Commons:Featured picture candidates

Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election.

Skip to: Add a nomination Guidelines for evaluating photographs Current candidates Delisting a featured picture Current delisting candidates Rules Contents

Formal things Nominating Guidelines for nominators Please read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates: Licensing - Images licensed with solely "GFDL" or "GFDL and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses. Resolution – Images (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'. Note that a 1600 × 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level. A 1920 × 1080 image, commonly known as Full HD, has 2.07 Mpx, just more than the 2 million level. Graphics on Commons are not only viewed on conventional computer screens. They may be used in high-resolution print versions, and the images may be cropped to focus on portions of the image. See Commons:Why we need high resolution media for more information. Scans – While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on the preparation of various types of images that may be useful. General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality. Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive. For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. For historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful colour adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change. Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison. Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that: almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others, night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime, beautiful does not always mean valuable. Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolours, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution—for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable: Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy. Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are nonetheless wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art. Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents – which may not be at all artistic – nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject. Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects, for instance, illustrations of books, scientific subjects, or technical processes. The amount of artistic merit required for these will vary by subject, but, for instance, an illustration that makes the working of a complicated piece of machinery very clear need not be notable as a piece of artwork as well, whereas an illustration for a book might well be expected to reach much higher artistic standards. Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file hosting page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." Photographs On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field. Focus – every important object in the picture should normally be sharp. Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Digital cameras (or images) have a narrower latitude than film. Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element. Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The "Rule of Thirds" is a good guideline for composition and is an inheritance from the painting school. The idea is to divide the image with two imaginary horizontal and two vertical lines, thus dividing the image into thirds horizontally and vertically. Centering the subject is often less interesting than placing the subject in one of the "interest points", the 4 intersection between these horizontal and vertical lines intersect. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they "cut" the image in half. The upper or lower horizontal line is often a good choice. The main idea is to use space to create a dynamic image. Foreground and background – foreground and background objects may be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head). Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better than the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the "unnatural" nature of the pose would be a good photograph. Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or subtract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and vice versa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF. On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, colour, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc. Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects. Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is accomplished using side light. Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not the best light. It tends to flatten subject. Best light of day is early morning or late afternoon. Colour is important. Over saturated colours are not good. Texture refers to the quality of the surface of the subject. It is enhanced by side lighting… it is the "feel" to the touch. Perspective refers to the "angle" accompanied by lines that disappear into a vanishing point that may or may not be inside the image. Balance refers to the arrangement of subjects within the image that can either give equal weight or appear to be heavier on one side. Proportion refers to the relation of size of objects in picture. Generally, we tend to represent small objects small in relation to others, but a good technique is to represent small objects large contrary to natural size relationship. For example, a small flower is given preponderance over a large mountain…. This is called inversion of scales. Not all elements must be present. Some photographs can be judged on individual characteristics, that is, an image can be about color or texture, or colour AND texture, etc. Noise refers to unwanted corruption of colour brightness and quality and can be caused by underexposure. It is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition. Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph. Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations … You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audio Please see Commons:Featured media candidates for video guidelines. Set nominations If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types: Faithful digital reproductions of works notable in their own right, which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set. Examples: pages in a pamphlet, crops (puzzle pieces) of a prohibitively large scan, a pair of pendant paintings. Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist. A sequence of images showing the passage of time. They could depict frames of a moving/changing object or a static object during different times of day or different seasons. Examples: diagrams illustrating a process, steps of a dance, metamorphosis of an insect, maps/drawings/photos of the same subject over the years (frame of view should be more or less the same). A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints, preferably taken under the same lighting conditions when possible. Examples: Exterior and interior of a building, different facades of a building, different interior views, obverse and inverse of a banknote/coin. Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ, any images of fundamentally different scopes. A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object. Examples: Male and female versions of an animal (preferably in the same setting), all known species of a genus. Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats (unless they share a defining characteristic and represent all possible examples of that). Adding a new nomination If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2 All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination". Step 2: follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save that page. Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list: {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg}} Recommended: Please add a category from the list at COM:FP. Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify him/her using {{subst:FPC-notice|Your image filename.jpg}} -- ~~~~. Voting Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use following templates: {{Support}} ( Support), {{Oppose}} ( Oppose), {{Neutral}} ( Neutral), {{Comment}} ( Comment), {{Info}} ( Info), {{Question}} ( Question), {{Request}} ( Request). You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include: No reason "I don't like it" and other empty assessments "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidates Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote: Text to use Displays as Meaning {{Keep}}  Keep It deserves to remain a featured picture {{Delist}}  Delist It does not deserve to be a featured picture anymore. This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote: Text to use Displays as Meaning {{Keep}}  Keep Do not replace the old image with the new image as an FP. {{Delistandreplace}}  Delist and replace Replace the current FP with the proposed replacement. If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include: Information on the origin of the image (creator, uploader); A link to the original FP nomination (it will appear under "Links" on the image description page); Your reasons for nominating the image and your username. After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policy General rules The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination. After the end of this period the result will be determined. Votes added on day 10 and after are not counted. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated. Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the following template: {{withdraw}} ~~~~ Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5) Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator). Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.) Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added. Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied. Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum. Featuring and delisting rules A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions: Appropriate license (of course) At least seven  Support votes at the end of nine days Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support, as determined by the closer. Whenever the closer is not sure which version has consensus to be featured, he/she should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page. The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between the bot has counted the votes and before they are finally closed by the bot, this manual review can be done by any user that are familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be polite Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken. See also To edit the list of nominations go to: Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list For a chronological list, see Commons:Featured_pictures/chronological For an archive of previous nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished Basic list of photography-related terms Quality image candidates Valued image candidates Photo challenge Photography critiques Help:Scanning

Table of contents

List may contain works considered Not Safe for Work (nudity). Nominators are requested, out of courtesy, to include the {{Nsfw}} template with such images. Users may select the gadget in user preferences "Deferred display of images tagged with {{Nsfw}} on COM:FPC" to enable the template's effect of hiding the image until selected.

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

Featured picture candidates

File:NSB El 18 Hallingskeid - Finse.jpg

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 21:17:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:NSB El 18 Hallingskeid - Finse.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:NSB El 18 Hallingskeid - Finse.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
•  Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment This was a rather difficult shot to get. Apart from the good weather, which was just a lot of luck (and by "luck" I mean "LUCK!!!"), the location is hard to get to. It's inaccessible by car and the nearest train station is a one-hour hike away (which is a nuisance) and has very limited service (which is a problem). Our solution was to to rent two bikes at Finse and follow the Rallarvegen. My butt still hurt two days later, as I have not ridden a bike for like 10 years and the Rallarvegen is not in good condition in many places...
•  Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Chertkov Mansion, left wing, windows.jpg

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 20:25:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Chertkov Mansion, left wing, windows.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chertkov Mansion, left wing, windows.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info created by Dmitry Ivanov - uploaded by Dmitry Ivanov - nominated by Dmitry Ivanov -- Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Red admiral butterfly (Vanessa atalanta) underside 3.jpg

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 09:53:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Red admiral butterfly (Vanessa atalanta) underside 3.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Red admiral butterfly (Vanessa atalanta) underside 3.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
•  Info created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Charles (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Washed out details, especially on the red parts of the wing. Postprocessing has gone too far or the lens are not up to task? --Ivar (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I do hope you are not being serious. Please search the Internet for other images of the ventral side of this butterfly. Charles (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment How about this one: --Ivar (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment I rest my case. The colours on mine, including the 'red', are stronger. Charles (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Red channel blown; I think. White to on the extreme end. Jee 17:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
          •  Comment I concur, perhaps too much contrast was added in postprocessing? In that case it should be easy to fix. --Ivar (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Kalahari lion (Panthera leo) male 6y.jpg

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 09:55:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Kalahari lion (Panthera leo) male 6y.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kalahari lion (Panthera leo) male 6y.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
•  Info created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Charles (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Question Can you add some more exposure? --Ivar (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't understand your request. You want it darker or lighter? Charles (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Add exposure compensation. --Ivar (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Kloster St. Trudpert - Gesamtsicht1.jpg

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 05:59:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Kloster St. Trudpert - Gesamtsicht1.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kloster St. Trudpert - Gesamtsicht1.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Germany
•  Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment I detected some dust spots in the sky. For sure I'll erase them this evening. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  Erased now. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support First class. -- -donald- (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Beautiful landscape and excellent quality, but there is a rather noticeable halo between running the entire length of the border between the sky and the top of the mountain; did you make any unusual local contrast adjustments? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• No. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support INeverCry 08:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support a bit centered... otherwise just great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice landscape! --Ivar (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Would be better to remove the "UFO's" in the sky :-) --Laitche (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Question Color space in EXIF says: 'Uncalibrated'. Why? -- Slaunger (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Gastdozentenhaus Universität Stuttgart 2015 01.jpg

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2016 at 02:34:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Gastdozentenhaus Universität Stuttgart 2015 01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gastdozentenhaus Universität Stuttgart 2015 01.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info created by Julian Herzog - uploaded by Julian Herzog - nominated by Nikhil -- Nikhil (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Nikhil (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Very lovely, but a bit dark for me. @Julian Herzog: Do you think you could make it a bit brighter? For me +0.5 EV (with 10 highlight recovery to prevent blowing out) would be ideal. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll have to trust you on this one, I'm currently without a monitor that I would trust. I brightened it by about 0.4 EV, hopefully that's fine. Thanks Nikhil for the nomination. — Julian H.^✈ 03:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Code (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 08:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 09:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Ximonic (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Royal Albert Hall - Gallery View.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 22:36:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Albert Hall - Gallery View.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Albert Hall - Gallery View.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
•  Info A 225 megapixel panorama of the Royal Albert Hall from the gallery. Taken when the hall is open to visitors on the weekend of Open House London 2016. The large purple mushrooms / flying saucers are fibreglass acoustic diffusing discs, installed in 1969 to solve an echo problem. They are lit by an array of LED stage lights. The stage is empty and strangely grey compared to the colour surrounding it. If you have problems viewing this image in your browser, use the interactive large-image viewer, or one of the smaller downsized versions, all of which are linked from the file-description page. It's a 16:9 aspect ratio, so viewing fullscreen is best (Press F11 on Firefox). All by me. -- Colin (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Colin (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support New size standard and excellent sharpening. Colors a bit purple aura, however, it look like reals colors. Maybe my favorite picture this month on FPC. The composition look also excellent, however, I would like to see more in the bottom, what happend?. Anyway, congratulations for this contribution --The Photographer 22:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The purple colour is the result of the fairly monochromatic stage lights, which are a pain to photograph. Coloured stage lights are always artificial in their effect, but these LED ones seem especially unnatural. As for the bottom, well that's the lowest I've got. The balcony handrail prevents being able to see much more below and I wasn't prepared to dangle my camera over the edge to get a better view. -- Colin (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your explain --The Photographer 11:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support INeverCry 22:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support very nice, but who need this size of an image??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The other day Slaunger told me he was proud to see one of his large panoramas on display as a huge poster. The interactive viewer makes it possible to explore the scene, rather than just look at it at 1980x1024. I think this is a rich enough scene to reward exploring in detail. It also looks great on a 5K monitor ;-) -- Colin (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Absolutely flawless. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Great achievement! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent. --Code (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 09:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support stunning --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice. I guess a lot of effort has been put into this picture. --Ximonic (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Size, sharpness and colors are impressive. But that's not all. Cut and composition are unbalanced und suboptimal. A full spheric projektion from a more central shooting location would have been the better choice here. --Milseburg (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I have another panorama taken (but not yet processed) taken from a central box, lower down. I suspect it will have symmetry that is pleasing, but also contain a lot of the empty stage, which is less photogenic at this time. I felt this view showed more of the audience as well as the stage. While I won't argue about your opinion on the composition, I disagree that there is necessarily one best view -- a venue like this merits photographs from many locations A 360 projection like here would be wonderful but note that we were only given access on Open House day to a few boxes and to part of the gallery, neither of which are great for 360 views, and would be cluttered with fellow Open House visitors. Diliff told me has been trying for a long time to get photo access to the Albert Hall, and was not successful -- they are always busy setting up for performances and couldn't find a slot for him to be free to take photos. Category:Interior of the Royal Albert Hall shows this is not a frequently photographed venue, and most other photos are snapshots during a concert. -- Colin (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Laitche (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Technically excellent, but the colours are not typical of the Albert Hall in normal lighting. Charles (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Charles, as a concert venue, lit by whatever lighting the team wish to put on, I'm not sure what one would regard as "typical". See View from your seat and virtual tour for various examples (though since the JPGs on that site do not embed a colour profile, they appear way too saturated on my wide-gamut monitor with most browsers). Here's an example from Open House 2014 that has the discs coloured red. Here's one that is blue. Here's a single-shot photo take from a similar position with similar colours, though this time there's a red light on the roof and their saturation is higher. Do you have an example image that shows typical colours, or "normal lighting"? -- Colin (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment No I'm afraid not Colin, but I've been there 20+ times, hence my comment. The acoustic discs are off-white. Charles (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Charles, Ha! Yes I know what the colour of the discs are when there are no stage lights on ... because halfway through taking photos for this stitch, they turned off all the lights. Thinking my stitch was ruined, I held my breath for 90 seconds before they turned them all back on again. Whew! The unlit discs are like this photo. Not pretty, and probably would work better in a photo taken from lower down where the discs are not so prominent. I too have been to a classical concert, many many years ago, where the discs were not lit. But all the photos on the Albert Hall official site show them lit colourfully. This older classical concert photo shows the neutral lighting one might expect (though it doesn't include the discs, there's not purple in the gallery or on the organ), yet this recent classical concert photo shows the purple stage lights in the gallery and a purple organ, so I suspect would also have purple discs. A Google Image search for "Albert Hall Interior" has coloured discs vastly outnumbering unlit discs. So I disagree that there is "normal" lighting for the Albert Hall, which hosts many concerts and events with differing requirements for light, and suspect that un-coloured discs are now actually the minority situation, rather than "normal". -- Colin (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Wow! A very hard to get to subject. Well done, excellent technique, very pleasing composition, very high detail level. Valuable. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I love the colors ... slightly surreal, perhaps, but they add interest. And they make those accoustic discs look like what I thought them to be at first ... some way of trying to figure out how many holes it takes to fill the building (Sorry; you knoew someone was going to try that one ). Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Kolvitsa river.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 21:16:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Kolvitsa river.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kolvitsa river.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
•  Info created by Dmottl - uploaded by Dmottl - nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Large blown and posterized areas. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 21:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose sorry, but another overexposed average sunset image. Nice, but not FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose The blown sun, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Langkofelhütte Gherdeina.JPG

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 19:42:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Langkofelhütte Gherdeina.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Langkofelhütte Gherdeina.JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
•  Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Poor lighting; the sun seems to be right above the subject. Unfortunately this leads to dull colors. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd like you to pay a visit here. I'd be more than happy and honoured to give you hospitality--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per KoH. INeverCry 20:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose no FP because the mountains are unsharp = false focus point!?! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I disagree both with KoH and Alchemist-hp. I find the place very beautiful, the composition good, and the picture more than good in general.--Jebulon (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support per Jebulon. It seems excessive to require mountains to be totally sharp when they're in the background or at least middleground. I think they're sufficiently clear to make sense in this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• Regretful  Oppose - beautiful scenery, but not sharp enough --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry. Very striking perspective to the mountains but at first I though the lighting is somewhat bland. I think there has happened a little focus error. --Ximonic (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Has an embedded AdobeRGB color profile. Some popular web browsers ignore embedded color profiles, meaning users of those browsers see the wrong colors for this image. For web use the recommended color space is sRGB. An AdobeRGB version is OK as an alternative as it may be slight better suited for making prints. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• (Edit conflict) Deeply regretful oppose As much as I love Wolfgang's images of the Italian Alps, and really thought he had nailed it in entirely new ways with this one, the opposes are right: the summits are far too unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, California LCCN2013633353.tif

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 17:41:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, California LCCN2013633353.tif Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, California LCCN2013633353.tif

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info created by Carol M. Highsmith - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support This photograph is part of a batch upload project from the Highsmith collection at the Library of Congress. Motivated by the lawsuit against Getty Images, see Village Pump archive. As the TIFF is a large download, over 100 MB, the Commons full size jpeg version is a useful alternative to view. -- Fæ (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 20:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 09:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --The Photographer 11:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral Good composition (but disturbing lower left corner), poor choice of aperture and lens. Yes I know, its a professional photographer but f/5.6 and a zoom lens is obviously not optimal. The quality (photo and camera from 2012) and depth of field s not impressive, not very high wow imo. --ArildV (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Cabo de Gata, Andalusia, Spain.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 17:26:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Cabo de Gata, Andalusia, Spain.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cabo de Gata, Andalusia, Spain.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
•  Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Cabo de Gata, a natural mediterranean site near Almería, Andalusia, Spain.-- Jebulon (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow, rather dull light and boring "mediterranean" architecture, sorry--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Paw. aaaargh. I'm dead. Please call an ambulance (or the coroner, better).🤕🔫--Jebulon (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Is it really necessary to make fun of a serious comment? Wladyslaw (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Nothing is really necessary. Nor participating, Neither useless comments, neither lessons. Sadly. Only fun is necessary. Always.--Jebulon (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment I know, this is the way to kill candidates ;-) but, it's unfortunately (for you) the way I feel about your picture. Salue --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment Salut ! Happy to see you understand what I mean. It is not the case for everyone here, as I can see... Well nothing "unfortunate for me", just a nomination of a picture in FPC. Nothing serious, then. Thanks for comment and vote, caro amico.--Jebulon (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I'd like to see some clouds, but otherwise I like how the shapes work together. Any other composition would've thrown it out of balance. INeverCry 08:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Moroder --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Wakefield Cathedral Choir, West Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 13:29:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Wakefield Cathedral Choir, West Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wakefield Cathedral Choir, West Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
•  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kasir (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• Weak  Support Nice image, good composition. Looks like perspective problems at the top. Lights at the windows (and background) may be a bit overexposed.--XRay ^talk 15:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Laitche (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 20:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• Moderate  Support per XRay. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Is there somewhere I (and probably the many others who might like to do this) could just go and say "our signatures on this page constitute a support !vote for all of David Iliff's tonemapped images of church interiors; should we want to !vote otherwise we will make that clear on the FPC page"? But then again I often leave comments with those support !votes. Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 08:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Ximonic (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Boeing 737 ES-ENH Madeira Funchal airport 2016 3.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 10:53:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Boeing 737 ES-ENH Madeira Funchal airport 2016 3.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Boeing 737 ES-ENH Madeira Funchal airport 2016 3.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Karelj (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Small resolution, empty space at the bottom. The background is disturbing. I would expect more panning, may be better with 1/100 s instead of 1/200 s. --XRay ^talk 15:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per XRay, Nice photo but not an FP imho. --Laitche (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per XRay. INeverCry 20:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose bad crop, distracting background. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Alchemist-hp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination I withdraw my nomination: --Karelj (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:On the balcony, Paris August 2016.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 09:19:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:On the balcony, Paris August 2016.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:On the balcony, Paris August 2016.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
•  Info created by besopha (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose as it is now. The perspective is a bit distorted and a bit at the bottom could be cropped off for a cleaner and more balanced photo. cart-Talk 10:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Done. Thank Carter!--Paris 16 (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Perspective is fine now, thank you :), but I'm still bothered by the 3/4 "main" down left. IMO cropping away that (see note) would also result in a cleaner pic (the pic would depict exactly two floors), but other users may have another opinion. Let's wait and see. cart-Talk 12:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Just as a Parisian, for reviewers: it is really typically parisian. For the rest I agree with cart.--Jebulon (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yes I know, I've been there many times and I love it. :D cart-Talk 17:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose - This is a nice, pleasant picture and I like it, but I don't find it special enough for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose A very Parisian image, as Jebulon says, and one I would expect to see in a decent magazine article or travel guidebook perhaps. But, that said ... per Ikan it doesn't work as a featurable image. There's too much going on. I do think that the photographer is on to something, and that an FP in this vein might yet be produced. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others. INeverCry 08:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Westminster London June 2016 panorama 2.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 06:18:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Westminster London June 2016 panorama 2.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Westminster London June 2016 panorama 2.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
•  Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 07:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Technically perfect as always and kudos for getting up that early to get this place without any people, I bet it's packed a little while later, but the light is too dull in most of the picture and it does not give me a wow factor. One of those moments where it probably felt magical to be there but it doesn't quite translate to the photo. Sorry. cart-Talk 10:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per cart about the light, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support nice for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose - This doesn't quite make it for me because of a combination of the light and its not being as sharp as I'd like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per W.carter; an excellent job getting us there but not much there to get to. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Lifebelt on a small fishing boat.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2016 at 22:31:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Lifebelt on a small fishing boat.jpg/2 Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lifebelt on a small fishing boat.jpg/2

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Boats
•  Info So, here is the new tweaked version of this picture. (Hope I did the nom right with all the formal things.) As I've said before at QIC, I sometimes think I'm partially blind when it comes to my own pictures. I miss things that I easily see in other users' pictures. So those second pairs of eyes this site provides are invaluable, this time it was Daniel who gave me a push in the right direction. And since it was he who did it, I got the idea for a square crop instead. :) Don't know if it is perfect, but I think it is far better than before. All by me, -- cart-Talk 22:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- cart-Talk 22:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose - This doesn't quite work for me as a FP. The vertical vs. diagonal is interesting but makes me feel a little off balance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support since it's pretty much what I suggested. Daniel Case (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose In the original, the railing looks like you could lean on it; now it looks like you might have to climb it. I like the idea, but the proportion of the railing is off now. INeverCry 07:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose random crop and no wow for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Honestly, you really call a crop "random" when several lines end perfectly at the picure's borders in carefully chosen spots? I wouldn't mind if you call it "bad" but I don't think "random" is the right word here. cart-Talk 15:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• I wrote: "random crop for me". So it is. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Sunset at old Rixö quarry.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2016 at 20:49:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset at old Rixö quarry.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset at old Rixö quarry.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Sweden
•  Info All by me, -- cart-Talk 20:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- cart-Talk 20:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose The edges look a little overprocessed or something, and the composition isn't striking enough. Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• That would be the "or something". Only thing I've done with this is to denoise the sky, the rest is untouched. cart-Talk 20:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per Daniel. I bet there's an FP composition there if you could nail it down though. INeverCry
•  Oppose some soft and unsharp areas, otherwise nice. Technicaly not ok for me. Did you try a focus stack of 2-4 images for this kind of shoots? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• No, this was just one picture. I'm not that familiar with focus stacking yet and I don't have any program for it, so for the time being I mostly point and shoot. I have pieced together a couple of panoramas manually but that's all. I got some good response on this photo from others so I thought I'd give it a try here. Still learning the more intricate and sophisticated ways of manipulating a picture that are used on this site, this is more of a light hobby for me. I carry a camera at all times and shoot things I find interesting as I stumble upon them. In my job I assess other photographer's photos, but actually taking the photos myself on a professional level is still fairly new to me and it's a whole other ball game. But I'm learning. :) cart-Talk 21:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:El Paraíso tunnel main gate of Caracas.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2016 at 19:03:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:El Paraíso tunnel main gate of Caracas.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:El Paraíso tunnel main gate of Caracas.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Venezuela
•  Info All by -- The Photographer 19:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I like this much better than the other one that was featured a while back—the light's better, the centered point of view is more striking, and the picture as a whole makes it point much better. Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, however the other one has more merit IMHO, because @Rjcastillo: risked his life (leave the car to take a picture in the most dangerous city in the world[1]) --The Photographer 16:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support per Daniel. The quality is very good considering you were on the road. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 07:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support per below. Great colors, they look almost poserized until you open the pic and see that they are actually true. cart-Talk 10:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Kasir (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing new and no change since this 2014 failed nomination under another name.--Jebulon (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not think it has been a bad nomination as the result of positive votes was 4 times higher than the negative. On the other hand, your comment on "under another name", makes me feel bad like I was hiding something that is quite public in the description of the image and I can't understand how you are able to see this other nomination but you are not able to view the file history of changes showing a selective noise reduction which was a huge job (it was not an automated tool) recently. --The Photographer 18:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Strong  Oppose Bad composition and denoise artefacts -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  strong oppose per Jebulon and Dmitry A. Mottl: denoise artefacts! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done I rebuild the image, please, let me know if the "denoise artefacts" is gone. Thanks --The Photographer 22:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but not done: this image is still ruined reworked. Take a look to the tree over the red car in your original and the newest version ... I also wrote: per Jebulon! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and I think that the problem is gone (I uploaded another version). IMHO this last version is considerably better that the originally uploaded.  :) --The Photographer 23:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - That may be, and I'm OK with the changes you made, but I think you should ping everyone who already voted and see what they think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Since we are heading into another one of these confusing edit wars with tweaking a pic during nomination, I'm withdrawing my vote and sit this one out. cart-Talk 09:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that it's a valid recomendation and thanks Ikan Kekek for your idea. I'm pinging everybody King of, @INeverCry: , @Johann Jaritz: , @Martin Falbisoner:, @Kasir:, @ArionEstar:, @Jebulon:, @Dmottl:, @Alchemist-hp:. Please, feel free of change your vote if you think that this version is not in line with the version that you voted. --The Photographer 11:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Oversnow heavy tractor Kharkovchanka.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2016 at 18:11:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Oversnow heavy tractor Kharkovchanka.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oversnow heavy tractor Kharkovchanka.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#Antarctica
•  Info Oversnow heavy tractor “Kharkovchanka” that was used in Antarctica from 1959 to 2010, a unique historical sample of engineering-technical developments made for exploration of Antarctica. Historic Site or Monument in the Antarctic No. 92. All by Tsy1980 -- Tsy1980 (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tsy1980 (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose The composition is a nice start, but unfortunately the sun is not well handled. Daniel Case (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Daniel. INeverCry 07:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Set design by Philippe Chaperon for Act1 sc2 of Aida by Verdi 1871 Cairo - Gallica - Restored.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2016 at 03:24:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Set design by Philippe Chaperon for Act1 sc2 of Aida by Verdi 1871 Cairo - Gallica - Restored.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Set design by Philippe Chaperon for Act1 sc2 of Aida by Verdi 1871 Cairo - Gallica - Restored.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
•  Info created by Philippe Chaperon - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Very nice. What needed to be done to restore this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: Mainly dust and chipping, though a very obtrusive stamp was also removed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: You can find a link to the original in the file description page, as Adam always do.--Jebulon (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 07:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Good job! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Ximonic (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Wooden Window inside Patan Museum-IMG 3651.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2016 at 04:10:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Wooden Window inside Patan Museum-IMG 3651.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wooden Window inside Patan Museum-IMG 3651.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Windows
•  Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 04:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 04:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Sorry, not a bad motif but not that sharp, and some of the bricks look glary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting motif but too unsharp and a lot of chromatic noise all over the picture. This should have been noticed at QIC. --cart-Talk 16:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not good quality (not even a QI imho) and the angle is not appropriate to this subject imo, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others. INeverCry 07:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Cobeta, Guadalajara, España, 2016-01-05, DD 19.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2016 at 03:03:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Cobeta, Guadalajara, España, 2016-01-05, DD 19.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cobeta, Guadalajara, España, 2016-01-05, DD 19.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
•  Info General view of the municipality of Cobeta located in the province of Guadalajara, Castile-La Mancha, Spain. The population of Cobeta is (according to the 2004 census) 108 inhabitants. Note: this picture belongs to the project No municipality in Spain without a photograph. All by me, Poco² 03:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 03:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Moderate  Support - You mean "No municipality in Spain without a photograph". I like the photo, but I wonder what it would have looked like if you had cropped to the right of the building that's cut off. Did you take any wider-angle photos? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, sorry, Ikan, I meant without photograph, I corrected it. I've uploaded a new version with more image on both sides, but the building on the right is still cropped. I don't know whether I've another version of it. I have only a few RAW files with me. Poco² 17:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support a bit oversaturated?! but enough wow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral pending correction of that leaning tower on the left which has been noted.< Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Support now that that's been done. A landscape that confronts the viewer with what a Spanish winter is and isn't. Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

  Daniel Case: True, I've  corrected it. Poco² 17:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose Fine technique and light, but the composition is not at all FP level in my opinion. Especially the right hand side appears rather arbitrary with the cropped buildings and the electrical wires coming down in a distracting way. Wires can be OK if they add to the composition of a photo. In this case they do not for me. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Ezarateesteban 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Slaunger. INeverCry 22:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too ordinary composition for me, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Laitche, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Wesel, Zitadelle, Haupttor -- 2016 -- 4340-6.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2016 at 15:34:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Wesel, Zitadelle, Haupttor -- 2016 -- 4340-6.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wesel, Zitadelle, Haupttor -- 2016 -- 4340-6.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
•  Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay ^talk 15:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Nice symmetry! Although you are half a metre of centre :-) --Basotxerri (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice but little wow, sorry, for composition and lighting. I am aware this kind of light has been chosen on purpose yet I don’t like the facade being entirely in shadow, making the foreground (which already covers almost half of the frame) much brighter than the actual subject of the image, making the latter look dull. Then, it’s rather soft considering what’s possible today (due to f/13 diffraction I fancy). A stitched panorama of this static object, for instance, could have easily been taken as well, giving way more detail and crispness. Und eine einzelne Aufnahme ist per definitionem kein HDR-Bild, auch nicht nach Tonemapping. HDR heißt „mehr als eine einzelne Belichtung an Dynamik zu fassen vermag“. --Kreuzschnabel 19:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. INeverCry 22:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Ezarateesteban 22:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral - I like the composition a lot. I like that the cannons are more or less facing toward us, I find that the building being in shadow actually emphasizes it (in somewhat the same way that a listener will really perk up their ears when there is a contrasting soft section in the middle of moderately loud music), and I like the view through the archway in the center of the building. I'm very tempted to support a feature. But what gives me pause is Kreuzschnabel's point about the softness of the focus. To my taste, this is a very good photo in almost every way. In a way, it's like my heart supports a feature but my brain is just not sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Love the golden lighting + dark clouds. The lack of illumination on the facade doesn't bother me that much. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, a bit soft, but that's no dealbreaker here --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. The lighting may be golden on the grass but that's not really the subject. I think for a photo like this to rise above QI it needs to have great lighting of the building, or the building more amazing, or far higher resolution/sharpness. We have so many greater building FPs. -- Colin (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support nice perspective, light a bit suboptimal, but still ok for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support per Alchemist. Gets enough right. Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's nice and sharp but with this light, the lawn actually looks more interesting than the building and it has no wow factor for me, sorry. --cart-Talk 16:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support My impression is exceptional. --Milseburg (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per opposers. There is too many empty grass/lawn IMO, and I miss something "more" regarding the famous "wow" factor. Sorry. Not a bad picture, of course.--Jebulon (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per other opponents. --Karelj (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Duisburg, Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord -- 2016 -- 1253.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2016 at 15:29:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Duisburg, Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord -- 2016 -- 1253.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Duisburg, Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord -- 2016 -- 1253.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry#Germany
•  Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay ^talk 15:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 16:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting shapes and good work but I don’t see anything outstanding. If only the nearest arc wasn’t cut by the frame on the right. --Kreuzschnabel 19:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. INeverCry 22:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Very interesting and rather unique shape. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Qualified support So interesting compositionally (it feels like another album cover for some cool Krautrock group that I've never heard of and would want to hear if they used images like this on their album covers) that it offsets the depth of field that I wish was sharper on the bricks. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Interesting and offbeat, and I like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose nice view, but not enough wow, a bit too boring for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent composition. Like the rough industrial look. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment I think this kind of photos must need some impressive element or factor, the only nice composition doesn't deserve FP, imho. --Laitche (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral The kind of picture I like. Excellent composition and light, but sharpness is not enough IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. --Karelj (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Herbstzeitlose, 2.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2016 at 13:44:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Herbstzeitlose, 2.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Herbstzeitlose, 2.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
•  Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert
•  Support -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose - The flower is very clear, but the fuzzy grasses on the left side do nothing good for the picture and look especially bad at full size. I'd recommend cropping out at least the leftmost third of the picture. And while the flower is very nicely photographed and would get my support for a feature if it were photographed that well by itself, since I don't like anything else in the picture (the rest of it feels almost pointless to me), I won't feel wowed even if you take my crop suggestion. I suspect others will be more wowed; we shall see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Regretful oppose The flower itself is sharp and fantastic, but this is one of those times when it could have been best with a little "analogue edited", that is plucking away some of the more intrusive grass straws in front of the flower (and that sturdy cut one on the left that is stealing the attention of the flower). The idea of a sharp flower between blurry/bokeh straws is nice in theory, but it seldom as good in practice. Only time it works is when the straws in front of the flower are so far from it and so close to the camera that the bokeh of the straw becomes almost transparent (example). Sorry. cart-Talk 19:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others. INeverCry 22:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Ikan (your suspicions will, I suspect, not be borne out). Daniel Case (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose The light and colors are very good on the flower and the drops of dew attractive, but I also have to agree with the review of W.carter regarding "analogue editing". -- Slaunger (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice quality! A little bit disappointed framing... --Laitche (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of no more chance of success, and to many reasons for oppose. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2016 (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:Хотинська фортеця в місячну ніч.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2016 at 07:34:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Хотинська фортеця в місячну ніч.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Хотинська фортеця в місячну ніч.jpg

1498

1076

224

930

3753

2583

What is the origin of these strange greenish, bleached shadows. It looks very strange? -- Slaunger (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info created and uploaded by User:Ryzhkov Sergey - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - I just saw this photo at QIC (it was promoted), and I find it poetic and beautiful. I'm also impressed with the photographer's light control. I guess the moon and a bit of its reflection on the water may be a tad blown and posterized and the very tops of the towers are just a bit soft, but they're good enough for me in context, and for a picture in low light conditions, the fact that the fortress is so clear and the stars visible in the sky aren't traily at all is impressive to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Ivar (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Code (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Ryzhkov Sergey could you please upload a higher resolution version of this? This appears to be downsized 50% and thus only 9.7MP from 36MP camera. -- Colin (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Where so many attempts like this often fall short, this has succeeded. Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Not sure if I want to see how it looks at 36 MP. It is just excellent as it is. Period. --A.Savin 21:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 22:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Jee 02:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Mild oppose. The shadows, or whatever it is at the castle has some very strange greenish and wrong color (see annotation). A postprocessing mishap? Otherwise very nice and atmospheric. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Very nice however it wants a bit more space on the top. --Laitche (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 15:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Landsort August 2016 10.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2016 at 07:13:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Landsort August 2016 10.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Landsort August 2016 10.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
•  Info created and uploaded by Arild Vågen (ArildV) - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - ArildV has been submitting a whole bunch of excellent photos of the lighthouse and abandoned artillery bunker at Landsort to QIC. This may be my favorite. The clouds and land rhyme in a wonderful way and I feel the wind and desolation of the scene. I also find that the distance from the lighthouse and the way the clouds give the illusion of streaming from or at least through it emphasizes the lighthouse more, or at least differently, than if it were closer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support maybe a bit too centered but very impressive! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Your Landsort pics makes the place look very eerie, foreboding and dramatic which is fun. Its a really nice, friendly place and the first harbor (and bakery) to welcome you after a long crossing of the Baltic Sea. --cart-Talk 09:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Sidebar: If this goes through, I think it will be some sort of a record. I don't think many other photographers have managed to get 2 going on 3 FPs of the same relatively small building. ;) --cart-Talk 19:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - I think more of his pictures of Landsort may be featured in the future. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Really good, congratulations! --Basotxerri (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• (Edit conflict) Support Another one of these "only in Scandinavia" images. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 22:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral The framing is suboptimal - too centered, but everything else is awesome. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral An obscure theme. --Laitche (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 15:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Karlskirche Vienna, September 2016 -3.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2016 at 17:55:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Karlskirche Vienna, September 2016 -3.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Karlskirche Vienna, September 2016 -3.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Austria
•  Info A second (and final) attempt: Karlskirche, Vienna, Austria during blue hour. This image was taken a bit earlier than the one I had unsuccessfully nominated previously. I developed it trying to address the issues mentioned; pinging ArionEstar, INeverCry, King of Hearts, Ikan Kekek, Colin --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --ArildV (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm afraid I still think File:Karlskirche Wien abends.jpg is technically better (sharper, more contrast -- perhaps some Clarity would help). But the dome is more reasonably bright, and the reflection sharper. I see some posterisation at the bottom third of the reflection. Please can you embed an sRGB colour profile in the JPG. -- Colin (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm, the color profile should be fine, cf. extended details in "Metadata". I always embed sRGB by default. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

See this. What software do you use to generate the JPG? -- Colin (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, that's odd... According to this tool, many, if not most of my pictures here lack a proper color profile. Honestly, this can't be correct. I've never detected any problems viewing my files on different systems and never did anybody approach me about that. What's more, some of my images seem to actually possess a correct profile. But my workflow has been the same for many years: I always create jpgs out of raws developed with DPP. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. And - theoretically - would there be a real problem at all? Let's assume that the affected files just "claim" to have an sRGB profile that is actually missing. What would happen? Every single program, browser, picture viewer would still present the images correctly, either assuming that there's no profile at all and applying sRGB by default as minimum standard, or detecting sRGB as defined profile and treating the images the same way. Since I always use sRGB - and never Adobe RGB - what's the difference for practical purposes? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Another PS: I haven't noticed the ongoing discussion on color profiles until now. Your browser test is very interesting. I'm a bit confused about what to do now regarding my post processing workflow... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Martin Falbisoner, it's getting a bit off topic. People with standard-gamut monitors (most) viewing images that are sRGB whether they embed a profile or not, will not see any issues. But anyone with a wide-gamut monitor will see very much the wrong colours (super-saturated) for most browsers. And some software will complain about a lack of profile. Obviously, posting an AdobeRGB image without a profile will cause most such people to see a really dull image. Its the sort of issue you won't be aware of if you don't have the equipment to see it. Ping me on your talk page or email me and we can try to figure out how to get your software to embed the profile. Failing that, there is a tool (EXIFTOOL) that can insert one into a JPG, but I would really like to know how, for each professional image program, to set them up to export JPGs correctly. -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - This is better, but Colin is right. I'm not feeling impelled to support this photo but haven't decided whether to oppose, because it's very pretty at full-page size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Colin and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others. INeverCry 07:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Building on Avenida Paulista.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2016 at 12:12:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Building on Avenida Paulista.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Building on Avenida Paulista.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Brazil
•  Info All by -- The Photographer 12:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Focus is a bit soft at full size, but I love this composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support These building pics are great documentation of everyday life as well as artistic like some kind of abstract art. Can't deny that I feel like some kind of perv though, pixel peeping into other people's apartments and their activities... ;) --cart-Talk 13:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

This view remember me the Rear Window, I never used a tele lens, however it was a temptation see --The Photographer 14:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 20:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral Very nice as with all of your building close-ups, but many of the white parts are blown out. My guess is they aren't blown out by much, so any chance you could rework the raw to pull them back a bit? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  White parts look blown yes because it's white and depending on the weather on that day colors may be less white, however, even on cloudy days this white is really white. You could take a look to google street map or google images of this building --The Photographer 01:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  I know whites are always hard to handle, but I try to handle them anyways. For example, my usual settings for photographing a lake on a sunny day are 1/250s at f/8, but the instant I see white boats, I dial it to 1/400s or so and lift the rest of the scene in post while keeping the boats just below the threshold. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks King for your recommendation and yes if you take the picture using 1/400s with f/8, your white boats are just below the threshold, however, the scene in general will be underexposed?. --The Photographer 12:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  I raise the exposure by about 2/3 stop in Photoshop in that case. Obviously that will cause the highlights to blow out again, but the highlights slider can take care of that (at 1/250s, moving the highlights slider may cause the blinking red highlight indicator to disappear, but that doesn't mean that the data has really been recovered; at 1/400s the data really is there). The noise increase will be negligible. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support A perfect desktop background for ... Windows! Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Or Mac :) --The Photographer 02:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Pfft, Daniel Case, Windows has been trying to convince users to switch over to tiles for a long time now... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are referring to W8, I think the correct term would be Lego... ;) --cart-Talk 09:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I always disabled that lego functionality of metro --The Photographer 12:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Per W.carter and thanks for properly embedding an sRGB color profile. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Vengolis (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Papilio dravidarum-Kadavoor-2016-07-30-001.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2016 at 05:49:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Papilio dravidarum-Kadavoor-2016-07-30-001.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Papilio dravidarum-Kadavoor-2016-07-30-001.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
•  Info Papilio dravidarum. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- Jee 05:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jee 05:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Sorry, I'm going to be a pain on this one, too. What's preventing me from being wowed is the uneven light and the glare in certain places, such as the leaf the butterfly is standing on. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Here too, I didn't understand. The wings of this butterfly is not even in shades; dark in some area and light in other places. As I mentioned in file description "it (a rare and endemic butterfly) prefers shady patches. The males drink at wet patches especially in the hot dry pre-monsoon days." Here he is drinking from the water collected on leaves; a perfect behavioral documentation. Jee 06:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think we can really see the drinking taking place, as the butterfly's head is facing away from us. If the butterfly is truly rare, that could be a strong encyclopedic argument for a feature, but I would have thought "endemic" and "rare" were contradictions in terms. Anyway, I don't want you to think I don't appreciate the great and really impressive work you do - it's in large part due to your outstanding work that the bar on featuring closeups of butterflies, moths and the like has been raised! Meanwhile, let's see what other people think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• No worries. I'm just trying to explain things I learned as part of my hobby in chasing them as AWeith did on his polar bear nom. Thanks for your nice words. Jee 06:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: A contradiction in terms? Would you like him to say it in Malayalam? But maybe you'd be at a slight disadvantage... INeverCry 06:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

[unindent] This isn't about someone having an advantage over another person; it's about having clear communication, which was ultimately achieved. Thanks for "helping". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

According to Threatened swallowtail butterflies of the world, it is "uncommon; but not known to be threatened". It will not come out of the shades; I saw it only once. Jee 07:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• If it's that rare, I  Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Ikan Kekek. We've two difficulties to find the exact status. 1. It loves shades and will not come out. 2. It mimics Euploea core. So we can't distinguish them without seeing those two white spots on upper-wings. Jee 07:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Understood. But even if there are a lot of them, if they're almost always in shade, that presents a major challenge in photographing them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Ikan the word "endemic" when referring to animals and plants, means "native to or confined to a certain region". So not contradictory with "rare". When referring to a disease, it does mean "common within a population", which is probably where the confusion comes. -- Colin (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Exactly. I never knew there was a difference between the usage of endemic in talking about endemic diseases vs. endemic animals. Thanks for explaining that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support INeverCry 06:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 08:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support per understanding gained from long discussion above. Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Harsh, unfortunate lighting. --Smial (talk) 09:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Vengolis (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Junonia iphita-Kadavoor-2016-08-08-002.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2016 at 13:19:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Junonia iphita-Kadavoor-2016-08-08-002.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Junonia iphita-Kadavoor-2016-08-08-002.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
•  Info Junonia iphita. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- Jee 13:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jee 13:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Another one of your well trained little buddies sitting on leaves of matching color and shape, keeping its antennae in the same position as the "chop sticks" in the background. Beautiful and great detail. I could live with said sticks toned down a bit though, they are stealing some of the show. --cart-Talk 13:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Why names in file name !? There is line "author" for that. Some quick reader will name it as Junonia iphita-Kadavoor butterfly. --Mile (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Kadavoor is the place of record; not my name. :) Jee 16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Mile, see all the fantastic pictures from this place at Category:Nature of Kadavoor, Kerala. cart-Talk 19:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Ouu, place. Not sure if dash is good option, i put into brackets filename etc (place).jpg --Mile (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support INeverCry 22:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Mild  Oppose - I'm going to be a pain on this, because I feel strongly that you can do better: This butterfly is beautiful, but compared to the best work by you and people like Charles Sharp, I'm not overwhelmed with either the focus or resolution. The composition is good, but my preference would be for you to take another photo that's greater than this one and nominate it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• This is a widely distributed butterfly and I can try again though it is not very friendly to pose for me. I didn't understand the resolution part though. Here more than 17MP from my 24MP camera; I just cropped to make it center. I think I'm stretching out of my/my camera's limits. Jee 06:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - I guess I really mean just the focus. If you could get that level of resolution a good deal clearer, I'd be really wowed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Now I got it. Yes; the left wing tip is not sharp compared to the right as I got here. Jee 06:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Along those lines, yes. What I really want is for pretty much the entire butterfly to have crisp sharpness, within this quality of composition. It's a tall order, but you've done it before with other insects. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Nice detail, nice earth tones, and the light isn't as harsh as might first be thought. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Image:Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) with its prey.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2016 at 17:00:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/Image:Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) with its prey.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) with its prey.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
•  Info created by AWeith - uploaded by AWeith - nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- AWeith (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Natural wow! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Support,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Great! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support. I "fixed" the categories here and in file pages. Jee 06:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks, I just wanted to suggest exactly that :-) --Kreuzschnabel 06:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Relatively small at less than 4 mpix, not too special in pose or lighting, chromatic aberration visible in the snow (and will be visible in any print at that small size), and I don’t like the harsh light. Altogether, I don’t think it’s special enough to line up with other FPs of polar bears like File:Polar Bear AdF.jpg (which has similar quality but shows a special pose) or File:Polar_Bear_with_its_tongue_sticking_out.jpg (which is by far richer in detail and sharpness). --Kreuzschnabel 06:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - I just want to say, on a lot of photos, your standards are a lot more exacting than mine, and I'm glad you're here. This is FPC, so it's important for there to be some very tough critics to help serve as gatekeepers and maintain the focus on what's truly, strikingly outstanding. To use an American expression, stick to your guns! (In other words, keep on standing for your principles.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment I appreciate the valued comment of Kreuzschnabel. When comparing the FP bear with the black tongue with my happy feeding bear the differences become obvious: whilst the candidate bear shows a clearly natural behavior in his (indeed it is a "he" owing to his massive head) natural habitat, the FP bear (who obviously is a female) shows clear signs of fear (tongue stuck out) which she would normally not display if there were no aliens (i.e. the photographer in his/her boat). When approaching arctic wildlife we always stick to the AECO (Association of Arctic Cruise Operators) rules and stay at a respectful distance unless the animal is nosy enough to come close by itself. The FP bear with its tongue obviously was very close to the observing vessel (for whatever reason) and could thus be photographed at much higher resolution. However, you will never experience a polar bear over its meal at a closer distance as it will designate you a food competitor and thus will either disappear with its prey or attack. Both would not be natural in case the food competitor is a photographer (and the latter may become dangerous prohibiting you forever from showing your polar bear fotos). I think both fotos are valuable as FPs, that's why I proposed mine. I'll be happy to remove CAs if there are any; however I guess its more prismatic glare in the snow that can't be removed. If you could indicate the area on the photo with the CA I'll be glad to try my best. --AWeith (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• @AWeith: this isn't prismatic glare, this is typical CA. Please try to remove it (visible on the left), so I'd like to stike my oppose. Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Kreuzschnabel, very pity.--Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC) now  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Bloody hell! (to use another American colorful expression in regards to the pic) If we are looking for polar bears posing or doing special things, I'd say this is rather typical polar bear behavior and not something you are likely to get a picture of in a zoo. Pending the removal of the CA in the snow I'm inclined to support this despite its size. cart-Talk 08:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment "Bloody [whatever]" is really more a British than an American expression. We tend to be more apt to use the f-word as an emphatic adjective. :-) Anyway, I definitely agree with you that this is a good enough and valuable enough picture to feature (minus the chromatic aberration, except that I'm not expert in seeing non-glaring chromatic aberration); however, I'm still glad Kreuz is here to be a stickler for his high standards. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Apparently I watch the more polite American TV series. ;) --cart-Talk 08:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Try HBO or Showtime... INeverCry 09:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment I feel like being beemed back to the era when I had a British boss who always blamed me for having a Portsmouth accent (I am German) despite still not being able to use english curses correctly... Well, this is just to tell you all that I removed the CA using LR5. I apologize for the slightly bigger size - I previously cropped another format using the RAW file; now the image ist approx. 80-100 pixels bigger either side. Hope you don't mind.--AWeith (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Looks ok to me and here we like things big. Still, for future references, try have your picture up to snuff and ready when you nominate it here. A good idea is to first nominate it for Quality Image, that way you'll get it checked by other editors in advance. - I hear you on the accent issue , when I (Swedish) open my mouth I have been taken for a Bostonian, Irish or even Singaporean... --cart-Talk 13:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

a British guy though I was American, French people assumed I was Spanish and Germans belived I came from Hungary, a German Swiss though I was a French Swiss, some Israelians asked if I were some second generation sepharditic immigrants living in Israel... so far only Flemish Belgian got right, when I speak French, that I am Italian. Damned Belgians, I almost fooled everyone!--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support --cart-Talk 13:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Rare shot here, i get small size, but panorama crop isnt so necessary here. Good anyway. --Mile (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support ...I'm just getting hungry... :-) --Basotxerri (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Not perfect (I think it could be cropped in a little tighter) but what needs to be in focus is in focus, and given the subject of the image you don't need to be too creative. Daniel Case (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Simply amazing, excellent and nice moment --The Photographer 23:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Quality comes from a balance of factors: the rarity of the shot compensates some minor imperfection, IMHO--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Kreta - Potamon-Stausee2.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2016 at 18:30:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Kreta - Potamon-Stausee2.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kreta - Potamon-Stausee2.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Greece
•  Info all by Wladyslaw. The Potamon barrier lake is the biggest (artificial) fresh-water lake in Crete -- Wladyslaw (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm all for warm sunlight in pictures, but here the WB seems a little off, making the lake look pasty and strange. I did a test using the grey road as ref and it cleaned up rather nicely. cart-Talk 19:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't follow. The WB is correct IMO. It was warm weather (35°C) so we have warm sunlight, nearly without clouds on this day. And how can you know what type of grey the streets was? --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't know what kind of grey the road was only that to my eyes the colors looked better after an adjustment. But since many editors here are discouraging tweaks and alterations during a nomination, there is nothing that can be done about it unless more editors than me find the colors slightly off. Anyway, it was only a comment about how I saw the picture, not a vote of any kind. cart-Talk 20:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support. I'd like to see W.carter's version, but this is nice enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Ok Ikan, here it is. I had to crop and resize is slightly or the system would not accept it as a new file, but since it is only an example it doesn't matter. I took the WB not from the road itself but from the painted white lines on the road, right between the red an green CA on either side of the line. cart-Talk 21:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. I really can't tell which one would be a better reflection of actual conditions, and tend to defer to Wladyslaw. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• W.carter: Your version looks good and nice but has definitely too cold colours for the conditions on this day. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment I agree with the review of W.carter. I get the same results when using the white/grey stripes of the road as a WB reference. It also appears the tint is a bit off. I have sent a screen shot from Lightroom showing how it works by mail to Wladyslaw. Such a WB correction is better made when developing from raw. I could also upload a derivative with a slightly colder color temperature and a tweaked tint for reference, but it is not optimal using a jpg as source. The color space is marked as "sRGB" in the EXIF (good), but there is no embedded color profile. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with others, and, yes, still no colour profile. The temperature of the air (35°C) has absolutely nothing to do with the "colour temperature" which perversely is more blue (which we associate with cold) with the very hot sun and more yellow (which we think of as warm) with the significantly less hot tungsten light bulb. -- Colin (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Slaunger Sorry, but I disagree. To take the white of the road stripes is a nice idea but not very helpful. The new tarred road was very bleached by sun and the asphalt street had yet strongly broken parts. The version of W.carter is too cold. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • That's OK. Do fix the embedded color profile though; we have been through the issue of incomplete EXIF data regarding color profiles on numerous occasions. Until that is fixed I will  oppose conditionally. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Beautiful landscape, rich colors. The WB is a bit warmer than typical, yes, but within the acceptable range of artistic license for me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose No color profile embedded (should be a requirement). And I find the light harsh, rendering the landscape flat - Benh (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Benh: shame on you: how could you support this candidate? --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Because I liked the light on that one. I don't always check the color profile issue, so some of your pics can slip through sometimes. Thank god we have careful people like Colin. I'm really puzzled that you're recognising your pictures has issues, and you don't care fixing them. - Benh (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Dear Benh: please keep polite and calm, even if this should be hard for you. I have tried several times to obey your's or other hints concerning this topic. The colour management information is in fact now part of the EXIF. I'm not an expert on EXIF-data and that here is missing s.th. else (even you didn't detected this at first) was outside my idea. I have tried to manage this "embadding problem" here. But Code has no idea how to handle this because I make exactly this what is written in the instruction. So, please have appreciation that my day has only 24 hours and my tasks in real life are fully enough so that I have no time any more to chase after this EXIF-stuff, in particular this is your own rule and not a official FPC rule. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Wladyslaw I don't see what's wrong with what I wrote (unlike someone else who think I should feel "ashamed"). If you have time to submit this many candidates, you have time to fix the issue. Otherwise, you can just Google, and many sources will explain this clearly. And even if you didn't have the time, I'm fairly certain I did provide you the fix myself. All you had to do is checking, and if you were OK, to overwrite the file (I didn't overwrite myself to be courteous. Edit : and also because the colours might have not been what you wanted to show). Maybe if you hadn't spent your valuable time to answer me, then you could have tried. You're welcome by the way. - Benh (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Dear Behn: starting two candidates means 5 minutes of time. My investigations and experiments over all for this EXIF-stuff took me 2-3 hours in the last week: without any result. I've had it. Set your oppose-voting on my images altough it is not a FPC rules but don't expect any further action for this topic. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roleček 18:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I'm not bothered by the colors at all in the original version as they, IMO, reflect the reality of a landscape that, typical for that part of the world, is undeniably arid yet far from lifeless, even when it surrounds a lake. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Schloss Werneck, 5.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2016 at 17:42:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Werneck, 5.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Werneck, 5.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert
•  Support -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Code (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Too much sharpening applied IMHO (Da sind schon unschöne Säume an Kontrastkanten zu sehen) but still outstanding enough for me. --Kreuzschnabel 18:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 19:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support And 7. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support And 8. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Conditional oppose The building is highly symmetric from left to right and the vantage point is right in the middle from left to right - good, but there is also a reflection plane in the water and it bothers me that this is a little off-centered in the vertical direction such that more sky is seen than reflection. It is sufficiently close to be centered that as an observer you would expect it was the compositional choice, but it is quite far from being so, making the composition a bit unbalanced. Another compositional choice could be to crop significantly more off the reflection, such that in the vertical direction the composition followed better a rule of thirds (sky - building - reflection). Since the water has ripples, the reflection and symmetry is not perfect anyway. With a different crop in the vertical direction, I am happy to reconsider.-- Slaunger (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Rainer Can you please be more patient with your nominations. I had to FPD some recently and you still have two other active nominations. I won't FPD this one because one of them is waiting on the bot to speedy promote -- but it is technically still active and always possible that someone might vote oppose as the nomination would normally have four days more to go. Wait till the FPC page has removed previous nominations so you only have two active at most at any time. Also remember that you need at least seven reviewers to get an FP, so please do your bit by reviewing other images too -- we need both positive and negative reviews. -- Colin (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Colin for clearing this up. I actually looked to see if one of the other nominations had been closed before I voted. I only assumed that since it had the automatic grey bot message, it was ok. Now I know that the result needs to be confirmed by someone (or voting period over). cart-Talk 21:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Hallo, das man hier nur zwei Bilder gleichzeitig Nominieren darf, wusste ich nicht. Ich habe jetzt gewartet, bis eine von den ersten beiden Bilder den Hinweis bekommen hat, dass die Kandidatur beendet ist. Aber das war wohl noch zu früh. Beim nächsten Bild warte ich etwas länger. Ich bin hier bei FPD noch unerfahren, sorry. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Auf der Seite, auf der du deine Nominationen erstellt hast, steht oben „Please read the complete guidelines before nominating“ und weiter unten, unter „Featured picture candidate policy – General rules“, Punkt 11, steht das mit den maximal zwei Nominationen. In den FPD-Hinweisen, die deine überzähligen Kandidaten eingesackt haben, stand es auch. FPC ist mit manchmal 70 aktiven Kandidaten schon grenzwertig voll, deshalb ist das auch eine Rücksichtnahme auf die Voter, immerhin nimmt man sich hier mehr Zeit zum Beurteilen als auf QIC und formuliert Begründungen für Ablehnung (ich zumindest tue das) :-) --Kreuzschnabel 05:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Problem bei dem ganzen ist nur, dass das überall in Englisch steht und ich nur Deutsch kann. Und wie die von mir zu viel begonennen Kandidaturen abgebrochen worden sind, wusste ich das dann, durch Google-Translate. Aber wie dann eines von den ersten beiden als beendet markiert worden ist, dachte ich, dass diese Kandidatur auch tatsächlich zu Ende ist. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Das ist nicht wahr. Sie können am oberen Rand der Seite, auf der "Deutsch" klicken und die übersetzte Seite und Informationen zu lesen. Dies ist eine internationale Website. Hier ist der Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Kandidaten_f%C3%BCr_exzellente_Bilder. Grüße -- cart-Talk 08:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, vielen Dank. Ich habe immer ganz oben auf Deutsch geklickt, aber da tut sich nichts. Jetzt habe ich es gefunden. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Please add english description, not everybody here can read german language. --Ivar (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Iifar:: While I think an English description adds value and is helpful, I do not think it is a responsibility of the nominator to provide one. The nominator states clearly above in German regarding his confusion about the guidelines that Problem bei dem ganzen ist nur, dass ... ich nur Deutsch kann. indicating the nominator is not capable of providing an English description. I do not think that it should be a requirement to write well in English to nominate a picture for FPC, it would be an unreasonable requirement for our non-English speaking users. I would encourage though, that some of our many many German-speaking reviewers, who are also proficient in written English will help draft an English description. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment There is always a possibility to ask someone and I'm sure somebody is willing to help with the translation. --Ivar (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done with the usual help from Google. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

So you did that With a Little Help from Your Friend. ;) cart-Talk 19:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support --Ralf Roleček 18:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support This is, however, about as sharpened as it can be without being oversharpened. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC) 
•  Support It's a quite typical FP :) --Laitche (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Anfiteatro, El Jem, Túnez, 2016-09-04, DD 41-43 HDR.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2016 at 03:40:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Anfiteatro, El Jem, Túnez, 2016-09-04, DD 41-43 HDR.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anfiteatro, El Jem, Túnez, 2016-09-04, DD 41-43 HDR.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info Hypogeum of the Amphitheatre of El Jem, an archeological site in the city of El Djem, Tunisia. This spot of the hypogeum is the place where the gladiators went up to the gate of the arena when the games started. The amphitheatre, a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1979, was built around 238 AD, when the modern Tunisia belonged to the Roman province of Africa. It is the third biggest amphiteatre and one of the best preserved Roman ruins in the world with capacity for 35,000 spectators within 148 metres (486 ft) and 122 metres (400 ft) long axes and a unique in Africa. All by me, Poco² 03:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 03:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice but not FP-nice. In other words: No wow. Sorry. --Code (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment - As Code says, it's pretty good, and I could go either way on this one, but I prefer this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - Poco, reading your "Info" again, I think that for historical and educational/encyclopedic reasons plus quality, this photo should be featured. I will vote to feature it if you copy this information to the description on the file page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Ikan:  Done Poco² 20:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you.  Support, and anyone who translates that background into Spanish and French will be doing a good service. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Will take care of the Spanish version in a few weeks when I get settled Poco² 18:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- cart-Talk 08:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --The Photographer 10:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Nice job taking this and keeping the contrast workable (yes, I know, it's the HDR). Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roleček 18:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support This is sufficient for me but the image Ikan refers to is really awesome. Please nominate it or I'll do :-) . --Basotxerri (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  Basotxerri, it would be a honor if you do that ;) Poco² 17:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Support INeverCry 20:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Saxon Switzerland - view from Festung Königstein.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2016 at 09:53:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Saxon Switzerland - view from Festung Königstein.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saxon Switzerland - view from Festung Königstein.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
•  Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pudelek (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Good work. --Kreuzschnabel 15:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, I have to oppose here, because this image looks too unbalanced for me. All the interesting things are in the left part, which looks cut off to me, while the right part shows just the forest. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Uoaei1. Also buildings seem tilted. Rather small (7.6MP) for a panoramic photo compared to the typical standard. -- Colin (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others. INeverCry 00:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I actually like the composition showing us all that space to the right; as someone who lives in a similarly river-dominated region, I know that the space off the river defines the river as much as the river shapes it. Yes, the buildings can be fixed, but they're not the whole image. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral Not a bad view, but resolution is rather low. Also I think the WB is a bit too green. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful and well done. --Code (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Mild  Oppose - If the file were bigger, I would mildly support, but the size of the file is the tiebreaker for me. The scenery is pretty, but the twin outcroppings are much more interesting to me than anything in the foreground and the composition doesn't really speak to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment I would have support without the burned whites, disturbing at full resolution for me Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Timetable (day 5 after nomination)

Wed 21 Sep → Mon 26 Sep
Thu 22 Sep → Tue 27 Sep
Fri 23 Sep → Wed 28 Sep
Sat 24 Sep → Thu 29 Sep
Sun 25 Sep → Fri 30 Sep
Mon 26 Sep → Sat 01 Oct

Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)

Sat 17 Sep → Mon 26 Sep
Sun 18 Sep → Tue 27 Sep
Mon 19 Sep → Wed 28 Sep
Tue 20 Sep → Thu 29 Sep
Wed 21 Sep → Fri 30 Sep
Thu 22 Sep → Sat 01 Oct
Fri 23 Sep → Sun 02 Oct
Sat 24 Sep → Mon 03 Oct
Sun 25 Sep → Tue 04 Oct
Mon 26 Sep → Wed 05 Oct

Closing a featured picture promotion request

The bot

Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below (except to add categories on the file page, because need a non-bot user to do it). However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.

Manual procedure

Any experienced user may close requests.

1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
   Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
   featured or not featured
   For example:
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
   becomes
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
3. Save your edit.
4. If it is featured:
   • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
   • Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
   • Add the template {{Featured picture}} or {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
     • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
     • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
     • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
     • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
     • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
   • Add == FP promotion ==
     {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
   • Add on the file page its respective categories for Featured pictures of... like Category:Featured pictures of objects, Category:Featured pictures of landscapes, of people, of Germany, of Paris, etc. This is the only part of the process that needs a user who is not a bot to complete it.
5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
   {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
   Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/September 2016), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request

1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
   Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
   '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
   (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
   delisted or not delisted
   For example:
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/September 2016.
4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
   1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
   2. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). Also, remove the image from all categories like Featured pictures of ....
   3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.