Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 17:04:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016.07.04.-26-Eilenburg-Ost--Distelfalter.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016.07.04.-26-Eilenburg-Ost--Distelfalter.jpg
Oppose Lack of details, especially at this rather low resolution. This does not reach the quality of other butterfly FPs. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 13:52:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Acherontia-Kadavoor-2016-06-23-001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Acherontia-Kadavoor-2016-06-23-001.jpg
Support Mindboggling creature. Thanks for the thorough explanation on the file's page, the idiom "not make heads or tails of" is very relevant here for us non-bug/critter-savvy users. ;) w.carter-Talk14:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree that this change produced a marked improvement. I wish the caterpillar were a bit sharper still, but I think it's quite sharp and detailed enough to be both fascinating and of great educational/encyclopedic value. As others have said, it's amazing to look at, and the composition is pretty good, too. In this version, I definitely think this deserves a rotation on the front page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 14:11:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Black Cliffs' Lake, Lagodekhi Protected Area, Georgia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black Cliffs' Lake, Lagodekhi Protected Area, Georgia.jpg
Support I would suggest cloning out that black thing at top left in the sky. Good to see a nomination not shot with a multi-1000$ camera/lense. INeverCry18:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is a beautiful scene, but I think the level of detail should have been a bit better here for an FP. This is not your fault, it's just us being very picky here. I also think you should nominate these for Quality Image and one of them for Valued image. We would also appreciate if you could provide the coordinates for the camera location on the files so that they can be displayed on OpenStreetMap and Google Earth. Please look at this files page to see how that is done. w.carter-Talk19:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice scenery, and the quality is quite good for a cell phone - but not enough for FP level. Details are too unsharp, and parts in shadow are too dark and noisy. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 13:50:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Black Cliffs' Lake, Lagodekhi Protected Area, Georgia 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black Cliffs' Lake, Lagodekhi Protected Area, Georgia 02.jpg
Comment well, given the miniscule size of the camera's sensor (4mm diagonal), the f-stop as such is more than adequate. The lack of sharpness (at least when compared to more advanced photographic systems) is due to the sensor itself. This being said, the picture's still good enough imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places
The count is incorrect. There are 7 supporting votes and the vote is to feature. This is the first time I've seen a numerical miscount by FPCBot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 05:54:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Junonia atlites-Kadavoor-2016-06-23-001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Junonia atlites-Kadavoor-2016-06-23-001.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2016 at 23:20:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lyriothemis acigastra-Kadavoor-2016-06-26-001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lyriothemis acigastra-Kadavoor-2016-06-26-001.jpg
Comment Thanks Lmbuga. As this is a rare species (only reported from Kannur, North Kerala earlier and I found them in Kadavoor last year), it attracted a lot of expert attention. They are only seen from June to August; this year we saw plenty of them. Many experts visited my home and we studied their habitat and life stages from teneral to adult. Jee03:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 20:38:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Trachycephalus mesophaeus Albine.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trachycephalus mesophaeus Albine.jpg
Mild Oppose - Very interesting motif, but the unsharp limb in the foreground -- and to a lesser extent, the unsharp portion of the branch -- are really distracting to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 07:55:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Globen metro station May 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Globen metro station May 2016.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 06:16:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment@Uoaei1: WB was not off, look at shooting time (or maybe you haven't seen orange light during golden hour?). Leaf edges of the red clover are sometimes dark red, look this --Ivar (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 20:47:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose It was a bit unfortunate that you found such a rather poor example of yarn bombing, had the work itself been better this picture could have worked. As it is it looks like a rather sad example of this guerilla art form. For an FP on the subject I'd like something more substantial like this or this. I also think the angle should have been such that there was some space between the rest of the bollards, now they are more or less one clump. Sorry. --w.carter-Talk21:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 23:17:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Võilille seemnis.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Võilille seemnis.jpg
Oppose per Jee, Ikan and Alchemist. I can understand a DoF that leaves the spores blurry. But it should have all of the kernel in focus. Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 18:16:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aeolian Islands at sunset.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aeolian Islands at sunset.jpg
Oppose mostly per Daniel. It is rather noisy, there are practically no details at all on the sea, the sunset in itself is not extraordinary enough for an FP, the color especially around the islands is so posterized and saturated that at full size it almost looks like those psychedelic posters I had in my room during the 1960s, ok fond memories but not FP, sorry. --w.carter-Talk21:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, it's a nice sunset, but except for the colorful striations in the middle, the picture pretty much just sits there, and at full size, it gets worse to my eyes, as explained by others above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lovely but the picture suffers from barrel distortion. I also wonder why it's that noisy at only ISO 100. --Code (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Code: Seems that the picture was taken underexposed and heavily processed: [1]. (Look at shadow, midtone and highlight params. Also contrast and exposure compensation. Not too sure which of the LR or PS triggers they refer to though). - Benh (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well, as it seems that the author isn't interested in any improvement of this picuture, I think I'll have to oppose. A pity. --Code (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that was more or less what I expected. Why are you participating here if you don't care about the feedback others give you at all? I really don't get it. This project is not just about collecting awards. --Code (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because someone has talked about awards? Do not go out nonsense, I do not care about your opinion. It's different. This way you do it is pedantic and boring.--LivioAndronico(talk)14:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well, as it seems that the author isn't interested in any improvement of this picuture after of my comment I do not I received any feedback and btw, I agree with Code when he tell this project is not just about collecting awards and I found a lack of respect and maturity when LivioAndronico comment to CodeI do not care about your opinion. It's different. Code deserves an apology --The Photographer (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And here's The Photographer who talk without being questioned. If you want respect then begins to respect others' opinions! Do what no one has asked you is not a test of maturity but of intelligence! However, I close here because probably become a boring speech which you are used to but I do not.--LivioAndronico(talk)20:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Code: I would think Livio is participating here because he feels his photos deserve FP status. He's been right about this 96 times, so he's doing pretty well. If he doesn't want to change his images according to suggestions, so what? That's his business. Your comment about collecting awards is offensive. 96 FPs means 96 images of Livio's that were judged to be impressive enough for FP status. He earned those 96 FPs through his skill and talent as a photographer, he wasn't awarded anything. INeverCry21:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear INeverCry, a good photographer not make you automatically an polite person. This place is not an street photo exhibition where opinions do not matter, it's a community based on participating which is the base too of FP section. Definitely, reviews are essential and for IMHO is the only way to improve the quality professional of this section. Code's comment refers to the fact that Livio ignored my comment followed by an immaturity act. --The Photographer (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@INeverCry: Come on, seriously? My comment was offensive? Don't you think it's offensive to ignore other users comments or attempts to help and to tell them that one doesn't care of their opinion? If he doesn't care for other users' opinions why is he presenting his pictures here? At FPC, everything is about the opinions of the community. We're not only allowed to talk if Livio wants us to. Although Livio's behaviour is always very rude some users (including myself) try to help him improve his pictures again and again and all we get in return are statements like the ones cited above. You're defending that by pointing out that he's got 96 FP stars? Really? BTW: I don't expect him to change his pictures upon my request. But I expect him to at least answer other users' comments. It's a simple issue of politness. --Code (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@INeverCry: Oh, fine. A Sysop who finds it funny when I'm being insulted by Livio. Very funny indeed. You call me offensive and laugh about Livios obvious insults? Instead of laughing about Livio's bad jokes you should advise him to be polite to others. It would be nice if someone else could have a look at this thread, maybe @Christian Ferrer: , @Natuur12: or @A.Savin: for example. I don't want to take this to AN/U immediately. --Code (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I cant't tell that I'm happy with blocking him, however, this type of behavior within the community are unacceptable and is very regrettable also see an admin support this behavior. I have nothing more to say on this matter, only thanks A. Savin --The Photographer (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 15:19:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I do not remember all the butterflies I had the pleasure of photographing. But it remained in my memory. It's always difficult to photograph transparency. After several tests monochrome backgrounds; has a foam pad that I use support that gave the best result. But mostly I have had the pleasure of seeing a living, it's a real aesthetic shock. Thanks Christian Ferrer...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 20:00:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Healey Silverstone (17.06.2007).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Healey Silverstone (17.06.2007).jpg
Info Healey Silverstone from 1949 on a remaining part of Nürburgring Südschleife in 2007; created, uploaded and nominated by Spurzem (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 15:26:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:La Roque, Salagou Lake 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:La Roque, Salagou Lake 02.jpg
oh no I know from where it come from, I try currently the DXO software free version and a bokeh simulation is activate by default, I will upload a sharper version...let me a few minutes Christian Ferrer(talk)19:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support while maybe less wow than I would like, it's a nice atmospheric landscape photo with an impressive level of detail. --Pine✉04:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 00:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info It's not a correction, it's a restoration from original file, because, IMHO Arion nomination has destructive alterations like oversharpening, overexposition and color saturation, btw, I preffer a black background, remembering that it's only my opinion --The Photographer (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
strong opposition what's that in the mouth of the animal? Did you invented a new part? And this is a anatomic model, colours are painted by the human, it's not oversaturated, it's the colour of the model, and could be any colour actually, it's a educational model... And it was not "destructive" was we do not have any lost of information. Next time, ponder your words, or at least bring truths... Btw, your cuts are not clear, and the reason is simple, you changed the background colour, but do not took into consideration the invasion that black creates, now we have harsh white knurled lines, and you also do not removed the invasion of magenta provoked by the model itself. Remembering that it's only my opinion. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m17:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS:I strongly suggest you bright down your monitor, the grey it's not even close to be black, and we do not have areas overexposed in the orginal image. Seeing those evidences, your monitor is probably away more bright that should be to work with images. If you do not believe me, check the histogram... grey vs black. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m17:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
well, The Photographer, we are here to collaborate, not for learning, learning is the reward, and you started listing number of problems that was not there, and more, qualifying the contribution as "destructive". How this is collaborative? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m12:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Photographer 23 results, we can not classify as very used, we have more presence of the word "shit" [3], and this do not mean that is good way to classify the work of someone, and more, using adjectives in an evaluation it is not appropriate and unproductive.
You still wrong in your affirmative...
And removing the poll and the clamps, made this away more unrealistic that already was, if you will remove the poll, remove the base... Clone stamping something so big should have the {{Retouched picture}} warning, specially in FP. Did you notify the volunteers that voted before this modifications? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m09:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pido disculpas si fale uma coisa errada, analisando um pouco, tudas as modificações som destructivas e a gente faz sempre o melhor independentemente gente para algums seja bom o ruim. --The Photographer (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam, thanks for your recomendation, however, the pole is a rusty suit that has nothing to do with the main subject and black blackgrounds are used in most scientific anatomy books to enhance the main subject. --The Photographer (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't just a diagram; it's a model. It loses a lot of value if parts of the model are removed. Besides the pole, the various screws and latches were also removed. But not the base. It's an awkward hybrid; you're basically trying to turn a photo of a 3D object into an SVG diagram. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 18:56:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Myurella nebulosa 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Myurella nebulosa 01.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 17:24:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - Interesting motif, but I'm not really feeling the composition adding up at full-page size, maybe partly because of the crops, and the blurring makes a lot of branches look like they have snow on them at full size. That's too much (or maybe the wrong kind of) distortion, in my view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2016 at 11:58:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ноќен пејзаж во Мариово.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ноќен пејзаж во Мариово.jpg
Oppose I like the nood of the picture, but the following aspects lead me to not support the candidature: De-noising artifacts in the lower part of the picture in particular, yet quite a lot of noise is still visible in the sky. Stars on the right side create trails - exposure time was too long vs. the "600/f" rule. An airplane flew through the picture, see note. --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm not sure what to think about this picture. It looks pretty good at full-page size, but at full size, why is the sky sharp on the left side and blurry, with traily stars, on the right side? Different photos stitched together? And the land looks a bit strange at full size, though I could tolerate that and perhaps it couldn't be helped. I'm not sure the contrail makes the photo unfeaturable, but I think that overall, the photo, while good, isn't one of the most outstanding on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy (actually looks hopelessly NRed, which is even worse) even by starry skies standards. And while I agree about the nice mood, I think we have much better starry skies than this (Including this incredible one, which ended 3rd at POTY). - Benh (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 04:04:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:St Peter's Square, Vatican City - April 2007.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Peter's Square, Vatican City - April 2007.jpg
It could be corrected, but I'm not sure if it's needed. I can't be sure but I think it might not actually be perfectly symmetrical in reality. Also, as the image is downsampled (unfortunately, I wasn't thinking forward at that time), any adjustment to the perspective will probably make it a bit less sharp. Diliff (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2016 at 10:52:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Akbari Mahal.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Akbari Mahal.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: sorry, but your image is noisy, oversaturated, distorted and low quality. - Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Oppose Framing, saturation, distortion and noise could be fixed, but the arm protruding from the lower left corner cannot. Sorry to decline my support for this picture of a beautiful subject. --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2016 at 15:18:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Oca do Brasil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oca do Brasil.jpg
Neutral@The Photographer: Muita boa qualidade, contudo, qual é a localização e porque ela não consta na descrição? Oca do Brasil é um título muito genérico. É contestável que esta oca pertença a tribo Camaiurá (parece que você apenas copiou as categorias desta imagem). Sinto muito Wilfredo, mas assim não tem como atribuir valor suficiente. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 17:21:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mannheim - Planetarium.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mannheim - Planetarium.jpg
I think planetarium buildings are interessting in their shape and therefore not common or ordinary. The building is centered, like 95% of all building images are, also FP-building-images. The light is strong, the sky is blue, no rubbish, just a good and concise shot. If I compare this image to all other images this photo persuades with it's simplicity. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak support I find myself wondering if the image would be more pleasing if you'd moved a little to the left to take advantage of the symmetry? Regardless, this is an interesting building and a high quality photograph. -- Thennicke (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per INC. Adding a bit for the benefit of Alchemist-hp: Some buildings are interesting enough to look good in a straight forward centered photo, this is not one of them. This building needs more shadow/light interaction to make it "come alive" and be interesting enough for an FP. Since the main part of it is almost the same hue as the clear sky it doesn't stand out that much. Imagine if there had been some linear cirrus clouds behind it, that would have been effectful. Or perhaps reshoot it in autumn and get the yellow leaves to complement the blue roof. It is a very good QI/VI but it lacks the wow of an FP. w.carter-Talk03:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have no problem with the positioning of the planetarium, but with no clouds or significant chromatic variation in the sky, it just sits there and detracts from an otherwise very good photo that could have been featurable in my opinion. I'd like to see a similar photo with interesting clouds and/or during sunrise or sunset. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure, a few clouds in the blue sky would be nice, but a part from that there is nothing to object about this picture. Remarkable sharpness without sharpening artifacts. Nice colors and lighting. --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
of course Support, because absolutely incomprehensible opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. I think we are here more and more in a photocommunity, no real votings here?!? My opinion![reply]
@Alchemist-hp: Sorry, I did not vote for now. I understand your support vote, and that you are angry against "o" votes, but I really don't understand this :"I think we are here more and more in a photocommunity, no real votings here?!?" What do you mean by this ?--Jebulon (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess he means that the voting behaviour is more than the tase of a photocommunity and disregards the encyplopedic value of an image. Indeed we already have a forum for valued images but nevertheless we shouldn't forget that this image pool is primarily for the encyploedia and not other purposes. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same point of view when I came here but have since learned that FPs need to be both encyclopedic and visually stunning, with an ephasis on 'stunning'. Perhaps we should have a new project for pictures that are simply fantastic from an encyclopedic point of view, Perfect Pictures or something. ;) I'm only joking, but the thought has crossed my mind, I know I could contribute with plenty to that. For now those pics goes into the QI section. --w.carter-Talk11:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I use thumbnails of Commons photos on Wikivoyage, a travel guide, not Wikipedia. Moreover, each Wikipedia has the power to select a picture that's of great encyclopedic value but insufficiently good quality or composition to be a Featured Picture on their site. I think most of us do take educational and encyclopedic value into account in our voting, but for many of us, neither of those are our primary criteria, but rather, criteria that can make the difference between support and oppose votes in more or less close cases or in the cases of extremely unusual subjects, sometimes it may override a lot of reasons for opposition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 10:06:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Leopard-digitalART.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Leopard-digitalART.jpg
Oppose Nice cat, but unfortunately that shake/double tap to blur the pic, plus leaving a sharp line along the back of the animal after unsharpening the background really puts me off this. w.carter-Talk14:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 06:15:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 12:47:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Градбата на Саат Кулата во Неготино 1.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Градбата на Саат Кулата во Неготино 1.JPG
I want to say that, given that it's a wall of a tower with relatively short sides compared to other buildings, a landscape photograph from the same distance will capture the surrounding area of the tower that may spoil the composition.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't really get what people are liking so much about this composition. This tower might look good in context (depending on light conditions, et al.), but this crop of one side of it feels random to me, as does the resulting composition. I really wouldn't understand a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 15:25:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:CoA Catherine de' Medici Petites Heures d'Anne de Bretagne.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:CoA Catherine de' Medici Petites Heures d'Anne de Bretagne.png
Support Something different today, from the french national online library. Here we have a (restored by me) manuscript illumination featuring the coats of arms of dowager queen Catherine de'Medici, widow of king Henry II of France. This was included ca.1560CE in a ca.1500 CE illuminated prayer book manuscript called Petites Heures d'Anne de Bretagne. One can see that they are CoA of a widow due to the Ordre de la Cordelière around the escutcheon. This chivalric order was created after the death of her husband king Louis XII of France by queen Anne of Brittany, for widow noble women. You have at left (dextre in french heraldry) the CoA of kings of France, and at right (senestre, yes, it is inversed) the CoA of Catherine, showing her descent (Boulogne, Medici, Tour d'Auvergne). During her life, she was Queen Consort, and a very powerful Queen Mother of the three last kings ( brothers Francis II of France, Charles IX of France and Henry III of France) of the House of Valois of the Capetian dynasty. Her death marks the end of the french Renaissance. The original version of this image is available as first upload for comparison, as I usually do.-- Jebulon (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No matter, just a joke: as you opposed with the same words two completely different pictures, I thought you were angry, maybe due to the fact that someone had stollen a part of your breakfast, or something. Please don't care, that's a french kind of reaction.--Jebulon (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support As far as I can see, this is an excellent rendition of an old illumination. Most likely made on handmade paper (no straight sides, vellum usually have cut sides) in an age when rulers and set-squares were optional. Colors are consistent with those of the era and so is the gilding. Granted, it's been some years since I studied such manuscripts at the British Museum, but from what I recall this seems ok. Nice to see something unusual like this here. :) w.carter-Talk18:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2016 at 21:17:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pelícano pardo de las Galápagos (Pelecanus occidentalis urinator), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 80.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pelícano pardo de las Galápagos (Pelecanus occidentalis urinator), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 80.JPG
Support Thank you Miguel for this nom. I always was fond of this subject and still cannot understand the outcome of the first attempt. Poco206:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see I changed my mind. What did it is that I thought about how detailed the picture of the pelican is, and the background looks OK at full-page size, though it still looks strange to me at full size. Best for me not to think about that part too much... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previously, when this photo, now presented as an alternate, was nominated, I opposed featuring it on the basis that I couldn't get past the background on the right side being so blurred at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulon, Charles: if it would be a Commons FP you'd see the FP star in the top right. As you can see in the FP template it is considered FP in the Spanish WP, but not in Commons. Poco215:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are those cats for exclusive use of Commons FPs? That would be knew to me. I have though no problem with removing any categories containing "Featured" and not in "xxx Wikipedia" if there is consensus about that, but it isn't the place to discuss that, I guess. Poco217:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have the idea that in some point WMF will support the photographers with more FP. Maybe I'm wrong, however, could be nice see WMF supporting us with a camera or a lens, for example. --The Photographer (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 13:45:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini (Rome) - Dome.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini (Rome) - Dome.jpg
Support - In this case, a Google image search shows other photos of this cupola that are comparable with the colors in this picture. I'm not sure all the colors or saturation are ideal (some parts seem a bit washed out to my eyes), but I accept that this is probably what they look like, and I like the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 00:52:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Francis Fukuyama at Fronteiras do Pensamento São Paulo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Francis Fukuyama at Fronteiras do Pensamento São Paulo.jpg
Oppose The pose isn't all that good; the microphone looks like it's stuck on his chin. The bright light behind his head is distracting as well. INeverCry01:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I try to recreate the Francisco Fukuyama chin based on other pictures of him, however, this was a mental base and not real. We are changing here the main subject (Francisco) and it's a good question and I invite you to see the history of this FP --The Photographer (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry? This is one of the worst photoshoppings I have seen within months. Collar and background extremely pixelated, and the cloning on the chin is too obvious to be trustworthy. --Kreuzschnabel10:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then you haven't seen any really bad photoshopping in the past months... ;-) But ok, at 100% the result is less convincing - which was to be expected. And please note that I didn't even support the edited alternative. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2016 at 21:17:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pelícano pardo de las Galápagos (Pelecanus occidentalis urinator), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 80.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pelícano pardo de las Galápagos (Pelecanus occidentalis urinator), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 80.JPG
Support Thank you Miguel for this nom. I always was fond of this subject and still cannot understand the outcome of the first attempt. Poco206:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see I changed my mind. What did it is that I thought about how detailed the picture of the pelican is, and the background looks OK at full-page size, though it still looks strange to me at full size. Best for me not to think about that part too much... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previously, when this photo, now presented as an alternate, was nominated, I opposed featuring it on the basis that I couldn't get past the background on the right side being so blurred at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulon, Charles: if it would be a Commons FP you'd see the FP star in the top right. As you can see in the FP template it is considered FP in the Spanish WP, but not in Commons. Poco215:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are those cats for exclusive use of Commons FPs? That would be knew to me. I have though no problem with removing any categories containing "Featured" and not in "xxx Wikipedia" if there is consensus about that, but it isn't the place to discuss that, I guess. Poco217:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have the idea that in some point WMF will support the photographers with more FP. Maybe I'm wrong, however, could be nice see WMF supporting us with a camera or a lens, for example. --The Photographer (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 11:28:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2016 at 21:17:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pelícano pardo de las Galápagos (Pelecanus occidentalis urinator), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 80.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pelícano pardo de las Galápagos (Pelecanus occidentalis urinator), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 80.JPG
Support Thank you Miguel for this nom. I always was fond of this subject and still cannot understand the outcome of the first attempt. Poco206:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see I changed my mind. What did it is that I thought about how detailed the picture of the pelican is, and the background looks OK at full-page size, though it still looks strange to me at full size. Best for me not to think about that part too much... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previously, when this photo, now presented as an alternate, was nominated, I opposed featuring it on the basis that I couldn't get past the background on the right side being so blurred at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulon, Charles: if it would be a Commons FP you'd see the FP star in the top right. As you can see in the FP template it is considered FP in the Spanish WP, but not in Commons. Poco215:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are those cats for exclusive use of Commons FPs? That would be knew to me. I have though no problem with removing any categories containing "Featured" and not in "xxx Wikipedia" if there is consensus about that, but it isn't the place to discuss that, I guess. Poco217:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have the idea that in some point WMF will support the photographers with more FP. Maybe I'm wrong, however, could be nice see WMF supporting us with a camera or a lens, for example. --The Photographer (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2016 at 07:51:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info all by Wladyslaw. You see the main place of Thira Island called Fira on the escarpment of the caldera. The mountain in the background is the Profitis Ilias massif (567 meters). The staircase leads downward to the little harbour. -- Wladyslaw (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2016 at 13:08:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panteon de Emilio Bacardi y Moreau.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panteon de Emilio Bacardi y Moreau.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2016 at 21:17:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pelícano pardo de las Galápagos (Pelecanus occidentalis urinator), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 80.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pelícano pardo de las Galápagos (Pelecanus occidentalis urinator), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 80.JPG
Support Thank you Miguel for this nom. I always was fond of this subject and still cannot understand the outcome of the first attempt. Poco206:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see I changed my mind. What did it is that I thought about how detailed the picture of the pelican is, and the background looks OK at full-page size, though it still looks strange to me at full size. Best for me not to think about that part too much... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previously, when this photo, now presented as an alternate, was nominated, I opposed featuring it on the basis that I couldn't get past the background on the right side being so blurred at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulon, Charles: if it would be a Commons FP you'd see the FP star in the top right. As you can see in the FP template it is considered FP in the Spanish WP, but not in Commons. Poco215:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are those cats for exclusive use of Commons FPs? That would be knew to me. I have though no problem with removing any categories containing "Featured" and not in "xxx Wikipedia" if there is consensus about that, but it isn't the place to discuss that, I guess. Poco217:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have the idea that in some point WMF will support the photographers with more FP. Maybe I'm wrong, however, could be nice see WMF supporting us with a camera or a lens, for example. --The Photographer (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 13:46:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pihtsusköngäs canyon in winter.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pihtsusköngäs canyon in winter.jpg
Comment A very nice mystery picture were it is hard to tell the scale until you see the two skiers. Some blown parts on the ice and quite a lot of CA (purple + green) in many places. This should have been pointed out at QIC and fixed before this. Please fix the CAs at least. --w.carter-Talk14:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2016 at 21:43:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Xanten RömerMuseum 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Xanten RömerMuseum 2.jpg
Info Upped the light a little bit per requests and cloned out the partial bird/UFO while I was at it. If Till Niermann don't agree with this, then I apologize and you can of course reverse it. The change was so very little that I did not see the need for a new version. We already have one alt version, no need for three since the change was suggested by two editor and I agree with it. If I was wrong in doing so, please let me know. w.carter-Talk11:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition! The editor of a photo calendar would probably prefer the de-molehilled version below, but the more I think about it the more I like this version, as they somehow break the otherwise strictly geometrical patterns in the image. --El Grafo (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Also kind of reminds me of "Der Maulwurf Grabowski": a picture book I had when I was a child, telling the story of a mole who has to find a new place to live because people are turning his meadow into a construction site …[reply]
Comment - The only difference I see is that clods of dirt on the grass were cloned out, but those don't bother me. I won't oppose this, though; it's fine, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Neutral on this for less confusion now that the UFO is gone on the first. - Thanks for fixing the UFO (or part of bird top center on the other pic) and the noise. The lawn did not bother me in the original version, looks like they have a problem with some rodents or other animals digging there, but that is part of the landscape. I'm fine with either version. w.carter-Talk09:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 04:53:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Elsie Leslie (1899) by Zaida Ben-Yusuf.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Elsie Leslie (1899) by Zaida Ben-Yusuf.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2016 at 12:31:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:La Jolla Cove cliff diving - 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:La Jolla Cove cliff diving - 02.jpg
Support Very nice and something different from our usual candidates. Anyways it would be nice if you could add {{Retouched}} or {{Panorama}} templates to give some information about how you created this beautiful picture. The cut rock in the lower left part of the picture could be cloned out IMO. --Code (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I would have kept the rock in the picture, as I think it improves the composition, but either way, it's a very pretty picture. Are the dots in the air toward the upper left balloons? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've withdrawn my vote for now. I didn't see that the lower left corner shows clonning problems when the rock was removed. Once that's fixed you'll get my support again. —Bruce1eetalk14:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2016 at 16:34:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:BMW Isetta - Bad Wörishofen (2015-08-29 3164 b).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:BMW Isetta - Bad Wörishofen (2015-08-29 3164 b).jpg
Comment I was actually thinking something similar, not with the horizon since this is rather close to the Alps and there are plenty of rolling hills there, but all the poles of the fence behind the car are leaning slightly to the right. A minor fix if so. Great car! I think I'm in love. cart-Talk18:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice car, but in this instance, I will oppose because the blurry grasses in the background and especially the foreground are too distracting to me. There's also an obvious stitching error in the lower left corner. That error should be fixed, but when it is, I still won't support a feature for the other reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Negative votes founded like Ikan Kekek because help improve the quality of your photos. Some votes/opinions may be wrong, however, if you are not prepared to accept a critique perhaps this is not a good section. --The Photographer (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And you also are engaging in a conversation on my user talk page to complain about my vote. I'm one person. You don't have to "accept" (agree with) my criticism, and you probably withdrew your nomination prematurely. But if you want more people to support your work, getting all indignant whenever they oppose it isn't a good strategy. No-one should let anyone's attitude about opposition to their work affect their voting decisions, and I certainly don't plan to do so, but as we are all human beings doing something for fun that we're not getting paid for, if you are so unpleasant whenever people oppose your work, don't be surprised if your support votes start to dry up at some point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Spurzem A similar situation happend a time ago with user @Livioandronico2013: blocked by his criticism or comments and I'm sure this is not your case, however, it is always good to be grateful especially with the negative comments with a good base. Words have no emotion and perhaps sometimes can be misunderstood, I apologize if I made a comment that could have been misinterpreted --The Photographer (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2016 at 18:25:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Copysul house.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Copysul house.jpg
Comment Also looking at how the house looks at Google street view, it seems like the picture has been retouched, wires and graffiti gone and also the roof(!). While I understand that some of this is necessary I'd like such things to be pointed out in the file description of an FPC. If the house has been significantly renovated since the Google photo, I sincerely apologize for this comment. cart-Talk06:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear W. Carter, thanks for your question. I have always added the geolocation as far as possible in my photos to yourself to observe reality and google street map image have a one month apart and many things can happen in one month as a house remodeling, for example, however, it's not the case, I made alterations in this photo, which I considered not alter the main subject (mural and window), the changes were to remove distracting elements of the main subject, including cables, isolated roof, graffiti on the wall, an unknown dirt and black sign. I sincerely apologize my idea is not to show false images, however, I understand that some changes may not be acceptable. --The Photographer (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you or that full explanation. I never thought you intended to be deceiving especially since you always provide a geo tag. It was simply a matter of form for an FPC that changes should be recorded so that every voter can form their own opinion about how to view the image. From a photographic point of view I can very well understand all the changes that were necessary to create a beautiful picture, the encyclopedic standpoint is somewhat different for me. I don't mind if corrected things are movable objects like cars, window displays, garbage, dust, birds, etc or things that could have been avoided if the angle was slightly different, as long as they are not the main object in a picture and only a small percentage of that. So the cables, graffiti and dirt are ok, but to change a gable of a house, that is not what I'd like to see in an FP. I also think the roof gable framed the artwork rather nicely, explaining why it has a triangular shape. Others may think differently and regard only the artwork and the windows. Sorry, but for my part I'll have to Oppose this. --cart-Talk18:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2016 at 13:44:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 18:50:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I just really like the gesture the sculpture is making, and I think this photograph captures the sense of motion in this actually static work of art well. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the pose too, and the detail is great. But that may be its undoing. It looks like, in the pursuit of that excellence, the image might have been oversharpened (look at that bit of the white truck in the background for something a bit too processed). The WB also seems a bit too cool, even given the predominant colors. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do see a bit of seeming oversharpening, now that you point it out. I think it's slight, though. Very small areas of the picture may be posterized. User:Kroton, would you like to make some edits based on Daniel's points? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose Pose, light and detail are fine but I find the cars disturbing, especially having a bright green between its legs. I also keep wondering what the statue's feet look like but maybe the hedge is unavoidable. Sorry. w.carter-Talk03:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kroton, there are 3 days of voting remaining. Do you want to offer the new one as an alternative, or would it be better for me to withdraw this nomination and for you to submit the new file at some future point? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2016 at 13:31:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Parthenos sylvia-Kadavoor-2016-06-25-001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parthenos sylvia-Kadavoor-2016-06-25-001.jpg
Thanks The Photographer. Yes; it is not something we are going to see everyday. I was in search for the rare damselflies in forest streams, after the rain. Stumbled by seeing this rare moment! He didn't care me much as he was busy collecting the minerals for the nuptial gift. :) Jee16:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Je ne peux pas imaginer combien d'heures vous avez passéz là à essayer de prendre cette photo. Il est tout simplement magistrale dans la qualité et la netteté, peut-être juste un peu sous-exposée. --The Photographer (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both of us are inside the narrow forest stream, covered by foliage. So little lights there. I'm still learning the correct flash settings. Jee03:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the best butterfly pictures we've had here in a long time. I love the background, too ... at first I wondered why the insect was so interested in this bean dip. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 04:16:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A U.S. Navy Hull Maintenance Technician 3rd Class Robert Frey fabricates a steel countertop aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) Aug. 20, 2013, while underway in the Gulf of Oman 130820-N-JC752-778.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A U.S. Navy Hull Maintenance Technician 3rd Class Robert Frey fabricates a steel countertop aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) Aug. 20, 2013, while underway in the Gulf of Oman 130820-N-JC752-778.jpg
Support Sparkly! I wish I could prowl around a carrier for a month or so with my camera, so much activity and hardware to shoot... >(sigh)< --w.carter-Talk08:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think the sparks are the main thing that make this picture an interesting enough composition for me to want to feature it, but the positions of the electrician and various objects also help. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The man seems a bit scrunched up in such a vertical composition. Other than that, a photo of a man doing a common job like welding isn't wowing for me. INeverCry20:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Awsome example, but I'm enjoying the Norman Rockwell feel this pic has, the hunched concentrated position, goggles (instead if face shield), baggy pants (yes, used by welders to prevent burns) has a dated look to them, the shoes (steel capped toes gives a dated look), not to mention the light and color, very 1940s just like Martin said. w.carter-Talk21:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2016 at 17:28:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ermita de la Virgen de la Mencalilla, Almazul, Soria, España, 2015-12-29, DD 33.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ermita de la Virgen de la Mencalilla, Almazul, Soria, España, 2015-12-29, DD 33.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 22:43:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ida B Wells High School San Francisco January 2013 002.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ida B Wells High School San Francisco January 2013 002.jpg
Weak Pro I like the light situation. A nice capture although I think it needs a little bit more contrast. The crop bus station in the foreground isn't that fortunate as well. --Code (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nothing special. It's a bit saturated IMO. Contrast? Why FP, sorry? Is it FP because the hour of he take the picture? Sorry, What special? --Lmbuga (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2016 at 02:18:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Image of Tholpavakoothu.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Image of Tholpavakoothu.jpg
Neutral Honestly I'm not sure how to feel about this. It's certainly a striking image but ... I don't know enough about the subject to know if I should be willing to overlook the unsharp areas or not.Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As a former resident of Malaysia and visitor to Indonesia who's done some scholarly research on wayang kulit music, I am quite experienced in viewing shadow plays and will state that this is a sharp image of a shadow puppet seen from the audience side of the screen. I also find it a well-composed photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 21:11:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I don't like the dark shadow. Whatever's behind his head, maybe an oval-shaped rock (darker than the rest of the shadow), is an added distraction, as it almost looks like it's connected to his head. INeverCry21:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fair enough, but the harsh shadow is intended to add menace. Your 'rock' is one of its legs. Please remember that this is not a zoo picture and he was not particularly happy that I was kneeling down pointing a large camera lens at him Charles (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you really need to add much menace to a huge dangerous lizard, but good for you for having the guts to get in close... INeverCry00:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support "Here he is ...Your komodoooo DRAAAA-gon". Although I agree that there's more of that shadow at the right than there needs to be ... perhaps you could get rid of that part with the bit of sun? Tightening the image so that the beast fills more of the frame would IMO go further toward your goal (already partially accomplished) of making it more menacing, leaving the viewer with only this small stretch of darkness to seek refuge in. Amazing coincidence ... I went out to get more whole-bean coffee at Starbucks, and because of this picture I picked Komodo Dragon Blend. And now that you've made him look even more badass, we can sing: "Mr. Ko Mo Do DraaaaaaGON ... Got to keep on draggin'" Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After the photoshoot I asked him if he minded being called a cold-blooded killer. 'Not at all', he replied. 'I am a reptile after all.' Charles (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 11:59:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:National Library of Australia, ACT - perspective controlled.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:National Library of Australia, ACT - perspective controlled.jpg
Info National Library of Australia, Canberra. 16-image Panorama. I've spent hours fixing as many stitching errors as I could find; let me know if you find more.
Support Excellent. Could you please give some information about the panorama? How many single frames did you take? Did you use a panorama head? --Code (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Alchemist-hp: Reason 1 is that I can't take this in a single shoot without errors. I don't own a 24mm tilt-shift lens, which I would need to do that. Reason 2 is resolution. My camera is limited to 20MPx. I wanted to create the highest-resolution image of this building that I could, for Wikimedia's sake.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 10:38:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stramberk castle - View from Kotouc.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stramberk castle - View from Kotouc.jpg
Is this the issue you have with the near-symmetry of this picture? "The main issue with symmetry is that most scenes do not have two identical halves." The thing is, I don't see the tower as being dead center, anyway - it seems a bit to the right to me. And I don't think there's been an attempt at symmetry, as there is more greenery on the left. Also, there had been a bit more to the right, but I requested a crop because a construction site was overly distracting to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that in terms of balance, it would be helpful to place the tower slightly more off-center. Unfortunately, the way the buildings are set, an off-center composition does not work, so I had to stick with the composition as it is. I think it is still pleasant and gives an accurate representation of the tower and its surroundings. --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 00:04:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:MonumentoEcuestreaSanMartin-MDP-ago2016 alt 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:MonumentoEcuestreaSanMartin-MDP-ago2016 alt 3.jpg
Support Again. And in my opinion, it's not a problem that the interesting tree takes away attention from the monument, because the monument is not the subject of this picture. Instead, this is a picture of the monument and the tree, and in my strong opinion, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with a picture having a dual subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2016 at 16:36:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose The composition just isn't working for me. It seems too tight at the left with the boat, and too slack at the right with the pier. There's potential for an interesting juxtaposition of the tiny figure on a board and the huge ship, but it's too loose in this wide view. I tried some crops but nothing strikes me. -- Colin (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)*Oppose A good straightforward picture of a very large ship, a smaller boat and a man on a surf board, but those things don't make up any wow-factor for me, nothing exeptional. The description also calls this "Port of Funchal", a more appropriate description would be "inlet to Port of Funchal". You'd have to be at the opposite side of the scene (or on the cruise ship) to take a picture of the actual port. Sorry. --cart-Talk19:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2016 at 17:13:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - I get that this has documentary value, but as a picture, I don't find it interesting to look at, as I don't find that anything really helps my eyes move around it enough, especially in the right half+ of the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok: it's not important. The center of Funchal is the picture and around is a burned area. No problem, you're special. Qualiuty of the picture is poor? Or not?--Lmbuga (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The quality (focus, etc.) is fine. It's the composition that I am criticizing. This is not QIC, where the good quality by itself would be amply sufficient. And this is not about me and whether I'm "special", so don't get all huffy and personal. As you see, I'm happy to vote for photos when I think they merit a feature. I am not going to start voting to feature every photo, just because some photographers get personally insulted and lash out whenever anyone opposes any feature. Have a nice day, and keep in mind the example of Livio. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Sorry, but I have to agree with Ikan here. It's a good panorama of a really tragic event, but there is nothing in the image that makes it more than that, no line, light, feature or whatever it is that makes a QI become a FP. It would be better suited for an VI of the fire or a FP on one of the Wikis. Also why is it necessary to shout out the 'Info' at the beginning with big bold letters? I think all of us here are intelligent enough to read facts and info about a picture without a war-sized headline. I understand that this is a recent event and that this may be emotional for some editors, even so, we judge the images as they are here. cart-Talk20:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring composition, and the areas of interest look like water color painting (which I guess comes from aggressive NR), ruining intent of author to highlight them. - Benh (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that I understood you, Benh. (Sorry, poor English) But the water color painting is due to the fog of the island and due to avoid the fog and the little ("less" or "few") clarity (sorry, I can't say what I want and I think that it's not important). Thanks for your review. I think it's better this way: The fog is not pleasant--Lmbuga (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(es): Se podría hacer una foto mejor compuesta, sin volar ni navegar, si yo fuese en un transatlántico. Yo anduve el puerto completo (varios km), buscando la manera de tener la mejor perspectiva y no pude tenerla mejor porque todo el puerto de los transatlánticos está vallado. El único punto libre es este. Sí, lo entiendo, es cierto: para hacer FPs hay que tener dinero (buena cámara, posibilidades...), además de amigos como sois vosotros--Lmbuga (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Español: Haced la foto siendo gente común, personas sin más posibilidades; y esperad que se os diga, cuando la propondrais, que teneis que ser como los otros para ser FP (que teneis que volar, que teneis que acceder a un transatlántico,...). Lo siento, Algo falla si es que esto es Wikimedia--Lmbuga (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2016 at 20:00:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment - I really like this view, but it's hazy at full size. I could also nitpick a bit on what the crop does to the steeple at the upper right, but that's a minor point. Do you think you might have a chance to take a photo of this view in clearer light? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info No, this point at the roof of the church is usually not open to the public. It was an unique opportunity (Lange Nacht der Kirchen) --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea of this but unfortunately the execution, while definitely a QI, does not rise to the level of FP for me, through no fault of the photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting to see a side of a statue that we don't normally see, but I'd have to agree with Daniel. Also, though I understand that the composition is centered around the lightning rod I think the right crop is too close to the edge of the pool. Maybe there is some practical explanation for this. cart-Talk17:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 06:05:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Can't find any technical deficiencies (no visible noise, no CA, no sharpening artifacts, no blown out areas, no perspective distortion, sharpness almost everywhere...). I like the composition and the good light that day brings out the colors nicely. Great shot! --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting is a bit too stale for me; taking it later in the afternoon would improve the picture. Also the crop on the sides of the fountain is rather tight. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2016 at 02:17:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Technique of dehydration applied in a foal.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Technique of dehydration applied in a foal.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2016 at 20:21:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for such scientific consideration. It not due to my surname is another? Thanks--Lmbuga (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Automatic tranlation, in my English I would say: I'm not important, as other users--Lmbuga (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope Google translate won't alter my words, but you've been roughly trying to pass three similar pictures but in my view, none of them addresses the main issue which is lack of wow and lack of a strong pattern in the composition. They all seem a bit random. So no, I don't think the opposes are due to your nickname. - Benh (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a scientific explanation, let me quote the advice I got from User:Diliff when the panorama of my home town was 'Opposed' here at FPC: "Cityscapes often are busy by nature, but not in such a way that each element competes with the others- there's usually something unified about a good cityscape; a sweeping view, a single architectural style, converging lines, etc. Anyway, just my opinion." This was actually very good advice, this photo has none of these elements. --cart-Talk21:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2016 at 17:33:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2016 at 20:38:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dlieja da Sacun cun Saslonch.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dlieja da Sacun cun Saslonch.jpg
Strong support Not "almost painterly" ... painterly. The clouded sky and gray peaks play off the church very nicely ... I'd certainly support this view with blue sky and little fluffy clouds as an FP, but I think it's even better this way. If there can be said to be such a thing as an environmental portrait of a building, this is one. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2016 at 16:16:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hamburg, Speicherstadt, Block S -- 2016 -- 3330-6.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hamburg, Speicherstadt, Block S -- 2016 -- 3330-6.jpg
Oppose Regretfully. It's a big wow, but something went wrong (in post process?) with all those blue dots in the black areas (I get the same when I do exposure blending with improper versions of enblend, but I'd be surprised you have a similar pipeline). A bit noisy in shadow parts as well. - Benh (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to nitpick but it now looks underexposed :/ (I don't think you need my help, but if, like me, you use enfuse, go with the openmp version which doesn't render these blue dots for some reason.) - Benh (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the image is underexposed. It was nearly midnight. The first one was overexposed, sky to bright, buildings to bright. The buildings in the front are not illuminated. BTW: I'm working with Photomatix. The first image was made as HDRI, tone-mapped. This one is much more naturally, made with exposure fusion. But I'll check the image again. May be better with +1/3 EV. Tomorrow. --XRaytalk19:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup you know better, and it's a photographer's choice to render things more realistically or to "alter" things a bit (brightening per my suggestion). As for me, I really like the first version. Cancelling my oppose. - Benh (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 13:07:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nasir al- mulk mosque, Shiraz.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nasir al- mulk mosque, Shiraz.jpg
Oppose WOW these colors, what a beautiful mosque! Unfortunately, the photographic rendition is not as good as it could be - I would name resolution, noise and detail rendition. I would so much look forward to have a HQ pic of this mosque and to vote for it in a heartbeat. --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Please take a higher-resolution picture of this beautiful mosque. I would suggest for you to submit it to COM:QIC first for feedback on technical matters. If it passes there, submit it here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how sad it's so small and a bit overprocessed (saturation mainly)... the subject and composition are gorgeous (and truly a potential POTY) - Benh (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2016 at 16:24:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pterynotus elongatus 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pterynotus elongatus 01.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 23:55:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:White Orange and Gray Tabby Cat.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:White Orange and Gray Tabby Cat.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2016 at 13:27:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Just to explain why the nom is not the QI version: I took the first photo during a very windy day when it was difficult to hold the camera steady, but it made QI. Some days later the nets were still at the site and it was calm so I could take a sharper and better photo. But since there was an almost identical QI already, I could not nominate this one. All by me. -- cart-Talk13:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2016 at 02:10:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:From Tennfjorden towards Raftsundet, Hinnøya, Norway, 2015 September - 4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:From Tennfjorden towards Raftsundet, Hinnøya, Norway, 2015 September - 4.jpg
Hi, thanks for support! I would suggest natural panoramics category as I think the boat is not the main subject but more like the area. --Ximonic (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2016 at 17:02:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2016 at 17:26:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Josselin Château Evening Light Reflected 2016-08-15 WLM.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Josselin Château Evening Light Reflected 2016-08-15 WLM.jpg
InfoJosselin Castle. Renominated due to a mistake where my friend Benh uploaded (from Flickr) an image I wanted to upload myself for WLM FR. I've adjusted the colour/contrast a bit after feedback on the original image. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Spurzem, the towers taper slightly and some of the windows are wonky. They are 15th century fortifications. The reflection is vertically aligned with the castle, so I think I'm true to what is there. -- Colin (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice light and detail, but composition is imho unbalanced (almost half of the image is empty) and sky is partly overexposed. --Ivar (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ivar, a hot air balloon in the top right would balance things! It isn't easy to choose an angle of view with reflection. This image is nearly straight on and I suspect taken from a window in the hotel opposite, and suffers from distortion due to the wide angle-of-view. And this image was taken further along the river from the opposite direction. (That latter photo seems to benefit from flood lighting that seems to no longer be there -- I waited for the blue-hour but only tiny street lights came on). I disagree the sky is over-exposed - none of it came close to being over-exposed, but it was very bright near the horizon at that exact time of day (earlier it was more evenly blue, and later less saturated+darker). -- Colin (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my previous review : nice light and composition with the reflection on the water. And @Colin: sorry you had to fix this yourself. - Benh (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely subject and very well done. @Colin: How could you use the 50mm lens on your crop camera with the NN3MkII? As far as I know the rotator supports 50mm lenses at full frame cameras at max, doesn't it? --Code (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Code: Sorry to steal Colin's spot. Not sure I fully get ur question, but my guess is that you look at Colin's setup to produce a 80mm equivalent which shouldn't work on the NN3MkII. But the lense itself remains a 50mm, so not an issue. I think it's all clearer when you think of it as taken with a FF 50mm and only cropped to 80mm in post - Benh (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My 50mm lens is equivalent to 75mm on FF camera. According to FoV tables (looking at the DX columns, which match my crop Sony sensor), the 50mm lens has a vertical FoV of 17.7° (which is the horizontal FoV in portrait mode). The NN3MkII has several brass rings for various degree-step detents and the finest is 15°, giving a 2.7° overlap (about 18% overlap, which when I measured a picture is correct). I took File:City from One Bishops Square.jpg at 15° horizontal intervals. It is just enough. However, usually I prefer more overlap. It lets me fix up the panorama afterwards if there is more redundancy. For this image, I simply paused the horizontal rotator midway between the 15° detents. I did the same for File:Tower Bridge from London City Hall 2015.jpg. I've even used a telephoto zoom lens at 100mm for this photo, stopping roughly every 5°. I think Fanotec only recommend up to 50mm lens (on full frame camera) because the next standard prime is 85mm, which would have a 16.1° FoV that is just too tight at 15° intervals. One can actually reverse the brass disc to its blank side with no detents at all, and go by the 5° markings or judge by eye. -- Colin (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jebulon. The lack of wind for the flag was a help for the water I suppose. We had fabulous weather despite your doubts. And no midges, which makes a change from our usual holiday destination. A Eurostar strike nearly ruined the start of the holiday, but fortunately it seems those striking were surplus to requirements, and our train was unaffected. I was rather concerned to see several restaurants offer filet de colin! I can think of a few people on Commons who would like to see that dish. -- Colin (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Funny indeed. But the name "colin" is known as for parisians or tourists. The real name along the atlantic coast is "merlu". In my native city (La Rochelle, your next trip to France...), if you go to the fishmarket and ask for a "colin", you will be served as a parisian, if you ask for a "merlu", you will be served as a "normal local person". The players of the local FC Lorient have "les Merlus" as nickname.--Jebulon (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2016 at 15:33:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I don't think the tight composition works here. I'd like to see more of the cabin and more of the valley and mountains. INeverCry20:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2016 at 11:40:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support When looking at a picture alone makes me sweat, I usually jump to the next (OK my funny (or not) way to say "harsh light") but that view is very impressive. - Benh (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2016 at 16:49:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
@Spurzem: Since there's nothing more natural than a 360° panorama, I suppose you didn't realize that you have to use the 360° viewer (Panellum) to watch this one. Please click at this link. If you still think that the picture looks "unnatural" afterwards then I'd be happy for a further explanation. --Code (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sky is a bit blown out, but it's still quite good considering the lighting conditions. I can also notice some white fringes between some buildings and the sky (on left edges). Overall a very good spherical panorama. And it's a bit of a challenge to capture a usually busy place empty. - Benh (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review, Benh. Indeed I expected someone to mention the partly overexposed sky. It's nearly impossible to avoid an overexposure when taking a 360° pano outside on a sunny day. In this case I tried to hide the rising sun behind the buildings of Leipziger Straße but of course there's still a lot of light in the east. However, I think it's quite how the light really was this morning. If you look in the direction of the sun, you won't really see anything else than pure white. --Code (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2016 at 09:52:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sandhamn August 2016 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sandhamn August 2016 02.jpg
Support Are there really Morden i Sandhamn ? (The series is now on french tv. Wonderful landscapes of this sunny-looking archipelago)--Jebulon (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you heard of this thing called "fiction"? ;D I can't recall there has ever been someone murdered in Sandhamn, the only unnatural deaths there are those who've drowned. In the past during fishing in bad weather and in modern times being drunk in any weather... --cart-Talk21:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2016 at 09:14:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ApogonVithisma.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ApogonVithisma.jpg
Oppose Image quality does not reach FP level - too noisy, lack of sharpness and detail. I recommend to nominate images here only if they are already promoted as quality image. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too noise and unsharp
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2016 at 18:55:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Saudades de Nápoles by Bertha Worms 1895.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saudades de Nápoles by Bertha Worms 1895.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2016 at 12:24:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gold rim swallowtail (Battus polydamas jamaicensis) underside worn 2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gold rim swallowtail (Battus polydamas jamaicensis) underside worn 2.JPG
Regretful oppose A great job on the detail and color of the subject lifeform, as usual. But the branches and twigs in the background are too distracting for me to consider it an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2016 at 11:37:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sun Glint over Atlantic Ocean.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sun Glint over Atlantic Ocean.jpg
Looking at the original pic it looks like this is a composite from several shots, maybe this should be mentioned on the file's page. I would not have minded if the left part with the solar panel had been left in since it gave a new dimention to the pic, like you were on the spaceship yourself. But either version is fine by me. w.carter-Talk15:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Of course it's a beautiful photo, though I prefer the original. However, if you've decided to crop out everything but the Earth and space beyond, I would suggest for you to crop a little further, so that the remaining dark area noted by Ivar as a "crop error" is also cropped out. When you do that, I will support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty glaring stitching error on the left, breaking the circle "continuity" (?). Not the most impressive view of earth to me, even though the sun specular reflection is a nice effect. - Benh (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2016 at 21:00:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vista de Quito desde El Panecillo, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 25-29 PAN.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vista de Quito desde El Panecillo, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 25-29 PAN.JPG
I have added a template Charles, additionally I always state this kind of information in the file name. 25-29 PAN means that the frames 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 have been stitched to a panorama. Poco217:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Christian. Also there is one blurry stitching line (note added) and foreground saturation level looks too high for me. --Ivar (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Christian, Ivar: I've reduced the brightness and also a bit of saturation. It took me a while to identify a "blurry stitching line", I rather found some spots where sharpness was not as good as other areas, I sharpened them. Poco217:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose SORRY? Buildings are mostly overexposed (or over-contrast-enhanced subsequently), sharpness leap in the center. Stopped looking for more flaws having spotted those. --Kreuzschnabel18:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. es: Es increíble que se diga que la mayor parte de los edificios están sobreexpuestos (mentira). Es increíble que se diga que en zonas de cosido hay áreas desenfocadas (mentira). Además, se puede proponer una imagen de 2 megapíxeles y esta tiene más de 84 megapíxels. Ciertamente, pienso que o la gente no sabe, o hay mucho rencor: Técnicamente no parece la foto criticable--Lmbuga (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC) New comment: Busque usted otras críticas --Lmbuga (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2016 at 02:15:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Goat skeleton.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Goat skeleton.jpg
Daniel actually there is only one blown area, I highlighted via note, and it's not what you pointed.
In the parts that you listed it seems that are blown up because, naturally, they do not have texture. You can use a software to see that (red is near to loose info), or compare to the previous version [4].
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2016 at 11:03:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral Flower and bud looks really nice, I'm not too crazy about the cut off leaves though. While I understand that this is a square composition, I miss them. cart-Talk18:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@W.carter: Leaves of this plant are pretty long and they didn't fit with this compostion. I would have to step back to increase the distance between me and plant. This would have resulted losing harmonic and smooth background, as it is now. --Ivar (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Charlesjsharp: Yes, you are mistaken, this is a natural background (cornfield) with golden hour light conditions. I can upload raw file, if my honesty is questioned. --Ivar (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2016 at 07:50:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eurasian Brown Bear.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eurasian Brown Bear.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2016 at 05:15:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Euthalia aconthea-Kadavoor-2016-06-25-001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Euthalia aconthea-Kadavoor-2016-06-25-001.jpg
Thanks Charles for your opinion. Yes; it is a risky nom. As a buttefly enthisiast, I try to document and highlight all types of behaviour shots than just beautiful "butterflies on flowers". Sometimes it works; many times, not. :) Jee02:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I think it is GREAT that you do! Keep up the good work with all sorts of backgrounds, situations and bold experiments. The diversity is much appreciated. --cart-Talk20:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'll go for this just because it's a better photo. I like the little green plants on the right-hand side, combined with the buttefly at the bottom it looks like an old Japanese print. w.carter-Talk09:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the more interesting background in the other picture. I also think the butterfly is a bit clearer in the other picture. Purely at full size, the little rocks in the other picture produce a somewhat more assertive blur, but at full-page size, I prefer the other picture. So after all that, I'll vote to oppose this version in favor of the other one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This butterfly likes rotten fruits. Here it is enjoying them in my courtyard under the Guava tree. The background includes the remaining of many guavas. Jee02:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lmbuga for the comment. The Google translator deliver it to me as "Congratulations for joining seven votes (and there will be more) with any of these images. In my opinion, the best fabrics". My vague guess is that you like the texture on its wings? (The only one word I understood in my visit to Asturias to represent the WM community in the Princess of Asturias Awards is "Hola". I love Spain; an interesting culture with several languages as in India. Jee02:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2016 at 07:57:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment A restful and beautiful pic and I'll support it as soon as there is a geo tag on it. I've also fixed the categories. You really should see to that all those things are right before nominating a pic, the "paper work" behind a picture is essential for all FPs. w.carter-Talk08:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been fond of categories like "September 2009 in Estonia" and adding coordinates to images made by others may often be difficult. But I'll see, if I could get a geo tag to it. Kruusamägi (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The "September..." was just a bonus cat, it was more the other cats that needed some fixing, like why add "Fishing boats" when the "Fishing boats of Estonia" is a better sub cat. And yes it is difficult to add coords to other editors' pics, yet necessary and we do it all the time since FPs should be as perfect as possible. --w.carter-Talk09:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I thought about this photo for a long time, and it's too flat for me, especially in the background, which just seems to end in an almost undifferentiated mass just beyond the lake. I understand that this is a kind of retro photo, suggestive of old platinum prints of yesteryear, but I believe that many of those were more volumetric than this, even in similar light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2016 at 12:33:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Verdi conducting Aida in Paris 1880 - Gallica - Restoration.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Verdi conducting Aida in Paris 1880 - Gallica - Restoration.jpg
Support - Very good. I can't really tell what you changed from your first version to the current one - I would have voted to feature the first version if you had nominated it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Looks like in this case it's a largish dark spot on the right edge, fairly near the top, maybe some other specks. There's several versions of the image available, so I believe I'd have compared them and found the spot was only on this copy, and have dim memories of having done so, but, of course, it's been a year. They're generally not that big of changes, unless I've labelled one a "Partial restoration" or something in that line, in which case I usually had significant additional work to do. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2016 at 19:47:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Resciesa Mont Dedite y Danter la Montes Urtijei.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Resciesa Mont Dedite y Danter la Montes Urtijei.jpg
It may be your monitor ;) (have you calibrated it ?) Looks fine on mine (even a bit bright and washed out) and histogram reflects what I see. But I do need to calibrate mine. - Benh (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose A beautiful picture indeed. Still, I would appreciate a "punchier" look, as the contrast is somewhat reduced by the haze. Also, the corner sharpness is less than optimal due to lens limitations, perhaps combined with a generous usage of hyperfocal distance and field curvature. I know I am nitpicking, but we are here to select the very best of WP Commons... --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2016 at 21:06:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spot-billed duck at Expo’70 Commemorative Park in Osaka, November 2015 IV.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spot-billed duck at Expo’70 Commemorative Park in Osaka, November 2015 IV.jpg
Neutral Lovely background, however, Peer Laitche. I love your duck pictures like this one, but in this case the quality is not the best and if I had to choose between the beautiful water in the peak and waves or a focused duck, I would choose the focus. Your image is lovely it's only MHO --The Photographer21:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree, it's not very sharp. Also, the red bokeh color in the water, probably a reflection of fall leaves, looks kind of bloody. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unlike Ikan, I'm not bothered by the red reflections in the water ... it looks different, and I thought of red autumn leaves first. Like him, though, I think the duck's rear should be sharper. And I'll add to his oppose my own observation that the boundary of the front of the duck with the water looks a little too overprocessed. Might not have been intended, but it's there. Daniel Case (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2016 at 10:26:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tripterygion.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tripterygion.JPG
Welcome, and thanks for nominating a photo. However, I will Oppose this time, because the depth of field is too shallow for my taste (only the head is fairly sharp), and I don't love the composition (it would be better to have more space to the left of the head, as that's the direction the fish would seem to the viewer to be going in, and all the blur to the right really doesn't help anything, compositionally, to my mind). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ Ikan Kekek. The picture is a portrait or at least a close view of the fish, thus shallow dof is obvious. You can catch the whole body of the fish from above or by a lateral view, but it would result banal. Having placed the head of the fish in the first third of the image from left and having faded the rest of the body is a way to enhance dynamism. The blur appearance contributes to this effect. Instead, if the subject was more centered, as you suggested, the composition would have been poorer and less dynamic.--Gronk (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A VI in all likelihood given its wide use, but not an FP and probably not even a QI, for the issues noted above, particularly the color noise. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2016 at 04:41:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cálice, Patena e Colherinha.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cálice, Patena e Colherinha.jpg
Neutral The corner sharpness is not good, I also may suggest a little wider framing. Not being sure if this is technically feasible, I will vote neutral instead of opposing. --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2016 at 11:25:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dlieja da Sacun dovia cun ciampanil Urtijei.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dlieja da Sacun dovia cun ciampanil Urtijei.jpg
Support Very nice little church! Beautiful photography, no negative points detected. Just asking: Why did you need to stitch several pics together, when you are using a 36MPix camera? Or is it a HDR stack instead? --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The church is in the middle of the forest and I was too close with my 35 mm lens. Btw taking more shots allowed me also to focus better the top.Thanks for the comment--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My 2 cents, but I find the alternative so much more attractive (size aside, but it's not all about it, or is it?) - Benh (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2016 at 16:14:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support The place gives me the creeps so it does mediate a feeling, which is what a good photo should do. Good to see something different. cart-Talk20:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support I think I might've liked this better with more vertical crop, leaving out the empty sky at top, and maybe cutting out a little of the foreground for balance. INeverCry22:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2016 at 20:17:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Delano South Beach.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Delano South Beach.jpg
Oppose - Very nice Art Deco hotel, but the overall composition isn't memorable. Also, though, the focus is too soft for FP and probably too soft for QI, too. I'm wondering if there's an angle that could produce a more compelling composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ikan said it. Preferably and angle that is slightly less bright. There is some purple CA on the very top of the building, the sky is so dark that it almost blends in with it though. cart-Talk23:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ordinariness of composition per Ikan. Also seems like the exposure could have been better balanced—the building is brighter than necessary and the sky too dark. I can't tell if exposure compensation was used or not. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2016 at 15:16:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment - I like this picture, but I'm undecided on whether it's outstanding enough to feature. The crop of the tree feels random and could be improved somewhat by moving it a bit to the left, where there is space at the top of the tree, but I'm not sure that would make the difference between not supporting and supporting a feature for me. For me the crux of the issue is that I like the mood, but the scene is not memorable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lovely dreamy picture, but unfortunately I do not find it special or significant enough for an FP. This is one of those instances when it probably felt more special being there and experiencing the place, than it is to look at in a photo. Sorry. cart-Talk21:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2016 at 11:22:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:AlegoríaOceanoAtlánticoMonumentoalaBandera-sep2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:AlegoríaOceanoAtlánticoMonumentoalaBandera-sep2016.jpg
Oppose Sorry. Converging verticals, the cut sky doesn’t make sense here, face is distorted from this viewpoint, and again the sharpness of the face is considerably poorer than in the center of the image. I really cannot see more than a QI here (and maybe would have opposed there too, for the verticals). --Kreuzschnabel13:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2016 at 11:18:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:AIRPOWER16 - Air to Air SK35C Draken (29366239356).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:AIRPOWER16 - Air to Air SK35C Draken (29366239356).jpg
Support as nominator -- Quite simply, an outstanding photograph, with impressive detail and perfect focus, of what had to be an extremely difficult subject. You can count the rivets. Reventtalk11:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great action photo. And the rivets, ah yes, I remember... I built several models of this plane when I was a little girl, loved the double delta wing even then. And who could resist a plane called Draken (The Dragon) :) --cart-Talk23:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit of posterization in the exhaust, but that's such a small fault for an otherwise great picture of a military jet (a pretty stiff competition here). Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very big wow. Honestly thought it was computer generated. Love how some users find gems like that and share with us here. - Benh (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment … and again we’ve got three versions mixed up into one nomination. Though it’s a great pic, I keep my oppose just for the sake of this procedure, and I beg all of you again: Please do not edit an active nomination unless it’s a very minor flaw (e.g. a dust spot) that all voters agree upon. Sharpness is too much a matter of taste, and alterations into any direction might affect other’s opinions on it. For me the image was best in its original version but since I cannot express this view any more, I’m opposing. --Kreuzschnabel06:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Photographer’s edit. Sharpening entirely overdone. The original version is featurable enough, the latest one isn’t IMHO. – Generally, please abstain from altering active nominations, or at least make sure to notify all previous voters personally as to reconsider their voting. --Kreuzschnabel14:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please, let's not start this multi-version-thing again. I think the picture was fine and featureable even before The Photographer stepped in with the usual fixing. Could you at least wait until an issue is raised that needs correcting or if someone actively asks for a correction. Especially with so many editors voting and no 'pinging'. cart-Talk15:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone that dislikes an edit should just revert it (per COM:OVERWRITE) and ask the person who made the change to put their version under a different filename as a derivative. Voting this down, when people like the original, is a silly result. Just put the original back. (sigh). Reventtalk09:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment D’accord – any edit which does not just fix a clear flaw (and should be done by the author) but enhances the image to the editor’s taste, such as Photographer’s sharpening here, should never replace the original but always be uploaded (and then nominated) as a derivative work. The more so on an active nomination being voted on! As soon as this point is not very clear among ourselves, I cannot change my vote here since it would be unclear which version I am referring to. User:The Photographer already made a major edit to one of his own nominations here a few weeks ago during voting period and got a lot of sand into his face for that, I really do not know why he tries now the same on other’s works. – As for this nomination, I suggest to withdraw, then reset the image version, and put it up again. Now in this discussion votings for three(!) different versions are already mixed up. This is pointless. --Kreuzschnabel17:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revent. We encourage people to avoid making changes during a nomination but it does happen and often for good reason but then people who have voted already need to be pinged, which isn't happening here. I see now that Tm has reverted the sharpening, thus many votes/comments are irrelevant. I've changed my vote to oppose because this is too unstable and people are editing without pinging. Imo The Photographer should not have changed the nominated photo without your permission (as nominator) and without pinging others. But when you were pleased with the results, it would be very rude of others to revert simply because they preferred the unsharpened version. Clearly the sharpening is contentious now and so policy requires a separate image, but imo The Photographer's edit is debatable as to whether it could have been considered contentious in advance. I agree with others that we need to get out the recent habit of fiddling with other people's images or creating alternative versions during other people's nomination, and aim (as much as possible) on some stability for the period of a nomination. I suggest if you prefer the sharpened one, you create a different file and nominate that while withdrawing this one. Currently, I think this nomination is invalid as we have no idea what people are voting for (like Brexit, sigh). -- Colin (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: Actually, the more I more I look at it, the more I prefer the original as well... he did a lot more than I realized at first, and you are right that the nose, in both of his versions, was way too much... it makes all the edges flat, instead of appearing to 'round off' into a reflection of the sky, and it's not just on the nose. Tm has reverted it now, but I think that you're right that I should just withdraw this and put it back up again later (or let someone else do so)... the voting is far too confused now. Reventtalk18:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Revent: I wouldn't have felt comfortable reverting The Photographer's changes after you (the nominator) expressed approval of those changes. I would've considered that disrespectful toward you. I hope you do re-nominate this, as it's a great image (as is). INeverCry21:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With that response, I will go ahead and actually formally "I withdraw my nomination", and start over again with a clean vote in a few days. I wish I had looked closer, sooner, at the edited version... that was my mistake. Reventtalk21:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2016 at 10:15:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Pałac w Kamieńcu Ząbkowickim 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Pałac w Kamieńcu Ząbkowickim 01.jpg
Oppose Not convinced, sorry: (1) The towers on the sides look distorted, as if they’d rise towards the sides. (2) Was there no way to keep the foreground chain out of the frame? (3) Level of detail not overwhelming for a 9 mpix candidate (taken with a 24 mpix camera, btw). --Kreuzschnabel18:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2016 at 00:56:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sydney Harbour during Vivid Sydney 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sydney Harbour during Vivid Sydney 2015.jpg
Support - Great. Lots to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC) - I looked at this again at full size. The opponents are right: It's colorful, but the quality is rather poor. Oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately - the image is fun to look at. But there are too many minor technical / quality issues so that - in sum - I can't suppport the nomination. The image(s) were taken with a 5D III after all - at first I thought that the author used his smartphone... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
without any doubt Oppose sorry but the image quality (100% view) of this nighttime view is horrible, every compact camera can make today better images. Beside of this the lights of the bulb exposure isn't very nice, random and just confusing. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2016 at 13:30:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A bunch of rebar up close.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A bunch of rebar up close.jpg
Support Another "why hasn't anyone taken a picture of this sort of thing and nominated it before?" picture. Just the right amount of rust ... I can almost smell the metal. Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea, but I don't really dig this specific execution of it. There's a huge shadowy area right in the middle, and within it a small slit where you can see the ground. That slit is much brighter than almost everything else and thus draws attention away from the actual subject. There are a lot of nice converging lines, but they neither converge directly in the (horizontal) center nor does it look like the point of convergence was put off-center on purpose. --El Grafo (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The small slit has been toned down a bit. You were right about that, thanks for pointing it out. I was only trying to keep the file as "au naturel" as possible. The odd angle was chosen to produce the best color and light on the bars. The bunch was about ten meters long and weighed about a ton, so I could not move them about to position them. Besides, I don't think the workers at the site would have liked me messing with their material. :) cart-Talk11:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2016 at 07:56:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Col-d'Izoard-Queyras-DSC 0130.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Col-d'Izoard-Queyras-DSC 0130.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2016 at 14:49:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
"CGI"? I'm able to build entire fake skies you could not guess, but this one, no. Too difficult. A full blue sky should have been easier !! 👼🏻--Jebulon (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2016 at 15:37:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ISS-40 Coastlines of the southern Baltic Sea.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ISS-40 Coastlines of the southern Baltic Sea.jpg
Support - This isn't the clearest picture of coastline I've seen, but the picture is so beautiful and fun to look at that I'm supporting, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Party-poop oppose I'm sorry, I'm just not wowed, as it looks like every other picture from space. Not being from the region, it took me a while to figure out what I was looking at, and from which angle (inconveniently, of course, Copenhagen and Malmö are obscured by clouds). Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The not-the-usual-map-orientation was the first thing that attracted me to this photo, and the sun is high-lighting Skagen as usual. I like things being looked at from a different angle. cart-Talk05:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2016 at 10:38:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Landsort August 2016 04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Landsort August 2016 04.jpg
Comment Thank you for votes and interesting comments. Wow is to some extent personal of corse. I really like the images in full screen (I have it on my desktop). But is also telling a history, for almost a century was Landsort Landsort a military base for the Swedish coastal artillery and the most southern point of the defense of Stockholm. it is also a story about this wild, remote island with its rugged cliffs open to the sea where people have have been living under difficult conditions in centuries. The island also have the oldest lighthouse in Sweden. --ArildV (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2016 at 21:25:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pha That Luang Sunrise Panorama BLS.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pha That Luang Sunrise Panorama BLS.jpg
Info Just found out that people were actually uploading pictures from my Flickr stream to here. This is Laos' national symbol. I'm partly of Lao descent, so this is a biased nom. Selfnom -- Benh (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too sure but it was taken in May when the weather is very hot and not too humid. So the sky had a lot of haze, which I think is why I was able to catch a sun without being blinded. I now regret a bit I didn't take it 10 min later. I think the sun would have been right on top of the stuppa, greatly improving the composition. - Benh (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's a hint of CA on the side towers, and the yellow light on the tiles is a little posterrized—but if that's what it took to get this scene, I'll accept it gladly. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm it seems you are right about these. That's strange because I always tick the "remove CA" checkboxes in LR... but those ones made their way through. Or is it a symptom of exposures blending (don't think so, they really look like CA)? I really am too lazy to get back to this panorama though :D - Benh (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Will sort this up when I get home (guess they are a result of using a bot for transferring from Flickr to here). - Benh (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice morning. Better you upload directly as you're active here. The Flickr will add the old outdated license. Jee03:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkadavoor: That's the point. I'm not so active anymore :(. I still seldom upload photos to Flickr because it takes only a few clicks from LR. But I haven't found something as convenient for Commons. Will look this weekend, but if anyone has suggestions... :) - Benh (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2016 at 09:06:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20160803 - Meiktila, Myanmar - Phaung Daw U Pagoda - 7321.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20160803 - Meiktila, Myanmar - Phaung Daw U Pagoda - 7321.jpg
Support - I think this is a really striking image and a fine picture of the pagoda. I can imagine objections to the wires and the modern tower, but that's what's there and I find the photo a worthy candidate, anyway. We can consider it a picture with the pagoda in the foreground and a slice of life in modern Myanmar in the background, including the people who I at first thought were cultivating rice but may be gathering something growing by itself near the lake. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid that it has several technical issues. BTW I woudln't despise clonig out wires and towers since photographically speaking they don't represent well "a slice of modern life" but are rather disturbing. Sorry--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Of course I understand and even anticipated the reaction you're giving me, but to partly address it (and I hope this doesn't come across as vehement, let alone personal, and I mention that in parentheses because I know it's very easy to misread tone online): I think people may be too quick to clone things out. Not everything in a photo needs to be a perfect representation of an ideal view that doesn't exist. The wires and the tower exist, and the pagoda is maintained in a modern country that has electricity and other things. It's not some mythical, timeless thing of anyone's imagination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info@Jakubhal: I removed several dust spots, fixed perspective distortion and added slghtly sharpness for main subject. Please revert, if it's not ok with you. --Ivar (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2016 at 09:16:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paso fronterizo con Chile, Bolivia, 2016-02-02, DD 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paso fronterizo con Chile, Bolivia, 2016-02-02, DD 01.JPG
Support - I like the contrasts in this picture: Between the cracked exterior of the building and the new DirecTV satellite dish and between the vehicles and people on line and the vast desert. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool, thank you Ikan, I indeed enjoy the subject as most of people here would expect an inmigration office / border control to look a bit different :) Poco210:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A well composed and executed photo with high EV. Although I must repeat myself: Geo tag pretty please and some more specific cats. It's a very long border... :) --cart-Talk14:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2016 at 19:29:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Haut-Languedoc, Rosis cf06.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Haut-Languedoc, Rosis cf06.jpg/2
Support Ah, always a tradeoff when dealing with WB... the old version had better sky, but this version really makes the golden hour "pop." --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2016 at 13:50:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
The stitching issues I'll fix tomorrow evening. The "three-armed-men" is in fact a two-armed who angle his leg and holds s.th. in between his hollow of knee. But you're right: if you not look closely enough it seems strange. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see the "three-armed man". When you fix that, I'll support this photo. Among other things, you photograph water very well. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but the last result is not much better. Stitching lines are still clearly visible (stitching error on ship ropes is also notable). --Ivar (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2016 at 14:29:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Thank you very much for the nomination, Benh! I spend a lot of time in this building and I don't always enjoy it but the architecture is really awesome. --Code (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Glad to see more of these. At Wikimania, in one session, we were considering how we could rethink the layout of Wikipedia articles in a post-desktop (well, post-predominantly desktop era) and I pointed to these as something we might want to make better use of on other platforms, or as-yet-uninvented future platforms. So the more of them, and the more good ones, the better. Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Iifar: It's very difficult in this case (I really don't know why) and I already tried a lot to get rid of them. I'll give it another try this weekend. --Code (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2016 at 15:20:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - With that much blue sky, I feel like maybe this picture shouldn't work, but it does for me. And the boundary marker is funny to see in that terrain but interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2016 at 04:43:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Uitgebloeide bloem van Cirsium vulgare in mild avondlicht. Locatie, De Famberhorst 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Uitgebloeide bloem van Cirsium vulgare in mild avondlicht. Locatie, De Famberhorst 03.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2016 at 15:51:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Garpenbergs gruvkapell May 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Garpenbergs gruvkapell May 2015.jpg
Abstain (as the creator of the picture). Thank you very much for the nomination. The idea behind the image was to capture both the historic chapel and the modern Winding towers in the background. Garpenberg is Sweden's oldest mine that is still operational and dates back to the 13th-century.--ArildV (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Psst ArildV, gruvbrytningen går tillbaka till 1300-talet, på engelska blir det "14th century", du vet det där eviga trasslet med att man alltid måste lägga till ett århundrade när man ska översätta. ;) cart-Talk19:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the reflections in the old non-flat window panes. Glad to see that they are intact. A starkly lit (very appropriate) pic of an unusual building. cart-Talk16:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info The buildings in the background are very appropriate, they are part of the modern Garpenberg mine (now run by Boliden AB), a mine that has been in operation since the 14th century. The chapel (Garpenberg Mining Chapel) was built right next to the mine to serve the miners in the 17th century, so it is very much a part of the mining area, even if it's been moved a hundred meters or so this way and that to not be in the way of the mining operation over the centuries. cart-Talk19:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The wooden chapel and the great sky with billowy clouds really do it for me. The cut-off tanks at the right margin bug me a little at full size but are no big deal at full-page size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2016 at 17:28:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I must vote for it. Far too many feelings here :) Thank you Miguel for this nom, no clue how to came to the idea. Poco218:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2016 at 21:28:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2016 at 02:47:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cyclosia papilionaris-Kadavoor-2016-06-17-001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cyclosia papilionaris-Kadavoor-2016-06-17-001.jpg
It's a moth. There are some moths (and their caterpillars too) more beautiful than butterflies. That may be why this beauty is called "Drury's Jewel". :) Jee04:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and sharp moth. The benefit of arriving late is that you can pretend you knew what critter this was (otherwise I would also have called it a butterfly). Is there some "How to tell a moth from a butterfly for dummies" that you can share with us? --cart-Talk08:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the crop very harmonious and balanced, it gives the moth some clear and uncluttered space. It's a composition, not an examination under a microscope, but it's all a matter of taste. cart-Talk15:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2016 at 03:38:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Joshua Tree NP - North Overhang - 5.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Joshua Tree NP - North Overhang - 5.jpg
Oppose The climber isn't doing anything interesting, like reaching for a hold, the sense of scale as to how high he is isn't that clear, and this gives me no real indication of what his next move is. Overall, not quite as exciting or dynamic as I'd like. INeverCry03:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2016 at 04:42:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I looked at the 4 current QIs of this type of beetle, but rather than deciding whether to support this picture based on a comparison with those, I'll just go with my first impulse, which is that I love the beetle, even though ideally, I'd rather see a bit more of the flower, too. It gets less and less clear from thumbnail to full-page to full size. Of course, that was purely intentional on your part. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really don't get it. This is a field shot of a moving beetle and something like 80-90% of him is crisp sharp, including the eye. You can have 100% sharpness only in studio with dead specimen. --Ivar (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A good photo indeed; well document its behavior. The partially hidden dorsal view and the position of right antenna are some drawback. Jee13:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: We had discussed earlier and concluded not to allow entirely different subjects as a set. Jee02:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2016 at 15:05:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Emerald damselfly (Lestes sponsa) male 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Emerald damselfly (Lestes sponsa) male 3.jpg
Comment Why F6.3? Let me explain. Hand-held macro photography in the field is a balance between shutter speed, Aperture and ISO. All the key features are in focus on this image and 1/1000 sec was needed because of the conditions. I try to use 1/500 sec where possible. I chose ISO400 as a good compromise. Charles (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Charles: OK, saw your statement. I would say you are free to some f/9, i use f/8 mostly on my m4/3, which is smaller than, yours, APS-C. But i still woldnt go to some f/16 as some do, would be worse. Saw EXIF, i think even 1/500 would be very fast, and you are calm on some 1/300. So lets say if you put to F/8 you come to 1/500, on same ISO. Good question where will you handle, best MTF for bad DOF, or some less MTF for better DOF. I think you have some free space there. --Mile (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents. I haven't done a lot of field macro, but when I have, I used a tripod. I believe that guy used a tripod too (amongst other tricks I'm unaware of). - Benh (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes agree it doesn't freeze the subject, but for that matter, I go in the morning when I found that plants are still "enough" to give me room for an additionnal exposure time. One can also shield the subject from the wind. I think freezing anything for 1-2 sec is enough. What do you think? - Benh (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No chance, I'm afraid. 1. There's often nowhere to plant a tripod. 2. By the time you set up the tripod, the animal would have long gone 3. Even 1/10 sec would be blurred in the still morning air 4. These damselflies don't fly in the early morning. Remember, this photo is taken with the lens less than 100mm from the damselfly, about five seconds after he has landed. The only chance to use a tripod (for larger dragonflies) is to 'stalk' out a perch and wait for him to return, but that can only work with a long lens that doesn't crowd the perch, not a macro. Charles (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Charles mentioned most points. This will be condition of damselflies in early morning. They too good subjects; but different views. Further, tripods are meant for still subjects in macro. Otherwise those small animals will flee in fear seeing big setups. It may work on a 300+ tele though.
I found another FP of same subject taken at 150mm on a Olympus means 300mm in FF. Less detailed and tail end out of focus. This is a good FP from same family with comparable details. Jee15:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I compare it with all my Lestidae photos. Better in all aspects. I'm shooting up-to f/14 using flash; but no better results. Seems the faster shutter speed is the secret here. Jee13:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks Jee @Jkadavoor: . Not sure what equipment you have now, but remember my Canon 100mm Macro is an 'L' (professional) grade and has IS (Image stabilization) worth 2-3 stops. I use a crop frame body, having experimented with Canon 5D full frame and not getting any better results. Charles (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using Sony A77II comparable to your Canon 70D. My lens Sigma 150 is also comparable to your 100mm. It seems you shoot in Shutter priority AE. I never get such an aperture value in such a speed. I get only 2.8. May be due to my low light condition or a difference of my camera. In Aperture priority mode (as Ivar shoots) I get very slow shutter speed like 1/30. So I ended up using flash. :) Jee16:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2016 at 00:30:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:AlegoriaalRioParanaMonumentoalaBandera-RosarioArgentina-03673.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:AlegoriaalRioParanaMonumentoalaBandera-RosarioArgentina-03673.jpg
Oppose Face out of focus, poor crop (too little space on top, too much on bottom). Sorry but with such an easy to shoot FPC I expect no less than flawless perfection. --Kreuzschnabel19:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The head is definitely less sharp than, for instance, the penis. (No hint intended as to what the artist focuses on a man’s body.) Whether it’s a DoF problem or a poor lens, the fact remains. --Kreuzschnabel10:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2016 at 20:58:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose A classic postcard view of Berlin. When I was looking at the thumbnail version I thouhgt it would surely be featurable but when looking at it at 100% its way too soft. Nearly all the details are gone. Looks like you've overdone the noise reduction or something similar. Very well done otherwise. --Code (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find it too dark, even for a night shot. Maybe the contrast is to high here. But what really triggers my oppose are the colours smearing all over the place, which is particularly noticeable around the cranes. Very aggressive NR I think (and this is applicable to the oher nom, where bricks render as row.) - Benh (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Code, Jebulon, Benh, and Iifar: thanks for your feedback, I agree that the denoising was too much, or rather the smoothing of it was far from ideal causing that the colours smeared. I've uploaded a new version where I believe I've this problem under control. Please, let me know what you think. I do actually like this picture very much. Poco219:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The new version looks somewhat better indeed but I'm still not fully convinced. It looks very soft overall, especially the museum itself which is the most important part of the composition. However, considering that the size is very high and the composition is really nice, I removed my oppose and stay Neutral. --Code (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see an improvement between the versions particular the colour smear issue. It isn't stitched-image sharp, but overall the image is very pleasing and the moon is lovely. -- Colin (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Removed my oppose after colours smearing has been fixed. Still a bit noisy and dark in my view, which is a bit surprising given the camera body. @Poco a poco: any idea why it's this noisy at ISO 200 on a 5DS? - Benh (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Benh, I can explain it. The shot was taken from a small and shaky bridge due to the continuous traffic on it. As I didn't want to go for a too high ISO I was maybe a bit conservative and the result was a bit too dark. The HDR processing of Lr was not good either and make it even darker overall. I had to compensate with a strong increase of exposure and noise was too obvious, then I had to denoise,...In the version below I have not used one of the 2 darker frames and the result of the HDR processing of Lr is overall better so that later I didn't have to apply a strong denoising due to high level of noise. Poco218:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for pinging. I think I'll just wait until the dust settles and see what versions there are to vote for then instead of re-evaluating my vote every hour or so. ;) cart-Talk19:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Poco a poco: What is that square gray shape between the tower and the two buildings? It's barely visible in the original version, but in this version it really stands out. INeverCry20:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer the original. The clouds mentioned above would be better cloned out in my opinion. When I look at this version, that gray block is the first thing I see. INeverCry21:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I also prefer the original. The edits you made had the result of blowing the "Achtung" sign, and I don't see any overall improvement but mainly less contrast. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sorry Poco. It's gotten much better, but I'm still not wowed enough, even though the sky looks terrific on that one. Wouldn't be sad at all that is promoted :) - Benh (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2016 at 10:23:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Elbe in Saxon Switzerland.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Elbe in Saxon Switzerland.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2016 at 17:43:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pont Vieux de Béziers cf02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pont Vieux de Béziers cf02.jpg
Comment This has got to be one of the coolest bridge reflections I've ever seen! But I think the bridge and some of the rest of the scenery look a little bit too bright/light, loosing some of the detail in the brickwork. Yes, I checked the histogram and it's not blown, but still... Thoughts? cart-Talk18:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2016 at 12:40:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - cart is a good advocate for your photo and may have helped me look at it better. But in any case, I like how my eyes move around the picture frame. The rocky hillside has an interesting relationship with the sky, and the trees greatly help in completing the movement. The distant mountain adds to an already good picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed I’m afraid. Just too dark. In case Basotxerri agrees and wants to fix this, please do not just upload a new version but withdraw this one and set up a new nomination. I strongly oppose the habit of mixing multiple versions into one nomination. This is image assessment, not image improvement; candidates must be completely processed and ready for release and thus are voted on as they have been nominated. --Kreuzschnabel15:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2016 at 04:37:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Salar de Uyuni, Bolivia, 2016-02-04, DD 13-15 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Salar de Uyuni, Bolivia, 2016-02-04, DD 13-15 HDR.JPG
Support - I just find this such an unusual and strange image, with the people and SUV in the middle of nowhere at the break of dawn in a completely empty salt flat with a cloudless sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it can, if it's great, but this composition is lacking. Something a simple a kneeling would have made this photo better, then the car and the persons would have "risen" and all cut through the horizon. Like in this very crude photoshoped version of the pic: . Now they look kind of "submerged". Shooting towards a horizon, I always get my knees dirty, many times it increases the wow factor. I always think of Jean Giraud's work when I see Poco's flat lands since Giraud got much of his inspiration from places like this and he often uses the low horizon to draw dramatic scenes. cart-Talk09:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd give it a pro if it wasn't that tilted. Would surely be better if there wasn't the moving person visible. I don't really see why it should have been necessary to use HDR here. --Code (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Poco a poco, I hope it wasn't inappropriate for me to nominate this photo. If you'd like to edit it to address the criticisms that have been made above, please go ahead and then ping everyone (or I could ping everyone). If you would prefer to withdraw the nomination, do that. I like this photo a lot, but I understand the criticisms. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ikan! Thank you very much for this unexpected nom. I can address the mentioned issues but to do so I need access to this raw files and I don't have it right now (nor in the next weeks). Can you withdraw the nomination? I will work on the file when I am back from my trip. Sorry, the timing is just pretty bad for me. Poco218:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice idea which I wanted to support on first glance but then, regretful Oppose for poor craftmanship. Double contours on standing man and car roof baggage, chromatic aberration on the car wheels, blurred person, horizon leaning to the right. This might be one of our nicest pictures but it’s surely not one of our best ones. Sorry for putting it so harshly. --Kreuzschnabel15:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2016 at 11:57:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Détails du Mihrab 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Détails du Mihrab 03.jpg
Comment Welcome back IssamBarhoumi. However according to the rules here at FPC you can not have more than two active nominations at the same time. You did not formally withdraw your previous nomination at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Détails du Mihrab 20.jpg so it is still active. You need to go to that page and place {{withdraw}} at the bottom and sign it to make that official. Or if you decide to keep that nomination until the voting period is over, you must withdraw one of these new ones. cart-Talk12:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a decent small photo of some details. But there's nothing outstanding here to make it "among our finest". This is what QI is for. -- Colin (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2016 at 11:34:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Würzburg, Panorama, 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Würzburg, Panorama, 1.jpg
Oppose I don't think the composition is working. It feels like you are looking at the city side-on rather than directly. The river and path lead the eyes to nowhere interesting. It's very wide-angle so has strong cylindrical distortion causing the river to bend more than reality. The buildings are sharp at 100% but in the full view are all very small. I think a smaller image (e.g. 16:9) looking directly across the river would work better. -- Colin (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. -- Colin (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2016 at 19:48:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Werneck, 4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Werneck, 4.jpg
Weak pro Great subject, composition and sharpness (the DP2 Merrill is really impressive regarding sharpness). However, there's some CA in the upper left corner and the shadows could be brightened a little bit. Maybe you can improve that? --Code (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. -- Colin (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2016 at 17:04:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gersfeld, Panorama, a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gersfeld, Panorama, a.jpg
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. -- Colin (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2016 at 10:25:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sagadi mõisa peahoone pargipoolne külg.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sagadi mõisa peahoone pargipoolne külg.jpg
Question: Could you do perspective correction? I agree that the extreme foreshortening of the building is somewhat jarring, but otherwise, I find the composition excellent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - However, as a painter's son, I've decided to support a feature, anyway. This is the kind of thing that you could easily see a great painter like Stanley Lewis doing. I consider it great art, and if great art is achieved by unconventional means, it's not less great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2016 at 11:05:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment - I like this photo and would like to support it, but I'd like a slight crop on the bottom of the picture frame to get rid of the unsharp foreground at the extreme near right corner (the top stair). But didn't we already vote on a similar picture recently? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's possible I just remember the photo from seeing it at QIC. It's a very interesting view; I really like the sharp slant downwards. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2016 at 18:23:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kreta - Chania - Kathedrale der drei Märtyrer.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kreta - Chania - Kathedrale der drei Märtyrer.jpg
It would be really nice if Wladyslaw were willing to answer on his behalf. For my part, I find the photo restful and don't find the composition ordinary but also find it well done. It's not beyond criticism: I might have liked the palm in the left foreground not to be cut off. But that's a minor matter. But although the artist's answer might or might not persuade, it's good to hear their thoughts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for my oppose is simply that there is not enough "wow" factor. The lighting and composition are both ordinary; good but not special. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulon: my question was not for you but for King of H. King of H: I'm sorry, but "no wow" is for me not a sufficient and useful argument. But not problem for me: you aren't forced to give one. I just asked. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: nobody is forced to answer. You are not, as I see. If you nominate this picture, it is because you feel some "wow" about it. It could be interesting to know why...--Jebulon (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2016 at 22:51:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo.jpg
Oppose Per Uoaei1. The table also looks a bit haphazard. 3 chairs on one side, 2 with a big space between them on the other; another random chair at right. INeverCry08:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2016 at 17:33:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:San Pablo Bastion, Castillo de San Marcos.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Pablo Bastion, Castillo de San Marcos.jpg
Support Julian! So nice to be in a position to interact with you again! And what an image ... the first truly symmetrical building photo I've seen here in a while. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, likewise! I've been doing a lot more photography (and traveling) lately, so I'm hoping to get back into the habit of uploading some of my images here. The only downside to spending a few years learning photography is that now I cringe a little every time I come across one of my earlier uploads! Yikes. Anyway, hope all is well on your end, and thanks for the support. –Juliancolton | Talk14:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi The Photographer, I made some minor changes to warm up the WB, boost shadow exposure, and remove the hot pixels in the sky. I deliberately opted for a darker exposure to preserve detail in the original plaster, which is very reflective and tends to blow out. Could you please take another look? –Juliancolton | Talk14:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Julian, thanks for you improvement and it look better, however, IMHO, the image look too yellow (the main problem and why my oppose vote) and a big porcent of this image is Underexposed. Btw, another detail is the little space from the fort to the grass edge down exactly in the middle. --The Photographer19:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's much, much bluer than it looked in reality. I know the warm hues are somewhat unnatural and artificial, but I'd rather keep it close to the actual appearance, right or wrong (and personally I like the complimentary blue/orange tones, from an aesthetic point of view). –Juliancolton | Talk14:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2016 at 01:58:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aerial photo of WTC groundzero.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aerial photo of WTC groundzero.jpg
Neutral I remember very well this picture. I struggled to opened it on my computer at that time, but it was a lot of wow : technically, and for what it showed. I'm not sure why we should promote the cropped version above the original one. Significants parts are gone and the borders weren't so distracting in my opinion. Will add alternative later. - Benh (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Benh, I think this is fine and the extra buildings aren't relevant to the WCT. I see there is some complaint of too many alternative nominations created, often without nominator permission. I think we had a discussion on this at FPC talk a while ago and I thought we'd agreed to always respect the nominator and only "disrupt" their nomination with their blessing. And some people are quite against alternatives in general. -- Colin (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jebulon, Colin, and ArionEstar: If I{{ping|Jebulon|Colin|ArionEstar can't use an alternative here, then I don't know when I can. If I nom separately, we could end up with two very similar FPs. Not sure this is desired. I don't know about the conversation Colin refers to, but I could understand than an alt. disrupts a self nom (authors don't necessarily want their work altered). Not the case here. But my apologizes in advance if any inconvenience. - Benh (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the dilemma and personally I think alts are fine for crop variations, but if you add an alt, it splits the vote, and one could get neither promoted. I think the safest thing is to consider that the nominator owns this nomination and you haven't any right to alter it. We have seen some people get upset that their nomination was disrupted without permission. There's also the hassle of pinging people who voted prior to the alt -- many people do not revisit nominations they have voted for. -- Colin (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support We generally go with edited versions of "official" pictures if they significantly enhance the encyclopedic quality of the image, despite any loss of perceived "authenticity." --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer the crop. I like having a square composition with clean borders, and Ground Zero is the subject, so I can spare some water, a boat, and few buildings. INeverCry08:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2016 at 21:05:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
@PetarM: From my experience (I'm living near this building) tourists rarely shoot HDR pictures with tripods (13 seconds exposure time) and 50MPix cameras, but your experience might be different, of course. --Code (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Code, i expect to see flag normal, in one piece. To be Featured. Also crop isnt good here. But flag... Also, Megapixelation isnt something i consider. --Mile (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2016 at 02:33:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Homeless on Paulista Avenue, São Paulo city, Brazil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Homeless on Paulista Avenue, São Paulo city, Brazil.jpg
Oppose I generally don’t find a top-down view on humans or other creatures very striking, especially when the face is hidden. I don’t see anything of interest here: What’s on the board, what’s his face like? Did the photographer not dare to ask if a frontal shot could be taken? Then, it would need some background (which could be obtained by taking the pic from eye level). Technically, it’s very noisy, the more so considering its small size. Sorry, for me there’s nothing outstanding about this shot. --Kreuzschnabel06:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition is that of a painting's, the lack of background underlines the outcast nature of being homeless and not showing his face gives him a bit of privacy. The picture probably shows everything he owns, rather neatly arranged. It is what is not shown that keeps us guessing and makes the picture intriguing. cart-Talk08:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why "a top-down view" instead of an "inline view" is indeed a concern when we see a photo. But here the man looking down, the board (?) is slanting; so the photographer is well inline to them. I respect the privacy of him an live without seeing his face. What more is already said by W.carter above. Jee02:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2016 at 22:51:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sun dog with reflection over Brofjorden.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sun dog with reflection over Brofjorden.jpg
Info As I've said before, there is a lot of cool cloud activity by the water where I live, but I was not prepared for this halo phenomenon when it appeared right in front of me a few days ago. I probably did everything wrong. The whole thing lasted less than ten minutes and I don't think I've ever gone through so many settings on my camera in such a short time, hoping that some of it would turn out ok. At first I was so taken in by the halo that I just took pictures of it, but then I realized that I needed the sun too as reference. Just as the halo was vanishing a large flock of swans flew over the water in front of the camera. Minutes later the evening had only a nice normal sunset. The timestamps on the photos are correct. All by me -- cart-Talk22:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if this nom works it will be the FP's equivalent of "getting away with murder". I know that there are several things wrong with this photo, but I'm glad I was able to catch some of the event. This is the third time in my life I've seen a sun dog but the first time I've had a camera handy. Never leave home without it! cart-Talk07:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, the sun is blown. That's hard to avoid sometimes with this sort of image where the setting/rising sun is behind a cloud that does not completely obscure it. And in any event it is not the primary subject of the image, the sun dog is. On the whole I find it a very relaxing image to contemplate, what with all the cool colors, wide space and general late-summer evening mood. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Benh: Sun dogs can be observed rather frequently, several times a month if you’re lucky, they usually come with cirrus or cirrostratus clouds. This is an extraordinary bright one, though. --Kreuzschnabel19:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2016 at 14:51:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nutella sweet, São Paulo city, Brazil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nutella sweet, São Paulo city, Brazil.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2016 at 13:06:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Villa Barbara w Lądku-Zdroju 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Villa Barbara w Lądku-Zdroju 01.jpg
Oppose I don’t see more than a good QI here. Colours a bit on the cold side, considerable CCW tilt – which are fixable – but also not an extraordinary picture, which is not. --Kreuzschnabel15:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support for this version. This is the funny house in the middle of the woods of fairy tales. I like the motif and the funny windows that poke out from the roof. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2016 at 13:19:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Bahai House of Worship Langenhain 1 ks01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Bahai House of Worship Langenhain 1 ks01.jpg
Info Baha’i Temple Frankfurt, which is located at Langenhain village (about 25 kilometers off Frankfurt). Managed to catch it in good light this morning. Panorama image made of 8 exposures. I took 2 more views (see my user page) but I think this is the finest, and it’s entirely free of stitching errors AFAICS. c/u/n by --Kreuzschnabel13:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good question. In the image, he’s a feature of course. In real, he turned out to be a bug when he told me my dog wasn’t allowed inside. That’s why I didn’t take any interiors today. --Kreuzschnabel19:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I like it and IMO a very good FPC. But there's a little thing: IMO the image is leaning in. Please have a look at the doors. Can you please check it? --XRaytalk14:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I straightened them carefully but having had a very, very close look (and admired your sharp eyes), I admit the left side is leaning in by maybe 0.08 degrees. I don’t want to fix this since such a small correction might do more damage than benefit. Thanks for the hint anyway! --Kreuzschnabel15:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see a couple minor stitching errors toward the left side of the frame (one in the foreground vines and an even smaller one in the background grass), but it took me a while to find them and they don't affect anything important. Not a big issue for me. –Juliancolton | Talk16:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentConsidering the eagerness you obviously put into your search for stitching errors, I am much satisfied you found as few larger ones as I did :-) --Kreuzschnabel19:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasing lines in the picture and a bit of clouds to soften the sky. This could have been a normal good pic of a building, but for some reason it is more than that. --cart-Talk22:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's a really striking building and a good composition, so I'm willing to tolerate the blurry branches in the foreground on the left side, which I find a bit distracting at full size and definitely consider sub-optimal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The entire building is embedded in plants, forming a park. Therefore, I chose a planty foreground on purpose, to make the building kind of emerge from them --Kreuzschnabel07:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2016 at 08:13:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:City from One Bishops Square.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:City from One Bishops Square.jpg
Info An unusual view of the City of London, taken from the north-east rather than from the south bank of the Thames. The camera location is the roof terrace on an office that was open to the public only on Open House London 2015. The tall building nearby is apparently student accommodation but the other buildings are more concerned with finance. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the 150MP image is too big for your browser, you can use the "interactive large image viewer" that is linked on the image description page. However, be aware the Flash version produces a soft image that doesn't stop zooming at 100%, and the non-flash version displays heavily compressed JPGs (the results may vary depending on your internet connection).
It would be very helpful, not just for the nomination but for using the picture in the future, if you uploaded a version of it that is say half as big as this and listed that one under "other versions". That would give the pic a bigger chance of being used on more Wikipedias. cart-Talk08:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree W.carter. Someone suggested already that idea for my previous nom. I'll do that tonight. You can use the MediaWiki thumbnailer to request smaller resolution images, up to a point. For example
is the largest it will create and 39MP in size. You just take the URL from the "Other resolutions" links below the image, and change the XXXpx bit to a larger value. If you get an error, you've gone too big. -- Colin (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't have a problem with big files or tech things, but a good photo should also be avaliable for those with slower broadband connection and less tech knowhow. cart-Talk09:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. But to be honest, that's really the responsibility of Commons file description pages and the MediaWiki software behind them, to offer various sizes. Stock photo sites and Flickr for example, don't expect photographers to upload different sized source images. I think it is pretty dire that the largest "Other resolutions" that is offered as standard is just 0.4MP. The sizes 320x, 640x, 800x, 1024x are VGA, SVGA and XVGA dating from 1990 -- before some people here were even born! Perhaps a Phabricator ticket is needed... -- Colin (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional support As always, Colin, your compositional approach to the contemporary City skyline is excellent. But I'd like to know if it might be possible to burn down those clouds at upper left? They made me aquint the first time I looked at them. Realistic, no doubt, but probably not a reaction you want viewers to have. Daniel Case (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel If you check with The Photographers Ephemeris, the sun is just to the left of this scene, lighting up those clouds with an "ou! ou! my eyes!" brightness. It was quite a challenge with this lighting because of the effect of this glare. I dislike when images are adjusted so the maximum white is just paper white. So if I've translated this scene onto your monitor, then I'm pleased. But, also, perhaps your monitor is set too bright -- most monitors are default set far too bright. The image might be a better one without such clouds, but that's what was there, and I don't really want to make them unrealistic. -- Colin (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I knew you'd give a satisfactory answer either way, but I had to ask. (Due to my hopefully-soon-to-be-resolved computer issues, I'm using a laptop monitor at the moment, which I grant is perhaps different from the desktop monitor I have used for years). Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Photographer and with Daniel (about the clouds). But it's still nice, technically very good, and very interesting to browse. - Benh (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would suggest a crop that enables you to get the very unsharp grass in the near right corner out of the picture. I'm thinking that a horizontal crop might be less damaging to the rest of the composition than a vertical crop, but I wouldn't oppose a well-done vertical crop, for example one to the left of Broadgate. I also think that you could crop in somewhat from the left side, but that wouldn't have been a reason for me not to support a feature. I feel like the grass is a reason. It's a nice compositional element at full-page size, but having something that blurry in the foreground of a landscape picture is bad, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alchemist-hp, this is a three-exposure HDR and the darkest frame has plenty headroom. So there's no "overexposed" technical flaw. The left part of the image is significantly darker and more contrasty than reality, because if it was reality then your monitor would burn your retina if you stared at a white Word document. I can understand from a composition value that one may not want such bright clouds there, or that it could have been taken at a different time of day, but the lighting is representative of what it is, and most certainly not "overexposed". -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Milseburg, the rows do overlap quite a lot. I've got about 50% overlap vertically but only about 20% overlap horizontally. I think I overlapped too much vertically here but only just enough horizontally. I generally like quite a lot of overlap. For some scenes this can be very helpful as you have two or more frames to choose from for any part of the image, and this can help with moving people/cars to avoid ghosts or stitching issues. Also the corners of a frame are softer due to the lens not being perfect and so overlap helps to use the sharpest central portion of the image. For this image, I didn't have to edit the result produced by PtGui to select individual portions of frames by hand, but many others I have had to, and was grateful for having a choice. -- Colin (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2016 at 09:51:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Drottningens paviljong October 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Drottningens paviljong October 2016.jpg
Info Drottningens paviljong (The Queen's pavilion) in Drottningholm. Part of Royal Domain of Drottningholm - World Heritage Site. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lines with the walkway and the tree leaning over it. That tipped the scale of an otherwise just very good photo of a building. cart-Talk10:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, this is just a very good QI. Nor the building, neither the composition are more than at an average level. We have many QI candidates like this. Not bad but no FP, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jebulon's oppose !vote notwithstanding, I like the deep lines and the insistently corrected perspective, the latter of which is more than you can sometimes hope to get from a QI. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2016 at 09:35:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Détails du Mihrab 20.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Détails du Mihrab 20.jpg
Mild support I agree we do have a high threshold, but for a small image not using a long exposure or elaborate multiple-image tonemapping scheme, this ain't bad. And I feel we certainly could use more mosque interiors to go with all the churches. Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I agree with Daniel, the clash between the yellow light from the chandelier and the blue light from outside does not make this a harmonious picture IMO. The clock on the wall is excellent for WB and making the pic more about warm light. It could also use a little more brightness. Yes, this is actually me proposing a change of the picture (!) and I did a version of this just to see how it would look, but I will not upload it unless asked for it by the nominator or several other editors. The only reason I propose this is because IssamBarhoumi is relatively new to both QI and FP and not used to all the tricks of the trade we use here to improve our pictures. :) --cart-Talk22:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, since you ask I will upload a new version instead of an alternative and also 'ping' those who have voted already. I will explain what I have done later on your talk page. The "IMO" is just a short form of writing "In My Oppinion" so it's not a technical term if that is what you thought. :) cart-Talk22:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@IssamBarhoumi: It is generally regarded as bad manners to upload new versions and ask the community if it is better. When you nominate something here you have to be sure that it is the final version and be prepared to stand by it, this is not like QI where you have discussions about your photo.(Even if it sometimes turns out that way anyhow.) I made a huge exception when I suggested that I could help you out with this photo and only because you are new to this section. People here, including me, don't like to be 'pinged' back to check photos again and again. You need to make a decision on your own about which version to nominate and then leave it at that. --cart-Talk08:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - W.carter's version is best to my eyes, and I would give it weak support. I'd consider a possible neutral vote for your edit at most. Might you be able to take another photo of this motif in better light with sharper focus? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice shoot and excellent subject and composition, however, IMHO, you should use less noise reduction and less ISO to generate a better sharpening. Please, try the same shoot with a tripod. The picture size is fine for me because I underestand the camera sensor size too --The Photographer11:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2016 at 17:55:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ISS-32 American EVA b3 Aki Hoshide.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ISS-32 American EVA b3 Aki Hoshide.jpg
There are also what look like a couple of dust spots. But no, no reason to apply normal standards to such an extremely unusual photo. Strong Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2016 at 13:36:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral Not convinced yet. It’s very, very nice but also very, very soft (f/22 on a 15 mm lens is a really small hole, causing diffraction). May I suggest to crop out the background building to the left at least? --Kreuzschnabel15:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll fix the crop tomorrow and try to sharpen it a little bit more. I used f/22 because the exposure time was to short. A ND filter wasn't enough. --XRaytalk17:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll wait to see how this looks after you edit, but as it stands, I would support this photo of a pretty mill. What makes the difference for me is the eddy: I really like the contrast between the peaceful sky and roiled water. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2016 at 17:35:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stockholm Sweden God-Father-on-the-Rainbow-01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stockholm Sweden God-Father-on-the-Rainbow-01.jpg
Info Sculpture "Gud Fader på Himmelsbågen (God our Father on the Rainbow). Carl Milles designed this sculpture in 1946, as a monument for peace and a celebration of the creation of the United Nations. However, he only managed to produce a bronze model. 50 years later, Milles' former student, the American sculptor Marshall M. Frederics created the sculpture to its full size. I especially liked the fact, that the parabolic arc is half steel and half water.
Comment I don't think so, unless they alter the law which actually states: "Work of art may be depicted if it is permanently placed on or at a public place outdoors." But thanks for the hint, I added the FoP Sweden tag. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, if they alter any copyright laws you will not be the only photographer who'll be miserable about it, Milles is sort of the best known sculpter in Sweden and his works are usually landmarks in major citeis. This is also why it's nice to see one of his works without crowds of people around it. It's very nice shot, but I miss the whole impact wave that the falling water creates as well as the last cornerstone of the fundament/pier to the right. Do you have a slightly wider crop of this? Milles' works are almost always not just the metal-thing but also the base and the area around the work. What we here refer to as "light and space". --cart-Talk19:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! (and quite right INC^^) Now the artwork can be viewed as it was intended, I think Milles himself would have been very pleased with this photo. cart-Talk08:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2016 at 06:15:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tagebau Cottbus-Nordi.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tagebau Cottbus-Nordi.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2016 at 14:35:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:William Birney.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:William Birney.jpg
I see the thing on the right shoulder. There's a brighter spot to the left of the insignia. Otherwise, I'd vote for this on historical grounds, although the photo looks quite faded below the waist. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2016 at 16:58:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
If I may, I find you very "severe" here. The FP you refer to as plenty of artifacts (notably on the right antenna) and the current candidate shows as much details (to say the least). One will look at the yellow fur part to compare. The left flower of the candidate is also in focus. - Benh (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good composition of round furry/spiky shapes. I like that the "back" of the bumblebee emulates the shape of the flowers and the little round fruit is a plus. Wings aligned with the stem also nice. cart-Talk21:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2016 at 22:59:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Church of Christ Pantocrator Nesebar.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Church of Christ Pantocrator Nesebar.jpg
Mild Oppose - I love the church, but the focus is a bit soft. I hope you have the chance to take more pictures of this church, because a crisp sharp photo could be featurable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others: insufficient quality, sorry. As for composition: The building is "looking" to the left, so it ought to be placed a bit right of centre to get a balanced composition. The right-hand background is distracting anyway, so if this shot is re-taken, just turn the camera a bit to the left. --Kreuzschnabel13:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2016 at 11:05:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hubble Peers into the Storm (29563971405).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hubble Peers into the Storm (29563971405).jpg
Support Gorgeous. GuessJohann Jaritz is joking :) but for those who are wondering like me : I looked on a map and the andromeda galaxy won't appear here since it's too far from the large Magellanic cloud (which this picture shows a part of if I understood). - Benh (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2016 at 09:56:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Junonia almana-Kadavoor-2016-07-11-002.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Junonia almana-Kadavoor-2016-07-11-002.jpg
Indeed; but not to me. The rain started; and it wants a safe place to settle. It's a warning for the spiders and mantis to stay away! :) Jee15:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very pretty specimen but I don't like the flash lighting. It makes the subject flat (not really an issue on this flat one though), casts an unpleasant shadow and gives it an unnatural look (specular reflections on the leaves). I think raising ISO a bit so the flash is less preponderant would give it a much more natural feel. Or using some reflectors? - Benh (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of my resent photos are using flash as I'm shooting in difficult conditions. Here all the foliage is wet in rain; that's why the reflections. See the droplets on its wings too. We can't expect sun and rain together. (Not arguing; just explaining. Thanks for the review.) Jee 03:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC) And I hope there is less reflection in my photo compared to this. Jee03:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine Jee. We are here to exchange aren't we? ;) I've no doubt the conditions may be difficult, and I try to keep that in mind when making criticisms. I'm happy you correct me because of your field experience. What gives the flash feel though are not only the reflections but also the even tone across the frame (and in addition to what I already mentioned). It really striked me quickly and from the thumbnail alone. I don't know your settings. Given the direction of the shadow, I guess it's a "regular" flash on the hotshoe (vs. ring one, which I'm not sure would be better). Turning the flash to a side toward a reflector could improve this IMO. I remember Noodle Snack (JJ Harrison) showing a setup of him. It was quite complex, but the results were worth it. Easier to say than to do :-) One thing I'm sure is easy is raising the ISO, as already discussed elsewhere :) - Benh (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've mentioned before that I don't think ISO200 and flash is a good combination. ISO800 should be fine for this sort of shot. I've got a ring flash, but it takes me too long to set up the ideal flash conditions for a butterfly capture like this. Flash works great when you want a blackish background, but naturally not for an insect on a leaf. Charles (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, I tested non-flash photography in similar lighting condition today and the shutter speed I got is only 1/30 (ISO800, f/7.1). Further, I don't think flash alone is an evil as most rain-forest photographers use it. They maybe more expert than me in controlling the lights though. :) Jee17:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of his flash shots are with black background, not a leaf. I'm actually not wild about this photographer's style, but he is obviously very experienced: but he does use twin flash and diffusers and M65 lens etc. Charles (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a butterfly house shot by an outstanding photographer and I suspect he was standing up with a well-balanced stance with lots of time and probably a tripod. You could ask him. Charles (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2016 at 04:50:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info 360° panorama of the entrance hall of Kammergericht Berlin (highest state court of Berlin). The building is of great historical significance. In nazi Germany the infamous Volksgerichtshof held somoe of its trials there. After the second world war it was the seat of the Allied Control Council. In 1997 it became the seat of the Kammergericht again. Personally I've spent a lot of time in this building during my legal clerkship and nowadays I'm there from time to time for court hearings. I always enjoy the architecture of this building. It took me some time to get the permission to take photographs there but I think in the end it was worth it, I think. I took some more pictures in there, they're all linked in the description page in case you're interested. Please view the picture with the panellum viewer before judging! I hope you're not yet tired of these 360° panoramas. -- Code (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well spottet but in fact I didn't want to put the camera exactly under the chandelier. If it was exactly centered, the chandelier would look flat and one could think it was a painting on the ceiling or something like that. The way I took the photograph the chandelier looks more three-dimensional so that you get a better impression of how the room really looks like, IMO. --Code (talk) 06:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. I often wonder how you get these places to yourself without any unwanted folks loitering about. Do you yell "Fire!" or is the composite "the best of", selecting those pics taken when a specific part is empty? cart-Talk09:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, nice ideas. No, when I use the 14mm lens for such a panorama I take eight frames around, two frames for the zenith and two frames for the nadir. I always wait between the frames until there's no one visible in the respective area. But honestly this building isn't very crowded in the afternoon hours. --Code (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Code and W.carter: interesting. If I may share my experience... (which I guess I similar to Code's) I've found out that stitching gives one a lot of room for getting rid of people. Since you get plenty of overlapping area, the likelihoods of a mask that can hide them are great. So I personally don't even wait for my frame to be completely empty (I'm only careful with central part). It's even possible to use Hugin to overlap several similar shot to get crowded places empty, like in here. If one likes it, he can leave one person for compositional purpose : [5]. A very powerful and underrated technique in my opinion (and one has to keep in mind that tripods are forbidden in the Vatican museum, so my shots weren't aligned be could easily be with a stitching program like Hugin). I think this is the idea Wcarter had in mind. - Benh (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Benh, yes that is something like what I was thinking of. I used the "opposite" version when I stitched together this photo. I took a series of pics within a couple of minutes and then chose the four that gave the most "lively" version of the panorama. But that panorama was put together by hand since the program I tried to use (Photoshop 7) did some really wrong stitching in many places. cart-Talk19:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Taxiarchos228 and please feel free to nominate the picture if you think it's worth a FP star. Maybe I'll do some day otherwise. Regarding the 360° panoramas I think they fit quite well in normal FPC. They're photographs and have more or less to be judged by the same criteria like any other picture. The panellum viewer works quite well in the meanwhile and we don't have so many of them that we could fill a whole new section with them, I think. Anyways I'm interested what others think about your proposal. --Code (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2016 at 03:26:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:On a Bridge Between Da Nang and Hue, Vietnam.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:On a Bridge Between Da Nang and Hue, Vietnam.jpg
Mild Oppose - I like this photo. It has a nice mood and strikes me as truly artistic. However, I don't feel like the composition is one of the most outstanding among the photos on this site. I might reconsider, but that's my reaction at the moment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2016 at 05:09:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:RUS-2016-Aerial-SPB-Peterhof Palace.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:RUS-2016-Aerial-SPB-Peterhof Palace.jpg
Neutral Very good indeed, however, I’d prefer less foreground to gain a bit more background. The main subject appears a bit squeezed towards the top frame. --Kreuzschnabel12:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support A great deal of aerial images get nominated here because the nominator is impressed with the idea of taking an aerial photograph of something. But this subject benefits greatly from an aerial photograph, making its grand plan apparent as effectively as any carefully-sketched SVG would. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the best light, but otherwise good quality and extremely valuable. @Godot13: , it would be interesting if a couple of words on "making of" would be added to the description. Was it taken from a helicopter (however the quality is much better than I would expect from a photo taken frm a helicopter), or was the camera set on a drone? --A.Savin11:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2016 at 16:48:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The lost land.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The lost land.jpg
Oppose - Very sorry, but this hazy light isn't speaking to me. I like the scene, though, and I'd like to see photos of it in slightly brighter light or (depending on which direction we're looking in) sunrise or sunset. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The file needs to be renamed. "The lost land" is not and adequate description for an FP since it is metaphoric and can be used as a description for many places. Poetry is fine, just not here, a file must be named so that it is easy to find using search engines. cart-Talk20:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: On this kind of photo where everything is far away, one needn't really stop down to get everything in focus. Better to shoot at the lens' sweet spot. At 85mm, f/7.1 and on a Canon 550D body, hyperfocal distance is 53,4m. Gives one some margin, and from what I can "guess", nothing looks closer than 26,7m here (if hyperfocal = D, everything from D/2 to infinite is in focus). - Benh (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2016 at 06:18:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zabriskie Point Death Valley December 2013 002.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zabriskie Point Death Valley December 2013 002.jpg
Support - This picture is most beautiful at full size, when you can easily see the wonderful blue tint on the distant hills and the details in the foreground and middleground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too late for this nomination, but King of Hearts, I suggested a crop on the image page. I don't think very bottom rocks are adding anything and cropping better exploits the light streak of rock running towards the bottom right. I think the lighting is a little flat and perhaps a slightly different time of day would emphasise the undulations more (compared to other images I Googled). Also this is a telephoto shot (80mm) whereas a wider view shows plenty interesting rocks out of frame to the left/bottom that could make for a more interesting composition. I think it always worth considering 16:9 for landscapes as it can be much more dynamic that 3:2. -- Colin (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the lighting. I also shot wider images, but I chose this because 1) this is the most colorful part of the landscape, enabling it to overcome the flat lighting; and 2) we already have plenty of wide FPs of Zabriskie Point, so I wanted to do something different. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2016 at 03:52:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Papilio polymnestor-Kadavoor-2016-07-27-002.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Papilio polymnestor-Kadavoor-2016-07-27-002.jpg
What position do they prefer when the rain starts and they get wet? Do they sit with wings out like this or do they keep them in a more upright or folded position? cart-Talk11:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This butterfly will not close its wings when it rests or sleeps. This is the second largest butterfly in India, a little smaller than Troides minos. The big white and metallic blue wings are enough to keep any predators away. The previous one will find safe shelters when rain is pouring. ;) Jee11:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2016 at 08:14:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ponte Santa Caterina (Venice).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ponte Santa Caterina (Venice).jpg
Support - This is an out-of-the-box nomination for Venice. It's not a scene from a postcard or a painting by Canaletto or Guardi; instead, it's a complex composition that's rich not in wowing spectacle but in the many-textured forms for the eye to see. It's just as much a picture of Venice as a shot of San Marco is, because where else could you have this scene? But this is really not in any way just a picture of a bridge. Rather, I see it as a mini-cityscape of part of a backwater canal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ikan, I think you are confusing an appreciation of Venice, which you've extracted from this snapshot, with the qualities we are looking for in a photograph. As you say, it's no work of art but neither is there, imo, a "complex composition". It seems more "I aimed the camera at the bridge while I was on holiday and pressed the shutter". There's a random guy in a distracting stripy top walking over the bridge. There's a woman looking out of frame at something we can't see. And while colourful laundry can make a classic/cliched "foreign land" photo, the blue boats just look messy. The image is only 10MP from an excellent 36MP full-frame camera and yet at full size the quality is dire. Looks over-processed, soft and blown out in many places. -- Colin (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I said it's not a conventional view of Venice. I didn't say it's not a work of art. I knew at the outset that this was likely to be a controversial nomination, but it's not really a big risk because, hey, it's just a nomination and if it doesn't convince people, so be it. If others agree that the quality is dire, I wasted time nominating this for QI and having it pass muster there. Maybe QI standards are not high enough, as I was thinking the issue here would be likely to be a lack of "wow" or opposition to the composition as jumbled or something. And tangentially, I have yet to visit Venice and nominated this picture because of its composition, nothing else. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. The picture looked a bit "overly-complicated" and too sharp. And I've also searched up Nikon D800, it states "The D800E can obtain the sharpest images possible", which is not a very good idea for this picture. -- NgYShung (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really love "the other side" of things/towns/landscapes just because they are something you don't normally see in pictures. Even so, photos taken in such areas also needs a bit of composition and harmony. The things that stands out most in this pic are the many cut things at the frame's edges: a cut window at the top, a cut balcony on the right side, cut windows on the left and two cut boat engines at the bottom. If the whole boats/engines had been in veiw, this would also resulted in a bit more water and more reflections from the buildings. For me the shot is too tight. Had I taken this pic, I would have waited for the people to leave or for people to do something interesting or stand in more strategic places. Taking a photo of such a place usually takes about 20-30 minutes and a lot of versions to chose from if you want to get it right. My experience is also that if you wait around for the right shot, people notice you and your camera, they come up and chat, offering advice, asking people to stand back for a clear shot or point out interesting things. cart-Talk10:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Given the "out-of-the-box" nature of the subjects you often photograph, I particularly respect your points. I think I've read enough and will withdraw now. But I think the point about the standards on QIC deserves more discussion, so I've started a thread about that at Commons talk:Quality images candidates. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2016 at 06:12:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bradinopyga geminata 6563.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bradinopyga geminata 6563.jpg
Oppose Yes it is very clear, but unfortunately the shadow of the wings created by the flash is also very clear, making it hard to distinguish the structure of the wings from its shadow. It almost looks like it had eight wings instead of four. Photo also has a bit of posterized glints from the flash. cart-Talk09:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2016 at 15:25:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Weak oppose I think you added too much foreground structure, it gives too much visual clutter and makes the photo too busy for my taste, sorry. Technique is excellent as usual. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews. A short way to a decision. It's better to withdraw the image to spend more time to all the other images. --XRaytalk05:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2016 at 12:54:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ZSSK Class 475.1.webmCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ZSSK Class 475.1.webm
Oppose The shaky camera work is the least of my issues. At this point in time technology has advanced enough that we no longer need worry about image quality ... this is very nice in that department. What we need to see is some understanding that videos, films, whatever you want to call the moving image today, need more than one uninterrupted take to work. In this case, even if the camera had been mounted on a tripod to smooth it out I still would have problems with this view that lets that post come in front of the locomotive, waits to pull back suddenly near the end, and doesn't pan to at least follow the train as it passes. Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. The object is most interesting of course but the photographic work is really nothing to be proud of. Apart from the shaking, there’s very poor detail (no TV station would think of broadcasting such a quality) and rookie-level camera handling. Try to zoom softer (no video professional uses motor zoom) and pan a bit more. But first of all, use a tripod. --Kreuzschnabel19:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2016 at 17:55:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mänty kalliolla Reposaaressa.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mänty kalliolla Reposaaressa.jpg
Oppose Nice scenery but not special enough for a feature IMHO. Generally, I’d prefer an image of this type to be entirely sharp instead of showing bokeh. Anyway, I expect crisp sharpness of a candidate less than 10 mpix in 2016. Might benefit of a square crop, suggestion added. --Kreuzschnabel18:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Had the pine been a bit taller, this might have worked. Right now there is just too much empty space at the top. Also not sharp enough or enough detail for an FP. cart-Talk19:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. The sky sits there and doesn't do much, so I think it would work better to crop it just a bit above the tree - Kreuzschnabel's crop suggestion - and then I might vote for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unbalanced composition in the vertical direction, and I do not like how the pine intersects the horizon. I do like the bokeh though, and pretty good light albeit the background is a tad too bright relative to the pine IMO. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2016 at 17:33:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Upper Creek-27527-4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Upper Creek-27527-4.jpg
Oppose per others. Nice scene but poor handling of contrasts, this is no photographic masterpiece. Might need two exposured blended into one HDR-like frame. The blue tint in the shade areas isn’t too pretty either. --Kreuzschnabel18:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: twelve support !votes are unlikely at this point
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2016 at 22:47:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Alfonso, Cuenca 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Alfonso, Cuenca 01.jpg
Oppose per others. The flag hiding part of the subject, distracting in-leaning buildings at the sides, cut-off cars at the bottom, unbalanced lighting. Sorry for putting it so bluntly but this does not rise above a tourist shot in my eyes. --Kreuzschnabel06:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: there is too much opposition, per the comments above
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2016 at 18:48:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support The brighter version works just as well, so I'll have to repeat myself: Striking composition with a bold angle as well as depth and EV (the mountain). --cart-Talk20:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don’t find the composition particularly striking. The foreground rocks on the lower left are too dominant, the distant mountain too small relatively to the entire frame, to get a clear message of it. The scenery is nice, certainly, but theres not much wow in this composition for me. --Kreuzschnabel18:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2016 at 11:50:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Okba Mosque Main Dome 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Okba Mosque Main Dome 3.jpg
Oppose I understand the crop, but for that to work you need a lot better detail in the picture and the size of the image and lack of light does not make this come true. Sorry. cart-Talk21:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2016 at 20:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anfiteatro, El Jem, Túnez, 2016-09-04, DD 55-66 HDR PAN.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anfiteatro, El Jem, Túnez, 2016-09-04, DD 55-66 HDR PAN.jpg
Info Panoramic view of the Amphitheatre of El Jem, an archeological site in the city of El Djem, Tunisia. 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, Poco220:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2016 at 15:07:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Margaret D. Foster, in Lab, 4 October 1919.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Margaret D. Foster, in Lab, 4 October 1919.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2016 at 19:46:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stockholm Sweden Radsalen-of-Stockholm-City-Hall-01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stockholm Sweden Radsalen-of-Stockholm-City-Hall-01.jpg
Support - Beautiful. I'd prefer symmetry, but many regulars here often dislike it, and your making this picture asymmetrical is an artist's choice that shouldn't affect voting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, however, it was not allowed to roam around between the seats of the city councillors, so only a shot from the side was possible. As a tripod wasn't allowed either, I put the camera on the desk of a councilman and released the shutter with the wireless remote. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pas sûr ! Tu es quand même le seul à écrire comme ça, même parmi les "natifs"... Je reconnais ton style avant même d'avoir vu ta signature --Jebulon (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2016 at 14:53:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bridge and deck of Gullbritt.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bridge and deck of Gullbritt.jpg
Support - I keep looking at this photo and not feeling a wow, but having wrestled with whether to support, oppose or just never make my mind up, I don't think I should oppose a feature on that basis for this photo, because it's as good as it can be and it's interesting. I respect the artistry that went into this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ikan! While I may not have gone through the extreme efforts other users did, it did take me about a year to get a good photo of this ferry. I take it very often and I have been waiting for the right conditions for a good photo. You have to do it on the trip to Lysekil, not from it or the cars will be at the wrong end in regards to the sun. I wanted it rather empty so that the lines were visible but when the weather is clear and sunny, that is also when the crowds come to Lysekil, so this was very lucky! In the photo I'm hiding my reflection between two windows on the bridge above the "3", only my arm is visible by the wiper. cart-Talk09:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2016 at 21:39:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:European robin (Erithacus rubecula) juvenile.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:European robin (Erithacus rubecula) juvenile.jpg
Support - I've seen bird pictures here that are sharp throughout more of the body, but most of the bird is very sharp, it's beautiful, and it's nicely placed on the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2016 at 04:09:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Edificio principal de la Universidad Humboldt, Berlín, Alemania, 2016-04-22, DD 25-27 HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Edificio principal de la Universidad Humboldt, Berlín, Alemania, 2016-04-22, DD 25-27 HDR.jpg
Comment - Very interesting motif, and the photo looks great at full-page size, but when I look at it at full size, the sky looks blotchy. Why is that? Are those all little clouds? It otherwise looks good enough to me to support. By the way this daytime photo by Dr. Chriss is quite good and probably borderline featurable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The sign on the left side is disturbing, I would make again this photo another day. The quality is good, the dynamic also. I would even prefer a blue, not a black sky, some hours before. -- -donald- (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2016 at 18:31:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Karlskirche Vienna, September 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Karlskirche Vienna, September 2016.jpg
InfoKarlskirche, Vienna, Austria during blue hour. Taking this picture was difficult for a couple of reasons: 1) Lighting: Dealing with the artificial illumination was a challenge as highlights tended to get blown easily, 2) Reflection: It was rather windy that day so I had to be patient and wait for the water surface to finally remain calm and smooth, 3) Movement / ghosts: It was a hot summer night so a lot people crowded this popular spot. Also, bicycles kept crossing the square. Altogether this image serves as the best compromise of approx. 25 pictures I took that night. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The other one looks like ice. This one just doesn't look right to me. The dome and spires are very bright and yet their reflection is much darker. It doesn't look natural to me. I may be alone in this opinion though; we'll have to see how the votes go. INeverCry21:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The crop on the sides is a bit tight, and despite the recovery efforts there are still lost highlights. I think a graduated ND filter would have helped for situations like this. Nice blue hour lighting though. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although it is nice to have a full reflection, the other FP Ikan links is far superior in sharpness/detail despite being darker, and I don't think the brightness of the tower is realistic (too bright). The reflection is weird. Being darker is fine (I'd expect that) but it looks more like an out-of-focus or gaussian blur than water. This image shows a sharp reflection is possible and this image has a more pleasing painterly reflection. -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentColin, yes, you're right: A sharper reflection is indeed possible. Several of the pictures I took that night show better reflections than the one nominated here (but are flawed otherwise). As for the brightness of the dome, I guess creating an HDR image might have helped - but it was much too crowed and windy to even try that. Too much was going on. I guess I'll use this failed nomination as a convenient excuse for another trip to Vienna... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2016 at 09:48:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Not really stunning for me because of the tight crop at the left. Furthermore tilted CW - check the verticals in the image center. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's quite a pretty motif and the combination of the fortress and the lower land beyond is a good idea, but to me, this is a good QI, not a photo with such an outstanding composition that it should be featured. To be more specific, the bit of tiled roof in the lower left bothers me; I would want it either cropped out or maybe cropped farther away, depending on what is further to the left. Agreed with Uoaei1 on the tilt, too - it's quite visible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2016 at 06:05:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kenilworth Castle Great Hall from the west 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kenilworth Castle Great Hall from the west 2016.jpg
Oppose A good QI, but the light is common daylight and a bit harsh, and the centered composition is pretty standard. No wow for me. INeverCry06:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2016 at 16:03:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2016 at 16:58:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Erdfunkstelle Fuchsstadt, a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Erdfunkstelle Fuchsstadt, a.jpg
Comment Das ist ja wohl jedem freigestellt. Ich habe schon mehrmals meine Eigennominationen mit neutral bedacht, wenn ich das Gefühl hatte, es sei zu billig, wenn meine Stimme hinterher gerade mal die Sieben voll macht. Das heißt nicht, daß man von seinem Bild nicht überzeugt wäre. Es mag üblich sein, Unterlassung ist aber kein Grund zum Stirnrunzeln. --Kreuzschnabel21:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see how the radial lines might have been what you wanted to shoot, but we don't see enough of them to make this striking enough for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Surely nice but not outstanding for me. Being nice and flawless does not yet justify a feature. Stark horizontal lines in the foreground (here the row of trees) often make the viewer feel locked out from the farther scenery. Try to crop that out, the image will be much clearer and more inviting, at least in my eyes. Ein weit entferntes Objekt wird von einem als groß empfundenen Vordergrund (und Bäume sind groß) auch sehr klein gemacht. --Kreuzschnabel21:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Very good photo of great encyclopedic and technical interest that should be a VI and a QI, but I don't find the composition interesting enough per se to support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good photo of great encyclopedic and technical interest, I see no lack of composition. This means we have a featured picture. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2016 at 14:51:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset over the Pacific Ocean at the pier in Pismo Beach, California LCCN2013631703.tifCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset over the Pacific Ocean at the pier in Pismo Beach, California LCCN2013631703.tif
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 200 MB, the Commons full size jpeg version is a useful alternative to examine details. -- Fæ (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like the tooth/wave-shape repeating pattern in the pools on the beach at the bottom of the frame. I also like the swirling water from the long exposure (but not so long it makes the sea look like a methane sea on some Saturn moon, which seems to be the fashion). There are some technical flaws which can't be ignored at FP. Several people on the pier have left ghosts as they moved during the exposure. And the sensor of this D800 is filthy with dust. A fair bit of careful Photoshopping could hide those defects, though I think then it would need to be uploaded as a separate file. I compare to an existing FP File:Clevedon Pier 2013.jpg by Saffron Blaze and this isn't quite at the same level. The bottom quarter is more interesting in this photo, but Saffron's got a much better composition of the pier + lights + horizon, and this pier is less photogenic in (near-)silhouette. [Btw, dust spots can sometimes be hard to spot initially. If you wiggle the image from side to side, they pop out of a featureless sky and then you can't help see them.] Colin (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose When I open this picture at a bigger size, I feel much the same as I do when I look at the pictures I took with one of my old cameras. That camera was top of the line ten years ago and I thought the pics were fabulous. Until I bought a new camera... Time has passed and criteria's are higher. Unless pictures are of historic importance, I think it will be increasingly difficult to nominate older "normal" pictures now. cart-Talk21:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
W.carter, I'm not sure we're ready to class a D800 as "old". It is only four years old, not ten, and was indeed top-of-the-line. There's a few Canon owners wish they had a sensor as good as a D800 even now. It's no older than your Sony DSC-RX100 and will easily surpass it in every measure except size. Whatever flaws there are with this image, the camera is not to blame. And we know the photographer is highly talented. From the EXIF I can see this has been processed with CameraRaw but only a few adjustments applied. I wonder if Highsmith thought this was a good image but not outstanding enough to spend time polishing and cleaning, which is a shame. -- Colin (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, I was not comparing the two cameras side by side, only said that that was what came to mind when I saw the quality of the picture. I know that D800 came out only four years ago, but since it was used by a professional in all kinds of situations, it would probably have way more "mileage" than I could ever rack up with any of my cameras and that changes/ages a camera in unwanted ways. That's what was at the back of my head. I may not be a professional photographer but I work with such people and some of them go through cameras at the same rate taxi drivers go through cars compared to us "Sunday drivers". (Sidebar: my "new camera" is not my little Sony, it's my Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000) But my guess is as good as yours and the bottom line is that the quality of this pic is not good enough right now. cart-Talk23:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hope Carter is wrong. I still shoot on my 2009 Canon 7D :D (and no offense to Canon, but none of their current body will push me to upgrade). - Benh (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm sorry, but no offense, I'm not going to download a file that's over 100 MB in size, just in order to be able to look at it in full size. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a link to the large-image viewer. However, I ...
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2016 at 04:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Western entrance of Pasupatinath Temple, Front Gate-IMG 3466.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Western entrance of Pasupatinath Temple, Front Gate-IMG 3466.jpg
Comment - I really don't want to oppose this nomination, so I'll leave some comments. First, I greatly respect the thought that went into this composition, but there's a lot going on in this picture, and I think the crops on the the left and right are too close. Second, the focus is a little too soft in parts of the picture for me to feel wowed. Third, I completely understand wanting to avoid glary light, but I find this light a bit duller than optimal. But lastly, I just want to say again that I respect your artistry and sensibility, and I would really like to see more and different photos of this motif from you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Ikan Kekek Thanks for ur comment. New version file is uploaded with bit brighten up and some other correctment.Plz review. Thanks again.. Bijay Chaurasia(Talk)05:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not a really big change. I don't think you can change the photo enough for me to support a feature. I think that would require taking a new photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel and Uoaei1. The composition is appropriate to a tourist snapshot, not an FP. The staircases in the foreground clash very strongly with the putative subject. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2016 at 20:49:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kilmainham Gaol Main Hall 2016-06-03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kilmainham Gaol Main Hall 2016-06-03.jpg
Info The main hall of the Victorian wing in Kilmainham Gaol, Dublin, Ireland. The year 2016 is the centenary of the Easter Rising, and many Irish revolutionaries and leaders were imprisoned and executed in this prison by the British. Photo created/uploaded/nominated by me. -- Colin (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not something you see here every day... Light and airy pic of historically important building with a very dark past. I'll even forgive the glare up in the glass ceiling. cart-Talk22:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find this photo haunting and will support, but I would love it if there's a way to decrease the glare in the bright parts without otherwise damaging the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job keeping the potentially blown highlight down. Ironic how the interior of a former prison looks so airy, its design almost like a late 20th-century shopping mall. Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's that word, "overexposed" again. It means literally to expose film (or a digital sensor) for too long, such that detail is lost and highlights blown. In fact, this image was "exposed for the highlights" and the source raw file has no areas blown and is overall darker than you see here. By exposing for the highlights, the rest of the scene ends up under-exposed but that's no problem for my Sony sensor and the whole scene is actually raised 1 stop in post, combined with modest adjustments to reduce highlights and lift shadows. While some people like to whack the "Highlights" slider down to -100, I really dislike seeing paper-grey as the colour through a skylight. This is direct sunlight through the roof light, harshly lighting up the left side of the hall. That's how it was when I saw it with my eyes and I've attempted to render that for you. You might feel a better image would have been taken on a dull overcast day (and I would disagree -- it would be dull) but that's quite a different argument from claiming I made a technical error when exposing this scene in my camera. We are seeing a hall lit not by windows on the walls as most buildings are, nor by artificial light, but by a huge skylight, which is unusual and interesting. -- Colin (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The bright areas are for me far too much bright in the final result which is nominated here, that they were overexposed or not when taking the photo. If it is not an "overexposition", then it is for me a fault in the post-edition, at least a fault for my tastes. Regards, Christian Ferrer(talk)20:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but please use the correct description. Remember that we all learn from reviews, some are experienced and some just starting out, and so using an incorrect term can confuse everyone, especially beginners. -- Colin (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The term "overexposition" is not entirely false, as a less exposed image would have been more in my taste, that is a fact...therefore for me it is indeed overexposed unless you brightened willingly the bright areas durind the editing process, a thing that I don't understand. Christian Ferrer(talk)05:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have brightened the raw image, by one stop, and the subsequent highlight reduction I made did not completely compensate for that increase, so yes, the bright areas are brighter than the raw file. The resulting image isn't brighter than it was in reality, because I had to under-expose to retain highlights. The highlights are not blown; they are just bright. The word "overexposed" refers solely to a technical error made during capture onto film or digital sensor. When one talks of highlights (or channels) "blown" that is when the digital value of the image hits the maximum, which is for a JPG is 255 on any colour channel. These are technical issues. If you feel the areas lit by sunlight (or that are sunlight) are too bright, then that is a matter of "taste", not a technical flaw. I think it very important on our reviews that we separate matters of taste from problems arising from technical error. I'm not trying to change your vote, just to point out that the bright sunlight here is bright in the image for a very deliberate reason. You say you don't understand why I make the bright areas bright? Because they were bright. Harder to understand is why one would try to make bright sunlight dim. -- Colin (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PetarM: Not sure I follow; are you saying the sharpness is suffering from the effects of diffraction? My reason for choosing f/11 was to slow the shutter speed, and in practice I find that it doesn't reduce resolution that much compared to f/5.6 or f/8, about the same amount as an extra ND filter that would have been required. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support, more or less per Mile: Both photos look great at full-page size and are a good achievement; the compositions are good; and the series is certainly valuable. At full size, I can respect your choice of how close to start noticeably decreasing focus. The sky looks smoggier than optimal in both pictures, but that might be because of choices you made; I can't tell. The blown lights bother me somewhat in the blue hour picture, especially on the clocktower, so I wonder whether it's worth playing with the levels at all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Don't see why the daytime one was f/11 since the exposure isn't particularly long (1s) vs night-time at 10s. The daytime photo is rather soft. The nighttime one has a stitching error in the reflected lights. The clock is also blown, which is a shame. Would have preferred if both photos were aligned with each other better. -- Colin (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the original frame, and that is actually how the reflected lights turned out. I noticed it myself while stitching, but I can't explain why it looks so strange. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support per Ikan. It's nice to see a picture shot on the New Jersey side of the Hudson showing a skyline other than Lower or Midtown Manhattan. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
still Support sadly the clock face is totally overexposed, but because of the little part mateched to the total image size and the very good technic of the rest and the very nive composition I support the image(s). I know the difficulty of those very bright parts, they are to handle but it's a bit tricky. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2016 at 05:54:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Děčín (Tetschen) - Rose Garden.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Děčín (Tetschen) - Rose Garden.jpg
Oppose - Sorry, the composition feels jumbled to me. I'm not sure how you would get around that, because the arrangement of the buildings beyond the garden doesn't seem orderly or well-planned with an eye toward compatible architecture. Maybe if there were a way for you to do a more vertical composition that excluded most of the buildings to the left of the church. Or how's the view in the other direction, from beyond the gate? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is a bit too much going on in this picture, maybe a photo of just the magnificent rose garden, with a bit more sun on the flowers, would have been better or per Ikan's recommendation. Nice place though! --cart-Talk08:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2016 at 19:20:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Night view of the World Clock (Urania-Weltzeituhr), Alexanderplatz, Berlin, Germany. The 10 metres (33 ft)-high clock shows the time in 148 cities worldwide and was inaugurated in 1969. The clock has become one of the symbols of Berlin and is a popular meeting point for the people in the capital. All by me, Poco219:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpening and accordingly noise is generated, where should be white there are gray. Btw, posterization effect when the lights become fused with the black (Observe the lights of the lampposts). With regard to the composition, the top is unbalanced with respect to the bottom of the image. --The Photographer23:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2016 at 23:48:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:MonumentoEcuestreSanMartinMDP-sep2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:MonumentoEcuestreSanMartinMDP-sep2016.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2016 at 22:44:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ARCHIDONA-GASTRONOMÍA (19783827898).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ARCHIDONA-GASTRONOMÍA (19783827898).jpg
Oppose This is a good idea, I like the embers below. However, the composition could be better and the image is partially unsharp where it should be. --Basotxerri (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2016 at 10:16:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Branched juniper twig with shots.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Branched juniper twig with shots.jpg
Info Final result of my little juniper project. Many thanks for those who encouraged me with their advise. After several attempts both outdoors and indoors, I took the middle way and brought my indoors equipment (sturdy tripod + soft reflector screen + better camera) outdoors to a juniper growing on level ground and the sun for quality light. I used my jacket to get a more neutral background than the one provided by this juniper grove. The jacket still had needles in it when I put it on again... I noticed. All by me, -- cart-Talk10:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Daniel, believe me I tried to get them all sharp, but since the twig branches off in so many directions I think that would require a studio shot with focus stacking (which I don't know, yet) and photo lamps (which I don't have, yet). Maybe this will be the next step in my learning curve. :-) cart-Talk19:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)::[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2016 at 15:59:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kittywakes (Rissa tridactyla) hunting fish at a glacier on Svalbard.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kittywakes (Rissa tridactyla) hunting fish at a glacier on Svalbard.jpg
Support - Thank you for nominating this. I find that it's most fun to look at at full size, but in any case, I definitely support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fantastic sight, not the sharpest birds I've seen but then again we are spoiled rotten by knife-sharp bird pics here and this is more about the behavior than the birds. I will support it as soon as the CA is fixed. Looking forward to more pics from the region. cart-Talk07:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can I fix the CA while it is still being assesed? Sorry, I am new to this process and need to ask stupid questions at times. -- AWeith10:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There might be one or two people who would say no, but yes, you can, and it's common practice to allow small changes. Once you've made the change, though, you should ping everyone who's already voted, so that they get a chance to see if they still want to feature the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, correcting such minor flaws is ok. Go ahead, fix it and upload a new version at the file's page and post here when it's done. cart-Talk08:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did it. I hope the new version is now the CA removed version; had some trouble converting it to the actual version (never did that before; however, learning curve is steep). Thx for your valued comments. --AWeith (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The current version looks ok. Once you have uploaded a new verion of a pic, you also have to purge your computer's cache for every setting or it will not show the new version. If many users are working with uploading, it can also take some time for the new version to go through all the stages of the data system. That is why you had some trouble with it. (I've also left you a small note on your talk page) So since Ikan Kekek was the only one who had done some actual voting before the new version came online, he is hereby 'pinged'. cart-Talk12:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm sorry, I've purged my cache twice, yet I see no difference whatsoever between the current and previous version. Any advice? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule of thumb is: Could anyone reasonably object to is, or is it an uncontroversial improvement? Generally CA removal, tilt correction, etc. all fall into this category. For bigger changes like cropping, I would generally upload it under a different filename and add it as an "alt" (so people can vote on either of them, or both, or neither). I only upload significant changes directly on top if basically no one has voted. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's soft (focus looks off), underexposed, and I wonder if it's not pincushion distortion we see, but I like the image. - Benh (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support You don't think this could be featurable. But it is. I like the way the ice behind them almost becomes some sort of abstract backdrop, More FPs from the Arctic are always good. Daniel Case (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2016 at 11:20:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment As noted on page, several towers are leaning and a stitching error. There's no embedded colour profile so I can't be sure -- the colours seem very saturated. The contrast seems high, with black shadows. -- Colin (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The ColorSpace EXIF tag has two values: sRGB and Uncalibrated. It is completely ignored by all browsers. The problem is the lack of embedded colour profile, which is the only way to accurately define the colours in a JPG. See User:Colin/BrowserTest. Compare your image EXIFwith my image EXIF. In mine it says "Embedded color profile: “sRGB” and you can scroll down to the bottom for ICC_Profile and click to see all the embedded data. With yours it says "WARNING: Color space tagged as sRGB, without an embedded color profile. Windows and Mac browsers and apps treat the colors randomly." and there is no ICC_Profile section at all. All professional image-making software can be configured to embed the colour profile in a JPG and most do this as standard (e.g. Lightroom, Photoshop). -- Colin (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have copied the EXIF of the original, non edited file, and I don't have the faintest idea how to fit to your perception and I'm sorry to have no time to study several technical descriptions. So far it wasn't a problem since I have copied the EXIF and this time I did it the same way like any other time in the close past. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I thought we'd fixed this problem but I can't find the earlier FPC where it was resolved. I did find this PFC from 2011. Five years is a long time to refuse to understand the issue and the very easy fix. All modern photo software will embed colour profiles if you set them up correctly. The colour profile is not an EXIF tag. -- Colin (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn ich mal der Einfachheit halber auf Deutsch intervenieren darf: Es gibt einen Unterschied zwischen dem Colour-Tag (der ist bei Dir da, wird aber von den meisten Browsern ignoriert) und dem eigebetteten Colour-Profile (das fehlt bei Dir). Welche Software nutzt Du? Es ist sehr ungewöhnlich, dass das Profil nicht automatisch eingebettet wird. --Code (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Taxiarchos228: , I added the profile back here. I slightly increased compression, but no one should see any difference. If you're fine with that, you can use it to overwrite the current version. I think an FP shouldn't have this kind of flaw (and especially when it takes seconds to fix) and I'll oppose if this is not fixed (not that this will change anything, but just to voice my opinion). When one buys a rule, even if there are marks on it, it is useless if the unit is not indicated. cm ? inches ? it makes a lot of difference. - Benh (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent capture but it seems to me as both sides would lean in (o2-Tower is leaning to the right, BMW-building is leaning to the left). Can you fix that? Colour profile would be nice, too. --Code (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WladyslawThat you think it is relevant or not is not ...relevant. A cat is a cat and a building leaning is a building leaning. I don't think it's indeed a reason to oppose, but, as a gentleman, when I see little defect, I comment about it in the case the uploader want to correct it, that's all. Christian Ferrer(talk)17:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't know if some buildings might be very slightly leaning one way or the other; it's not obvious enough for me to see. I really like looking at this panorama. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That won't change anything but : no color profile embedded (despite the fix being here!!!) and buildings leaning inward (and it's noticeable even on the thumbnail with the curve on the horizon). - Benh (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2016 at 11:53:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pont Vieux et Cathédrale Saint-Nazaire de Béziers cf02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pont Vieux et Cathédrale Saint-Nazaire de Béziers cf02.jpg
Support - I think I would like this photo even more with an additional complete semicircle at the near side of the bridge, but that's an artist's choice. This is one photo in which the view through the underside of the bridge works for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2016 at 19:46:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:All Saints church, Preston Bagot - Mary and Martha stained glass windows 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:All Saints church, Preston Bagot - Mary and Martha stained glass windows 2016.jpg
Comment I like it because of it's mild, calm, earthy colors, plus the fact that you can actually see something through it (something that is very rare among the pics in the FP and QI sections mentioned above) and what is outside harmonize in colors with the glass paintings themselves. You don't need to go overboard in Technicolor to get an FP of stained glass windows. Here the emphasis is more on "window" than "stained". --cart-Talk17:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for your cogently expressed point of view. I might feel the same way if the view through the window were more focused. I'm not saying it's DeFacto's fault that it's not, but I think there's a very high bar for FP stained glass pictures. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2016 at 11:01:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Amphithéâtre d'ElJem 11.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amphithéâtre d'ElJem 11.jpg
Nice picture, but compare this one, which we're about to feature. The entire arena is sharp at full size in that picture, the file size is much bigger, and there are no random people in it. I feel like you are continuing to improve your skills, and this is a great motif, but please try taking sharper photos of it when no-one is hanging onto the left side. I guess I have to mildly Oppose a feature, because the quality of Poco's photos of this amphitheatre is so high that this one, while good, doesn't make the cut. But if you can take another picture in which the amphitheatre is completely sharp, do try submitting that one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing that voters on FPC frequently object to is for large parts of the subject to be in shadow, so try to take a photo of this motif when there is more even light, or failing that, more interesting light. -- Ikan Kekek
Comment - New files should be nominated separately. Besides, the random people are not at all the only thing preventing this from being featurable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2016 at 17:13:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral Hmm... So, we have many bee and flower FPs already, see Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera. Is this among our finest? Technically fine, but not exceptional, good light, a very common species of bee (honey bee) and flower (rape), a good, but not exceptional composition. It does not make it quite over the bee and flower FP bar for me, sorry. If the bee or flower species had been more uncommon, I would probably have supported-- Slaunger (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I read Slaunger's remarks with interest, so I looked through the relevant FPs in Category:Apis mellifera. I would observe that some of those which date from 2009 or earlier now merit the designation less than this one does, though this one, which was a candidate in 2007 Picture of the Year, still belongs. In terms of a feature for this photo, not enough of it is sharp for me to be wowed by it, spoiled as we are by other fantastic insect pictures, including a number by Ivar. So I guess in the end I'll join in being Neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2016 at 13:41:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose per Ezarate, and I think the top crop is a little questionable, too (too close). I like the mood, though, and perhaps low light would be OK, if it were combined with greater clarity and a better composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2016 at 18:30:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Black-faced bunting in Sakai, Osaka, February 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black-faced bunting in Sakai, Osaka, February 2016.jpg
Support This is very good, the colors of the background match well with the bird, which has fine details in its feathers, good focus and very good lightning. What is the origin of the soft stripe-like pattern in the background? -- Slaunger (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very high-resolution and pretty bird; I particularly like looking at its downy yellow breast feathers. I also like the fact that while your bokeh has a gentle feel, you didn't render the background branches completely invisible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2016 at 20:48:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rocks in Karystos Euboea Greece.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rocks in Karystos Euboea Greece.jpg
Support I think any more things in the sky or water (besides waves, froth and distant islands/ships) would only have competed with the rocks and made the pic too busy. cart-Talk21:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentJebulon, if you take a square 4000x4000 crop of the top, I think the composition works much better. Better ratio of sky/sea/rocks and the lines lead in from the bottom corners. Example:(deleted, see history)
I'll let this nom leave as it is until the end of the process (which could include a withdraw of course), thank you. No reason for reviewers to stop assessments.--Jebulon (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2016 at 16:13:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Warthogs (Phacochoerus africanus) young males eyeballing.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Warthogs (Phacochoerus africanus) young males eyeballing.jpg
Support Oh yes! The twig in front of one of fighters is unfortunate, but the rest of the picture more than makes up for that. Talk about eyeballing your opponent! cart-Talk16:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I can see why you didn't nominate it on your own—technically it leaves some things to be desired—but how often are you going to catch a moment like that? I'd crop off the top a bit, though. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Charles I think Danie's suggestion to crop the top was better than cropping top and bottom. A 16:9 crop (2723x2094) removing only the top works much better, with a little more soil to lead into the scene and a 16:9 image is more useful. -- Colin (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2016 at 22:35:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20160729 - Taungthaman Lake near Amarapura in Myanmar - 6044.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20160729 - Taungthaman Lake near Amarapura in Myanmar - 6044.jpg
Oppose The framing is fine but a 16:9 crop (taking top and bottom off but keeping the sides) is much much stronger. However the light is really dull, and the third boat is obscured, so this is a scene with potential for another time. The foreground is of tourists rather than locals and distant bank isn't interesting. -- Colin (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If it were just the compositional shortcomings noted by Colin I would probably forgive then; I still like this although he's right about how it could be better. However ... the whole image seems like it was overprocessed. The people on the boats look a little waxy, the far shore is less sharp than perhaps it could be, but most importantly the clouds have posterized areas with some areas of off color. Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I'm sorry, but looking at this photo again, I see enough of the things Daniel and Colin mention to change my vote. I still like this photo at full-page size, so I'm not sure about actually opposing, but drawbacks at full size are a good reason not to feature an otherwise good photo, and what my neutrality does is give the tie break to an additional voter. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2016 at 20:48:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment It would have been better is the lower part of the horse's legs and hoofs had not been hidden. A bolder and more dramatic crop somehow, would not be amiss either. cart-Talk21:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I really could go either way on this. I think it would be fine to feature this photo; it's very good. But I also agree with the others. Ergo, neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. According to the category suggested, this is meant to be a picture of a horse, but in that case the horse itself is way too small in it. Centered composition does not help here either. --Kreuzschnabel19:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree this is a better crop as it needs to be close. The horizon is perhaps a little distractingly steep angle (I'm sure your camera is level). But the hooves are still a problem and this is getting a bit small/lacking detail for FP. -- Colin (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Crop is much better and at this high percentage of horse in the picture, I don't miss the hoofs that much. Support is weak only because the file is now so small. Had this been the original shot at full strength and detail, my support would have been full. cart-Talk21:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - I feel fairly comfortable supporting this version, even though the horse is still a bit softly focused on part of its body. I find this composition much more interesting than the other one, which really feels to me like it's emphasizing the rocks as much or more than the horse. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much better than the other version but still below FP level for me. The foreground rock is too dominant IMHO, the horse partly hidden, the overall image on the verge to underexposure. Compared to other horse FPs, this is not too special – keep in mind a FP needs to be more than just good, we look for excellence. --Kreuzschnabel19:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2016 at 23:40:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Priscilla Horton (Mrs. German Reed) as Ariel.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Priscilla Horton (Mrs. German Reed) as Ariel.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2016 at 10:02:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Since user @Charlesjsharp: is very curious, how is this kind of photo (with golden-orange background) made, I'll post some tips here. You need macro lens, tripod, golden hour time and large open ground. The light is changing from golden to orange and finally to reddish at sunset (and vice versa at sunrise). Background vegetation has to be far enough, if you want a smooth golden background. This photo is made about half hour before sunset and that's why the background is orange. Different photos with golden hour light conditions are here: Category:Plants and trees at golden hour. Good luck! --Ivar (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it works. When the background objects are away, you'll get a smooth background with the colors of the ambient light available; green if foliage around in day time and golden in sun rise/set (in high ISO or slow exposure). But if we only need is a background, we can create it holding a leaf or golden paper behind. (See Background, Artificial Background.) I had seen my friends doing it , holding leaves behind. (What I don't like here is the golden tint on the subject too which decreases the EV as a botanical illustration for Wikipedia. That's why prefer to abstain from voting here. Off-course they may visually more beautiful in golden hours and may be useful in other places.) Jee13:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Golden hour photograpy is so much more than just the background, it is also the golden light you get from the sun at that time and it changes how structures and cliffs look too. This special light is more prominent in northern countries since it lasts longer there and people have time to really enjoy it. cart-Talk15:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I can't comment further about it as the sun and light will disappear here before 18.30; complete darkness in 21.00. ;) Jee16:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know, when I visit countries further south I can never get used to how fast the sun sets. You should see the nights here in June when it never gets dark. Unfortunately it's the other way around in winter... cart-Talk18:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And starting next week, the days will get shorter faster for you in the northern temperate latitudes than they do for those of us in the lower temperates. (Sunrise here at 41°33'N is at 6:42 a.m. tomorrow, with sunset coming just after 7 p.m. I believe we already have a longer day than you ... So maybe I can take some of these golden-hour images ). Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral So why do I keep chatting on this page without voting? Truth is that this time I had a hard time making up my mind. It is a sharp and well-composed photo in many ways but with too many "effects" IMO. First there is the almost perfect symmetry of the plant, then you have the hairs of the nettle creating minute halos and catching the sun, further is the golden hour light and finally there are the water drops. Any one of these things would enhance a photo, but taken together it is just too much. Like a cake with all your favorite flavors at once. cart-Talk08:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2016 at 07:13:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Shakespeare.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shakespeare.jpg
Oppose - Certainly of great encyclopedic value, but a very small file for a photo of a painting, and not a very high quality photo, either. I doubt it would pass muster at Quality Image Candidates. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A VI for sure, as (I think), the image of Shakespeare said to best reflect his actual appearance. But unless the digitization itself were historic, it's not above the bar we've seen set here by so many other painting digitizations. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2016 at 17:36:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anfiteatro, El Jem, Túnez, 2016-09-04, DD 38-40 HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anfiteatro, El Jem, Túnez, 2016-09-04, DD 38-40 HDR.jpg
InfoHypogeum of the Amphitheatre of El Jem, an archeological site in the city of El Djem, Tunisia. At both sides of this tunnel are located the cells where the beasts for the games were kept. 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.
Support - I understand W.carter's criticism of this picture at full size, but what a great tunnel picture at full-page size! I think that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts in this case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2016 at 20:38:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Carzago Riviera chiesa parrocchiale San Lorenzo provincia Brescia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carzago Riviera chiesa parrocchiale San Lorenzo provincia Brescia.jpg
Oppose - Truly sorry, but I'm not overwhelmed at all by the focus, for example on the ceiling or altar, and while this composition is certainly good (although ideally, I would have preferred a slightly more generous crop on top), nothing about the composition or light strikes me as so outstanding as to call out to me for a feature. A QI it certainly is, but to me, not more than that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many stitching errors, horizontals leaning, insufficient contrast handling (e.g. the glare on the organ pipes is too much for me). Some annotations added to clarify. Right-hand chandelier being cut off makes the framing look arbitrary. --Kreuzschnabel15:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2016 at 17:19:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Heligoland 07-2016 photo15.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Heligoland 07-2016 photo15.jpg
Oppose I know that the red cliffs can very well take on this color under some conditions, but the grass and the sea... I'd have to agree with Mile. cart-Talk08:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On overdoing the contrast, the seagulls got blown, especially the one in knife-edge flight above the center. Oversaturated too, I don’t approve of this holiday-postcard look. --Kreuzschnabel15:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2016 at 18:28:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama vom Aussichtspunkt Via Regia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama vom Aussichtspunkt Via Regia.jpg
Comment I doubt you can sort the technical problems. The electricity pylons and cables on the right hand side show several obvious stitching errors. Charles (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you serious? In the distance you can´t recognize each screw. The Panorama conforms to the single original foto in that direction. Do I need to upload it? --Milseburg (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just not that interesting or detailed. The 360 results in a very narrow strip (did you take the frames in landscape format?) with too little sky. 2000 vertical pixels is really quite small compared to the vertical resolution of your camera (4000). Quite a lot of muddy ground on the left and right edges. I think for a 360 image which naturally lacks any composition, the view has to be pretty spectacular. -- Colin (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can´t follow you. On the attractiveness of the landscape I have no influence. I have cropped top and buttom. What do you think is missing interesting in the lost sky and mud? The Large-Image-Template was already added. The 37 images in original size are difficult to work with and who wants seriously or is even able to upload an 126-MB image. Is sacrificing quality by strong compression for you ok? Just to see more sky and mud? --Milseburg (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2016 at 00:52:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bodie September 2016 019.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bodie September 2016 019.jpg
Neutral - This is probably one of the better photos from the great series from Bodie that you've uploaded so far, but I feel some tension from what looks like a close crop on the right, and at full-page size, the cabin in the distance looks like an extension of the barn's railing (which is why it looks like a close crop). You can't make the cabin disappear from the background and I wouldn't support cloning it out, to produce a view no-one can ever see in real life, but maybe a somewhat more generous right crop would cause me to like the photo enough to vote for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Fixed. Now the space on the left and right is perfectly symmetrical. I feel like this building has quite a bit of leeway on symmetry due to the two asymmetric protrusions on either side, so I initially gave the left more room due to the attachment there having slightly more visual weight, but its current symmetrical state looks balanced to me as well. Pinging INeverCry and ArionEstar if you have any objections. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Don't know if you're entering this in WLM or not, but as a onetime juror in the US contest I will say this is the sort of thing that makes being on that jury worth the effort. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2016 at 04:53:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - A black & white picture of an interesting plant from Germany's industrial past. I quite like this picture, and I hope you do, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2016 at 02:19:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:James Russell Lowell - 1855.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:James Russell Lowell - 1855.jpg
Comment - The original is on tinted paper, which among other things makes the artist's signature much easier to see (I didn't even notice it in your version before I saw it in the original TIF, and I looked at your version first). I'd be inclined to oppose a feature on that basis, but I'd like to hear you out on why you whitened the paper digitally. Is it your deduction that the paper had originally been white and got tinted solely due to a post-publication chemical reaction over the years? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to File:James Russell Lowell - 1855 - Original.tif under "Other versions". And again, when I look at the TIFF on the Library of Congress website, it's tinted, a bit tan. Did you use the JPGs, which are white, as your source? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I used the TIFF, and didn't adjust the colours. I think you're getting an optical illusion from the black border. That or GIMP is being reluctant to properly add a colour profile again. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An optical illusion from the black border doesn't seem like a possible explanation, as the JPGs on the Library of Congress site also have black borders yet look white. Have you seen the print in the flesh? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Well, I've just opened both a newly-downloaded copy of the TIFF and the restoration, and compared colours on representative areas. They appear identical. What's more, the TIFF is in greyscale, so cannot possibly have any colour. It even says so at the LoC site [Reproduction Number: LC-USZ62-100831 (b&w film copy neg.)] The metadata at File:James_Russell_Lowell_-_1855_-_Original.tif confirms this: "Pixel composition | Black and white (Black is 0)" So... I'm not sure what's giving you a tint: Have you found a different TIFF, or perhaps is the TIFF displaying incorrectly in your browser? This is all very perplexing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You still need to know how to map the gray-scale numbers in the file into actual gray-scale colors - gray is also a color. That's what the embedded color profile does. Without it, the application has to guess, and that guess may be different for different applications and monitors and not give a consistent presentation. It is like telling the temperature is 32.5 but not stating if the unit is °C, °F or K. If you are in the states you could think it was °F if you were in Denmark you would perhaps think °C, but actually it could be in K. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have striked my oppose. I feel very confident that it is very wrong not to have an embedded color profile for B&W images, as a browser is just guessing how to map grayscale numbers in a file into actual gray-scale colors. But I agree with you that it is not easy to find consistent advice on how to do this best, and moreover after checking 25 randomly picked B&W historical photographs from our FP archive I can see that about 60% of all images have no color-space metadata and no embedded color profile exactly as this nomination. And for the remaining 40%, a wide range of color profiles (EPSON Gray - Gamma 1.8, Generic RGB Profile, sRGB, AdobeRGB,and iMac etalonne) have been used with an approximate equal distribution. It all seems very random. Thus, it seems unfair to pick randomly at this nomination. I think we should try and figure out a guideline for color space information in B&W photographs in general on Commons, as it is not clear what is right to do. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Cuerden, I'm sure we discussed this before for a b&w image. Do you recall if it is one of yours, and can you find it. Otherwise I'll need to search because we did discover something at the time. There's more to colour profile than colour -- there's also the gamma, which is how the 0..255 scale maps onto brightness on your monitor. The scale from black to white is not linear. So I think there is still merit in embedding an sRGB profile. -- Colin (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While that's doable, doesn't that massively increase the file size, while in theory decreasing its fidelity if there's more than 8 bits of greyscale (don't think that's true here, but could easily be)? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.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.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Building on Avenida Paulista.jpg
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-Talk13:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Photographer12:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Hockei (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Lack of details, especially at this rather low resolution. This does not reach the quality of other butterfly FPs. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment Better leave it, as it is. This specimen is better at full resolution. --Ivar (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Neutral It is a beautiful scene, but I think the level of detail should have been a bit better here for an FP. This is not your fault, it's just us being very picky here. I also think you should nominate these for Quality Image and one of them for Valued image. We would also appreciate if you could provide the coordinates for the camera location on the files so that they can be displayed on OpenStreetMap and Google Earth. Please look at this files page to see how that is done. w.carter-Talk 19:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Question - That's quite an impressive cell phone pic! But what is that black streak in the sky? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Done--g. balaxaZe★ 08:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
--Ivar (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Basotxerri (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
) All by LivioAndronico (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
INeverCry 01:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
--Jebulon (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
,_Punta_Pitt,_isla_de_San_Crist%C3%B3bal,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_80.JPG)
,_Punta_Pitt,_isla_de_San_Crist%C3%B3bal,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_81.JPG)
_-_Dome.jpg)
_-_Fira-01.jpg)
_by_Zaida_Ben-Yusuf.jpg)
.jpg)
_2016-08-15--15-01-02-001.jpg)
_Aug._20,_2013,_while_underway_in_the_Gulf_of_Oman_130820-N-JC752-778.jpg)
Weak support I agree with Code on the bus stop. The light is very nice though. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
Abstain (as the creator of the picture) -- Hendric Stattmann (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
--Ivar (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
My camera colors
Google filter
My camera colors
Google filter
.jpg)
_underside_worn_2.JPG)
and I can understand why. --Ivar (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Fixed Dust spot cloned out and the good people of Eslöv have clear skies again. cart-Talk 09:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Underexposed, however, excellent work --The Photographer 02:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
_male.jpg)
and call it a moth. Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
chromatic aberration, as for composition I agree with the others. Sure it’s nice but not outstanding. --Kreuzschnabel 05:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Portrait of Dwight D. Eisenhower
Portrait of Richard Nixon
Portrait of George W. Bush
_male_3.jpg)
. Now they look kind of "submerged". Shooting towards a horizon, I always get my knees dirty, many times it increases the wow factor. I always think of Jean Giraud's work when I see Poco's flat lands since Giraud got much of his inspiration from places like this and he often uses the low horizon to draw dramatic scenes. cart-Talk 09:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, if this nom works it will be the FP's equivalent of "getting away with murder". I know that there are several things wrong with this photo, but I'm glad I was able to catch some of the event. This is the third time in my life I've seen a sun dog but the first time I've had a camera handy. Never leave home without it! cart-Talk 07:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
--cart-Talk 16:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
,_the_main_dome_3.jpg)
_juvenile.jpg)
Hoboken Terminal at dawn
Hoboken Terminal at sunrise
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Punta_Pitt,_isla_de_San_Cristóbal,_islas_Galápagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_80.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Punta_Pitt,_isla_de_San_Cristóbal,_islas_Galápagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_80.JPG,_featured_2){kind=link}
,_Punta_Pitt,_isla_de_San_Cristóbal,_islas_Galápagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_80.JPG,_featured_3){kind=link}
_-_Fira-01.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Punta_Pitt,_isla_de_San_Cristóbal,_islas_Galápagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_80.JPG,_featured_4){kind=link}
_by_Zaida_Ben-Yusuf.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_2016-08-15--15-01-02-001.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_Aug._20,_2013,_while_underway_in_the_Gulf_of_Oman_130820-N-JC752-778.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_underside_worn_2.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_male.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_male_3.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_juvenile.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Rose_Garden.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_hunting_fish_at_a_glacier_on_Svalbard.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_young_males_eyeballing.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_as_Ariel.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](http://regex.info/exif.cgi?dummy=on&imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsummer-heart-0930.chufeiyun1688.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Farchive%2Fb%2Fb1%2F20160825040628%2521Aeolian_Islands_at_sunset.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Punta_Pitt,_isla_de_San_Crist%C3%B3bal,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_80.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Punta_Pitt,_isla_de_San_Crist%C3%B3bal,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_80.JPG){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Fira-01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Fira-01.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Fira-01.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Fira-01.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_by_Zaida_Ben-Yusuf.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_by_Zaida_Ben-Yusuf.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Zaida_Ben-Yusuf.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_by_Zaida_Ben-Yusuf.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_2016-08-15--15-01-02-001.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2016-08-15--15-01-02-001.jpg){kind=link}
_2016-08-15--15-01-02-001.jpg,){kind=link}
_2016-08-15--15-01-02-001.jpg,){kind=link}
_2016-08-15--15-01-02-001.jpg,){kind=link}
_Aug._20,_2013,_while_underway_in_the_Gulf_of_Oman_130820-N-JC752-778.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Aug._20,_2013,_while_underway_in_the_Gulf_of_Oman_130820-N-JC752-778.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_underside_worn_2.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_underside_worn_2.JPG){kind=link}
_underside_worn_2.JPG,_f){kind=link}
_underside_worn_2.JPG,_f){kind=link}
![[4]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/b7/20160830205632!Goat_skeleton.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_male.jpg){kind=link}
_male.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_male.jpg){kind=link}
_male.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_young_males_eyeballing.jpg){kind=link}
_male.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_male_3.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_male_3.jpg){kind=link}
_male_3.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_male_3.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg?fastcci_from=2341249&c1=2341249&c2=3943817&d1=15&d2=0&s=200){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_160809,_ako.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsummer-heart-0930.chufeiyun1688.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F1%2F1c%2FLandscape_Chrouda%252C_between_Chefchaouen_and_Oued_Laou.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_juvenile.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_juvenile.jpg){kind=link}
_juvenile.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_juvenile.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Rose_Garden.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Rose_Garden.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Rose_Garden.jpg)
_-_Rose_Garden.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Rose_Garden.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_hunting_fish_at_a_glacier_on_Svalbard.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_hunting_fish_at_a_glacier_on_Svalbard.jpg){kind=link}
_hunting_fish_at_a_glacier_on_Svalbard.jpg)
_hunting_fish_at_a_glacier_on_Svalbard.jpg,_fe){kind=link}
_hunting_fish_at_a_glacier_on_Svalbard.jpg,_fe){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_young_males_eyeballing.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_young_males_eyeballing.jpg){kind=link}
_young_males_eyeballing.jpg)
_young_males_eyeballing.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_young_males_eyeballing.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_as_Ariel.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_as_Ariel.jpg){kind=link}
_as_Ariel.jpg)
_as_Ariel.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_as_Ariel.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_not_featu){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featu){kind=link}
_with_its_prey.jpg){kind=link}
