be even better. --Aristeas (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:New Road Zanskar Sumdo Lahaul Oct20 D72 18201.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2022 at 11:18:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other
Info created and uploaded by Timothy Gonsalves - nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This scene could be an FP, but in this one the light is just too harsh. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a bad composition indeed, but the harsh light mentioned by Daniel spoils it, plus some overexposure leading to washed-out and blueish colours. This might be saved in postprocessing. After five minutes with the JPG in GIMP, I came up with this here (downscaled to ⅓ without losing much detail), but that work should be done from the raw file of course. Furthermore, there’s sharpness. The focus is on the very foreground, on the bottom edge (why?) which is clearly not a winning point, and defocused scenery cannot be sharpened by software. No, never. --Kreuz schnabel 17:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is someone trying to offer the other version as an alternate? I would vote for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don’t, at least not yet :) my suggestion is meant to be an example to outline what I meant by overexposure and washed-out colours. It has been done from the JPG as 2nd generation (so artifacts are building up) instead of the raw file, and considerably downscaled (to show the poor detail in the nomination – 24 mpix downscaled into 2⅔ mpix with no loss to speak of). If the raw file is still with us, I’d like to have a try on it, but it won’t help the sharpness issue. I would oppose as well I’m afraid. --Kreuz schnabel 19:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Perhaps @Tagooty: can help, since they took this picture. I do like the improved version, but the resolution is way too reduced (which, I understand, is because it’s only meant to demonstrate the desired improvements). UnpetitproleX (Talk) 20:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Kreuzschnabel, Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, and UnpetitproleX: Please review the improved version, with reduced exposure and other improvements. In this high altitude (12,000') semi-desert the mid-day light is naturally harsh. I find the scene is fairly sharp from the foreground to the distant ridgeline. --Tagooty (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please make sure there's only one image we can see; otherwise, I don't know what I'm supposed to judge. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tagooty: It is a little better, in that I don't reflexively squint when I look at it. But Kreuzchnabel did this by downsampling heavily, and that is generally met with disapproval here, as his comment indicates. I am not changing my !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Daniel Case and Ikan Kekek: Sorry for the confusion. I had uploaded a new version of the original image. To avoid confusion, I've modified Kreuzchnabel's comment to not display his image (his link is retained). Please click on the original image for the new version. --Tagooty (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tagooty (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Tagooty: In order to avoid confusion (we’re having votings on different images mixed up now), and to not meddle with others’ comments (which is not considered good practice here), it would be much wiser to withdraw this nomination and place a new one for the reworked image. And it would be still a bit wiser to upload the reworked image under a new name so the nomination subpages archived refer to their respective image versions in question. --Kreuz schnabel 07:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kreuzschnabel: My apologies for the modification to your comment. --Tagooty (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I’ll withdraw and renominate. There seems to be too much confusion. Though one thing someone more experienced should clarify to me: will the nomination be counted as a renomination (ie do I need to put a /2 in the nomination) and if so do I need to wait till this nomination is moved to the archives? UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info @UnpetitproleX: Once you add the withdraw template, the nomination will soon be closed and removed from the FPC page. After closure, renomination can be done with a /2 so the original nomination and its discussion is not disturbed. The reason for the renomination should be mentioned. --Tagooty (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 06:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 06:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:JudgeMagazine19May1894.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2022 at 06:32:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

1894 anti-Democratic political cartoon from Judge magazine

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Magazine_and_newspaper_illustrations_in_color
Info created by Judge [Bernhard Gilliam] - uploaded by PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC) - nominated by PDMagazineCoverUploading -- PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Slightly modified to remove the Google watermark.
Support -- Testing the waters to see if people think the Judge covers are high-quality enough for FP status. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technical quality is OK (though not astonishing), but the whole thing is kind of pointless as it is now. Political caricatures are unlike most other kinds of visual arts in that they not only benefit from but essentially require knowledge about their context. I don't expect the description to explain the whole situation to me (although that would be great). But it should at least tell me who these people are supposed to be and what the general context is. I shouldn't have to use Google to find out about the en:Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act. --El Grafo (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with this. A great image but not a huge photo, but regardless of whether it's nominated here or at COM:VIC, background information is needed in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be happier if it wasn't relatively low resolution, and had a more sensitive adjustment. It feels like autolevels. This is little more than a fat joke at Taft's expense, and I'd want to tweak the colours, but it's better reproduction quality. . Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This might also merit consideration. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basilique Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré, Quebéc, Canada 07.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2022 at 19:07:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Religion#Christianity
Info created by Marcus Dubois - uploaded by Wilfredor - nominated by Wilfredor -- Wilfredor (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alcea rosea 2022 G1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2022 at 18:53:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Malvaceae
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! --Yann (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not a fan of 'studio' black backgrounds, but this is extraordinarily well executed. Amazing quality considering the level of camera used. If this is a focus stack, please let us know the processing software George. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's not a focus stack, just one f/11 shot, the best in the series. The black background is the night sky. A flash with a white diffuser was used. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. So much better than some of our focus-stacked flower nominations. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lotje (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 20:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reflexos no Covão d'Ametade.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2022 at 08:49:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Portugal
Info created & uploaded by RaquelRosa7 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this really beautiful, a winterscape that nevertheless feels lush from all those twigs. The circle really makes the composition satisfying. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 23:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 'circle' is great, but not the trees in left foreground. Could remove red jacket/whatever? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:China-Schanghai-Jade Buddha-Temple-5176573.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2022 at 05:07:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing_people
Info created and uploaded by Ermell - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The concentration of the worshipper makes the photo special to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nom IamMM.--Ermell (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brahminy kite (Haliastur indus), Kuakata Eco-Park.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2022 at 01:19:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes
Info created by Md shahanshah bappy - uploaded by Md shahanshah bappy - nominated by আফতাবুজ্জামান -- আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really great light. It's a shame the wing does not fit into the frame -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Could be sharper, too, for FP - even birds in flight that we've been featuring recently are sharper than this. Lovely colors, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like the eagle and the light, but there are compression artefacts, especially in the bokeh. Also, I fully agree with Ikan Kekek and Basile Morin. -- Wolf im Wald 23:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop would be enough reason to oppose, plus quality issues. Though it really is a nice shot, it’s by no means up to our standards in birds. Please have a look at some recently featured ones in comparison. --Kreuz schnabel 17:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Салтыковский лесопарк 57.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2022 at 19:27:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants/Asterales
Info created by Ulaisaeva - uploaded by Ulaisaeva - nominated by Ulaisaeva -- Ulaisaeva (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ulaisaeva (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The depth of field is too shallow in my view, compared to the other pictures of flowers we usually promote. Metadata missing. The adding of a description in English would be good. And in all languages, the name of the flower clearly mentioned. The file name is very broad -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing excptional on this flowers image for the FP nominatiom, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Look at the fantastic focus-stacked flowers we've been featuring lately. That's part of your competition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Composition isn't bad but, as Ikan notes, we have a pretty high bar for flower photos. And, this one has that slight halo around the petals. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:2022-06-17 ALBA Berlin gegen FC Bayern München (Basketball-Bundesliga 2021-22) by Sandro Halank–068.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2022 at 17:37:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Other team sports
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Sandro Halank -- Sandro Halank (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sandro Halank (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exciting! You feel like you're right in front of them and they're coming toward you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very dynamic -- Karelj (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dynamic, but focus missed on man with the ball. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect, but a lot better than most ball-sports shots I've seen here ... yes, the ball is out of focus, but they're looking towards the camera and their expressions and poses are great. Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It would be even better when the focus was on the face of the person with the ball, but (see Daniel’s point) it’s an intriguing photo. --Aristeas (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palazzo Barberini May 2022-2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2022 at 15:20:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Italy
Info View through a window from the interior of Palazzo Barberini, Rome. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ok but not great, in my view. The silhouette of the structure is a geometric pattern that is very common in all big buildings of Europe. So what's through the window? Mainly a flat gradient of sky, and at the bottom an ordinary landscape. I miss the wow factor here -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing excptional on this window image for the FP nominatiom, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with the others, especially in regard to the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. The view is not spectacular enough to offset the frame. Daniel Case (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:S. Pietro May 2022-15.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2022 at 14:29:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Italy
Info Dome of St Peter's Cathedral, Vatican City, Rome. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful capture. -- Radomianin (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful composition, large file, but there is some color noise at full size. Is there anything you can do about that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info Yes, I could. But reducing color noise will also affect detail. What is the least of the evils? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but is either way an FP? That's the question we have to think about. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't study these ceiling images, but this looks soft. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Big pro: Normally we try to photograph such domes symetrically (looking exactly upwards); often this is not possible and a sloped view is all we can achieve, but most times the result is not appealing. You have managed to get a very attractive composition from the slightly sloped view – bravo! In addition the crepuscular rays (?) from the dome windows add a nice effect. – Neutral: Personally I would not mind the little noise: Given the resolution it is low, it is natural photon noise, and I like a little bit of noise much better than a mushy picture resulting from strong noise reduction. But you could try to increase the colour noise removal only (without increasing the monotone noise removal); this could give a cleaner result without reducing details. – Problems: The level of details could be higher; theoretically it should be possible to get more of the dome sharp at 24mm and f/8 (maybe the lens has got some field curvature which counteracts this?). I am not sure about the white balance and the colours – it seems too bluish/greenish. And it’s natural that some of the windows are blown, but nevertheless it would be better if the bars would be visible in all/most windows. --Aristeas (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Changed from neutral to WS after reading my own evaluation again. --Aristeas (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well executed, good time of day, focused and striking composition. Noise and sharpness could be improved with Topaz or other artificial intelligence tools that add false details, I prefer this type of noisy image because in the noise there is also important information that should not be removed or changed by details generated by an AI.--Wilfredor (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I don't know. The quality is barely OK. But I understand tripods are forbidden there (I photographed it myself, and it doesn't look good). The feature is the the light beam. I love them generally speaking, but I only wished this was going down rather than up. As it is, it's much less mystical. God reaches us, not some green guys in space. - 16:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Vote by User:Benh that forgot to sign --Wilfredor (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose: I like this photo, and it's a notable contribution, but is it truly exceptional? I have doubts about that, so I oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. -- Karelj (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas Cmao20 (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Benh. I know from experience what it's like trying to photograph this, albeit not with a sophisticated camera. The crepuscular rays make up for the background graininess. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Photography is more than just 100iso photographs with razor sharpness. Henri Cartier-Bresson's photographs were not razor sharp (very blurred) had high grain / high ISO. His photographs are lauded as masterpieces even to today due to subject matter and composition et al. In my humble opinion the architectural subject matter is exceptional including the capture of it in the photograph, it is a good piece of work. -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A great statement, but typical Henri Cartier-Bresson photos are not static architecture shots (like this one), so IMHO the comparison is not 100% accurate ;–). Most (all?) theories of photography which I know, also from Cartier-Bresson’s time, apply different criteria to reportage photography vs. architectural/landscape photography vs. fashion photography vs. wildlife photography vs. portrait … everything in its own respect. It is arguable if we should compare our photos here with the work of classic photographers; but when we do it, we should compare our pictures to photographs of the same genre. Therefore for a mostly documentary Italian church photo like this one, we could compare e.g. photographs by Fratelli Alinari and by countless hard-working self-employed photographers like Giorgio Sommer. (Please be aware that the scans of their photos which we have at Commons often do not do justice to the quality of the original photos; the original prints are often of much better quality.) The result is simple: Although these photographers had to take care of a tremendous technical effort, which we can’t even imagine thanks to our digital cameras, and always had to carry their heavy view cameras, they attached greatest importance to a technically best possible image. And if we want to compare somewhat newer and certainly artistic photographs, e.g. the work of Cartier-Bresson’s contemporary Andreas Feininger may offer nice comparisons. Feiniger has worked in many genres, from reportage to macro to architecture photography, but he always selected the best possible tools – a Leica or medium-format camera for the reportage, a view camera for landscape and cityscape. He even constructed his own special ultra-telephoto view camera because no available camera was good enough. When Feininger rushed up the stairs of a New York skyscraper to photograph a special, unrepeatable lighting mood, he did not take his Leica, he still carried the big view camera. If one wants even more famous names, we can think of Ansel Adams who climbed the mountains with the view camera … These stories humble me; they remind me, at least, that while I may and must make compromises (for example, when the tripod is forbidden), I should still do everything as carefully as possible to meet the requirements and ideals of the genre in question; and for architectural and landscape photography this means to strive for the best possible techical quality. --Aristeas (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elephant hawkmoth (Deilephila elpenor) male.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2022 at 08:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Sphingidae (Hawk Moths)
Info The UK's most colourful large moth. Focus stack of 26 images. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I saw this on QIC, I expected to see this excellent portrait here. Is its eye closed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and no. Moths don't have eyelids. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Consistent focus stacking, providing a high level of detail. Attractive colors. Still the light is a bit harsh, and the shadow unappealing -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ Beautiful subject, lovely colors, excellent level of detail and I don't really mind the shadows. But a few more frames would have been necessary to get the whole animal sharp: The edge of the front wing is very soft. It does seem to merge in with the background, which really messes with my depth perception. The repetitive wavy patterns in the background are weird too. Surely that must be an artifact of the stacking process - not necessarily the dark-bright-dark |||||-like pattern, but at least the vvvvv-like component on top of that? I'd be more lenient with a smaller subject, as I know optics can become quite tricky in the microscopic range, but judging this against other candidates in the 1:1-ish range, I'm tending towards opposing. Still on the edge, though, because it does have a lot of wow - might reconsider later ... --El Grafo (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually El Grafo the background is a comfy wicker chair! I had no time to move it out of the way as the moth moved. I had the camera's focus-bracketing image count set at 40. With a live animal in the open air, even that's a large number. I normally use 15 or 20. Would have needed around 70 to get nearest wing in focus, but only if I could have managed to get the camera to focus on the wing leading edge. For better or worse, I chose to focus on the front leg. Camera was on a monopod, braced against a wooden chair. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, thanks, that explains the pattern. Who would have thought! And if there's any part on that animal that can get away with being unsharp, it's exactly that wing. Oppose struck. I'll think about a support, but I'm not sure I can get over those waves. Knowing what they are helps, but I still find them distracting. --El Grafo (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very impressive. (IMHO the legs are a bit overexposed and oversharpened, but this does not make a difference because of the overall quality and effect.) --Aristeas (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile and Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice work and interesting subject, but the noisy background is a little bit distractiong IMO. -- Wolf im Wald 00:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I understand the constraints on taking the image, but that blurry foreground is still a little distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Basile, Daniel and Aristeas Poco a poco (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hochaltar der Pfarrkirche Pfarrwerfen[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2022 at 15:25:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Altar with open wings
Altar with closed wings

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
Info High altar at the parish church St. Cyriak in Pfarrwerfen, federal state of Salzburg, Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, allows to study the high altar in all details. – I wonder if it would be better to crop both photos in a similar manner to improve the set effect. But I support it in any case. --Aristeas (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does this qualify as a set with different altar decoration etc? Also, do we not need same PoV, perspective, lens, crop? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One remark from my side: The wings are closed during Lent, and then opened from Easter on for the rest of the year. The decoration of the altar is also according to this (e.g. purple color during Lent). Uoaei1 (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. If you feel inclined, you could further increase the value of these photos by describing all the scenes in your file descriptions. I was able to identify most of them, but that's because I've learned about them by viewing many depictions in Europe and wanting to know what I was looking at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ikan Kekek, thanks for your hint. There are individual images for each scene available, and I have put them as annotations together with the description. Uoaei1 (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's wonderful! Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to thank you, too! Now this is one of the (or just: the) best-explained altarpiece photo we have on Commons. --Aristeas (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the panels now has an early depiction of Speedos! ps I think the 'wings' are known as door panels in English. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality is good but since the topic is more the panels paintings than the stainglasses, maybe the framing can be tighter and more focused on the former. I would also try to keep the same framing on a set, even if it's at the cost of some wasted space on the closed panels version. - Benh (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:বাংলাদেশের অপরূপ রূপ.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2022 at 15:21:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Bangladesh
Info created and uploaded by Sultan Ahmed Niloy - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 17:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful composition with color noise that feels like grain to me. What accounts for the unusual brown/green color in the sky? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly something going on in the atmosphere. Warm early morning light hitting misty air could explain the orange/brownish component. Depending on geography, it could also be smog or a sand storm. If the camera is expecting something else and tries to compensate (EXIF says white balance was set to auto), I suppose that might lead to the slight green-ish tint? --El Grafo (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of a sandstorm. It would be great to hear from the photographer. It's unfortunate that he hasn't been here since November, 2020. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ezarateesteban 23:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The power cables are unfortunate. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose. I don't mind the power lines, and I love the mood, but the graininess and color noise are incompatible with FP status. Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Daniel Case Cmao20 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:491 BC - 1902 AD - A Long Time Between Drinks.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2022 at 10:07:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Magazine_and_newspaper_illustrations_in_color
Info created by Puck [Samuel D. Ehrhart] - uploaded by Cplakidas - nominated by PDMagazineCoverUploading -- PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- No, Joseph Keppler isn't paying me from beyond the grave to preserve his magazine's legacy. There just happens to be a dearth of featured pictures in the "Magazine and newspaper illustrations in color" category and a whole lot of high-quality Puck covers that have gone unnoticed for years! PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Should this be restored Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As per usual with the Puck covers I think it's already FP quality as-is, but I will support delisting & replacing if a restoration is done. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Happy to support on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Funny and acceptable quality. It will be even better with restoration, maybe Adam Cuerden can help with this. -- IamMM (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can work to the schedule of an FP nomination. PDMCU says they're fine with D&Rs, so I'll try to get to them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

h Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this needs more context in the description to be appreciated. How was the relationship between the two countries at the time this came out? Does this refer to any event in particular? It's not as bad as with the Judge cover, but it's still quite superficial. --El Grafo (talk) 07:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El Grafo: I expanded the description a bit (based on Business Insider). The years mentioned in the Business Insider article are not the same as the years mentioned in the source of the image and should be compared with reliable historical sources to reach verifiable information. IamMM (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@IamMM Thank you, now I can finally appreciate this. What you wrote seems to be in line with en:Greco-Persian Wars, but a general in the 5th century BC would have been fine for me as well. El Grafo (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support especially thanks to IamMM’s expanded description. --Aristeas (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Striped albatross (Appias olferna olferna) female underside with shield bug.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2022 at 09:01:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Pieridae (Whites and Sulphurs)
Info One FP of this genus. Focus stack of four images. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Two insects for the price of one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way the curves of the leaves complement those on the butterfly's wings. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diprion similis larva[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2022 at 06:59:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Side view
Top view

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Family_:_Diprionidae_(Conifer_sawflies)
Info Larva body length 29 mm. All by Ivar (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think they should be to scale. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and roughly they are, full reso at same body length. --Ivar (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. The way they are presented at FPC makes them look different sizes. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful and impressive. (At the first glance it may not seem as extremely sharp as some recent FPs of insects, but considering the small size of the larva and that Ivar has not applied strong sharpening etc. in post the quality is IHMO very very good.) --Aristeas (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. The more impressive picture on the left, in particular, is quite sharp at 60%, which is still quite big. I'd suggest cropping the top view just a little more on the left, so that the things coming from the stems are fully instead of partially cropped, and it would be fine to make an equivalent crop on the right side so as not to disturb the ratio of distances between the larva and the sides of the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment tried the top view crop, but the result is imo not convincing (it gets too narrow). --Ivar (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I support either way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- IamMM (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically well done, and educative -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neillia affinis, trosspirea. 23-05-2022 (actm.).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2022 at 15:29:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Rosaceae
Info Flowers of a Neillia affinis. Focus stack of 36 photos.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've marked a few stacking errors. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question In light of these stacking errors is there any way to fix them? Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info I like the red of the flowers and the blur of the back leaf, wonderful work that doesn't need to be re-stacked. All it takes is a detailed retouching to make the photo perfect. I have added a few more notations on the nomination page, or rather supplemented. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Correction and sophistication. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you very much for your new editing which made the picture perfect. In addition, the gentle darkening of the background creates a brighter, even more pleasing red of the sepals. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful and impressive. (Maybe there are still some minor traces of halos in the background, but the flower itself is very good now.) --Aristeas (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think this can be rescued. Will reconsider if new stack uploaded. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New version uploaded The traces of halos on the left side I have removed as well as possible and uploaded the photo in agreement with the photographer. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Radomianin! Now all traces of halos which I have mentioned above have been fixed. --Aristeas (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading an improved version of my photo!--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment improved, but one error is still bothering me (note name: stacking/cloning error). Part of the petal is cloned out, but should be visible. --Ivar (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you very much for your note, Ivar. I have carefully reinserted the blurred petal detail from the first file version at the xy coordinates (3400,870). Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support All that work was worth it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I really enjoy your work, Agnes! But I can't support until the stacking errors are fixed. Please see my image note in the right center of the picture. -- Wolf im Wald 00:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you very much for pointing out this stacking error, Wolf im Wald. I have removed this halo at the xy coordinates (3000,1400) as well as I could. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support some small issues remain, but overall is imo good enough now. --Ivar (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think, the current version is okay enough. -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Dear reviewers @Agnes Monkelbaan, Charlesjsharp, Urban Versis 32, Aristeas, Ikan Kekek, Iifar, Daniel Case, Der Wolf im Wald, Florstein, and GRDN711: The remaining halo issues, mentioned by Ivar, didn't leave me in peace after my workday was over, so I retouched the file again – for the last time. In at least 15 positions I have carefully removed small and larger halo fragments. I'm sorry for the conscientious pinging. I could have done all the retouching work at once but I just didn't have enough time before. Best wishes :) -- Radomianin (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure what you've done but the background is really blotchy; definitely still an oppose from me. Compare this with George's Alcea Rosea nomination and the quality difference is massive. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your comment. If you compare the first version directly with the last version, you can see the differences. The extensive retouching was mostly limited to the halos (stacking errors) around the petals. The artificial background I did not edit. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support The green leaf in the background is a bit unpleasant to me, but overall worthy of FP status. -- IamMM (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 22:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per IamMM -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunrise in Shkorpilovtsi, Bulgaria 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2022 at 15:11:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Bulgaria
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I love the setting sun, but is very grainy at pixel level. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The leading lines of the pier converge so slowly that they meet at a point outside of the right edge of the frame, giving the composition an unsettling look. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO a photo like this one is all about the atmosphere, the soft colours and the shadows, and for me it works well – it’s an impressive melancholic seascape. Regarding the composition I agree that a shorter focal length would have given faster converging lines and therefore a bit more depth and dramatic; but because it’s a quite, melancholic photo I can easily do without dramatic here. --Aristeas (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ezarateesteban 23:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The structure is boring in my view. Not special, nor particularly interesting. Straight architecture. The sky is flat. Not clouds, no texture. The colors are not exceptional. The sand of the foreground, in the darkness, is unappealing. Overall I see a few ordinary silhouettes in an environment with dull gradients of colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the subtleties and shapes in this photo more than Basile does, but I don't see a great composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm glad to see a nominee here from Bulgaria, as my son was born there and we don't really have enough FPs from that country, but this is not going to be one. It's not the composition I mind ... it's a great mood and would be vastly improved by cropping out most of the beach. But technically it is far below FP standard—I would not even have promoted it at QIC. At full-res the pier shows signs of oversharpening, and the magenta CA on the sun is inexcusable in an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas Cmao20 (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fábio Maldonado 2022.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2022 at 21:42:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info The athlete was aware that he was being photographed for Wikipedia) / created by JukoFF - uploaded by JukoFF - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support SVeach94 (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality, sorry. While it’s funny you cannot unsee it’s a phonecam shot, with its heavy noise reduction and loss of detail. Nothing is really sharp, the face is in focus but motion-blurred. --Kreuz schnabel 07:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But probably theoretically, in good light, a photo from a phone can be a "Featured picture", don't you think? JukoFF (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure that’s possible, yet I think this one isn’t. --Kreuz schnabel 13:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Heterogeneous background at the upper right corner. Is it the same guy on the t-shirt? Category:Recursion could be used, and the description mention it (see self-reference on Wikipedia). -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category added. Thanks for the tip! JukoFF (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per others above. Yann (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On a positive note, the phone camera does have one thing speaking for it. The wide angle lens exaggerates the size of the close fist in relation to the further away head. Normally you wouldn't want that in a portrait, but it makes a lot of sense here. --El Grafo (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coral (Dipsastraea favus), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-28, DD 105.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2022 at 13:31:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Anthozoa
Info Stony coral (Dipsastraea favus), Red Sea, Ras Muhammad National Park, Egypt. If successful it would be the first FP of the family Merulinidae. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice image. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral not a perfect DOF this time, closest parts are oof. --Ivar (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp and detailed enough for me to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good but far from outstanding in my view. Same criticism as my other reviews on similar subjects : simple composition with centered subject. Also like a few of your underwater pics I have reviewe, focus is off and this leads me to think your lens suffers from a backfocus issue. I don't think you can dive, photograph all corals you can and submit them all here. You ought to make some filtering beforehand on your side. - Benh (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benh, Aristeas To my defense I can say that after having dived in the Red Sea 13 times I've only seen this coral once. Furthermore I find the composition not bad at all. Image the coral reefs like a kind of part lot with tons of cars closed to each other, this coral is standalone and I used a side lighting to show its nice texture. --Poco a poco (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support What are you using to take these high quality underwater shots? --SHB2000 (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SHB2000 you can look up the camera an lens in the EXIF data, otherwise I use this case and lighting (13000 lumen). Poco a poco (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- IamMM (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not as perfect as some of your other new underwater shots, but still impressive. --Aristeas (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The focus here is a little too far back. Not quite as good as the others.--Ermell (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Petite Venise depuis le pont de la rue de Turenne (Colmar) (19).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2022 at 06:48:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#France
Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 06:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 06:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like everything about the image except for the leaves and other things in the water, but that can't really be helped. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What I don’t like in the first place is the overexposed cut-off building to the right. Then, it’s the framing. Obviously the photographer was in for the reflection but that don’t really work here, it’s a bit too cluttered overall, and so the portrait orientation looks odd. I’d much prefer a square crop as suggested on the nomination page, and with the camera shifted a bit to the left, the building on the right could be entirely outside the frame. That would give a very much clearer composition. As it is, it’s a bit arbitrary with the cut-off houses on both sides. Besides, it would eliminate "the leaves and other things in the water". --Kreuz schnabel 20:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The alternative composition suggested by Kreuz would be excellent and I would suggest (if you, Gzen92, can visit beautiful Colmar again) to try it. But IMHO this does not mean that the composition of the present photo is bad; it is a nice vanishing-point view; I would just crop a little (!) bit at the top and bottom. However the overexposed façades are IMHO a problem. Most digital cameras which I know tend to overexpose the highlights in such a situation (the manufacturers seem to adhere to some outdated ideas about “getting the midtones right”); often it is necessary to underexpose such a scene a bit (maybe by 2/3 steps) in order to preserve the highlights, and then to make the photo brighter again (preserving the highlights) in post-processing. Of course this approach can be difficult with JPEG images, it works better when you take photos in the raw image format. Another problem is the white balance; this could be improved a bit in post, too, especially when working with a raw image file, but it may be even better to take such photos in another season – midday light in June makes such photos often a bit unappealing, the sun is just too high (which results in overexposed bright areas and black shadows) and the light too cold. No offence, just some remarks which I hope to be helpful. --Aristeas (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I'd support the crop ... as it is I find the debris floating in the water at the foreground to be somewhat off-putting, and the crop gets rid of most of it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thoughtful composition but doesn't really work for me. It feels tense in the middle and nothing much is happening in the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful photo but the light feels a little pale and washed-out for me, and I'm not 100% convinced by the composition per Ikan Cmao20 (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:SNCF B 81500 Embrun - Montdauphin-Guillestre.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2022 at 18:59:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Hautes-Alpes
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler – nominated by Ivar (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The train (with six engines?) is small but it's an attractive scene. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of those photos with which I want to decorate a wall in my bedroom. Amazing view. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view where the train is of course a main element, giving life to the landscape -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful landscape image. Have tried to add some categories for the landscape; further improvements are very welcome ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking composition and colours. --Tagooty (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to dissent. The train is only so big here, and the landscape itself is not extraordinary, with a very uniform light (which I usually forgive because of the otherwise excellent timing) and I think I could be taken at a better time of the year. I'd like either more snow or more leaves, but not patches of snow and bare trees. - Benh (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very attractive! --SHB2000 (talk)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much unsharpness. And you don't see the train until you look closely or at full size. Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, in part per Daniel and Benh. Beautiful scene but not as sharp as usual and the composition is fine but not exceptional to me. The size of the train relative to the picture frame doesn't matter to me, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Good, but not outstanding for me. --El Grafo (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Istanbul asv2021-11 img68 Aynalıkavak Pavilion.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2022 at 22:36:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Windows
Info Window detail of the Aynalıkavak Pavilion, Hasköy / Istanbul, all by me --A.Savin 22:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 22:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support You really have to ask yourself where painting ends and the real window begins. --Aristeas (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per others but it's a little bright. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very good quality image, but I don't find it exceptional. --Tagooty (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice... --SHB2000 (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tagooty. -- Karelj (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A little noisy and could be more in focus, but still gets over the line for me. Daniel Case (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tagooty. --GRDN711 (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The door looks noisy. DoF issue? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Tagooty -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tagooty. --El Grafo (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]