Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 2014

File:Barn Owl flying.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2014 at 05:48:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kristina Servant - uploaded by User:dman41689 - nominated by Dman41689 -- Dman41689 (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dman41689 (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Soft and noisy, but a great capture otherwise. Diliff (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Soft and noisy, perhaps. But an absolutely breathtaking photo, and just the kind of image that will make people say, "Look at what's on Commons!" I love it! KDS444 (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- They'll say "Look at what's on Commons!" and then they'll view it full screen and feel cheated by Commons. It's clearly out of focus. It's an unfortunate almost-caught-it moment. Diliff (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- KDS444, this is a captive bird, so not nearly as "breathtaking" as if it were wild. -- Colin (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very tempted to support per KD above, but in the end technical considerations prevail. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose truely breathtaking as a thumbnail, can't argue with that. It breaks my heart to reject this, but it's really very soft and noisy at higher resolutions. --El Grafo (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, plus overexposure on the white parts of the face. Pity, it’s a nice shot. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. –Makele-90 (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 09:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Borgund Stave Chuch in Lærdalen, 2013 June.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2014 at 14:22:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Nikhil
Support -- Nikhil (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kleuske (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear and crisp all around. Daniel Case (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would prefer to see more to the left of the church and less to the right of it - it seems more interesting and can add nice perspective. Gidip (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a boring simply composition. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 09:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Heppenheim BW 2014-05-13 14-32-16.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2014 at 19:22:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 10:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like a photo from a tourist's photo album. If this photo was professionally made, the photo would have been taken on a sunshiny day and the photographer would have waited until the people at left were gone. Good photo but not featured I think. I need a wauw effect. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not bothered by the people so much as the white balance, which seems off. Daniel Case (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The statue right in front of the house is a poor choice. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 09:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kongress und Theaterhaus Bad Ischl DSC 3295w.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2014 at 21:11:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Congress and theater building at Bad Ischl, Upper Austria / created, uploaded and nominated by -- P e z i (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P e z i (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe it need a very little sharpening and a little brightening of the shadows (especially at right), however well done and wow -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 11:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks for voting (also to all other voters) und for the hint. I've tried to slightly brighten the shadows. For sharpening I don't dare; I'm afraid it could ruin more than help ... --P e z i (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nikhil (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 16:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 09:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:San paolo ,basilica.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2014 at 21:09:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Livioandronico2013 - uploaded by Livioandronico2013 - nominated by Livioandronico2013 -- Livioandronico2013 (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Livioandronico2013 (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At least someone writes me a comment? positive or not, maybe I learn something. Thanks :)
Comment It's a nice photo, but I don't think it has a wow factor. Perhaps the image is a bit soft, but that's not a big issue. Overall, I don't think it is outstanding, for example the background is not chosen very well, imo (the statues are cut). Also the lamp in the background at the right bottom is a bit distracting --DXR (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your suggestions --LivioAndronico talk 19:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the columns and the statue are fighting for attention. And by the way, maybe you would write a better description of the photo on File:San paolo ,basilica.jpg instead of just "San paolo ,basilica". --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strongly framed by the lintel at the top, but at the bottom the columns are simply truncated. Don't know that you can fix this composition. Kbh3rd (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 09:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Reeth Swing Bridge.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2014 at 12:25:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Reeth Swing Bridge is a suspension footbridge, erected 2002, allowing several rights of way to cross the Swale river. Yes, the image has been edited to please the eye and to render the real impression of that moment. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info c/u/n by Kreuzschnabel -- Kreuzschnabel (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kreuzschnabel (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but too dark over all (underexposed) --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I’ve had this issue rising on QIC as well. I like this image exactly for the contrast of deep shadow versus the sunlit pasture beyond. Brightening the shadows would spoil the atmosphere. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dman41689 (talk) 07:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perhaps as an abstract composition of light and shadow and color it works, but when I see a picture like this I want to see more detail than the lighting in this image affords. The foliage in the upper right appears to have a halo -- did you manually darken the sky and avoid the trees? It's a great subject, but I just don't feel the atmosphere that you do. I like the structure of your composition. I'd take lots of pictures of it in lots of different lighting and with lots of different skies if that was in my back yard. Kbh3rd (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for your review. Yes, the image has been slightly tone-mapped, as I said in my initial info. Unfortunately, it’s a two days journey from the place I usually live :-( but I’ll do my very best next time I’m there. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 18:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Naturschutzgebiet -Am Enteborn- -- 2014 -- 0202.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2014 at 07:35:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 07:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 07:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty, but low value. --Slaunger (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have been trying to take this picture myself for quite some time. And for once it's a country other than Estonia that is showing off its natural beauty this way . Daniel Case (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not outstanding. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gidip (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dman41689 (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would be happy if this came out of my camera, but oppose per Uoaei1 and Slaunger. Kbh3rd (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 18:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:De fem søstre i århus perspetiv korrekt.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2014 at 18:59:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Villy Fink Isaksen - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had noticed this photo as well and thought it was very good. --Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Nice sunset but unfortunately the main subject is in shadow. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not a sunset the time is 21. nov 2008, 14:43 and the sun is behind the photografer behind a cloud, so the main subject is not in shade but in diffused light. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The top part of the sky looks massively oversharpened. I would suggest to apply masked sharpening (exclude the sky) and apply some selective noise reduction on the sky. There are also dust spots (see note). Composition is good. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thx for the reviews. I have removed the two dustspots and done a noise reduction on the sky. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's remarkably better, but for my personal taste still too much sharpening artefacts / noise on the sky (also on the lower parts). --Tuxyso (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail and atmosphere. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, and the sky cinches it. Kbh3rd (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 16:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info The panorama is based on old files, trying to make it a better version. All by Villy Fink Isaksen --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks so normal it lacks all the wow of the first nomination for me. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Industry

The chosen alternative is: File:De fem søstre i århus perspetiv korrekt.jpg

File:Raspberry Pi B+ illustration.svg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2014 at 09:52:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lucasbosch - uploaded by Lucasbosch - nominated by Lucasbosch -- Lucasbosch (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lucasbosch (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No "wow". --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I appreciate the Raspberry Pi topic as such, but the illustration gives me a zero readings on my wow-o-meter. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dman41689 (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the subject – I have two – but this doesn't look FP-ish. Looks too flat and too dull. A bit more saturated colors might be an improvement. I don't know how to add metallic sheen in Inkscape, but that might also help where appropriate, though perhaps still not enough to get to FP level. Kbh3rd (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 19:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raspberry Pi B+ illustration.svg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2014 at 09:52:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lucasbosch - uploaded by Lucasbosch - nominated by Lucasbosch -- Lucasbosch (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lucasbosch (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No "wow". --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I appreciate the Raspberry Pi topic as such, but the illustration gives me a zero readings on my wow-o-meter. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dman41689 (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the subject – I have two – but this doesn't look FP-ish. Looks too flat and too dull. A bit more saturated colors might be an improvement. I don't know how to add metallic sheen in Inkscape, but that might also help where appropriate, though perhaps still not enough to get to FP level. Kbh3rd (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 19:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raspberry Pi B+ illustration.svg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2014 at 09:52:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lucasbosch - uploaded by Lucasbosch - nominated by Lucasbosch -- Lucasbosch (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lucasbosch (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No "wow". --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I appreciate the Raspberry Pi topic as such, but the illustration gives me a zero readings on my wow-o-meter. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dman41689 (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the subject – I have two – but this doesn't look FP-ish. Looks too flat and too dull. A bit more saturated colors might be an improvement. I don't know how to add metallic sheen in Inkscape, but that might also help where appropriate, though perhaps still not enough to get to FP level. Kbh3rd (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 19:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Allium rothii 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2014 at 16:44:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Gidip (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gidip (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 02:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Livioandronico2013 (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kbh3rd (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moedling1997 (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice species, good detail and no disturbing background Poc o² 14:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 14:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Flowers

File:Raspberry Pi B+ illustration.svg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2014 at 09:52:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lucasbosch - uploaded by Lucasbosch - nominated by Lucasbosch -- Lucasbosch (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lucasbosch (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No "wow". --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I appreciate the Raspberry Pi topic as such, but the illustration gives me a zero readings on my wow-o-meter. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dman41689 (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the subject – I have two – but this doesn't look FP-ish. Looks too flat and too dull. A bit more saturated colors might be an improvement. I don't know how to add metallic sheen in Inkscape, but that might also help where appropriate, though perhaps still not enough to get to FP level. Kbh3rd (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 19:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tulipa agenensis sharonensis 1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2014 at 18:01:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Gidip - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't fully get the intended pattern behind the composition here. Missing wow as well. - Benh (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gidip (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, but low wow. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The seascape takes up a majority of the frame, but it's all annoyingly out of focus. I think this is a case of too much bokeh that doesn't work with the composition. Needs to be framed or cropped differently. Kbh3rd (talk) 05:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh/Yann -- Colin (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, Poc o² 16:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 04:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 14:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zuzana Smatanova-2014.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2014 at 19:21:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bojars - uploaded by Bojars - nominated by Bojars -- Bojars (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bojars (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it is pretty decent concert photo, but the artist appears for me lack the kind of concentration/charisma/expression, which I expect for it to reach FP level, like these two recent concert FPs, for example. --Slaunger (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dman41689 (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 11:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For me: too many people are opose. Many of them are categorical oppose: "without the words..." if I can compare other pictures submissions for music perfomance, I thought that from the last time this is best one... I have done many written Slovak articles about music for Wikipedia, but here are no many amateurish pictures about them with better qouality: "better" in general no better that this one... thank you for new experience: voting here is not about voting for articles submissions' quality, this is almost for artistic photographers' support only... vaste time for me... candidate of amateur reporting photo here is mistake. Bye. --Bojars (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bojars I am sorry if nominating a photo here has been a bad experience for you. It is less than 0.1 % of all photos on Commons, which end up being featured. So getting the opposes is not a shame. It has happened to most frequent nominators here. There is another image recognition project on Commons, Commons:Valued images, which recognise getting that good illustration for a specific topic or article (which this photo is, it is clearly better than average photos on Commons). You may want to have a look at that - and hopefully come back, when you get that fantastic concert shot with a great wow and expression. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutly agree with you, Slaunger. You are one of those, who gave answer/ comment for "oppose". This is clear and uderstable... (and for my poor English knowledge too). For my acceptation of working/ uploadind to Wikimedia Commons is: "how many from my uploads are used in Wiki projects?". And there are over 90% of them... and that is another motivation. --Bojars (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drnholec (Dürnholz) - wayside cross.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2014 at 17:21:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The place and the object have potential but crop id too tight and too much centered, maybe an horizontal shot with more landscape...-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 10:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Aranha-de-prata (Argiope argentata) se alimenta, antero-dorsal recorte.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2014 at 16:03:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Original Nomination. Created and uploaded by Lauro Sirgado - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The disturbing background spoils it for me, putting the spider before dark and bright background in turns while looking at it. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lauro Sirgado: It's fixable?

ArionEstar (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@ArionEstar: I like that. I respect the Kreuzschnabel opinion (Hi Kreuzschnabel), but I have my own. The choice of point of view was just to give the impression that the spider touched the riparian forest to an observer far from the picture in the original format. This species is well distributed (even in cities) and the photo was taken to show it in its wild habitat, remove the motif of picture and replace the background ruin the motivation of the photographer to choose the composition. Anyway add a background leave the unnatural picture, due to details of the spider would be an insane work, to stay so I took it as a good job. -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 22:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentTo achieve that effect, the spider and forest should be nearly equally sharp. The unsharpness of the forest gives too much depth into the image to generate the intended deception. That idea just didn’t come to my mind. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Kreuzschnabel: Please take this (and the previous) for information only, I do not want to defend a position, just explained, the image would be in a frame a few steps away from the observer, the lure disappear on approach, revealing the motif. The background should be blurred in this case. Each composition(and person) requires a different way of looking, and yes(so even), I understand and respect your point of view. Ty -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 19:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not "FP enough" for me as I said earlier. (This is another Argiope taken by me which is also below the FP bar.) J e e 03:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. I appreciate the explanation by Lauro Sirgado, but I did not get the compositional idea when seeing the image, and it does not work for me. --Slaunger (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I don't have problems with background, backwards, not a studio picture; but background with a bit of noise--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 11:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kranj - Grad Kieselstein 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2014 at 14:30:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mihael Grmek - uploaded by Mihael Grmek - nominated by Meho29 -- Mihael Grmek (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition! However, central building looks tilted CCW, entire image looks oversharpened to me (bright fringe along edges), bright areas slightly overexposed. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too harsh light and too high contrast to shadows on right hand side. Propose trying earlier in the morning or an hour or two before sunset (depending on how the shadows fall) to get more soft light. --Slaunger (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice detail in the shadows at the cost of washed-out highlights. Not sure about the composition, either. All sorts of things are chopped off at the edges, and that boring grass takes up too much of the frame. Shadows of unseen features detract. Definitely should try at other times of the day. Maybe get tighter in on the center building. How would it look if taken while standing even with the first lamp post, or even the second? Kbh3rd (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For me your sharpening is overdone. Take a careful look on the sky and on the leafs of the tree at the left. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raspberry Pi B+ illustration.svg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2014 at 09:52:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lucasbosch - uploaded by Lucasbosch - nominated by Lucasbosch -- Lucasbosch (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lucasbosch (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No "wow". --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I appreciate the Raspberry Pi topic as such, but the illustration gives me a zero readings on my wow-o-meter. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dman41689 (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the subject – I have two – but this doesn't look FP-ish. Looks too flat and too dull. A bit more saturated colors might be an improvement. I don't know how to add metallic sheen in Inkscape, but that might also help where appropriate, though perhaps still not enough to get to FP level. Kbh3rd (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 19:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bananaquits.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2014 at 19:55:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Leon-bojarczuk - uploaded by Tom-b - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP in English Wikipedia -- ArionEstar (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With its 2.25 Mpixels, just barely scrapes over the 2 Mpixel minimal resolution requirement. The file page could benefit from a proper {{Information}} template and a geolocation. I think the photo as such is very good, with a good timing. Focus is soft on one of the birds, but I think excuseable. Some concerns were raised about the authenticity of this photo in its EN:WP nomination back in 2009. It appears they were not completely resolved. I am in doubt if this gets over the bar for FPs of birds nowadays. --Slaunger (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Partial Done@Slaunger.Added description and location -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 14:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Partial Done@Slaunger.Indicated the probable author page(is not a Commons page) of the photography, see note on talk page -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 17:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. --Slaunger (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Info@Slaunger.I loaded a new image with larger size, based on the original as the quality of the original photo is good was possible to recover details and not just make a large copy devoid of value, please rate, if you disagree I revert the image. Please understand this issue as good faith, not dominate commons rules, do not know if I break something. -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 19:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment@Lauro Sirgado: See Commons:Overwriting existing files. It is very good that you have uploaded a photo of higher resolution, and it is certainly uncontroversial for this nomination as no-one has actually voted yet. It is a bit more controversial because the same file is promoted to featured status on both the English and Turkish wikipedias. However, as I see it it is clearly an improvement in this case and thus should not cause any problems with regard to the previous promotions. Overwriting an image with one of larger resolution is also mentioned explicitly as allowed, although one is cautioned when it comes to images with assessments that not other alterations are done at the same time. --Slaunger (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 20:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Since the creator is available for questioning: In the nomination at the English Wikipedia, an editor raised a concern/question if this was actually a staged shot? He also mentioned that the background appeared artificial. Could a little more details be revealed about the conditions of the shot on the file page (if this is still recallable, it has been some years :-) ) to shed some light on this? --Slaunger (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment@Slaunger: Do not know the author, and do not feel comfortable doing any inquiry, although we are geographically close. In the original I noticed a discontinuous and undefined boundary between the background and the motif, but does not progress on areas of detail of the barb of feathers, can be the result of image compression, but that's just a guess. -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 21:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neutral OK, thanks for all your hard work. I like the photo, but I am not fully convinced regarding the technical quality. --Slaunger (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment@Slaunger: Thanks for comments, : ) -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 14:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colour of the fake green background is too big a contrast to the birds I think. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The technical quality is not good and that branch on the foreground.. –Makele-90 (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WikiGif.gif

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2014 at 20:01:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gustavo Girardelli - uploaded by Gustavo Girardelli - nominated by Gustavo Girardelli

Gustavo Girardelli (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support . Girardelli G. . . Escucho . 20:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Creative gif. ArionEstar (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What shall be featurable here? Where is the encyclopedic usefulness, or at least the wow effect? Btw, you forgot (or didn't know) that the WP logo is protected; I've corrected the licensing now. --A.Savin 20:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice idea. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC) P.S.: we are here on Commons, not in a Wiki.[reply]
Oppose Nice but not FP - like A.Savin --XRay ^talk 07:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far below the minimum size of 2 MPix. Nice idea, but by no means an FP. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is not a free image.--Monfie (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not freely licensed. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~The size 600x600 (=360,000) is far below the required minimum of 2,000,000!~~ And I don't see the idea of a logo "building" up and down, up and down, up and down... And by the way, animations can be very educational (e.g. File:CtVRvascRed.gif), but this one just looks stupid I think. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dman41689 (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Moedling1997 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2014 (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: Violates requirement that an FPC be freely licensed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:18, 3 August 2014 (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.

File:Botijo y pucheros de Extremadura.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2014 at 11:12:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by doalex - uploaded by doalex - nominated by [[User:{{subst:doalex}}|]] -- Doalex (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Doalex (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea. But an important part of the pitcher at right is in dark shadow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cayambe (talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the problem when the natural light comes from left.--Doalex (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which can be solved by placing something large and white right outside the frame, lightening the shadows a bit. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the idea is good, bud the technical quality is low: sharpness, DOF, color noise. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per user Cayambe's comment above. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dman41689 (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above objections, plus I don't see the value. Still lifes must meet a pretty high threshold in my opinion. Kbh3rd (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Doalex (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vranov nad Dyjí (Frain) - panorama.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2014 at 13:54:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Cropped version from User:Kikos --Pudelek (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I prefer this crop to the first. The subject is a castle on a hill overlooking a town. The large foreground houses of the town at the bottom of the first crop distract from and compete with the castle. I might crop a bit off of the left side so that the castle and the buildings on the right are more in balance, but don't lose the bridge over the river. I don't like how the house on the far right is chopped off by the edge of the frame. Kbh3rd (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But looking at it again, I'm beginning to think that maybe the first image with a bit of a crop off the left would be better. Kbh3rd (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toronto - ON - Humber Bay Arch Bridge2.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2014 at 20:22:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the perspective and the overall framing of the topic. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the white arc is overexposed because the parapet wires are invisible before it. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

maybe you're right, i'll proof it soon. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The graffiti ruins it. Gidip (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It needs perspective correction on the left and is too bright and too unsharp in the middle. Sorry. --XRay ^talk 07:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject overexposed. The arch and sky are nice but other components not so great. -- Colin (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Gidip and Colin. Too much stark concrete in the foreground; try framing or cropping more tightly? Too bad about that graffiti. Kbh3rd (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Kreuzschnabel, Gidip, Colin, Kbh3rd, XRay. new version uploaded. Too much concrete? Not possible. I love concrete! :-)) --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is really a lovely composition, but the off-centered non-vertical line in the bottom of the file is really distracting for me. It is clear that perfect symmetry has been sought for in the bridge (and I like that a lot), but it is only half done. --Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this image IS centered, adjusted on the arch bridge and not on the non symmetric road surface. Very creative argumentation but sadly not truth. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you do not like my annotations. But I have added another to illustrate the symmetry is not quite there. --Slaunger (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:David - The Death of Socrates.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2014 at 12:24:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jacques-Louis David - uploaded by Harpsichord246 - nominated by Nikhil (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nikhil (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice painting, but I cannot really see the individual contribution of the photographer. Another problem: There is a lot of dust on the painting, most visibly on the darker areas. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tuxyso: Huh? There doesn't need to be spectacular photography for a painting to be featured. It is sufficient for the photography to be an accurate, detailed rendering of what the painting actually looks like, with all its quirks and blemishes. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Would prefer illumination for photography that didn't bring out the cracks in the paint, if that's even possible, but that's a minor issue and only at full resolution. It's a fine photograph of a very good painting that passes the value test. Kbh3rd (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moedling1997 (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 04:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Gran Palacio, Bangkok, Tailandia, 2013-08-22, DD 20.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2014 at 09:42:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Yaksha (mysthical demon) "lifting" the southern of the Two Golden Phra Chedis (or pagodas) located on the Phaithee terrace in the Wat Phra Kaew (or Temple of the Emerald Buddha) in Bangkok, Thailand. The chedis were constructed by order of King Rama I in honor of his father (southern pagoda) and mother (northern pagoda) at the end of the 18th century. The structures are entirely covered with copper sheets, painted with lacquer and covered with gold leaf. The 20 demons and monkeys around the base were added later, at the end of the 19th century, by order of King Rama V. All by me, Poc o² 09:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 09:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 14:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Minor cloning wouldn't hurt (notes added). --Ivar (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks, Poc o² 22:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 16:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Digitally removing items makes the picture fake I think. You can crop a photo but "cloning" out things to make the picture look more beautiful gives a picture that doesn't show how it looks in real life. I like the earlier version of the picture but not the currect one. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dman41689 (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The highlights are too washed out in the upper part of the image, and overall the contrast and saturation are just a bit too low. I see you adjusted curves, etc., in successive uploads. I like the exposure more in the first version than this. (Perhaps it's my monitor... or yours.) Kbh3rd (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 11:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very eyecatching composition IMO - Benh (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 14:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Presqu'île du Rouens, Clermont-l'Hérault 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2014 at 08:04:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 08:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 08:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much uninteresting foreground, too bluish, and no wow. A simply not featured shoot for me. Sorry Christian, but I'm missing the special. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info New version less bluish. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 10:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This looks like it's one of those scenes that was much better in person than the picture shows. I agree with Alchemist-hp; this looks too much like one of my snapshots. Kbh3rd (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 04:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Шаан-Кая в облаках.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2014 at 12:05:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Александр Черных - nominated by Ivar (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amazing composition. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very Impressive, a little less vignette would also work. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I'd normally say that this could be cropped a little more at top and bottom, in this case I think the extra space makes the contrast between the detailed rock and the fuzzy clouds that much stronger. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Since support seems overwhelming I can voice my objections without ruining anyone's day. ;-) I was going to say that the lower clouds are too large and dense and serve more to obscure than to lend atmosphere, and that the extra space below the cloud in this crop is necessary in order to lend depth to the image. But I think that's actually what the problem with this image is. If the forest at the bottom was cropped out you'd have just this big rock floating in a sea of clouds, and that could be a stronger image. The current crop wants me to see more than the cloud allows -- more than I should want given that the subject is the rock and the atmosphere is the rock floating in the clouds. Kbh3rd (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moedling1997 (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A crop of the bottom part would make it even more interesting to me Poc o² 16:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 15:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Mallorca - Palma de Mallorca - Castell de Bellver 1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2014 at 20:52:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest you to review your nominations more carefully. The image here has several even QI issues (a lot of dust spots, I've marked only a few and a strange dark area at the top center). The sharpness varries remarkably from the image center to the image border - quite unusual for a stitching - what's happened there? The people at the edges are strongly compressed due to wide angle usage or due to projection type? Last issue: The noise level on the sky especially at the upper parts is imho to high and the composition is for my personal taste relatively boring. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it just me or does it look this is flipping the photographer off? Daniel Case (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel I am no native speaker could you please clarify what you mean with flip s.o. off. Do you mean it just as technical term (the photographer does not answer to my comment) or do you mean it as malicious colloquial term which would be a direct personal attack against me. --Tuxyso (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't looked at the video link, but I think Daniel simply means the castle looks like a fist with the middle finger raised in a rude gesture. No offense to Tuxyso or Wladyslaw intended. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Colin is correct. I apologize for overestimating the degree to which everyone would understand a common enough English colloquialism. Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks Colin and Daniel Case for clarification. I am not very familiar with colloquial English. I previously noticed Daniel as very friendly reviewer therefore I was irritated about his comment. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The minor impuritys of the sky are fixed now. Some are hardly to see and not every is a dustspot but simply the inhomogeneous sky. The nature isn't that pure that some whish to have. Tuxyso: if you don't like the picture vote with contra but please spare me with those ridiculous suggestions. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My suggestion was not "ridiculous" (please no personal attack). As I've seen later there was already a comment on QIC adressing the same issues I've mentioned here. To avoid misunderstandings (in former times you've critized by bad English) also in German: Ich finde meinen Kommentar gar nicht so blöd wie von dir behauptet. Erst später habe ich gesehen, dass du das Foto auf QIC auch nominierst hast und dort wurden genau die gleichen Dinge kritisiert, die ich hier genannt habe. Bleibe bitte auf der Sachebene und vermeide beleidigende Kommentare wie "blödinnige Vorschläge". Auf die anderen offensichtlichen Mängel, die ich aufgezählt habe, gehst du ja gar nicht erst ein (Schärfe z.B.). Ob und wie ich abstimme überlasse bitte mir. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scheinbar sollte man tatsächlich nur auf Deutsch mit dir schreiben, um Missverständnisse zu vermeiden. Ich sprach nicht von blödsinnigen Vorschlägen von dir sondern von lächerlichen. Und dazu stehe ich auch nach wie vor. Kleine Unreinheiten am Himmel, die ich nicht gesehen hatte, als KO-Kriteriem für eine Nominierung heranzuziehen ist nämlich nichts anderes. Und in der von dir zitierten QI-Nominierung wurde das Bild im Übrigen gelobt und nicht nur die marginalen Unreinheiten thematisiert. Soviel dazu. Außerdem: wenn ich einen Satz von dir kritisiere dann ist das keine persönliche Attake. Mir ist bewusst, dass das bei WP/COM nur allzu gerne als ultra-totschlag-Argument herangezogen wird, aber es trifft weder der Sache noch ist es in einer anderen Art dienlich.

Dass ich bei diesem "Tonfall", den du anschlägst nicht sonderlich motiviert bin, dir auf deine weiteren "Fragen zu antworten mag verständlich sein. Dennoch: ich vermag keine gravierenden Schärfeverluste im Bild zu erkennen. Dass sich am Rand unschäre ergibt liegt in der Natur der Optik (schon mal von Randunschärfe gehört?). Daran ändert auch nichts, dass man ein Bild stitched. Gerade weil man eben die Bildmitte (das Hauptobjekt im Allgemeinen) durchgängig scharf haben will, stitched man ja. Dass eine kleine Mauer am Rand nicht 100% die selbe Schärfe hat ist nach meinem Verständnis kein gravierender Qualitätsmangel. Natürlich kann man aber über jedes Pixel diskutieren. Dass die Passanten am Bildrand durch den Weitwinkelblick gestaucht wurden liegt ebenfalls in der Natur der Sache. Mich stört es nicht, sollte es die Massen hier stören, bin ich auch leidenschaftslos, diese komplett heraus zu retouchieren. Würde vielleicht in diesem Fall sogar noch atmosphärisch dem Bild zum Positiven gereichen. Dass du das Bild oder seine Komposition langweilig findest ist dir unbenommen. Will man eine Nahansicht des Bauwerks haben so bleiben aufgrund der örtlichen Gegebenheiten nicht so viele Alternativen. Aber gegen langweiligen Bildeindruck gibt es ja auch kein Argument, das ist gusto. Entweder es gefällt oder missfällt. Dann hoffe ich mal, dass du missverständnisfrei alle Infos erhalten hast, die du dir gewünscht hast. Gut Licht! --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ja vielen Dank für die Erläuterung. Dass bei Stitchings per se am Rand Unschärfe sein muss sehe ich übrigens nicht so, vgl. dieses Foto - da ist kein bisschen Unschärfe. Es kommt auf die Aufnahmetechnik an - wenn nur nur 2,3 Fotos mit einer WW-Optik aufnimmst kann das in der Tat passieren. Du hast doch auch einen NP-Adapter, da ist qualitativ definitiv deutlich mehr drin. Nimmst du im Hochformat oder im Querformat auf? Bei Stitchings mit 28-35mm Brennweite, ggf. mehrzeilig habe ich derartige Probleme bisher nie gehabt. Außerdem kannst du ja auch etwas weiter nach links und rechts aufnehmen und dann croppen. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Einen NP-Adapter habe ich nicht und ist dementsprechend nicht zum Einsatz gekommen. Es handelt sich um drei Hochkant-Freihand-Aufnahmen, deren Stitching-Ergebnis nachträglich noch perspektivisch korrigiert wurde. Diesen Schritt hat man auch mit NP-Ausgleich. Vermeidbar wäre das m.E. nur dann gewesen, wenn ich noch deutlich weiter über die Ränder hinaus fotografiert hätte, um anschließend den nicht überlappenden Rand wegzuschneiden. Aber wie ich schon sagte: ich halte den Schärfteverlust (a) absolut für vertretbar und (b) da es sich nicht um einen Bereich handelt, der zum Gebäude selbst gehört und nicht das Hauptobjekt betrifft schon zwei mal. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentFor me there’s distractiong amounts of space left and right of the subject. I’d crop off the left until the wall has gone, and a bit off the right too, to emphasize the subject. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong vertical perspective "correction" applied making the building distorted and proportions wrong. A Google Image search for "Castell de Bellver" shows that this is the dullest viewpoint possible for this castle, which could be a "wow" subject. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each (!) perspective "correction" ist making the building distorted and proportions wrong. This is inevitable. The correction was definetly not strong, this is a wrong statement. And I don't see what should be distracting at this view. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, a mild degree of perspective correction is acceptable. You simply can't make a rectilinear image of a tall building from this close a viewpoint without serious distortions. This has been known since renaisance painting. But in addition to this "correction", your proportions are just far out. This image has the building looking only about 20% wider than the tower is tall, yet other distant views show the ratio should be more than 2:1. That's due to the exaggerated wide-angle perspective, which here is very misleading. And your people look about 1m high. There's just too much wrong here. And I didn't say the view was distracting, I said it was dull. This castle has some amazing features that are visible from other viewpoints, but this seems almost chosen to exclude anything interesting. -- Colin (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neottia nidus-avis - Pruunikas pesajuur Keila.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2014 at 18:43:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Bird's-nest Orchid (Neottia nidus-avis). Created, uploaded and nominated by Ivar (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral High detail level. Plant sharp. Quite good bokeh and light. Composition and wow does not quite reach FP level IMO (not that I can tell what could be done better for the particular plant). For such a relatively common orchid species, I expect a little more for FP. Had it been a rare orchid, I would have supported. --Slaunger (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dman41689 (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bokeh should remove the distraction of the background, but the bright disks orbiting above the plant in this image distract my eye too much. That bright dash behind the stalk also detracts – it appears to be a part of the plant until one looks more closely. Kbh3rd (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For such an image you have to select the best looking plant with complete, undamaged flowers, not the way it is here. The flowers are very much worn out, the cobwebs are distracting, and the stem is too bright. The bokeh is actually pretty good IMO, except for the white dash. Gidip (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reflection on the Salar de Uyuni, bolivia.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2014 at 18:35:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christopher Crouzet - uploaded by Christopher Crouzet - nominated by Christopher Crouzet -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is excellent and visual caviar. Love the colors in the horizon and the white car in the whitish surroundings. Composition very good and simple. Again, we see that Salar de Uyuni is an FP factory. --Slaunger (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you know something about the Toyota (model, year) it would be a slight improvement of the file page to categorize it accordingly. --Slaunger (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't have any idea and I can't find any hint in the photos that I have, sorry. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am confident that some other editor less ignorant about cars than you and me will pass by and help out with the model at least . -- Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yann (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support marvellous! --El Grafo (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Our first picture likely to be snarfed for car ads ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical image quality not convincing --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uoaei1, could you be specific about the technical flaws, bearing in mind this is a 16MP image from a 16MP camera. -- Colin (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Colin (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ -- Would like to see the auto on the right side of the image looking into/across the frame to compare with this, with the car on the left looking out of the frame to the left. Or even see how it works centered, not being a slave to the rule of thirds. Kbh3rd (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Normally I would agree that having the car facing into the empty space would be preferable to having it facing away from it. But in this case I think it works exceptionally well, partly due to the fact that it is not moving. It looks a bit like it is resting after a long trip and the framing kind of emphasizes where it came from. --El Grafo (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about composition rules (and don't really care about them to be honest as I prefer spontaneity). Before I bought this camera for my current travels, I used to shoot only with films, which means that I would take only one shot of each scene/portrait. To maximize the chances to get a nicer result, and because of my lack of knowledge about composition, I would simply move around the subjet, move around the camera, and shoot the one variation that visually seemed the more right to me. That's what I did here as well. Also I won't crop it to a square format because I like the idea of seeing more of the horizon line in the background. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Changing to Support. Though curious about other composition possibilities, this is a striking image, and there's really nothing wrong with the framing. Kbh3rd (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I love the efect --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose trashy effect, very ordinary technical achievement. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moedling1997 (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 16:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Taiwanese Monk at the Salar of Uyuni, Bolivia.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2014 at 18:58:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christopher Crouzet - uploaded by Christopher Crouzet - nominated by Christopher Crouzet -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Onging, but long parallel discussion about the monk and the issue of consent

Question It appears for me very peculiar to place a Taiwanese Monk at Salar of Uyuni in Bolivia. Care to explain? --Slaunger (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It indeed is peculiar! When I realized that it's not given to everyone to meet with a monk in the middle of the Salar, I thought that this coincidence was worth a photo and a good chat—he's a great guy! At the end, there isn't much to explain though—he was simply travelling like everyone else for a few weeks in order to see some nice places and to meet some of his fellows scattered in Latin America. Funningly he was given a tablet to document his travels and did that pretty well to the point of taking a snap every 5 minutes while being driven around the Salar. I hope this is not going against some special requirements for the featured category that I might have missed—since I saw other very similar photos being promoted as featured, I thought that I was good to go. Let me know if not and I'll remove it. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly not breaking any FP rules subject-wise. Interesting story, and I like it because it challenges my prejudice views that a Taiwanese monk would probably stay in Taiwan, and if traveling, wear a more 'normal' outfit:) I think it would be worthwhile to add a shortened version of this story to the file page, such that other users who initially go WTF? (like me) can get some further insight. Did you ask for his consent to publish this work for commercial re-use? Concerning a vote, I need to think about it. My biggest concern is that I think an FP should tell its story by itself. On the other hand I like the 'surprise' aspect of this photo, which poke at my simple-minded 'view of the world'. And it makes me curious to learn more, which is good. --Slaunger (talk)

Fair enough! I'm glad that it triggers this kind of reaction. I've updated the description as requested but as for his consent, I don't have it. I'm unfortunately not very good with the legislation part of photography, but I thought having read somewhere on Wikimedia that release rights were not required as soon as a person was shot in a public place? Now, I can't recall where exactly I've read that for reference, nor if the Salar is a public place at all? If I'm wrong in thinking that, and in the case where I can't manage to contact him, what should I do? -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Photographs of identifiable people - there are country-specific issues. The term "commercial use" is ambiguous. Nearly all images of identifiable people on Commons lack a "model release" that would permit using this image for "commercial" purposes i.e. advertising, but the image may still be used in a "commercial" publication, such as education or news. Ultimately, it is up the the re-user to determine their legal situation and the free licence needed for Commons is a separate issue from personality rights. The thing you need to worry about as a photographer/uploader is the the country-specific laws about taking/publishing photos of people with/without consent. -- Colin (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those explanations—as expected, it doesn't sound simple :) In this case, I should look at Bolivia since the photo was taken there rather than Taiwan which is his nationality, right? In any case, none of those two countries are listed on your link so it's hard for me to tell without some investigations. That said, if I take the shortcut of checking Peru instead, it doesn't seem to be a good sign? Now, I'm quite "speechless" at this page... looking at the rules applied to France for example, I've got difficulties to imagine that more than 0.0001% of the photos on Facebook, Instagram, and most of the internet (Wikimedia too from what you said?), are being published with an explicit consent of the subject. Sounds like a complex case here? Anyways, if you think that it's easier to remove that photo, it's totally fine with me. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately those pages aren't very helpful and tend to be compiled by folk playing amateur lawyer rather than looking at reality. And doesn't list Bolivia. You are right that the laws in some countries are technically so strict that very few images would be legal. Can you imagine a football or tennis match on TV where the crowd was all blurred out? And laws regarding "publication" seem to exist from a pre-internet age when your holiday snaps were in an album on a bookshelf. You might want to ask User:Poco a poco, who seems well travelled. Commons is unlikely to delete the image and any legal risk you face here is no different to your Flickr page. Your friendly monk clearly consented to having his photo taken by you and if he is using a tablet for photos, then he's probably got one of you on his Flickr page so you could safely assume he's aware the image might end up on the internet. I find it hard to imagine this Taiwanese monk using Bolivian law to sue you for taking a holiday photo and posting it on the internet. -- Colin (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like travelling (and actually are planning also to go to Uyuni soon), but cannot provide much clarification to this discussion. I don't know the Bolivian law and couldn't find much on the Internet. If the picture would have been taken e.g. in Spain, then it would probably have to be deleted, because apart from public people or public event where people are secondary (e.g. football match), everything else requires explicit authorization. I have asked a Bolivian user for help, maybe he can contribute more than me. Poc o² 19:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, I can't imagine him suing me neither, it would be so far away from his philosophy. But after this conversation, I somehow felt like that I'm in this grey area where I assume that it's all good without officially knowing his point of view. In which case, my entire Flickr is indeed in the same position, as well as most of Flickr accounts and the whole internet... which makes me think that those laws are a bit absurd—it's not as if I was being a paparazzi and breaking the privacy of those persons (I hope). Ok, that's clearing my mind, thanks :) -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the photo to stay as well, but I think there is a difference between the (formally illegal, but casual) use on social media, where the typical (tacit) assumption for the depicted person is that it is shared among friends of the photographer, and being more highly profiled by becoming a featured picture. Say, it becomes FP. It will then end up on the main page of commons as POTD one day. Often more than a year after the event happened. And that day alone it will receive some 40,000 page views (a POTD on EN.FP receives some 15,000,000(!) page views) of people spread all over. I know that if it was me who was depicted, that would make quite a difference for me, and I would really like to know and give my consent. It is not a question of a law suit or not. It is a question about showing courtesy to the depicted and maintain good ethics. (I am thereby not saying the creator here has bad ethics, just that it is difficult and worthwhile giving some thought) Maybe it would be embarassing for him to be depicted with white rubber boots (which I love) for a wider public? I don't know, and I think it is hard to say without knowing the depicted person better and his cultural values. It is a for me a difficult balance between protecting the privacy of an identifiable person (even if posing in public) and getting these outstanding people shots on Commons (which we have way to few of, because it is so difficult to do it right). --Slaunger (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very fair point, thanks for bringing it in. I didn't know that FP pictures could have such an exposure (I'm actually quite impressed with those numbers!). That said, I believe that Flickr photos can have similar exposures since they're not restricted to circles of friends—but this it out of topic and doesn't change anything about the issue here. Having talked with him, he's very chilled and didn't have a problem with the boots at all or whatsoever. He actually was quite amused and thanked me for the 2 pictures I took of him while being very happy of the resulting previews. But still, I will try one more time to get in touch with him to be 100% sure that he's fine with this photo being published. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a good idea to deny FP status because of worries about exposure. We have to consider any image file on Commons (or public folder on Flickr -- freely licensed or not) to have the potential for massive exposure beyond our control. Should I lose sleep over the hundreds of identifiable people in this or this? Perhaps someone in my railway station crowd made a non-optimal clothing choice that day? Everyone may have their own ethical position on taking/publishing photos of people, but this isn't a "privacy" issue at all -- that's the wrong concern. We have far, far more concerning photos on Commons than this. And there are plenty professionals taking photos of people with little more "consent" than pointing at the camera and making a thumbs-up question, only going to the trouble of written consent when they want to sell images for stock or advertising. -- Colin (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I think the crowd shots you are mentioning, with identifiable persons if you look at it in full resolution are an entirely different matter. Say if one man is "identified" there walking with his mistress by pure coincidence, because someone who knows him, scrutinizes the photo at 100%, he knew it was a chance he took. Here the monk is the main subject (and him and the photographer actually appear to be quite alone, although in a public setting) and the tacit contract between main subject and photographer is completely different. I agree that we have far worse examples on Commons on violating consent than this (if this is violating it at all), and there are pro photographers, who does not follow the book, but that is not an excuse for not doing things right. Especially for our collection of FPs they should provide a good example in every aspect, the wow, the quality, the file page, the categorization, the consent. They should be a show-case of professionalism in every aspect. and show that Commons can actually behave responsibly and not be "broken" as some regularly claim. --Slaunger (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Small heads up: A few days ago, I tried for the second time to contact him through the Facebook email that he gave me, but still no luck. I can't even add him as a friend since his account doesn't allow such invitations. As such, he must receive my messages in the "others" section of Facebook's messages and probably haven't seen them. I've searched for another way to contact him but he's not subscribed anywhere else—apparently he doesn't even have a "proper" (non-Facebook) email. I'm out of ideas. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the persistence. After having read your blog about the meeting with the monk I am not so concerned about the consent. --Slaunger (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support J e e 03:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Yann (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magic lighting and setting. Hopefully this picture won't get deleted. And yes, taiwanese people take pictures every 5 minutes ;) (no offense intended, just a reference to people I know). - Benh (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support magic mood! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only fault I can find is the horizon goes through his head rather than, say, further down. But the lighting, scene and subject are all great. -- Colin (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am willing to accept that this photographer has sufficient consent for hosting this on Commons and having it featured. Re-use would be a different issue. I think the personality rights template addresses those consent and re-use issues well enough for our mandate. Particulalry given this is such a lovely picture. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is fake Support I tried to make a joke, however, I am learning the meaning of English humor. Pardon the misunderstanding. Very nice work Christopher, Now, talking seriously. I hope to see future work with the same quality and effort, congratulations --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure to understand in what this link to my blog is meant to support your statement, so... I guess this is a joke, right? :) -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfredo, Christopher's blog is a little confusing but I think he is saying the gradient in the sky and the perfect reflections in his photographs look like a faked Photoshop image. But they aren't (I trust). -- Colin (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaah, the reference to the Photoshopped joke... I thought it was an obvious one :) -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never easy to grab the specific humour of each, especially with a big scary red “oppose” notation, but that's all good with me. Thanks for the kind comment (as well as everyone else's)! -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sorry, a hoax. I was hoping to see enough votes in favor to little influence over the ratings. If ever you are coming to take photos in Brazil, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Technical image quality not convincing --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Uoaei1, Like for the picture below, would you develop? Especially, how is this picture (which you supported) better technically? - Benh (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do I have to defend my vote?! Well, looking at the face it looks quite soft. And the noise in the homogenous areas is also significant. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to... it's counted anyways. But it's more of a courtesy, and "technically wrong" could mean anything (and so means nothing). When I'm yelled at, I like to know why. And I'm just surprised a 16mpix picture which isn't that soft (IMO, and nothing sharpening can't fix) isn't as good as a 3mpix. - Benh (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Despite my "bitching" regarding consent above I kinda agree with Saffron Blaze. --Slaunger (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subject, composition, and color all work for me, though could wish for sharper detail on the monk. Is ISO 800 a bit high for that camera? Perhaps shutter at 1/60 with ISO 400 would have been better. Kbh3rd (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fuji's X-trans sensors are pretty good at handling noise, even though there are some drawback like lost of details during demosaicing (which can be considered noise somehow...). ISO 800 is not a problem in my experience, but this was processed with Lightroom and author used default values, which are known to render soft. - Benh (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a tripod and therefore I have my camera hand-handled. When I used to shot with my Hasselblad 500 C/M, I didn't mind going as low a 1/30s since the body is quite heavy and hence more stable. But with this small and light Fuji X100S, I avoid as much as possible going slower than 1/125s or there would be too many chances for me to slightly move and get a blurry picture. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Moedling1997 (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 16:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Urmia lake drought.webm, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2014 at 14:26:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Monfie - uploaded by Monfie - nominated by مانفی -- Monfie (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Monfie (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question and Comment Is it correct that this movie has been created solely from the information in the three still images linked to from the file page? If so, I am impressed by how realistic the "interpolation" appears in the short video sequence. Anyway, I think it would be helpful and interesting to put quite some more details in the file page about how this video has been generated from the sources. --Slaunger (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It has been created using this 3 images only. They are mixed using cross dissolve transition in adobe-premiere.--Monfie (talk) 06:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yann (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done! --El Grafo (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question would it be possible to upload the 3 aligned base images as separate image files? That way, one could load them into an image viewer and step forth and back as one wishes. (It's always nice to have the raw data.) --El Grafo (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DoneYou can check "other versions". Now you can also see how much "color correction" has done, to equalize them.Monfie (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Colin (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very instructive, and very convincing processing of the sparse material used for making the short sequence. Seems like you have extracted all the information that was there. --Slaunger (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well done, and meets the criterion of value. Kbh3rd (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ It seems to me as a very basic fading transition between the threes pictures ; and I'm not even sure the source material overlap nicely. To me it's more annoying than helpul to really judge and I'd rather have the three higher res pictures side by side. - Benh (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Changed my mind. Quite useful in the wiki article! - Benh (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Moedling1997 (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Satellite images

File:Vista de Benidorm, España, 2014-07-02, DD 51-53 HDR.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2014 at 20:41:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info High dynamic range night shot of Benidorm, turistic capital of the Costa Blanca (literally White Coast) in Land of Valencia, Spain. The shot was taken from the Cross of Benidorm, located on the summit of the Sierra Helada. Benidorm, is a town with 73,000 inhabitants throughout the year but with a peak of over half a million in the summer season. It's the third town with the most concentration of tall buildings in Europe, after London and Milan, whereas in Spain, Benidorm is positioned third, behind Barcelona and Madrid in the total number of skyscrapers. Nevertheless, Benidorm has the most high-rise buildings per capita in the world. All by me, Poc o² 20:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too many parts of the image are absoutley dark (for me it's the wrong time to make such pictures, better is the blue hour), over all not so sharp and good like similar cityscape panoramas we already have as FP. it's good, but not a FP--Wladyslaw (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that this kind of shots can only be taken in the blue hour (actually, I have some for this cityscape, but prefer this version). Poc o² 08:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- depends on the scenery. A scenery with much water which becomes deeply dark and takes a dominant position in the composition is not beneficial IMO. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Caecilius Mauß (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Night is dark. The dark foliage on the lower left is balanced by the darker, shaper building on the lower right. This captures the ambience of the evening and makes me feel like I'm there. Kbh3rd (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose Mmmh, I cannot really get enthusiastic about this photo. Level of details is quite good for a night shot. In direct comparison to the photo at blue hour one clearly gets the advantage of your careful HDR usages with this photo. From the technically side there are perspective issues at the very right (take a look in the verticals). But my main problem is the upper right part of the photo. There is a lot of fog and important details disappear in fog and darkness. The sharpening you've applied is also not beneficial there - sharpening areas with less details often result in sharpening artefacts. Probably an HDR at blue hour (a bit earlier as your nom beneath) with clearer air had been better. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at least 4 dustspots (see notes) -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 05:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Poc o² 07:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral nice image. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 11:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mountains are going to be dark at night. I believe we have an FP of Hong Kong from Victoria Peak with the same issue, but IMO it's not distracting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info This one during the blue hour Poc o² 17:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
for me better than the first nomination but nevertheless far away from FP. Compared to this cityscape-FP Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes this one is technical not so sophisticated. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support fp worthy to me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as already argued --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment again, this is NOT an alternative, but another picture.--Jebulon (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- In this case there is too much dark foreground lacking interesting detail and distracting from the main thrust of image. Kbh3rd (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cropped one is much better. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maramec Spring Park 20140330 151.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2014 at 03:10:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kbh3rd - uploaded by Kbh3rd - nominated by Kbh3rd -- Kbh3rd (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice place, but Insufficient quality: lens flare, burnt sky and chromatic aberration (mainly in the branches at left). --Cayambe (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For all those reasons plus blown highlights on water and distracting dark area at rear. No matter how well-composed, this was never going to make up for shooting into the sun. Daniel Case (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 05:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aalto-Theater-Abends-02-2014.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2014 at 05:25:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ lower part too dark, the container ruins the composition, it's a pity because this image is made good and the object is interessting --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your argument with the container (could not move it), for me it is not very distracting. What do you mean with "lower part"? The lower part of the building or the lower part of the complete photo? Take a look on Suncalc: The only way to photograph the building with nice light is in summer about 1h before sunset (north facade). The consequence is that only the building is well lid, other parts are in shadow. For me no shortage, in contrary: a special quality of this photo. Nonetheless there are still a lot of details in the shadows - no 100% black. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The lower part of the image (=1/3 of the complete image) is rapt in strong shadow. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the info. I will take a further look on it in the evening. Some moderate brighening should be no big deal here because all shadow details are still visible. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - all shadow details are still visible Sorry, but this is definitely not the case. Behind the pillars the building structure is deeply dark. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Done, new version uploaded, completely new development and stitching from RAW. Taxiarchos228, please take another look. IMHO the stitching is not that bad. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Neutral much more better than the original, the container is still disturbing, therefore I don't support the image, but I see no reason for oppose any more --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for re-considering your vote. I look forward to further comments. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me, the container is not acceptable. The same picture, taken at a different time without the container, would be fine for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Which container are you talking about? There are several --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent panorama! And I never seen such beautiful containers. :) --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The container/skip are distracting but overall still a good capture. -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (but please kill the bird ... :)) --P e z i (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bitte noch einmal ohne Container. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Done Bird killed :) To all the container comments: Yes the containers might be slightly disturbing BUT you never know when they are removed (btw: at the entry of the building of my home train station is still one there for over one year (!!) without clear reason). I think the nice golden hour light in this shot in combination with the beautiful sky formation over the building and the very high resolution (62 Mpx) is highlight enough to compensate the negative influence from the container . Additionaly what you see here is a north facade - you can only make reasonable photos of it with good light in a short period in the summer. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree -- Colin (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question I Don't understand. If this is the north facade, why do have the reflection of the sun in the window? And the shadows of the flagpoles would have a southern direction, also the shadows of the trees left on the facade. The sun in the north - impossible in Essen. --Llez (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Llez, take a careful look on this GM view. The building is curved from west to north. The area where you see the reflection is rather the western part of the facade, take also a look on Suncalc. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks. This explains the reflection and the shadows. --Llez (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Slaunger (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Tuxyso, but neither the lighting nor the subject are featurable to me. Poco² 16:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem Poco (btw: the architecture of the building is imho outstanding) but what's wrong with the lighting? As I have argued above for me the best light one can reach with this object. Where do you see room for improvement? --Tuxyso (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I may suggest: sometimes the best one can do still isn't enough. Some subjects are just compromised by their location/aspect, and some subjects appeal more to some that others. -- Colin (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wanted to bring up the same argument like Colin. You cannot help it maybe but doing your best doesn't mean that it has to be one of the finest image here. Btw, technically there are no flaws. Regarding the lighting I find the tree shadow along with the sun reflexion really disturbing. The building itself (will not talk about the containers place near the entrance) is nice, but, at least from this perspective, nothing extraordinary IMHO. Poco² 16:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC) PD: Almost forgot, if I were Jebulon I'd also complain about the fact that we can see the photographer in the reflection of the door :) Poco² 16:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - ¿?¿?... But you are not Jebulon...Are you ? Fortunately, he is unique. :)) --Jebulon (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Fortunately :) Poc o² 09:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other users comments above. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nikhil (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 16:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apocynum venetum 1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2014 at 12:54:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Gidip (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gidip (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question I am puzzled why the DOF is so low, when the aperture is f/16? --Slaunger (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not "so" low. Gidip (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Indeed, it is even good but the half left dark background kill the wow effect IMO -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 17:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 16:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Goðafoss July 2014.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2014 at 09:04:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Goðafoss is a northern Icelandic waterfall with a height of 12m and a width of 30m. I took this exposure of 1s using a 64x ND filter. The two persons on the right side serve as scale. All by myself -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great - I just wonder why the two persons are quite sharp with 1sec exposure time ?! --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it seems the left guy is posing for a picture the right guy is taking --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 11:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe a teeny bit oversharp, but not a deal breaker. Fantastic. Daniel Case (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC) (Oops, forgot a tilde there)[reply]
- Comment Thanks! But please do sign your review... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 11:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moedling1997 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 16:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --LivioAndronico talk 17:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 04:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:St Paul's Cathedral High Altar, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2014 at 20:58:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support But, could you add some details about how these shots were made on the file page as well as state the projection and software used? (I guess it is basically the same recipe, which you recently explained in quite some detail to Benh). For instance, use the {{Panorama}} template. --Slaunger (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about how well the image generation process shall be documented

- I could, but it's frustrating and quite time consuming to explain how I created every single panorama. There's a lot of details to explain and I create a lot of images. ;-) Also, I don't think the template has the necessary fields... The number of frames doesn't explain how many rows and columns, or how many exposures per frame. Maybe it should be more about the beauty of the finished product that is created rather than how it was created. Diliff (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand if you think that particular template is not well suited, it was just a proposal. But, please document your method somehow. When people in 100 years wonder how such fantastic shots could be made with the mediocre technology of 2014, it is nice that it is documented how you managed to do it anyway . Maybe you can even make a user template for your interior panos, such that you only have to specify a few values, such as the number of exposures and their spread, number of rows and columns of images, aperture, ISO, projection. Surely, this information must be available in your panorama "Projects" (depending on what software you use). At least it is for me when I use PTgui. I mean your high productivity of these extremely Awesome! shots is highly appreciated, but I think it is a little bit laid back not wanting to use the after all limited time it takes to document the process used when nominating for FPC. --Slaunger (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess you're right, since we can only nominate two images per week, we can spare the time to document them! I use PTGui also, and yes all the information is in the project files. I just have to go back and dig it up. There is of course a lot of detailed work involved that isn't so easily explained with camera values and "x rows * y columns * z exposures" though. Diliff (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure this helps to convince you, but I second Slaunger here. After all, I joined the project after seeing one of your "awesome" photos, and I bet I'm not the only one. Even the free Hugin, which I use, automatically adds relevant details (FOV, projection) into the EXIF upon completion of the panorama. Maybe yours can be setup to do the same? - Benh (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Thanks for being open to the idea. If only you get the most essential information there it will be a big improvement. Of course you do not have to flesh out all the details such that any other person could exactly reproduce the end result based on the source images. The objective is to get an idea about how it was done. --Slaunger (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Benh, PTGui automatically adds details to the EXIF too (although I don't think it includes projection), but it often gets stripped in post production (I usually export an HDR 32 bit TIF from PTGui and then process it further in Lightroom). Most of my images do have complete EXIF data. But really only the ISO and aperture are reliable. The shutter speed in these HDR images is not one value (since there are usually 3 or 5 exposures), and the equivalent focal length of the panorama is usually wrong too because it applies to the field of view when processing the panorama in PTGui and isn't the true field of view after cropping. So I wouldn't trust much of the EXIF data that is produced anyway. Diliff (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "photoshopped" kitsch for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes it photoshopped/kitsch to you? All images receive processing (even if just to convert the sensor data into a JPG in camera) but calling something photoshopped usually implies that misrepresentation has occurred. This image is basically how the altar truly looks. The only real out of the ordinary processing is in recovering the stained glass detail. It's hard to show you equivalent photos though because as St Paul's Cathedral usually restricts photography, there really aren't any other decent quality photos of this high altar in existence on the web. Diliff (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think this image is an tonemapping/HDR image. The saturation looks to strong for me = "photoshopped". I think also you know its meaning. It will be also better for us all, to add more info's about your work: camera, lens, from how images it was made, the exposures etc.. At least that would be very interesting for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, it is tone mapped, as are most of my interior images. I can add this extra information but it won't prove or disprove that the subject is accurately represented. HDR images can be processed to look realistic (which is what I always aim for), and regular single exposures can be processed to look unrealistic. Diliff (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - An "accurately represented" image is a matter of opinion. I think the red canal and the saturation are a bit to strong. Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC) P.S: this is only "one" oppose. I know, your image will be anyway featured :-) And that is also OK for me![reply]
        Yes, of course it's a matter of opinion, but I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the saturation in the image, nothing looks unrealistic to me. I don't mind opposes when they are reasonable, I just disagree with yours this time. ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, so I'd like to believe you. I strike my oppose. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support "photoshopped" kitsch for me too. -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You've confused me. Are you saying that you're supporting this "photoshopped" kitsch, or you've accidentally supported it but meant to oppose, or you're disagreeing with Alchemist HP in some kind of obscure way? ;-) Diliff (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the latter. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I want more kitsch like this. ;o) Yann (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dman41689 (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 10:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support St Paul's has been described as "a lasting monument to the glory of God". If it requires Photoshop techniques to capture-on-camera and render-on-screen some of that glory, then I'm sure God approves of Photoshop. -- Colin (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just superb. Nikhil (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The whole photo is pure pleasure, especially the beautiful ceiling. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 04:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:St Paul's Cathedral Nave, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2014 at 20:53:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This image arguably scores extra points for rarity. Photography is normally not allowed to be taken inside the cathedral by any visitors under any circumstances, but I managed to get special permission to take this photo (and others). In addition, even if photography were normally allowed, St Paul's Cathedral is usually swarming with people and it would very difficult to get a photo like this without people everywhere. ;-)
Support -- Diliff (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's is a beautiful (and rare) image, but if I may suggest... just saw an hour ago(!) a fascinating documentary on the cathedral, explaining how the building is very slowly "sinking", and how the pillar supporting the dome are cleverly hidden etc. I think you chose to squeeze too much horizontal FOV in the Frame, and the distorsions result in a nave which looks larger than reality. I couldn't tell at first glance that I was looking at the same interior. I think this picture gives a better idea of the volume. How about a worm's view without verticals corrected or a cylindrical-like projection? And just out of curiosity, what happened to the uncropped version of File:St Paul's Cathedral Interior Dome 2 crop, London, UK - Diliff.jpg (the link is dead)? If it looks like this, it would be the picture I nominate first :) - Benh (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. It's always a criticism that wide angles of view make an interior look larger/more voluminous than it really is. Yes, I could have used a less wide FOV but then I would have missed the top of the arches and the monument on the left side. I wasn't able to get further back because I was pushed right up against the font near the entrance. And yes I would have really loved to have been given access to the balcony levels but that wasn't an option. I did ask. ;-) As for the uncropped version, it's there. I just forgot to add the File: at the start of the filename. Unfortunately I couldn't include the horizon in the image because there were too many people walking around by that stage. I wasn't given a completely empty cathedral unfortunately. I was able to enter at exactly the time that the cathedral opened in the morning (not earlier) and the nave shot was the first shot I shot as I knew the cathedral would fill up quickly. By the time I got to the dome in the middle of the cathedral, there were too many people walking around and time was limited so I chose to concentrate on the ceiling instead. If I had all day and the cathedral was empty, I would have tried a lot of other views. Diliff (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that's why I proposed you to give a try to the worm's view, or cylindrical projection. I found cylindrical to render quite fine in these situations (but that's only my opinion of course, and my results don't necessarily speak for themselves like yours). The distortions are easy on the eyes and, in such cases where we have the references to help, we tend to read them as straight lines unconsciously. As for the dome, how sad because I see it as a trademark of the cathedral. - Benh (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support although there is some noise and some distortions on the sides --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 10:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 17:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 04:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Kansas 2008.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2014 at 06:44:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info rock band Kansas in 2008. created by Glenn Smith - uploaded and nominated by Dman41689 (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dman41689 (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to me the lower part looks too dark. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To me the bg is a fake (if not the whole picture...), and the curtain in wrongly cut at the right border. Visible even on a tablet. Nothing against arranged bg in general, but 1) Manipulations should not be deceptive ( template 'retouched' added in the file description page, for instance ), and 2) it should be well done...--Jebulon (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon, also the right border looks strange... --DXR (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You can see it's a combination of several photos. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just a note this image is taken directly from Flickr no changes have been made to it. --Dman41689 (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above -- Jiel (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 17:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chocolaterie Menier moulin Saulnier 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2014 at 15:03:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Myrabella - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info For those who do not know. Benh has created this FP (with some of the best light ever seen on Commons) of the same building at another vantage point. That does not exclude more FPs of this very nice building of course. --Slaunger (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- i feel a bit embarrassed (and honored) for this favorable comment :) and yes there's no reason that both can't be FP together. The current candidate offers a more thorough view (I was stuck behind a portal, and this probably was shot during heritage days when he monument is open to public) and a very clear weather. - Benh (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have never been one of those that think like en:FP where only one image per subject should be featured. This project celebrates images not encyclopedias. More the merrier -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I just wanted to highlight another FP of the same building for reference. --Slaunger (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Conveys much detail in an appealing composition. SteveStrummer (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great Shot Nikhil (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kbh3rd (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support très joli ! very beautiful Jiel (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Industry

File:Toads v Uni scrum.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2014 at 05:13:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by RockerballAustralia - uploaded by RockerballAustralia - nominated by RockerballAustralia -- RockerballAustralia (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- RockerballAustralia (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2014 (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: the image is unsharp, tilted, crop is not convincing --DXR (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2014 (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.

File:Cepaea vindobonensis - Banding variation.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2014 at 10:38:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support No question. Yann (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 11:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 05:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 18:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils

File:Clevedon MMB A9 Pier.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2014 at 05:13:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by mattbuck - uploaded by mattbuck - nominated by -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 05:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 05:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wha? Well, if you insist... -mattbuck (Talk) 07:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dman41689 (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dman41689: It's courtesy to leave a reason when making an oppose vote. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak Oppose Nice idea but the dark rocks in the foreground are too dominating for me. However the pier itself looks interesting. A wide-angle shot from a point on the rocks could be fascinating. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clear photo of pier but poor weather makes it lack wow. We have Saffron's sillhouette FP, though a daytime photo would be good to capture detail of the pier itself. However, Mattbuck, you should be aware that it is now illegal to photograph the British coast without a 10-stop ND filter. -- Colin (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK for me, the atmosphere suits this particular image well. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While a good quality photo, the weather ruins the mood for me. The empty space to the left also irks me a little but it's not a major problem. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (dead)

Alternative

Info Remix from original - Clevedon MMB A9 Pier by mattbuck. Please dear mattbuck and Christian Ferrer evaluate this alternative, I liked the picture and I think this might be useful. If you do not agree please remove this picture. Thank you -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I rather like the original, this one is a bit overprocessed for my tastes. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree, that is way too contrasty. The pier's paint is not that vibrant. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ok, I make new image but only to test. Thanks for feedback : ) -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 20:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 05:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cumulonimbus, Detail, Enschede, 2014-07-10.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2014 at 14:51:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Cumulonimbus calvus, detail. Cloudscape and lighting courtesy of You-Know-Who. Rest by yours truly. -- Kleuske (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kleuske (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- too dark -- Dman41689 (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Considerable chroma noise in dark clouds. Overall too dark, but stretching the histogram would raise the noise. Certainly most impressive in nature, but not easy to catch into bytes. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 05:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aerial View - Burg Rötteln3.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2014 at 12:41:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A topic very well suited for an aerial photograph. I do not like the crop though, where the surrounding walls and buildings are separated by the main ruin in an unfortunate way. Also, considering the medium resolution of the photo, I do not think the per pixel quality is quite as good as I would have preferred - or maybe it has to do with the somewhat harsh light, which gives a slightly bleached or washed out appearance. I think you have other shots from the same series of photos, which have more wow for me and better light. Foremost File:Aerial View - Burg Rötteln1.jpg - especially if a bit of the forest could be cropped off to the left and top. This photo is also a VI within the scope of aerial views of this ruin, with good reason I think. Maybe also File:Aerial View - Burg Rötteln7.jpg, albeit the crop is perhaps a bit too tight on that one. --Slaunger (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image shows the upper part of the Castle so this is factual a reasonable crop and I don't see a serious photographic reason against this art work. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way the image is cropped between upper and lower is IMO unfortunate with half cut through roofs (see annotations). Regarding my previous appraisal of File:Aerial View - Burg Rötteln1.jpg, that one looks really great in preview size, but not good enough in full resolution. --Slaunger (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that few cut off roofs are not really significant for the image impression. Let's hear some other opinions. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sorry, but bad light with washed out colors. Your other image: File:Aerial View - Burg Rötteln1.jpg is better! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks slightly out of focus even in thumbnail size. Daniel Case (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that there is s.th. significant out of focus, especially for a aerial view image. If this should be a problem I wonder how this could File:Blasieholmen February 2013.jpg become a FP. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that looks sharp. What I meant to say is that this looks soft and fuzzy, like a plushy version of the image. Daniel Case (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the upper part of Blasieholmen_February_2013.jpg. There is NOTHING sharp. If you find Blasieholmen_February_2013.jpg sharp than my image is twise as sharp. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral An aerial view alone is already an achievement IMO. But the cut off part and cold WB kills it for me. File:Aerial View - Burg Rötteln1.jpg is better in these aspects. (How sad its resolution is low). - Benh (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (dead)

Alternative

Info Remix from original - Aerial View - Burg Rötteln3 by Wladyslaw. Please dear Wladyslaw evaluate this alternative, I liked the picture and I think this might be useful. If you do not agree please remove this picture. I fix shadows, roof, cloned area and a bit of white blind. Thank you -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 00:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if retouching work doesn't affect the scenery in a significant way it's okay for me, but if retouching work changes reality (and erasing building parts of a historic castle is a strong reality-changing) than this work will never receive my satisfaction. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ok. Thanks for feedback -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 11:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 17:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arcos das ruínas de Santa Mariña Dozo Cambados Galiza. Galicia 010.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2014 at 11:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Lmbuga -- Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 11:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info The church is a monument indexed in the Spanish heritage register of Bienes de Interés Cultural under the reference RI-51-0001122.
Support -- Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 11:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting composition, but it does not quite work for me. Background is a little too busy for my taste (albeit probably hard to avoid). --Slaunger (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And so hard to avoid: I do not cut trees. Remove trees with photoshop is too distort reality IMO: Behind there is a forest! The church is on the outskirts of Cambados and heavily wooded area--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 22:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I certainly do not want you to try and remove them artificially:) I was more thinking if it was possible to find another vantage point where the background is less busy. Either almost entirely trees, or with less trees. I admit that may be easier said than done, but then again, this is FPC after all. --Slaunger (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we'll have to wait to cutting trees to take a picture like this, from outside. Here you can see images of the church of the years 2007, 2011 and 2013 and there are trees ~~(less in 2007)~~. It is quite possible to avoid the trees from the inside, but it is a different photo.--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 08:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LivioAndronico talk 18:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 05:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 17:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Pine and the Sandsplit, Sète.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2014 at 10:15:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 10:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 10:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Kikos (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice light! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work: nice light and composition. Yann (talk) 05:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann, I also like the land fading out towards the horizon! --DXR (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 19:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Catedral de la Resurrección de Cristo, Podgorica, Montenegro, 2014-04-14, DD 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2014 at 18:56:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Exterior of the Serbian Orthodox Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ, Podgorica, capital of Montenegro. The construction of the temple began in 1993 and took 20 years. The official inauguration took place on October 7th 2013 in a very crowded ceremony driven by 8 Serbian Orthodox patriarchs. All by me, Poc o² 18:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dman41689 (talk) 06:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 17:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 17:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Rjcastillo (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support Good quality but low wow. But build 1993, its no FoP in Montenegro?--ArildV (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me look into it. Art works are problematic, not sure about buildings Poc o² 08:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I will not even have a chance to do it (although I started with a general approach), since an impatient estonian IP (who seems to be obsessed with my FPCs) has already started a deletion request. So, apart from the fact that I am actually an amateur photographer and not a lawyer specialized in copyright, now I even feel to be put on pressure to clarify this. There are actually 3 FPs at stake, not only this one. Poc o² 13:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice --LivioAndronico talk 23:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 04:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Dactylorhiza fuchsii Mariazell 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2014 at 19:08:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Uoaei1 - uploaded by Uoaei1 - nominated by Uoaei1 -- Uoaei1 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. Sharp, good light and color, nice contrast with background that does not distract. Kbh3rd (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Kbh3rd. Yann (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please edit out the dust spots on the left side. Gidip (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for the hint! --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are color fringes on a large fraction of the edges visible at full resolution. That may not be objectionable in itself, but also in modest review resolution of 2 Mpixels, the fringes are immediately visible in certain areas. I have pinpointed two of them with annotations. It appears to be at least partially due to CA, which should be correctable if you have the raw file.. --Slaunger (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done CA correction done in new version 3 --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better now, thanks. --Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support although there is one spot, that should be removed, see note, Poc o² 16:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done I am not sure that it was a dust spot; anyway it is removed in new version 3 --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Nice angle. I love this flower. ArionEstar (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very nice picture but the tight crop on top ruins it for me. --P e z i (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above -- Jiel (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My vote won't change anything, and there's nothing really wrong. It's sharp, but how difficult it is to achieve this these days? Since we're at FPC, I expect a little bit more like softer light and greener background. See [1]. - Benh (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 04:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Flowers

File:Hong Kong Harbour 45.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2014 at 17:20:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you should elaborate a bit on the categorization of the file page and make it more specific. I also propose adding geodata. --Slaunger (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Wilfredo, but too dark. Yann (talk) 07:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I consider this type of photography should be dark, if your intention is to show the hours, the photograph must be dark. In this case, my intention was to show the contrast between light and darkness of the port of Hong Kong. To say that this picture is dark is very true because the technique of this style is. It is very difficult to know how to differentiate an error photograph and intentionally achieved, especially when some kind of art is the result of the error. In this case, I tried that this photograph was dark, by the light we recognize that there is darkness. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The darkness isn't the problem IMO. It's that there's too much of one color of light, and it's not a good one—that horrible "bastard amber" produced by sodium-vapor lighting. It makes the city look a lot more hellish than I remember it being last summer. If it weren't for the distinctive Tsing Ma bridge (which avoids that lighting), I wouldn't know we were looking at HK. Daniel Case (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Daniel. Couldn't that be corrected throuh white balance? It's also very dark, but I can't tell if that would still be a problem with more variation in colour. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuild from RAW with White balance

Support --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks to the previous reviews, I have decided to reveal another version. Thank you very much for your feedback. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better! Yann (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely better. Leaving now and won't be able to change this, so I'll support although I'm still slightly unsure. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice! -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 17:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree, this version is much better! --Halavar (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Nice image. :-) But: Some elements at the bottom are disturbing.--XRay ^talk 07:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 04:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:A plastic clothespin in a rope.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2014 at 02:52:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

all by Aathavan jaffna - nominated by Aathavan jaffna -- Aathavan jaffna (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aathavan jaffna (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too simple I think. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not wow for me -- Jiel (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose low wow and outstanding quality.--ArildV (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 08:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ordre de Mobilisation générale 2 août 1914.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2014 at 11:57:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by french government - uploaded, stitched, restored and by nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another centenial document. Exactly 100 years ago, August 1st, 1914, this poster was put everywhere on the walls in France, in order to call all the male citizens to the armies. This is a strange flyier for a terrible flashmob... This picture is visually very well known in France, and one can find many "fac simile" here or there on the web. This one is an original, from the collections of the French National Library (BnF). I don't think it needs translation, but it could be provided if necessary. High size, and high EV IMO. Restored by me.-- Jebulon (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support by all means! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good timing! Good quality, high resolution of a historic document. Yann (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ please tell me: what will be here featured??? A simply (restored) scan. This can be as a VI, but I can't see here featured parts. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC) I strike my oppose. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome, I tell you:
  - -This is not a scan, but a photograph (see original file, one can find the link on the file page)
  - -Anyway, scans are eligible for FP candidacies, even "simple". (See the POTD of today 08/02, which is indeed a "simple (restored) scan" of a photograph.)
  - -This document has obvious lot of values, which is one of the criteria for FP (but you know this very well).
  - -The upload and restoration took me ages, and the human work on this kind of pictures is far much more difficult than any photography processing. IMO, the result is not so bad.
  - -Following your opinion, no historical documents can be featured here? Of course I can not agree.
  - -In France yesterday, at 4pm, all the tocsin bells were ringing in all cities and villages, and even all the bells of Notre-Dame de Paris (this is very rare), not because of the centenary of the beginning of WWI (08/03 for France), but because of the centenary of the put of this poster on the walls, which immediately changed the life of 4 millions of men. IMO, this is why this image is a FP, and not only a VI (VIC is for comparisons with other similar images in some scopes, not for valuable images by themselves, as frequently, but wrongly, thought).--Jebulon (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi Jebulon, thanks for your clarification. I strike my oppose, but I still thinking such works are not featured for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi Alchemist-hp, thanks for striking your opposition, but it was not necessary ! Im not sure I understand your opinion, but disagreements are normal here. You asked me about explanations, I was happy to provide you some arguments. I accept oppositions (yes, I do !) One more argument : we already had versions of this picture here, but the (original) quality and size of this one makes it maybe useful for many projects during the four 14-18 next years (students, historians etc...). This is featurable IMO, like banknote collections, or other 'only written' documents, when they have an historical or educational sense, and if technical quality is good enough for FP, of course. It was not the case of the original (CA along letters, tears, spots, pixellated bg etc...), but that's why restoration work is interesting to me. Thanks for your feedback anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done and great encyclopedic value. --Cayambe (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cayambe. --JLPC (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above -- Jiel (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support More like a WP FP. J e e 03:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Big but pretty blurry. As it is, it's as good to downsample to something like 2-5mpix. It will save bandwidth with zero downside. Do I miss something? - Benh (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 17:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Vøringfossen.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2014 at 09:51:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vøringsfossen in Eidfjord, Hordaland, Norwa

Info created by Kenny Louie (Flickr) - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really want to support, but the fringe between the right mountains and the sky is suspicious. Is the sky fake? Also some issue on the left part, with double lines (look the sky, we can see a duplicate faded out mountains). There's a lot of processing done here, but something is wrong. - Benh (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just for information, the green fringe (if you are referring to this) IMO is just a chromatic aberration. Three pixels vertically upward direction and three in the horizontal direction to the left, on the winding road to the left you can see both green and red (as was expected) in the opposite direction. The magenta ghost may be another aberration related to the dark areas of the picture and extends across the central visual field, but in this case is just a guess because it is outside of the expected area. Very consistent I do not think that is a edition. -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 14:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not CA. It's just to big for a downsampled picture (and I'm pretty sure it is). CA can be this big, but on closer subjects. We're talking about far away edges here. - Benh (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the feedback -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 17:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really nice image and composition, but per Benh – something went wrong in editing. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh. --Slaunger (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose another Flickr kitsch/fake. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dman41689 (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 17:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Urban stream @ Odivelas, Portugal.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2014 at 07:56:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Reino Baptista - uploaded by Reino Baptista - nominated by Reinobaptista -- RB (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- RB (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately far below of what's expected here, especially technically. Thanks for your contribution, but please have a close look at successful FP nominations. Don't feel discouraged and do come back with another candidate! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not a bad image though, regarding the composition and idea. There’s just the extremely posterized colours, the "ghost contours" (object movement between exposures?) and the huge loss of detail. Would make a fine watercolour painting (hope the nominator will excuse that joke) :-) --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination RB (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RB: I recommend you to send some candidates through COM:QIC to get a feeling what we mean with good quality. Poc o² 11:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kevelaer, Kerzenkapelle -- 2014 -- 00721.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2014 at 13:46:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 13:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 13:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the small DoF is your choice but it add nothing special to the image. And the composition is not outstanding IMO. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 11:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks. I checked the images again and I think, you're right.--XRay ^talk 06:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Insulator electric fence yellow.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2014 at 12:55:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info I think it’s a nice depiction of this object in its natural habit :-) c/u/n by -- Kreuzschnabel (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kreuzschnabel (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the blurred background is too distracting. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The DoF (and the subject) don't disturb me. However if the composition is not bad, it is also not outstanding. Maybe a more close view... or maybe not, I don't know...-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above Jiel (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tõlinõmme raba01.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2014 at 15:43:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Pinus sylvestris in Tõlinõmme bog. Created, uploaded and nominated by Ivar (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but no wow for me.--ArildV (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deckenfresko im Marmorsaal vom Stift Geras von Paul Troger 1738.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2014 at 00:09:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO it should be rotated 90 CW. The "main" scene is at the right now, and the central figure is side way. Regards, 05:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This file shows that in the middle of the room a rope with a chandelier hangs. For this photo I have chosen the single location for the camera, in which the cable is not attached to a person. And I had to make the compromise that the rope does not depend entirely vertical. If you rotate the image, then the rope does not hang down. If one chooses a location for the camera, in which the central figure is down, then the rope runs through the center of the face of Jesus.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support OK fine. Yann (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this looks heavily distorted --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with "heavily distorted"?

Some persons appear extremely stretched (e.g. the one with the red cape), while others are squeezed together. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My stitching program Kolor Autopano Giga gave the image the wrong proportions. I built the image again. The image now has the correct proportions. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WLM2014 has not started yet, so please remove the category and whatelse refers to WLM! --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I removed the category WLM2014. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose lack of symmetri Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We say in German: "Grau ist alle Theorie." Please have a look to this file. The only location for the recording of a symmetrical image is located in the middle of the floor under the flying angel. But at this point depends on the chandelier. The chandelier obscured the ceiling painting.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, you could stand so that the rope the chandelier hangs in, is in the midle of the picture and becomes the axis of symmetry to the picture. Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rope then hangs in front of the face of the woman. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are four sides and four corners to use. Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amanita citrina - Gelber Knollenblätterpilz - false death cap - Citron Amanita - Amanita citrina - 02.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2014 at 22:39:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Norbert Nagel - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful image Jiel (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Did he purposely choose an eaten subject? Gidip (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ivar (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amanita citrina - Gelber Knollenblätterpilz - false death cap - Citron Amanita - Amanita citrina - 03.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2014 at 22:42:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Norbert Nagel - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kbh3rd (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good picture of the species but no wow. QI justifiably but no FP to me. Too much space above the cap. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jiel (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting, needs a flash. The center of attention is shaded. Gidip (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ivar (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glassy-Carbon HP68-79.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2014 at 20:07:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and interesting. Yann (talk) 05:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful picture, interesting Jiel (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 17:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 12:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ivar (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks and Minerals

File:Great White Pelican AdF.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2014 at 19:56:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Arturo de Frias Marques - uploaded by Arturo de Frias Marques - nominated by Arturo de Frias Marques -- Arturo de Frias Marques (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arturo de Frias Marques (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pity about the crop on the right. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop.--ArildV (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop.-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ivar (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iolaus glaucus 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2014 at 20:00:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Gidip (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gidip (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 22:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 17:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dman41689 (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ivar (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Lednice (Eisgrub) - zámek.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2014 at 21:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but please add English description and (if possible) geo-location data --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's English description - Castle Lednice (Eisgrub), Moravia --Pudelek (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not far from oversharpening but still great. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Rjcastillo (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good quality and lightning but the trees (though maybe unavoidable, but here is a different compostion) are disturbing for the composition, the images also also lacks balance.--ArildV (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --LivioAndronico talk 23:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ivar (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

File:RWE Tower Essen 2014.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2014 at 14:02:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info multi-row panorama of RWE Tower in Essen. Note that shooting conditions als quite challenging (Category, Google Search). The only way to photograph the tower together with its lower building is the use of panorama technique from an extreme angle
all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I appreciate there are a lot of compromises to take. Here you have stepped back such that the geometric distortion of the tower was correctable afterwards, and I do think that aspect of the photo has been achieved quite succesfully. But at a cost: The power lines in the foreground sign etc are distracting and the foreground as a whole is busy and distarcting, and by straightening up the tower the foreground is also severely curved, and that looks really weird. Looking in the same category, I think it is better to either choose a completely different vantage point such as in File:RWE-Turm Essen, abends.jpg, where the subject is simply the tower. Alternatively, move closer to get rid of the busy foreground as has been done in File:NRW, Essen, Sudviertel - RWE-Turm.jpg (but with an unfortunate crop) and simply let the perspective be seen as it is. --Slaunger (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a good QI, not more and per Slaunger. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nothing is disturbing me in this picture ; I think this is a realistic seesight. Jiel (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ivar (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Romain Rolland au balcon, Meurisse, 1914.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2014 at 14:20:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info unknown photographer from the Meurisse Agency, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info High resolution of a famous French writer, precisely described and geocoded, exactly 100 years old now. Romain Rolland was one of the few personalities to vocally oppose the First World War, for which he received death threats, and had to leave Paris to settle in Switzerland. He received the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1915, after the publication of his pacifist manifesto Above the Battle. This year is also the 70th anniversary of his death.
Support -- Yann (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ivar (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angkor Wat, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 084.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2014 at 14:49:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Dawn view of the temple of Angkor Wat, with 2 Nāgas in the foreground, a gallery in the middle and the temple mountain in the back. The Angkor Wat was first a Hindu and later a Buddhist temple complex built by the Khmer King Suryavarman II in the early 12th century, and capital of the Khmer Empire, today Cambodia. This temple complex is the best preserved temple in the site and a symbol of Cambodia, appearing on its national flag. All by me, Poc o² 14:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 14:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the light is not good. Too much in dark shadow for me. There is also a magenta cast on the palm tree to the right and the overall noise level is too high. (I would have loved to be there though). --Slaunger (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The angle of the photo is so strange, it seems a little bit flattened Jiel (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think the composition is really very nice. I know you don't have to always get the stereotypical view in all the postcards, but the point of view seems much too low and is dominated by the wall in the foreground. Diliff (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ok, I got it, thanks for the feedback, Poc o² 17:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marasmius alliaceus-Knoblauchschwindling.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2014 at 11:14:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by H. Krisp - uploaded by H. Krisp - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 11:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 11:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice pic, certainly QI, but lacks wow. I’d crop out the distracting flash-lit piece of wood on the lower left. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice -- Jiel (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 04:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lijiang Yunnan China-View-of-Jade-Dragon-Mountain-01.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2014 at 10:38:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Cccefalon - -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My eyes keep bumping against the side edges, I want to see more to the left and right here. Upright orientation does not seem to fit the scenery. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Scenery is nice, but composition is not convincing. The large area of blue sky is relatively boring. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lahad-Datu Sabah Mount-Silam-Red-Crab-Geosesarma-aurantium-01.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2014 at 07:09:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Cccefalon - -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good but I'm not sure about the square crop. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the crop is good. The crape's eyes should my in the center of the photo. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand, that there are different opinions about the square crop and of course it would be possible to alter it. However, this photo got QI and VI on that shape and it would affect this, when applying that kind of changes. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Jiel (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cassis madagascariensis from Margarita Island.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2014 at 01:17:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work! Yann (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- nice image but it doesn't wow me as much -- Dman41689 (talk) 06:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support good work. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very educational. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support It's good, but only a very small Wow.--XRay ^talk 12:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ivar (talk) 10:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils

File:Food Market at Cajamarca, Peru.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2014 at 14:34:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christopher Crouzet - uploaded by Christopher Crouzet - nominated by Christopher Crouzet -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The dominating wood pole ruins the composition completely. Would be nicer and more interesting if only the lady was in the pic, handling the dipper. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough—in my point of view, I kinda like the relation between that woman and the family about to be served. The pole could be seen as a separating line between both?—well, I'm saying that but I've got to admin that I don't know anything about composition, hehe. I gave a go anyways at cropping it as you say, with a square ratio, but even though it indeed looks interesting, I feel like it's losing some of its soul... the relation with the family is lost. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- a very interesting living picture, but wood pole Jiel (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I have to agree about the composition.--ArildV (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the comments so far! I'm keen to upload a cropped version of the image but what would be the best way for me to do it? Upload a new one, overwrite the existing one, or something else? -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ivar (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

File:Jielbeaumadier panda roux 1 mjp paris 2014.jpeg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2014 at 22:07:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jiel - uploaded by Jiel - nominated by Jiel -- Jiel (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, bad quality --Rjcastillo (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ivar (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

File:Jielbeaumadier renard roux assis 2 skansen 2013.jpeg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2014 at 23:49:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jiel - uploaded by Jiel - helped/nominated by Alchemist-hp -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jiel (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurred -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurred. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not think that the image is actually blurred, it's more likely to be the image quality of the camera that just is not good enough compared to other featured pictures of mammals, sorry. --DXR (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the quality is poor.--ArildV (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No chance. Nice shot but bad camera. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info This is a picture of the same fox at the same place. Do you prefer it ? Jiel (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. All details drowned in noise-reduction mud. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ivar (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Melker Altar - Dornenkrönung.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2014 at 13:02:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info painted by Jörg Breu d. Ä., photographed, uploaded and nominated by Uoaei1 -- Uoaei1 (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and interesting. Yann (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and interesting. Jiel (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ivar (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Sun Setting over the Beach of Pimentel District, Chiclayo, Peru.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2014 at 14:39:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christopher Crouzet - uploaded by Christopher Crouzet - nominated by Christopher Crouzet -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry – I see nothing but a very bright sunset with a lot of distracting objects before it. No idea what this picture wants to tell me. What is supposed to be featured here? --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering the same with many of the featured pictures, so you know, I thought why not this one? I guess landscapes and portraits always had a higher impact on me than buildings, flowers, photos of painting, and other photos of food. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 17:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same here. No clear guideline comes out from the composition. - Benh (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- an ad for soda and quick foods ? Jiel (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the picture but the composition is not entirely convincing. The woman who sells drinks and snacks at the beach is an interesting subject, the evening light is beautiful. I would like to have more focus on her.--ArildV (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agreed – the woman as such is not uninteresting in this lighting, but there’s too much in this pic to focus on any message that might be conveyed. Less would have been more. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the comments—I guess there's nothing I can do to improve it then because of the way I shot the original one? Please don't hesitate to add more comments if something hasn't been said yet, as I'm mainly posting here for feedbacks :) -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ivar (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

File:St John's College Chapel, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2014 at 12:36:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, but there is a white line at the left border. --DXR (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow--ArildV (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture! --Halavar (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atamari (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just graet! --mathias K 13:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 14:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Uni caught stomping.webm, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2014 at 07:10:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by RockerballAustralia - uploaded by RockerballAustralia - nominated by RockerballAustralia -- RockerballAustralia (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- RockerballAustralia (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not wow for me. Jiel (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad lighting and quality, random framing (cut-off limbs). Nothing featurable at all. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strong Oppose. Not even fair. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 14:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:View from Skaftafell National Park July 2014 -2.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2014 at 06:00:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Skaftafellsheiði plateau provides a picturesque view on Skaftafellsjökull, a glacier terminus of the Vatnajökull, the adjacent glacier lake below, and River Skeiðará originating from it. All by myself, -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the composition have a great wow here, I like the people in the foreground.--ArildV (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The dull mood makes it special. Thanks for not nominating only bright-sunlight images :-) --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive Iceland and your image too :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment: it is a very good composition too: a foreground element: the rock with the peoples as a scale, located in the rule of thirds) and a fantastic view to the wide valley with 2/3 landscape + 1/3 sky (also used the rule of thirds). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Alchemist-hp -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support idem. Yann (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh yes, I am counting the hours to get there :) Poc o² 18:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 14:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Worcester Cathedral Cloister, Worcestershire, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2014 at 12:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support What is this object in the foreground on the left? --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- An old iron radiator heater. They're quite common in English cathedrals. Diliff (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ArildV (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect^2 --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality is too high :) --Tuxyso (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just great! --mathias K 13:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 14:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Pennaceous feathers by Garrulus glandarius.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2014 at 23:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dman41689 (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, light and detail. How come you still miss one vote? This is macro, right? --Kadellar (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the little bird!

Yes, I took the image with the macro AF-S Micro Nikkor 60 mm 1:2,8 G ED by Nikon. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 15:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Petrovskiy football stadium in SPB.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2014 at 06:30:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info "Petrovsky" - football stadium in the centre of Saint Petersburg.
Info created, uploaded, nominated by Florstein -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don’t you like your own nomination? Well done, and the slightly blown cloud on the left is a minor flaw IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 07:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kreuzschnabel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 10:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 13:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was sure to support this image until I saw the 100% view. But the sharpness is not very strong. Florstein: can you try to improve this? I like the object and the image but with this quality it's not really a FP. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your attention and your generous attempts to support the photo, but I doubt that forced sharpening can help improve the image. --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you made this image as a RAW I would try it by myself. If you only had shot a JPG than I'll guess it wouldn't be to improve. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sharpen it or not, the level of detail remains the same. And it is, imho, good; not worse than most of us can produce. --A.Savin 14:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice motive, light, composition and sky formation. But I agree with Cayambe that sharpness is not fully convincing, probably NR is a bit overdone here. Nonetheless good enough to vote with support. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 12:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 15:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Świątynia Dalajlamy 04.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2014 at 21:48:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Halavar - uploaded by Halavar - nominated by Halavar -- Halavar (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Halavar (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sky artefacts. --A.Savin 10:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colour banding in the sky would be a reason to oppose on QIC too. Frontal view and centered composition not very interesting. White parts in the building’s lower corners look overexposed. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 15:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Senden, Dortmund-Ems-Kanal -- 2014 -- 2991.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2014 at 13:49:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 13:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 13:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good image! --Halavar (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just remove the one-pixel-high fringe (editing leftover) on the lower edge --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as said in QIC page, beautiful IMHO. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Sorry for the necessary fixes. The white pixel at the bottom are removed.--XRay ^talk 10:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --LivioAndronico talk 23:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice mood, without doubt. But for a 5,4 Mpx photo it is imho rather soft. Have you applied strong NR on it? --Tuxyso (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a gentle mist everywhere. Nearly no NR in the image. In a little distance you see the mist very clearly. It seems like a blur filter, but it isn't.--XRay ^talk 14:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think morning fog makes it soft.--Ivar (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely mood. Interesting use of HDR. - Benh (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support great atmosphere thank to the lighting, but the composition is IMHO not the best. I'd have liked to see more river and less road. Poc o² 18:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Hverfjall July 2014.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2014 at 04:25:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Hverfjall, located in northern Iceland's Mývatn region, is a rare example of a tuff ring volcano. Its diameter spans approx. 1 km. A glimps of Lake Mývatn can be spotted in the background. All by myself, -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is fringe around mountain in background-center or this is my screen fault? --Kikos (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I can't see anything. My current screen's not the best though. Anyone else? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the landscape is very well captured here.--ArildV (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would crop a bit of sky to use the rule of thirds. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info new version! Thanks Yann, you're right. First I was afraid that cropping too much of the sky could weaken the stark contrast of black and blue that was imo important for the general balance of the image. But the new compo works just fine. I hope the others agree. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Better. Yann (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 01:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 08:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Ngorongoro Spitzmaulnashorn edit1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2014 at 10:32:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ikiwaner - uploaded by Jjron - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Nice and interesting. Yann (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The other version is already an FP. Jee 15:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. Already FP. Yann (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! --Halavar (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 18:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basel - St.-Alban-Tor.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2014 at 19:00:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw. The image shows the Gate of Saint Alban, one of three obtained historic gates of the city wall in Basel, Switzerland. The image shows the building in high resolution and established sharpness. The rising sun shows the gate in a profitable manner. I don't wanted to retouche the nice woof-woof ;-) -- Wladyslaw (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's good (and a nice dog). IMO the shadow parts are not disturbing.--XRay ^talk 12:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For me it appears the vertical field of view is so large that making a 'perfect' perspective correction is perhaps not so sensible?? Verticals are vertical, but by eye it appears to me that the tower gets wider and wider the further we go up (at one stage it actually does go out, but that is not what I mean). That makes the tower look disproportionate. Anyone else getting the same perception? --Slaunger (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The effect you mention is barely noticeable IMO. This candidate suffers much more of this "sickness". - Benh (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is a little noticeable. Probably it is because the top of the tower is actually wider than the bottom because of the lip. I think our eyes look at the bottom and then the top first, notice the difference in width, and just assume that it has progressively become larger when actually it was the same width until the very top. It was perhaps designed that way to counter the effects of perspective but then when the image is vertically corrected, the effect becomes enhanced. Diliff (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support I think that is a good and reasonable explanation, Diliff. And the extra photo does demonstrate that the base of the tower is quite large. --Slaunger (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jiel (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 01:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice side light giving good clue of volume, and usual quality from author. - Benh (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very slight CA around the tower finial, but I would have to be a real wet blanket to let that spoil this otherwise accomplished image. And do I detect a no-dogs-allowed sign on the tower?. Daniel Case (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you're right, but it´s not my dog :-) --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support … and the "no dogs" sign applies only to the path on the far right. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Diliff (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

File:Griffon Vulture and Sun AdF.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2014 at 19:40:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Arturo de Frias Marques - uploaded by Arturo de Frias Marques - nominated by Arturo de Frias Marques -- Arturo de Frias Marques (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arturo de Frias Marques (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO not the best in its "kind" (see [2]), but we don't see a lot of these on Commons. - Benh (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It has quite unattractively blown highlights and it's fairly clear that they have been artificially brought back from pure white to grey. This is not uncommon when using the 'highlights slider', but when such a large portion of the image is a flat grey, it doesn't look very nice IMO. Diliff (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not my tastes sorry -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 17:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above -- Jiel (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Atamari (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry per above and also no wow imo.--ArildV (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in hope that nominator will put this one out of its misery. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO Wow there is! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 23:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It’s a nice idea, however, I see nothing but a slightly blurred headless bird silhouette against an unnatural yellow sky. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:RhB ABe 8-12 Allegra mit Spurpflug bei Ospizio Bernina.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2014 at 19:59:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although sharpness may not be the best because of some snow in the atmosphere due to strong winds (see upper right corner), I'm still nominating this because it was quite a lucky shot - actually working railway plows are hard to catch on chip, and in good weather even more so. The plow itself is also special because it's a "Spurpflug" (I don't think there's an english term for that), which can clear snow between the rails, below the rail heads. For that purpose it has small remote-controlled shields which can be raised to cross switches and level crossings.
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is a little noise, but not disturbing. So it's OK. --XRay ^talk 10:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not that it changes anything: What you're seeing is mostly the effect of snow dust in the air, not sensor noise. The 5D Mk3 produces very little noise at ISO 160. --Kabelleger (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --DXR (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, timing, light and colors. Nice work and typical Kabelleger:) --Slaunger (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --EveryPicture (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great ! Jiel (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love your work! -- Wolf im Wald 01:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This was on my nomination list. Nikhil (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love to see such images in summer! --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice sharpness all around given the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Hedera helix clinging on Platanus x hispanica, Agde, Hérault.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2014 at 21:37:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 21:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 21:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? :) --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too low wow for me. Strong sun shining on top of tree makes main subject - the foliage below dark, and the seperation between the two species is not as evident as I would expect for an FP. At first sight it just look like an arbitrary aggregation of foliage and a tree. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alte Feuerwache eV Bernburger Strasse 35 Berlin graffiti 2014-07-13.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2014 at 19:56:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Building found on a morning walk through empty streets near Potsdamer Platz in Berlin. Photographically a simple shot, but I like the framing, colors and light a lot in this facade, where the sun came in an angle which allowed the facade to be nicely illuminated from the side, highlighting the porous texture of the facade, which is very typical for buildings in Berlin. The building is used as a meeting room for 10-14 year old boys boys and girls by an organization called Alte Feuerwache (Old Fire Station), who (as far as I understand) does social work for children and young people. (German editors please correct me, if I am wrong). Although I do not (yet) know Berlin terribly well, this facade is for me very good at illustrating the atmosphere in this area of Berlin-Kreuzberg. --Slaunger (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Slaunger (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vandtårn Langkær.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2014 at 17:18:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me Villy Fink Isaksen| -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Water tower in Haderslev, Denmark. Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interessting object, good composition, nice minimalism --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Sorry, but I am missing better light (subject is in shadow except for a small part) and a more wow-inducing compositional idea. The subject is interesting for sure, but the way it is shown here is a bit too plain, imo. --DXR (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per DXR. QI for sure but low wow. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above votes; really not obvious what it is. Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosa 'moonlight' Moschatahybride. Locatie De Kruidhof.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2014 at 15:45:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Rosa 'moonlight'. A healthy scented Moschatahybride with some flowers. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull light and boring composition, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger. Nothing extraordinary with this work, sorry. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schweriner Schloss 01 (MK).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2014 at 14:12:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Schwerin Castle seen from the Lake Schwerin at sunset c/u/n by me, -- mathias K 14:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- mathias K 14:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the lighting and composition but there are a couple of things that can be improved: it is too soft, the left side is leaning out and the far left is not contributing much to the composition, I'd crop it a bit Poc o² 18:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree a lot with Poco here. I have no doubt that the scene is very featurable, but I'm not sure whether the panoramic crop here is ideal (imho this is even better) --DXR (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the review guys, I got the point(s) and will try a rework. For the time it takes I give this one a try. ;-) --mathias K 10:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Central hidroeléctrica de Walchensee, Kochel, Baviera, Alemania, 2014-03-22, DD 02.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2014 at 17:06:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Walchensee Hydroelectric Power Station, in operation since 1924, is located in Kochel, Bavaria (Germany) and was designed and developed by Oskar von Miller (1855-1934). The power station uses the height difference of about 200 m between the higher lake (Walchensee) and the lower lake (Kochelsee) to operate. The water flows with a maximum throughput of 84m³/s through 6 pipes down to the Kochelsee, where the power station is located. The 4 turbines in the foreground are of type Francis with three-phase generators (biggest in the world by that time) and 4 of type Pelton with single-phase generators located in the background. The water flow goes from left (water inlet) through the turbines to the right where the generators are also located. All by me, Poc o² 17:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 17:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image is for sure unusual and interesting, but I feel the 4:3 is very tight. Do you know why you chose to crop out the sides? Do you have a version with a centralized vanishing point? --DXR (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DXR, the crop is the result of the perspective correction. A version the way you ask for is physically not possible in that building. Poc o² 23:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info! That makes sense of course. --DXR (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the crop. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 10:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:1 santa teresa panorama 2014.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2014 at 01:03:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Chensiyuan - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice view, but poor quality standard (noise or even Moiré pattern) etc. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wladyslaw: It's fixable?

ArionEstar (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, at least not by us. As Wladyslaw has said, there is a lot of noise and we can only make it softer but not really better. Perhaps the author could try their luck with the original files. --DXR (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DXR: A pity. :(

ArionEstar (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it looks like the image has been upsampled (perhaps to give it the impression of being more detailed than it really is). I estimate that it only has about 3000x1000 pixels of real detail. But in theory, that's still enough to quality as a FP? :-) Diliff (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Appian Way.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2014 at 23:27:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I withdraw my nomination All by Livioandronico2013 -- LivioAndronico talk 23:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 23:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I could see what you were thinking, and it unreservedly deserves the QI it got, but alas it is not an FP. The composition is too awkward—we have that distracting shadow in the lower left corner and the tree is cut off. The evening light from the angle taken also has the unfortunate (and unusual) effect of flattening detail on the grass. If you are able to try this shot again, I believe you can improve it to a serious FP candidate at the very least by taking heed of the above. Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. Kbh3rd (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your advice :) --LivioAndronico talk 13:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Balcón del Mediterráneo, Benidorm, España, 2014-07-02, DD 21.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2014 at 22:07:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Balcón del Mediterráneo (or "Mediterranean Sea Balcony") is a popular place and platform located between the beaches of Levante and Poniente in the city of Benidorm, capital of the Costa Blanca ("White Coast") in the Valencian Community, Spain. Poc o² 22:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 22:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great view! --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a good idea, but I think this kind of shot work better when subject is symmetrical to start with. - Benh (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New version with a new crop improving symmetry. If you are referring though to the shadow, I can say, that photographing this place free of people is a lucky strike. It is usually very crowded, Poc o² 18:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks but this won't do it for me. As I said it's the subject which isn't suitable for this kind of shot. And the stair alone is not symmetrical anyways (you were not in the middle). So cropping won't fix it. Also I wonder if just going there early in the morning is not enough to get rid of the people. Incidentally this shall get you a better light. - Benh (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point but to be honest I wasn't targeting here a perfectly symmetric shot, which wouldn't be anyhow possible due to some elements in the water or even on the platform. You are also right about getting up at 5 o'clock to get there at 6 and take a shot without people. But, in this trip there was just no way to do that. Poc o² 06:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Interesting stair and place, but Im not sure the images adds something extra.--ArildV (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --LivioAndronico talk 23:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indeed good idea but the beginning of the stairs (left and right) is too much predominant to make an outstanding picture of this place IMO. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Christian Ferrer. Kruusamägi (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Weil am Rhein - Vitra Slide Tower16.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2014 at 04:26:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quality is good and I can understand the choice or/and the obligation of to not correct the perspcetives for this big and height subject however it seems tilted on left (the verticals at right are much more leaning in than the left verticals IMO). -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to correct this. But please be rational: this is a wideangle-view. You'll never receive total correct proportions. And 100% without tilted lines is not always best choise for the complete image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Ferrer:

Done --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support thanks, better IMO -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 20:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I do not see the perspective as a problem. Quite a lot per-pixel noise, but the resolution is very high, and thus the overall information level is more than adequate for an FP (Thanks for not downsampling). --Slaunger (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little bit noise in the shadows, but IMO OK.--XRay ^talk 04:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality! -- Wolf im Wald 01:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 11:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Towers

File:Einstein 1921 by F Schmutzer - restoration.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2014 at 17:11:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by en:Ferdinand Schmutzer - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is yellow. I think File:Albert Einstein 1921 by F Schmutzer.jpg is better. ;o) Regards, Yann (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral great picture but perhaps too much yellow - Jiel (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not quite sure which photographic process was used, but many at the time genuinely were very yellow. In particular, turning things sepia was one of the major ways of preserving silver... nitrate, I think - prints, as the chemical reaction fixed them and protected them from further exposure (the other turned them the normal black and white) meaning this was a choice. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- but it's modern print (post 2001) surely? The point is that Schmutzer's 1921 etching was a sepia aquatint. Hence I suppose the choice of a sepia print by the gallery that sourced this. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Support I hope you don't might I propose an alternative. ;o) Yann (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this alternative much better. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The original photograph is sepia toned; I'm uncomfortable with the idea of taking a historic image, and changing it solely for the purpose of matching modern sensibilities of how it ought to look. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this version. Good work. --Halavar (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too harsh for me. The original softer sepia rendering is much finer IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I prefer the sepia as it's more in keeping with Schmutzer's original etching. Thanks for your input regarding the debate about this image, by the way. I'm glad we managed to save it. It really is an exceptionally fine image with many pages linking. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mõrdama raba03.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2014 at 16:40:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Mõrdama bog. Walking there was possible only with snowshoes. Created, uploaded and nominated by Ivar (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 17:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I think the post-processing is too strong here. The sky does look impressive for sure, but it is so dark that it doesn't look realistic anymore and the effect is made more evident by the bright haloes around the trees --DXR (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is in-camera HDR shot with minor postprocessing. --Ivar (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand, thanks for the clarification. That said, I have never been too comfortable with the results of my Nikon's internal HDR mode and my concerns remain regardless. --DXR (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive enough --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I understand DXR's concerns but I also of course trust you when it comes to minor postprocessing. I assume that in-camera HDR means JPG, and I'm rarely happy with JPG files from newer Nikon Cameras, among other things, the sky often have a very saturated blue color. The colors are a bit too much here imo, but a nice and well composed picture otherwise.--ArildV (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:St George's Hall Liverpool England.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2014 at 15:29:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mdbeckwith - uploaded by Mdbeckwith - nominated by Mdbeckwith -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- seems blurred a litlle Jiel (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As with most of your other HDR photography (which I assume you process in the same way), the histogram looks normal, but there's something a bit unaesthetic about the tonality and it's hard to put my finger on exactly what it is. I can only assume it's the HDR software/settings. But yes, on top of that, it is quite unsharp... I've tried to discuss this with you in the past but you've never responded to me. Diliff (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry for not replying to a previous posts. I am using a cropped sensor camera shooting on an wide angle zoom EF-S 10mm to 22mm and this is the sharpest that I can get it. I don't know if it is a limitation with the actual lens, or if there is an error/damage with the lens or if it just me as a user end user. About the aesthetics one issue that is on my mind that might be a problem is that I have never calibrated my monitor, something that I mean to get around to doing as I could be getting the colours wrong. Postive criticism always welcome any suggestions to how I could improve my hdr processing are welcome. As for the sharpness issue, the Commons featured minimum requirement is 2megapixles and this image is 18megapixels, even if it is slightly blurry at 18megepixels viewed at 100%, do you think that if it were resized to 5megapixles that the image would still be classed as un-sharp if it were that size? For me at 5megapixels this image would be sharp and still be well over the 2megapixel requirements for featured photographs, thought that is my own personal opinon with regards to sharpness vs megapixel size with regards to this specific image Mdbeckwith
  - It does seem softer than I would expect from the 10-22mm lens. Some of your photos using the same lens look sharper than others, which is confusing to me. Sometimes one side of the frame is soft but the other side is sharp(er), sometimes it's just soft everywhere. As for sharpness if downsampled to 5 megapixels, I have to say, I just tried it and I still see the softness even at 5MP, although obviously it is lessened. The thing is, yes at 5mp, it would be well over the 2 megapixel requirement but it doesn't mean people would support it. Architectural images like this usually rely on good detail in order to wow. At 5MP or lower, it may not pass muster. I don't usually see any significant problem with the settings you use (as long as you don't get too much beyond f/11, you should be close to the maximum sharpness of the lens). I suspect the softness is either due to the way it is processed, or it is indeed a limitation of the lens. I'd be a bit disappointed with the lens if so. Most wide angle lenses are sharpish in the middle and soft at the edges but this seems to be soft everywhere. The strange thing is, detail is there, it's just that it seems to be shrouded in unsharpness. This isn't the least sharp image of yours though, I have seen worse. This one for example. Can you see the artifacts in this image, particularly in the stained glass, and in particular on the left side, how soft it is? The right side is not as bad as the left, and that tends to point to an issue with the lens. But then there's the HDR processing. I don't know if it's a monitor calibration image or just that you don't perceive the same image that I do. Some people actually like heavily processed HDR images, so it may just be subjective. But compare your Gloucester Cathedral image with mine, which is also HDR. I'm not saying mine is perfect by any means, but compare the sharpness and the tonality of the two images. In comparison, yours seems quite washed out and the stained glass doesn't look particularly vivid or realistic to me. Anyway, I'm sorry that this comparison is not about the image you've nominated, but I thought it would be better to compare an apple with an apple and I had an apple handy. Actually, it seems like our photography covers a lot of the same churches and cathedrals (here's a gallery of my recent images) so it is indeed interesting to me to see your photos, but almost universally I just find your HDR processing to be a bit unappealing and overdone. The only reason I'm being so honest about it is that I think your photography would benefit if you could had something to compare your images to. Diliff (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that the apples to apples comparison with Gloucester Cathedral that yours is much sharper and looking at my raw images I am not getting my images as sharp. I don't know if the EF-S 10mm to 22mm is performing as best it can or if there is a lens defect. What lens were you using for your Gloucester Cathedral shot? Mdbeckwith
      - Don't compare the sharpness of mine to yours though, because I'm stitching multiple images together to create these images. I'm using a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM lens, usually taken portrait format and 5 columns by 3 rows (and 5 bracketed exposures), so a total of 75 images on that one. Yes, the sharpness is better, but the main point I was trying to make is that the tonality is also better. It doesn't look so HDR processed, even though I have used HDR tone mapping. It's a deliberate attempt on my part to retain detail in the shadows and highlights while trying to avoid it screaming HDR (which is usually acknowledged as a bad thing, except on Flickr!). Diliff (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much HDR --Atamari (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the only reason why I used HDR in this image was to get the stained glass windows exposed, if there were no stained glass windows I wouldn't have used hdr processing at all. As for the stained glass windows in this shot, I personally don't think they have been overly processed hdr wise.
  - I disagree. It's of course a subjective matter when it comes to what is 'too much', but as I said above, I think the tonality is compromised by the HDR processing. Diliff (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. This image has potential, and I would support after perspective correction. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have uploaded a new version and have corrected perspective Mdbeckwith
- Support Thanks, very well done! --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know nothing about HDR and about this place but it seems to much brightened IMO. I think the reality is more dark... -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With regards to lighting, there is quite a lot of natural light coming though large windows between the arches on the left of the photograph. Mdbeckwith
Oppose like David, very nice image and atmosphere but sadly very poor technical accomplishment --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drnholec (Dürnholz) and Pavlovské vrchy (Pollauer Berge) - panorama.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2014 at 21:12:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support Not a huge wow, but enough for me. Nice landscape and good quality.--ArildV (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Composition isn't great, too much sky and not enough land, for me. Rule of thirds is useful here. Diliff (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice light, interesting landscape, good composition. Not a PoY candidate but imho a solid FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is a bit boring in my opinion, and the "random" composition with the horizon in the middle doesn't help. My eyes are drawn to nowhere when I look at it. Not too keen on the lighting either, although it doesn't render too harsh here. - Benh (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 05:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tableau 24 Abdih - Hiddisch by Karl Bodmer.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2014 at 20:18:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Karl Bodmer - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info The NONAM, Nordamerika Native Museum - Indianer und Inuit Kulturen, Zürich, Switzerland gave this file as a present to the wikimedia commons.
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and interesting. Yann (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support high ev --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose File:A Minatarre chief 0057v edit.jpg is far better.--Claus (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand what in File:A Minatarre chief 0057v edit.jpg is supposed to be far better. The image was subsequently edited to Commons. It lost the color of the paper and received a blue cast. Comparisons of to an unprocessed image by Karl Bodmer of the image source Library of Congress like your image but with right colours: File:Dacota_woman_and_Assiniboin_girl_0042v.jpg. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is the individual contribution of the photographer here? IMHO it is not very challenging to take a photo from a book page. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that a reason for opposing? --G Furtado (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. I know that this position in controversal. But I see no reason to support a photo of a book page, sorry. What is excellent here? Probably Martin Falbisoner is right that the EV is high (I am no expert on art). Given that this book page is an VP but no FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The NONAM, North America Native Museum - Indian and Inuit cultures, Zurich, Switzerland owns this image of Karl Bodmer. The photographer of the museum made a photographic reproduction of this image. The NONAM bestows commons the right to publish the reproduction with all legal consequences. You see: this reproduction is not a photo from a book page. It is a photographic reproduction of the original. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above Jiel (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aularches miliaris at Mangunan Orchard, Dlingo, Bantul, Yogyakarta 07.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2014 at 04:57:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Crisco 1492 - uploaded by Crisco 1492 - nominated by -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 04:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 04:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Don’t want to oppose because I don’t know too much about the limits in macro photography. It just seems a bit off focus to me, it’s not crisp sharp. In an image of only 5 megapixels, that’s a drawback to me. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a macro photograph, technically speaking, as it's only at 0.3 magnification. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy and unsharp. But skilled Photoshop editing might fix it. Downsampling could help too. Gidip (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Will denoise a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - I believe this is fine as an FP on the English Wikipedia as the illustrative (encyclopedic) value is quite easily there. However, when we put more emphasis on "wow", this falls short. Lighting is flat (overcast, hence the 500 ISO), and some parts of the bug are slightly OOF. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tõlinõmme järv.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2014 at 05:28:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Lake Tõlinõmme. Created, uploaded and nominated by Ivar (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 13:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 11:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light is nice, but the composition is relatively boring - everything is rather flat, the bank line is nearly completely straight, the sky area too large. On the photo there is missing something eye-catching like a cottage or an interesting rock. Sunset on water in not enough. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (Very) pretty, but also low value for me. It needs both IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above Jiel (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tuxyso. Furthermore the vegetation in the foreground does not help the composition, either, sorry. Poc o² 18:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice light, but simply no wow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014-08-09 09-27-08 ouvrage-g.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2014 at 07:09:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bad file name. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black-Headed Gull in flight 140810 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2014 at 14:19:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u by DXR - nominated by Kreuzschnabel -- Kreuzschnabel (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Unusual photograph of a gull in nearly-vertical flight. Enough wow for me. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kreuzschnabel (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Kadellar (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Cayambe (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great moment, nice focus Poc o² 18:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great timing, wow. --Slaunger (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (very) nice composition, but too soft for a support from me, especially given the size of it (I wouldn't be this demanding if such subjects weren't this ubiquitous) - Benh (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Kreuzschnabel for the nomination! I know that the technical quality could be better, but keep in mind that this was shot during a storm and the birds were really moving fast and unpredictably (and flying positions like that can - obviously - only last seconds). --DXR (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good and outstanding subject, good and sufficient quality (we have FP with lower quality) --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 06:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support marvelous! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moment! --Ximonic (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support High EV for this image offsets technical flaws. Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tamba52 (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 19:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Eisenach Germany Haus-Pflugensberg-02a.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2014 at 17:57:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Cccefalon -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I see room for improvement: slight reduction of exposure, increase hightlights reduction and brightness of shadows, but anyhow FP to me Poc o² 18:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 06:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support No flaws. I agree that it first seems just a smidge overexposed, but I'm not sure it's possible to reduce the exposure by the small amount required. Anyway it may be a function of the very light stone. Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, nice -- Jiel (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Karlskirche Wien abends.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2014 at 18:30:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 18:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 18:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support well executed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another great blue-hour pic. Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice work as usual. Nikhil (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition with the portion of the reflection chosen to be shown. Kbh3rd (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, but I think that both sides of the building are too dark, wouldn't it be nicer to have them a bit brightened? --Kadellar (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Lower Manhattan from Staten Island Ferry Corrected Jan 2006.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2014 at 11:39:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by MohandesWiki -- MohandesWiki ^Talk ‏ 11:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MohandesWiki ^Talk ‏ 11:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support flawless despite its age --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support With Martin: astonishing quality given the age of the shot (2006) --Tuxyso (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd like to see a no FP by Diliff ;) --Kadellar (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture is much better than this featured picture File:Lower Manhattan from Staten Island Ferry Jan 2006.jpg. In fact, I wanted to replace it. ArionEstar (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although with the completion of the new One World Trade Center, this view is outdated (though of course of historic importance). Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Vista Panorâmica de São Paulo Noite.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2014 at 22:14:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Original nomination. Created and uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colors are too strange Jiel (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Estação Luz.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2014 at 14:12:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Silvio Tanaka - uploaded by Rodrigo Argenton - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but too difficult light conditions gives too high contrast between relatively large overexposed blown areas and dark areas in shadow, where details are lost. May be too difficult to achieve in a single shot. Perhaps exposure fusion or HDR techniques is needed to span the full spectrum of brightness, or a more delicate treatment of a raw file prior to conversion to jpg format. --Slaunger (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panoramic view of Sao Paulo City.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2014 at 18:51:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thanks ArionEstar for this nomination, however, this image have severals problems noise, perspective, DoF... Only allowed to take pictures in there for a minute, though, I promise to go there again and do a better photo The Photographer (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: você pode olhar na Wikipédia e ver os pontos/locais que você pode ir, alguns locais abaixo:

Montagem de fotos da cidade de São Paulo, Brasil. Do alto, da esquerda para a direita: Catedral da Sé, panorama da cidade, Parque Ibirapuera, Ponte Octávio Frias de Oliveira, Museu de Arte de São Paulo (MASP) na Avenida Paulista e visão geral do centro velho da cidade.

Estação da Luz (wikipt)

Parque da Independência (wikipt)

Saudações e boas fotos.

ArionEstar (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am organizing photo walks. I would like to teach others, to take QI, VI and FP photos for commons --The Photographer (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: good work with the photos! :)

ArionEstar (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Não seja preguiçoso, você pode aprender a tirar fotos. --The Photographer (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: quando eu digo que não sei tirar fotos, eu digo que não sei tirar fotos como um profissional, com qualidade comparável às fotos destacadas do Commons por exemplo, veja algumas das minhas fotos:

Pode parecer que não, mas eu aprendo aqui no Commons muitas técnicas gráficas como: foco, perspectiva, superexposição, etc. Aos poucos eu vou aprendendo. Saudações! ;)

ArionEstar (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castillo Linderhof, Baviera, Alemania, 2014-03-22, DD 32-34 HDR.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2014 at 10:21:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Linderhof Palace in Bavaria, Germany. I think that the combination of weather and composition creates an exciting, dramatic and unusual picture. Created and uploaded by Diego Delso. Nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Arild! :) It was on my list after you mentioned it twice. Btw, just uploaded a new version with improvements on sharpness and highlights. A shame you had to cancel your London trip :( I'm right now learning a bit about Wikidata Poc o² 11:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Poco, please add coordinates. As far as I can judge from the photo the light is very unfortunate here - you photographed against the sun?! It looks as if you used HDR as an attempt to compensate the unfortunate light here. The very bright clouds distract from the main motive which is completely in shadow. Nonetheless the scenery is very beautiful, your composition too - but not your shooting time. Probably you could fix some of the light problems with selective brightening. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tuxyso, thanks for your feedback. Just added the coordinates. I took the picture from the South with the sun on the East (early morning). ~~No attempt to use HDR, just one frame.~~ I can rework the brigther areas, no problem with that. Poc o² 11:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Poco! If it is no HDR I would suggest to change the filename otherwise it would be confusing. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tuxyso: Sorry! that was bullshit. I forgot that I processed that image as a HDR. I just had to read the title to figure it out :(
Erwischt :) --Tuxyso (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a new version with a rework of the curves (thanks Christian!). Poc o² 14:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please clean the sky from several dust spots. Everything looks good to me, except the color of the sky. It looks rather unnatural, probably because of the strong backlight. --Ivar (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New version with 3 dust spots cleaned and a rework of the sky Poc o² 22:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Desenberg Westansicht Panorama 2014.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2014 at 05:46:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Panoramic view of Desenberg, western view. The hill Desenberg, a former vulcano, near the village Daseburg is located in the area of Höxter in North Rhine-Westphalia. It is the most remarkable landmark of Warburger Börde flatlands. The area around the top has a very special flora and fauna due to its island position.
Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't like centered compositions, but this one looks silent and very nice for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the review. IMHO a centered composition is the best choice for this hill because the landscape around the hill is quite flat and relatively boring (at least from a low shooting position). A centered position draws the attention fully to the hill and the castle ruin on it and shows how the hill slightly appears from the flatlands of Warburger Börde. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great composition! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice combo! Poc o² 11:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no wow for me in this landscape, and the white balance looks too yellowish. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Uoaei1, I've moderately modified the WB. Please notice that it was already noon and the sun light is slightly warmer than at midday. On the RAW files color temperature was at 5600K. Please take another look. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WB looks better, but the main point for me is the lacking wow. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cannot change your wow. But please keep in mind that the Alps are not everywhere and that there are also beautiful landscapes outside Austria :) --Tuxyso (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure - I am currently in Greece. Anyway, this image will probably be featured anyhow. --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Convincing capture of an impressive hill. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 12:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Ely Cathedral Octagon Lantern 3, Cambridgeshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2014 at 18:01:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. This is probably the most ambitious and high resolution image I've taken recently. It is comprised of 115 individual images, and totalling almost 100 megapixels in the final output. Also, there are no stitching problems in the image (at least, I'm pretty certain since it was taken with a panoramic head). The strange waves in the structure of the 'lantern' (the open space at the top) is because the cathedral is very old, not because of a technical fault in the image. I have only partially corrected the perspective for vertical lines because to completely correct them would result in a lot of distortion. -- Diliff (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per Diliff's picture above. ArionEstar (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Geez... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another triumph. Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great work as usual. Nikhil (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though the bottom of the crop seems somewhat abruptly truncated. Kbh3rd (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is sad that you need to take so many images to get a picture right. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a single shot with this result would be a dream, wouldn't it? :) --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's only sad that every digital camera doesn't have 100 megapixel resolution and 30 stops of dynamic range... :-) But since they don't, it's somewhat necessary to take this many photos. Diliff (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great work Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really a great work! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 23:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support What's with you guys? I give away my third support in less than a hour... The details are incredible, and it's a delight to browse and stumble across the stained glasses. I think you were right not to stuck to entirely fixing verticals. Thanks for the notes about how this was made btw. - Benh (talk)
Support --Ximonic (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tamba52 (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The full resolution pic is unfortunately too large to be opened on my way too old PC, but I would just like to say that I really appreciate the care you have taken this time with describing how you have created the end product on the file page. --Slaunger (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The ZoomViewer will let you browse the picture, but the Flash version isn't suitable for FP reviewing (it zooms much further than 100% and even at 100% it is soft) -- use the Javascript version. -- Colin (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Thanks for the hint, Colin. Wow $\uparrow \uparrow \uparrow$ 3 (first time I have found use of en:Knuth's up-arrow notation in an FPC). This is incredible. Now, even my teenage daughter thinks cathedral interiors are cool and that is an achievement . --Slaunger (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 04:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:JustineJuliette1797ii.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2014 at 12:05:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Juliette masturbating herself, with Justine averting her eyes.

Info scanned, uploaded and nominated by User:Abderitestatos -- Abderitestatos (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Abderitestatos (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the cultural interest -- Jiel (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lahad-Datu Sabah Mount-Silam-Red-Crab-Geosesarma-aurantium-02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2014 at 15:53:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Cccefalon - -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had a square crop version nominated earlier which raised some frowning. Here is another view of the same crab. Symmetrical view, as it was the desire. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 07:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and interesting. Yann (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 23:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Einstein2 (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To me the crab on an human-made surface (or at least out of his habitat) steals the "featureability" IMHO, sorry, Poc o² 18:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an example for Heisenberg uncertainty principle: You either kill the 15 mm crab (which can move incredibly fast) in their natural habitat to prevent her from leaving the DoF or you get her alive in a place where she cannot escape and shot 40 photos with the macro lense to get a reasonable sharp shot. No animal was harmed during the session. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion all votes emitted until now are invalid, because you had 3 or even 4 nominations at the same time open, and therefore this nomination was not aligned with the policies. Therefore I suggest to relaunch it, but I am not sure how this was solved in the past. I see no issue with the FPC above because it was just open for a hour, not sure about this, though. Poc o² 19:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought the two previous were already dead after the overall judgement. Especially this second nomination of the crab was an alternative to the square version because of the crop objections. I did not knew how to place an alternative version. Apologies, it was not meant to flood the FPC. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we understand it as an alternative placed in the wrong place, then it is ok, I guess. Still, you have a lot of examples of how to place alternatives, you can always look up what others do. It is usually enough to create a subsection in the nomination titled "Alternative" and place there the new version. Poc o² 23:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Tamba52 (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Norwich Cathedral from Cloisters, Norfolk, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2014 at 18:23:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. It's an unorthodox angle but I think it's far more interesting than a bog standard equivalent view. -- Diliff (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Wow! Excellent composition! Very good! ArionEstar (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another inspiration to all the rest of us. Perfect, and great framing. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but please correct the artifacts, see annotation --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But why do you firstly assume it's an artifact, instead of simply asking what you are seeing in the photo? To me, it's clearly a spider's web reflecting in the sunlight. I could clone it out but I prefer to keep reality as it is. Diliff (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would say just keep the spider web. Just because it's there. :) --Ximonic (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nikhil (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kbh3rd (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb composition and a very high quality image. The capitals of the pillars look a bit funny, but from the place where the photo was take some distortion would had been inevitable. Kruusamägi (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 10:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. Blue color cast on the shadows. - Benh (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what you mean by 'blue colour cast on the shadows'? Isn't that completely expected? You can correct the WB for the directly sunlit area, or you can correct for the shadows, but you can't correct for both at the same time... It's normal (for me) to find a WB that is most appropriate for the majority of the scene and usually that is not the shadows. Diliff (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice framing. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jiel (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 04:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Puerta del Teatro Municipal de São Paulo.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2014 at 18:17:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. The Brazil is a country that needs to be "photoexplored", photographically explored. Greetings and thanks Wilfredo! ;) -- ArionEstar (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
English: This Saturday I will take pictures in Sao Paulo, you are a guest.

Português: Este sábado vou tirar fotos em São Paulo, você é um convidado.
Español: Este sábado voy a tomar fotos en São Paulo, tu estás invitado.
--The Photographer (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: Muito obrigado, Wilfredo, mas eu sou um mero editor, eu não sei tirar fotos como um profissional e não moro em São Paulo, mas você pode olhar na Wikipédia e ver os pontos/locais que você pode ir, alguns locais abaixo:

Montagem de fotos da cidade de São Paulo, Brasil. Do alto, da esquerda para a direita: Catedral da Sé, panorama da cidade, Parque Ibirapuera, Ponte Octávio Frias de Oliveira, Museu de Arte de São Paulo (MASP) na Avenida Paulista e visão geral do centro velho da cidade.

Estação da Luz (wikipt)

Parque da Independência (wikipt)

Boas fotos.

ArionEstar (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No wow at all. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. There is also a small rainbow in the middle of the door and highlights are not well handled. Off-course due to probable high contrast between lighter and darker areas it must had been a very difficult shot. Kruusamägi (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above Jiel (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 04:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rueda Diverland 2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2014 at 16:10:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Crop too tight for me. Wonder why I am the first to comment after nearly two days, maybe others feel alike. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Atleast I agree with the opinion above so I guess that would be the major problem. --Ximonic (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge.jpeg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2014 at 16:37:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge in Ottawa, Canada

Info created & uploaded by Saffron Blaze - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support though the grass blades in the foreground are quite blurry ;-) --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the image. (Some parts are a little bit noisy but OK.)--XRay ^talk 07:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It was taken at ISO 64 with one of the best DSLR sensors in existence... There is no noise anywhere, as far as I can see! Diliff (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wonder if XRay is not referring to the jaggy edges that I can definitely see. If I recall, this "best DSLR" has no AA filter. Maybe this could explain the issue. - Benh (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've seen the jagged lights, but IMO it comes from the electrical light and it's not disturbing.--XRay ^talk 10:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, I pointed this out in the nomination on EN FPC also and suggested it was the AA filter. I don't think it's because of the electrical lights though, because there's also jagged edges on the bridge. I'm pretty sure it's the lack of AA filter. Diliff (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        To make it clear, I was talking about the "zipper" lines (finally found the word after a good sleep ;) ), but the jagged lines are there as well. Not sure they really come from lack of AA filter as I lack knowledge of how the latter affects demosaicing (If someone knows, I'd be happy to know). But this are niggles :) - Benh (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support outstanding quality and great compo. Though I could imagine a tighter crop would make it even better (the bottom is imo redundant). But anyway... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Benh I'm not a big fan of black sky images, but here we have a good reason: the white lamps are a good contrast for the black sky and the imrepssion in general doesn't seem to be to dark for me --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 04:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin Falbisoner regarding the bottom crop. D810 in January 2014 ? --Cayambe (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, and sharp, but I'm not a huge fan of the black sky. - Benh (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, I do actually like the contrast between the black sky and the white bridge, quality is also convincing, FP to me. Poc o² 11:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, excellent quality, interesting motive. I guess that this one is a night shot which is better at dark night than at blue hour. The strong contrast between black and very bright areas make this shot special. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a road, photoshop, and so what ? Jiel (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And what do you mean by Photoshop? It's a very loaded word and can mean many things. Diliff (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - superb work! Liked it as soon as I saw it on Flickr page of Saffron Blaze. Nikhil (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This image was in no way edited in photoshop. I hadn't set the clock and date on the camera when I took this hence the Jan 14 date. I do (now) have a blue hour shot that is similar to this and avoids the grass via cropping into a very wide aspect image. I won't be posting anything for a couple of weeks though as I am away. Happy if you put this on hold and I will load as an alt. BTW, here is under the bridge: https://www.flickr.com/photos/saffron_blaze/14806719285/in/photostream Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Kadellar (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ArildV (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tamba52 (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges

File:Tourists posing at the National Monument of Scotland.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2014 at 16:55:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Colin - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support good compo and colors, nice motif --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support It's good enough, but IMO the bottom is not optimal.--XRay ^talk 12:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support With XRay, bottom crop is rather tight, some shadows are too dark. But the monument in combination with the photographing tourist at the left make it imho an FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very lovely and eye-catching composition, but I can't help thinking the crop is too tight at the bottom, as XRay has also pointed out. --Slaunger (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Tomer T for the nomination. I like the composition too! I'm on holiday this week so can't see the raw files to check what the original crop was like but there was a good reason why I didn't include more at the bottom -- perhaps a waste bin or something similar spoiled the view, or the balance of grass/wall didn't work. In terms of light, it was taken at dusk so the the stone is dark like that and lightening it would be wrong (though, of course, one may prefer it brighter but that would require a different time of day). For the sake of honesty (Martin, Poco, XRay, Tuxyso, Slaunger and Böhringer) I should highlight that some tourists were cloned out. See original upload, and there is a "retouch" template". I don't feel the cloning substantially alters the subject (tourists come and go) but does strengthen the image. -- Colin (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the hint, Colin. I have no problem with that edit Poc o² 17:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the cloned tourists here either. I noticed that in the file page history, as well as the adequate use of the {{Retouched}} template. Regarding the crop I did suspect there was a reason, but this is hard to guess as a viewer, who gets an immediate impression, so I will just hold on to my neutral vote, and if promoted (as it will likely be), I have certainly seen worse:) Have a continued nice vacation! --Slaunger (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fine with me, too --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:View from a ridge between Segla and Hesten, Senja, Norway, 2014 August.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2014 at 19:10:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Per a request, a nomination! :) After all, it's been quite a while from the time I participated here with some new stuff. Again, a panorama view from Norway - this time from a somewhat remote place in an island of Senja quite far north. Due to the difficult contrasty weather I decited to make the whole panorama from three exposures per direction. Instead of automatic HDR blending I tend to use just layers for the exposures for more natural (imo) looking tones and outcome. created, uploaded and nominated by Ximonic -- Ximonic (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ximonic (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent panorama. I'm not entirely convinced about the choice of using layers though, HDR tone mapping can look natural. Also, the sky seems slightly blown and quite colour posterized... I sometimes get that banding issue in the sky when I've been lazy and blended/stitched from JPGs rather than 16 bit TIF files. It may be worth trying to reprocess it? Diliff (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review. I did a quick fix for now, maybe will see it again in the near future because now I have much more photos waiting for produce and publish. I guess they would be useful for Wikipedia from these 'rare' areas. --Ximonic (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Diliff. I love the road that runs along the river in the whole panorama. Great shot! Nikhil (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The notes on the image description page identifying everything in the image are very valuable and appreciated. I would like to see the width of the view in degrees noted, if that is available. Kbh3rd (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support awesome! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful Pundit (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great panorama (maybe crop on top is too tight), but too much HDR for a realistic look. --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are, of course, imperfections—the blown highlights in the area of clouds at the center top just under the sun, and some distortion around the corners. But it would be churlish to complain about them when so much else has gone right. Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 23:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I agree with the comments of Diliff and Uoaei1, the image is still outstanding. --DXR (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dramatic, breathtaking view... great combo, and big wow :) I've also added a note if you want to fix a stitching error. - Benh (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Stitching error should be no more distinct. --Ximonic (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredible photo. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing view! Benh is right and there's a small flaw, that should be fixed. --Kadellar (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Fixed. --Ximonic (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but per Diliff the processing has I think resulted in some false colouration in the sky and water. -- Colin (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 04:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Prato della Valle in Padua.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2014 at 08:03:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by AnatolyPm -- AnatolyPm (talk) 08:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- AnatolyPm (talk) 08:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not outstanding enough for FP --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I understand if the creator feels proud of it. At first glance it seems like an FP, perhaps because of that blue sky. But then you see the composition doesn't distinguish it from any other photo of the area, and then it occurs to you that the white balance is a little on the cool side. Perhaps considerable effort was undertaken in post to bring that sky out from something rather blah originally (been there, done that), and the creator or editor feels proud of themselves for doing so, And they should. But, composition aside, it has to be done without making the picture feel as overprocessed as this one does, if it is to be an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above Jiel (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 15:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xanten, St.-Viktor-Dom -- 2014 -- 00695.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2014 at 19:26:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 19:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 19:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not wow for me Jiel (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Handlebar and mirror get lost in the wrought iron. Kbh3rd (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you. I think you're right.--XRay ^talk 18:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tartu Raekoja plats 18 ja 20.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2014 at 19:24:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The leaning house of Tartu, created/uploaded/nominated by Ivar (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for composition – those bits of other buildings scraping the left side of the image, and the main subject so far to the left, unbalanced. (I was going to ding for perspective distortion until I read the description. Interesting subject.) Kbh3rd (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Left crop improved. --Ivar (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Computer graphic of a 'Successor class' submarine.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2014 at 04:35:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Info created by Royal Navy - uploaded by Innotata - nominated by Kbh3rd -- Kbh3rd (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Kbh3rd (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2014 (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: the resolution is too low, only 0.74 megapixels --Ivar (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2014 (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.

I withdraw my nomination. Doh. It filled my screen, but that doesn't mean as much as it did before my laptop with the high-resolution display died. Kbh3rd (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schweriner Schloss 02 (MK).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2014 at 10:50:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Schwerin Castle seen from the Lake Schwerin at sunset c/u/n by me, mathias K 10:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- mathias K 10:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pity the reflection is cut off. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd like more at the bottom and a bit less at the top, but still impressive imo. --DXR (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Kreuzschnabel & DXR: Thanks for the review. Youre both right that the crop at the bottom is a bit tight. Sadly I cant do anything, cause with a wider crop at the bottom, the wall on wich I'm standing on would be visible in the down right corner. That would ruin the composition too much imo. Greetings, mathias K 16:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 11:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now: The blacks should be black I think. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for mostly correcting this. Support. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info I´ve uploaded a new version with some adjustment at the blacks. Thanks to Julian for the advice. @all: please check if you still like it. --mathias K 08:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one dustspot (see note) -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 06:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Christian, thanks for this one, now its gone. ;-) --mathias K 19:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 04:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Kbh3rd (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 09:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

File:Abraxas sylvata - Pargi-tähnikvaksik Keila.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2014 at 11:18:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ivar - uploaded by Ivar - nominated by -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 11:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 11:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the nomination Christian! --Ivar (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, but Iifar, could you please make the leaf brighter? I guess that was to avoid overexposure on the white butterfly, but it seems a too dark green now. --Kadellar (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's correct Carlos, I did try to avoid overexposure of the white butterfly. But I guess that's not so bad, because it brings out good contrast between the leaf and buttelfly. Greetings, --Ivar (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gidip (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Hochofen 5 Landschaftspark Duisburg Nord Abend Seitenansicht 2014.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2014 at 14:42:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Side view of Furnace No 5 at Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord (Landscape Park Duisburg North) at night. BTW: There is already an FP of this object: File:Hochofen 5 Landschaftspark Duisburg Nord Abend 2013.jpg. But it has a completely different perspective than the nominiation here.
all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question How come the sky has an orange color? --Slaunger (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Large blown area on top of chimney. --Slaunger (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Slaunger, I look forward to the day when you write something positive about my photos. The brown color results from foggy air and the extreme bright illumination of the "Landschaftspark". The light of the installation is such bright that it massively affects the surronding air. Please take a look into other photos of the Category:Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord at night. In German this phenomenon is called "Lichtverschmutzung" or light pollution in English. BTW: I really like the remarkable color of the sky (which is not the sky but the surronding air) here. The small burnt areas are unavoidable - one cannot look directly into that bright light rings. Do not expect to get any details there at least with extreme underexposure. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tuxyso, Remember this FP of yours, which I supported? That one had good exposure control albeit there were a large dynamic difference in the brightness . I just ask you to apply the same standard. I agree having small overexposed areas when the light sources are directly visible is almost inevitable for such a shot. But there are large blown areas here, and it looks pretty ugly to me to be be frank and here bracketed exposures and exposure fusion helps. You do not have to browse long in the category to find examples of better exposure control I do do know it is hard, but no-one ever said FPC should be easy:). Thanks for clarifying the origin of the sky. I do agree it is spectacular, especially that it is so orange. I just wanted to be sure the colors had not been manipulated. --Slaunger (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolutely --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work! -- Wolf im Wald 01:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per Slaunger, otherwise very nice Poc o² 18:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basel - Roche Tower - Baufortschritt August 2014-1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2014 at 06:05:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO this high rise building site is a nice capture in morning sun and the building is framed by the climbing crane. For your information: the high of the building on the moment of the picture was taken was about 140 meters. After finishing the final high of this skyscraper should become 178 meters and will be the highest high-rise building of Switzerland. It should serve as head office of the pharma concern Hofmann-La Roche. -- Wladyslaw (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The left is leaning in a bit -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 16:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whitch left is leaning? Can't see s.th. leaning. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know only one left however I added a note -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 11:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ch. Ferrer: left can mean the left of the building oder left of the building, or, or, or ... The Buildings you have marked are leaning less than 1°, for me nothing to correct here. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No problem, it's my duty to tell you the defects (even the very minor defects) that I saw. Specially when it is easily rectifiable. You see it and you don't want to correct it, it's your choice indeed -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 04:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it doesn't effect the picture. And if such a bagatelle does dispose you to vote with contra I disclaim glady your pro. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC) P.S. This guys must be crazy if I take you serious[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 13:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elephas maximus maximus - 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2014 at 12:55:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Wild Asian elephants (Elephas maximus maximus) in Minneriya National Park, Sri Lanka. The elephant calf is suckling. I have checked other elephants FP and I thought I have a chance, because of the evening light and moment and because there are no Asian elephants FP. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely light and good detail level. I think you have a chance! --Slaunger (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree... I think you have a chance... not that many Asian Elephant images around --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 09:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and seven --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute family. A bit different from our Indian ssp. Hope you know they have very high privileges in Kerala. Jee 12:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I could see how important they are in Perahera in Kandy ;) --Kadellar (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't understand why the herons and the tail of the baby came out so blurred. They are almost in line with the main subject and the shutter speed is 1/800. Gidip (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither I can't figure out why that happened. I took more pictures of the scene and they have this same issue. Thanks for the review. --Kadellar (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - In photos with long lenses and in such weather, I often have problems with a lot of heat haze. I could imagine that this is stronger the closer the subject is to the ground. I'm not sure about this, but that's the most probable cause in my opinion. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 12:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you all very much for your kind reviews, I wasn't expecting so many supports and I'm happy about it. --Kadellar (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support And another. Perhaps it might have been a little better at ISO 100, but as it is we get the detail we need. Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 13:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Harry R. Hopps, Destroy this mad brute Enlist - U.S. Army, 03216u edit.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2014 at 23:55:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Harry R. Hopps, restored, uploaded and nominated by Christoph Braun (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, just wow! russavia (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (in a rather disconcerting way) iconic and of tremendous EV; very high quality --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nikhil (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 13:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Pisciadù und Pisciadùhütte, Panorama, Böhringer.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2014 at 21:48:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wohow! ArionEstar (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite nice at full resolution. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 08:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Upper part of the sky is a bit too dark blue (polarized sky?), but nevertheless FP for me. --Ivar (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 16:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ivar --DXR (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 13:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:genlewis.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2014 at 00:39:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by kevinakling - uploaded by kevinakling - nominated by [[User:{{subst:kevinakling}}|]] -- Kevinakling (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kevinakling (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 13:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cycling Amsterdan 03.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2014 at 21:25:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ALFREDO BORBA - uploaded by ALFREDO BORBA - nominated by [[User:{{subst:ALFREDO BORBA}}|]] -- Alfredo Borba (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alfredo Borba (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice and sufficient technical quality --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice documentary shot. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Motion blur instead of focal bokeh isolates the subject from the background. Very nicely done. More contrast between the background and the rider's head and face might help, though. Note how the jacket, leggings, and wheels stand out starkly, but her face almost blends into the wall when taking in the image as a whole. I have to open the image at full resolution and peer closely to find the line of her forehead. Monochrome images are all about tone and contrast. Kbh3rd (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice! Pundit (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice use of panning technique. I'm only a little concerned about the lady's consent to have the photo published (but this is not decided here). - Benh (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tamba52 (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great photo but the 2 people behind on the right are disturbing Jiel (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Heimat-Wetzgau.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2014 at 18:57:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The German word "Heimat" ("Homeland") set in 6-feet-tall letters on a developing area

Info The German word "Heimat" ("Homeland") set in 6-feet-tall letters on a developing area. All by Kreuzschnabel -- Kreuzschnabel (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kreuzschnabel (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support And before anyone asks, there are no FoP issues since it's in Germany. Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just letters on ground, not wow for me Jiel (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 21:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puerta de Alcalá - 05.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2014 at 16:46:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Puerta de Alcalá at night in Christmas, Madrid, Spain. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks very much to Jebulon for his reworking. -- Kadellar (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and nice composition Poc o² 18:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much empty black sky here and the black bush on the foreground is also distracting. This is not FP for me, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much dead space, per Ivar. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar. Kruusamägi (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above Jiel (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the reviews. Maybe I could crop the upper part so there's less black space, but I wanted to leave it this way. I don't think the bush is so distracting, but it's not easily avoidable anyway. --Kadellar (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 21:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:1 pano machu picchu morning mist 2014.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2014 at 00:13:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Panorama of Machu Picchu, Peru, a 15th-century Inca site located 2,430 metres (7,970 ft) above sea level. Created by and uploaded by Chensiyuan - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good, but also chromatic aberration in many places. --Ivar (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivar: please, mark with notes the areas with CA.

ArionEstar (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good and high wow. IMO CA is not a problem in this very highly resolved panorama. Very interesting to explore. It could be fun to clone in Wally in a derivative version and and find him --Slaunger (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the view is nice, but the heavy CA´s are a problem for me here. --mathias K 05:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice view, but the CA are way too bad for FP for a reproducible image. If it were just a spot or two, maybe, but large areas are affected by it. -- KTC (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:F-16 Royal Danish Air Force Diamond Formation at Danish Air Show 2014-06-22.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2014 at 14:25:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info A rare display of nine General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon from Fighter Wing Skrydstrup in diamond formation from the Royal Danish Air Force at Danish Air Show 2014. There are 30 operational F-16s in Denmark (and it is the only fighter air craft in service in Denmark), so this display constitutes a significant fraction of the entire tactical air force in Denmark. The observant will notice that the alignment in the formation is not thaat perfect, but still pretty impressive in my opinion. --Slaunger (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very striking image. Could wish for a bit more sharpness, but it's understandable. Kbh3rd (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kbh3rd: : Thanks for your review. I agree regarding the sharpness. To be honest my equipment is suboptimal for aviation photography, and at the event I saw at least 100 aviation photographers with much better equipment. All the time I heard shutter sounds around me and tens of thousands of images were taken. What is a little disheartening is that although so many photos of probably outstanding quality were taken at the event, not many are freely available, and I am - as I write this - the only Commons user to have populated Category:Danish Air Show 2014, although the show had 120,000 visitors. An almost similar shot is available through Getty Images. --Slaunger (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad. What percentage of photos taken would ever be offered for sale, yet they are all locked up with copyright for the rest of the century. -- Colin (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Tamba52 (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Aswirthm (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User not (yet) eligable to vote (less than 50 edits on Commons). --Slaunger (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredible image. At very first sight, I thought this was the result of a collage! Though the lowerleft most guy deserves a little scold here ;) - Benh (talk) 10:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Admittedly, I have felt tempted to post-process him "back into line", in order not be an embarassement for the Royal Danish Airforce! But then I thought, we are all human, no-one is perfect and perhaps it aligns well with the slightly laid-back attitude towards discipline among Danes (or lack of skill) --Slaunger (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC
Support Good given difficult conditions. Hardly any difference to the pro's image! --DXR (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great composition. --Kadellar (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk)

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Jielbeaumadier wethuys brouckerque 2010.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2014 at 18:58:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by, uploaded by, nominated by Jiel -- Jiel (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info This town hall made of bricks is very typical of the flemish architecture of the 19th century. It was made by the official architect of Dunkirk city.
Support -- Jiel (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. Overexposed. Tilted. IMHO --Rjcastillo (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where do you see an overexposition ? The bricks are light beige in real life, as on the photograph. The sky was cloudy. For me colors look like in real eyes vision Jiel (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI perhaps, but not an FP. Might be if photographed in sunlight with blue sky behind it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tilted and overexposed, this type of cloudy weather is for sure not appropriate to make FP --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panoramic view of Miranda Park, Caracas.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2014 at 16:08:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Me vote --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a nicely done picture but I'm not sure if there is anything in the main context that makes it truly a special one and stand out. I think the trees would also need a slight perspective correction because now they all lean a little outwards probably because the camera is pointed a little down. --Ximonic (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably too late now, but I agree with Ximonic regarding the perspective correction. Resolution is a little low for this kind of shot, but the light is good and so is the pixel quality. Nice composition from a place, where we do not have so much material. The subject itself is pretty, but does not score that high on my value bar. --Slaunger (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate all your comments, I would have liked to do this shot again, however, I am no longer in Venezuela. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support very nice -- Dman41689 (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Polar Bear AdF.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2014 at 08:09:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Arturo de Frias Marques - uploaded by Arturo de Frias Marques - nominated by Arturo de Frias Marques -- Arturo de Frias Marques (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arturo de Frias Marques (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question I like it, but do you have a version with higher resolution? --Slaunger (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice: a polar bear in the wildlife. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Jiel (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support! Kbh3rd (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tamba52 (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Aswirthm (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User not (yet) eligable to vote (less than 50 edits on Commons). --Slaunger (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Splendid image. Love the action. Kleuske (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great moment. --Kadellar (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support In global warning article? --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great image -- Dman41689 (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:St Martins Cross on Iona.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2014 at 07:03:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NickGibson3900 - uploaded by NickGibson3900 - nominated by NickGibson3900 -- NickGibson3900 (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- NickGibson3900 (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On top of the noisy sky I'd expect from a picture taken with an iPod touch, the crop is too tight and the overall composition not very inspiring. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ...and the tourists in the background are distracting, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sulphur Chiken of the Woods-20140514-086.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2014 at 03:40:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kbh3rd - uploaded by Kbh3rd - nominated by Kbh3rd -- Kbh3rd (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kbh3rd (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a good quality image of good encyclopedic value, but the wow is too low for me for FP. This is caused by the boring centered composition, the view point and plain light, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 05:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lagoa Rodrigo de Freitas 10.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2014 at 22:54:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by and uploaded by Halley Pacheco de Oliveira - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Too noisy and blurry for me. It feels like a little strain on my eyes. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ariadacapo: It's fixable? ArionEstar (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t know... I am no Gimp wizzard :-) Ariadacapo (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A too large fraction of the photo is very black with too few visible features. It is like the tree and its reflection cuts the photo in two dark parts, and the composition does not work for me. The lights, although with some nice details on the tree is too blurry, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Selfoss July 2014.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2014 at 06:18:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Selfoss is a northeastern Icelandic waterfall in the river Jökulsá á Fjöllum, a short distance upstream of the more popular Dettifoss waterfall. Selfoss has a drop of 10 m over a width of about 100 m. I was using a 64x ND filter to help create a more dynamic impression. All by myself, -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Kruusamägi (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support awesome! Pundit (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Great panorama (maybe crop on top is too wide), but too much HDR for a realistic look. --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I didn't apply any HDR technique here - the image is a regular single shot. I also didn't do anything "extreme" during the post process. Mood and lighting are pretty much as they actually were when I took the picture: very cloudy but not really overcast, misty, and diffuse. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I tust you and support

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak oppose I really appreciate your work, but this time I cannot make friends with the light. As far as I can judge from the photo it is a (near) backlit shot. The important part of the rocks in the foreground are in shadow, clouds look very bright (near to overexposure) and distract imho. When I look at the photo in thumbnail size the fist eye-catcher are the bright clouds and the horizon line but neither the water falls at the right nor the interesting rocks at the left. Maybe some local light corrections with PS or Vivezza can improve the situation here and can bring out the interesting parts better. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support a real and nice view of this fantastic place. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose per Tuxyso -- Jiel (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Too much sky and too much left-hand-side and not enough right (with waterfall). -- Colin (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Thanks Colin for your hint. I've added a different, much more radical crop of my original raw as an alternative - unfortunately I didn't take a shot with a tele lense. @Kruusamägi, Kikos, -donald-, Pundit, Uoaei1, Tuxyso, Alchemist-hp, Jiel: What do you think? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still prefer the original. It is more true to the real location! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now crop is too tight on the left. Something inbetween the two versions would be optimal. --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, too... but then the whole composition becomes way too centered. The result wouldn't really work, imo. It's a pity... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the original, which is not to say that I don't like the new one. Pundit (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Original is better. This image lacks "space" for stream - the main object in picture - waterfall and resulting stream - are "abrupted" in corner. --Kikos (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 13:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

The chosen alternative is: File:Selfoss July 2014.JPG

File:The combine Claas Lexion 450 in the wheat harvest.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2014 at 22:56:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. Suitable for QI, but not for FP. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hmm.... I like it and the mood and light, but I am not fully convinced about the wow and the composition appears a little unbalanced for me. I think there is a bit too much sky, and I believe the composition could benefit from a crop at the top down to approximately just above the light curved band in the sky. The harvester is somewhat noisy too. Appears that shadows have been highlighted a lot to bring out some details. --Slaunger (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The light curved band in the sky is like a halo over the landscape. I have given the halo some space. The noise on the harvester is ok, the noise is dust from the cloud of the crushed chaff blown across the field. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cropped the file now on the ground and on the top. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can imagine a picturesque photo, where the setting sun would be reflecting back from the harvester and that might be quite nice. But at a moment I am seeing, that main object is in the shadow, and that makes the image somewhat dull. Your previous photos about wheat harvesting have been better (like that one) Kruusamägi (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although too late now, I would just like to comment that I think your new crop greatly improved the composition. --Slaunger (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergbaumuseum Bochum Blaue Stunde 2014.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2014 at 16:13:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though somewhat too high colour saturation ;-) -- Smial (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice (I supported one of your nominations again! You noticed:)) If possible, you may want to do something about the blown letters in the LCD display. --Slaunger (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with the same caveat about the LED. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Daniel and Slaunger, I've worked on the LCD display? Better? --Tuxyso (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a bit better. But relax ... it was never a dealbreaker. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a significant improvement of the LCD screen. Thanks for going the extra mile

. --Slaunger (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:1 toledo spain evening sunset 2014.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2014 at 09:45:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u by Chensiyuan - nominated by DXR (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar has made us aware of the panoramas of this user who doesn't seem too active here. I think this is quite an impressive image that would fit well into our FPano gallery. The street in the lower left corner is not quite ideal, but apart from this, I like the image. -- DXR (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice compo, but it has color banding issue all over the sky. --Ivar (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you are right. That's a bit of a shame. I have notified them on their enwiki talk page, perhaps they will react. --DXR (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oppose Until the sky is fixed. --Ivar (talk) 05:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm very jealous of that one. Sunset, night lighting scheme, scenery. Colour banding is an issue, as is noise (less annoying), but fixed or not, this is too good for me to not support. - Benh (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice - I would cut off the building on the right --Böhringer (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (for now) per Ivar. I'd also crop away the railing in the bottom left corner --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Chensiyuan has given me access to the raw files. I will try my own luck at stiching tomorrow, I hope that I can address your comments. --DXR (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info I have tried to rebuild the panorama based on the raw files while incorporating your comments. Size is slightly reduced, but IMO 15MP is still within an acceptable range. Colors are a little bit less intense and I do no longer see any banding issues. --DXR (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kbh3rd (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak support Very good now, but the size has been strongly reduced (from 34 to 15 MP). --Ivar (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice, but I think you killed the mood with the cold WB. And why the downsampling? - Benh (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benh, I disagree about the WB. IMO it is not colder than the original, which is oversaturated and thus shows stronger colours in both shadows and lights (at least, I'm not too keen to go +25 sat in Lightroom, which would give me the same colors as seen in the original nomination, because that rarely is faithful to reality) some might like that, though... I can of course upload a higher res version, but two of the frames at the left are blurred quite a bit, unfortunately. --DXR (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. But it still has the cold mood and I don't connect sunsets with cold mood, so I don't agree with you regarding to faithfulness to reality (just because you go +25 on saturation doesn't really mean anything if we don't talk about where we start from). The original was pretty good, with only the banding issue and noise, why altering the author's artistic choices? - Benh (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Much better! ArionEstar (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /— TintoMeches, 13:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

The chosen alternative is: File:1 toledo spain evening sunset 2014 DXR edit.jpg

File:Canterbury Cathedral Cloisters, Kent, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2014 at 11:42:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yet another masterpiece! --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --XRay ^talk 18:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Kbh3rd (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk)
Support --Slaunger (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /— TintoMeches, 13:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Chelmsford Cathedral Nave 2, Essex, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2014 at 11:41:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. This cathedral is certainly not one of England's most majestic medieval cathedrals, but it's nonetheless quite pretty and, I think, elegantly captured. -- Diliff (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --XRay ^talk 18:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support And nice metadata. So this must be one of your "quick and easy" ones, as it is 'only' based on three bracketed exposures contrary to the usual five. (Still, the quality is excellent). --Slaunger (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I sometimes use only three if there is less dynamic range in the scene. The other settings (aperture, ISO etc) are also determined by how close the relevant objects in the scene are (if there is something very close, I need to use f/13 or f/16for maximum DOF, otherwise more like f/8 or f/11 for better sharpness), and how bright the scene is (I try to keep the ISO low, but some very dark interiors need a higher ISO because the upper exposure of a five bracket set would exceed 30 seconds at a low ISO. And also I don't want to wait 30+ seconds per segment! The full panorama will take forever to shoot!). Glad that the metadata is helping you understand the images better. Diliff (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Diliff: Yes, I understand. It all makes sense. Thanks for the explanations! --Slaunger (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /— TintoMeches, 13:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Iris mariae 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2014 at 11:11:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Gidip (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gidip (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a nice photo, but the background seems a little distracting, or maybe there's just too much space on the sides of the irises, but this isn't quite the case at full resolution. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 16:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is amazing how these flowers can grow in the sand --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the sands grow many beautiful flowers (for example, most kinds of tulips in wild), but not for long, at least 2 weeks to a month in the spring :) Ю. Данилевский (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Centered boring composition, distracting background (but I guess giving good clue on what kind of environment these flowers grow in), harsh light coming from behind, washed out colours. Maybe it has encyclopedic value, but not a Commons FP IMO. - Benh (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Benh. This isn't en-FP where a specimen photo might be appreciated. There's nothing extraordinary here. -- Colin (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /— TintoMeches, 13:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Pilot ships in Vlissingen.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2014 at 07:15:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by [[User:|User:]] - uploaded by Uberprutser - nominated by Uberprutser -- Uberprutser (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uberprutser (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not bad but also not outstanding IMO -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 17:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So, so light, and somewhat arbitrary composition. Has some interesting elements, but not good enough for FP IMO, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the atmosphere -- Jiel (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but not special enough for FP. The red umbrella cut by the left edge is quite distracting, making the comp look arbitrary. Colours appear a bit on the warm side. Very good technical quality though. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too busy a photo for contrast between dull sky/sea/concrete and brightly colored boats to work. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 16:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skógafoss July 2014.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2014 at 06:19:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Skógafoss is a southern Icelandic waterfall with a width of 25m and a drop of 60m. I took the exposure of 3s using a 64x ND filter. At first I was a bit disappointed that the sky wasn't as clear as I had hoped. But I've actually started to really like the special, very "northern" mood the cloudy sky evokes in combination with the misty, humid air caused by the waterfall's spray. All by-- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Rjcastillo (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Aswirthm (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User not (yet) eligable to vote (less than 50 edits on Commons). --Slaunger (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks almost unearthly. Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At least one dust spot to be removed (see note). Large area in sky blown. And I don’t like the pink clouds too much. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for your review. I removed the dust spot/droplet --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 16:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Terraza de los Elefantes, Angkor Thom, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 10.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2014 at 10:10:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Bas-relief in the Terrace of the Elephants, Angkor Thom, last and most enduring capital city of the Khmer empire, today Cambodia. The 350m-long terrace was used by Angkor's king Jayavarman VII (1125-1218) as a giant reviewing stand for public ceremonies and served as a base for the king's grand audience hall. All by me, Poc o² 10:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 10:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2014
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I apologize in advance because I know this will sound rude, but FP has to be special in some way. Though of good quality and probably very useful in a wiki article, anyone can reach similar result with basically pressing the shutter in auto mode on a < $500 DSLR. - Benh (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds rude, does it have to? Poc o² 23:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I get it right, but of course it needn't be rude if that's what you meant. I just go straight to the point, so it sounds harsh, but I didn't use any offensive word, and I have nothing against you. Put in another way, it doesn't require any special skill, equipement, or even luck to catch this candidate. When I look at a candidate, if I don't ask myself "How did she/he do that?", "when was this taken?", "How long must have she/he waited?", "what kind of pocessing?", "what kind of rare equipment", "How fortunate she/he could catch this!", "How did she/he have the idea to take it from that point of view", "wow this must have demanded a long preparation"... then it's not FP. Otherwise, we might as well give away high end DSLR to everyone, and promote every pictures taken with them to FP. Again, just my opinion, and again my apologizes if it reads as too harsh. - Benh (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Benh: I didn't accused you of anything towards my person, no feelings hurt, but just remind that behind each picture there is a photographer who gives his best to the project.

Regarding this nomination, I can just just say that the picture does amaze me, that is the reason why I actually nominated it. The place all around, the khmer heritage and bas-relieves like this one are featurable to me.

Yes, it wasn't a complicated execution to manage the picture, but I don't live in Siem Reap and just took a walk to Angkor Thom to take this shot. Rather, I needed 3 flights to get there. Please, don't underestimate that effort in terms of time and investment, at least as long as we don't have a bunch of Cambodian contributors here, what I unfortunately doubt in the near future. Poc o² 20:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Case closed for the personal issues :) Just wanted to make it clear (and I as far as I can tell, you behave very elegantly on Commons, anyways ;) ). For the picture, and criterias to FP in general, it takes me a lot of time and ressources to travel to South East Asia as well, but that doesn't mean every picture I took there is FP worthy. But you're right that feelings can be hurt in such situation, and it's always a struggle to find a balance between telling all the facts, and not hurting people. It's much easier to support than oppose, and I feel I'm the bad guy when I do so (and not to mention I can "make enemies" for my self nominations in the future!). - Benh (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd prefer a crop, where no bodies would be cut to half (as can be seen on the right side). Johanning (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Johanning: good point, I uploaded a new version cropping out the half bodies on the right Poc o² 21:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 16:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Torreón de la presa del lago Mavrovo, Macedonia, 2014-04-17, DD 06.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2014 at 10:08:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Winter scene of the watching tower, dam and Mavrovo Lake, Mavrovo National Park, Republic of Macedonia. The park, founded in 1949, is the largest (of the three existing) in the country with 780 km², while the lake has a length of 10 km and a width of 5 km. All by me, Poc o² 10:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 10:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but too much predominant of the watching tower IMO. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 17:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the nice curved lines of the watching tower gives an interesting and refreshing framing of the landscape. Good DOF, and interesting place. --Slaunger (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Caecilius Mauß (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Christian Ferrer -- Jiel (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wladyslaw: if you don't mind it would help me to know what problem you see with this picture, that make you oppose. Poc o² 18:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the composition isn't successful. There are too many elements (upper and lower part of the tower, several coast lines) that are interfere and do not make the picture very harmonic. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, Poc o² 07:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dman41689 (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 16:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panoramica da Rampa do Vale do Pati.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2014 at 19:09:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Carlos Perez Couto - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I would like the photo to be sharper still, especially at long distances, but I like the composition and my feeling is it is a successful photo. Ariadacapo (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a beautiful landscape and a good shooting position. But IMHO post-processing it not good here. The sky looks oversaturated and the clarity (micro-contrast) is overdone and there are too many very dark areas. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuxyso: It's fixable?

ArionEstar (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ArionEstar it might be fixable, but I think only in RAW. If you can provide the single RAW shots I can try to stitch a better version. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuxyso: How so single RAW shots?

ArionEstar (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ArionEstar: If you take a look on the resolution (7,139 × 2,320 pixels) it can never be a single shot. According to the EXIF data the images come from a Nikon D90 with a 12 Mpx sensor. Thus you need multiple RAW files to stitch such a pano. The image editing (processing of RAW files, contract corrections etc.) is overdone here. So I think the best idea is to take the RAW files, develop them in a reasonable way and stitch a new panoramic photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuxyso: Then this will be spoken to the author of the photo, and he does not seem to be very active on Commons.

ArionEstar (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mallorca - Leuchtturm am Kap Formentor4.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2014 at 13:56:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image shows Cap Formentor, the most nothern point of Majorca and the beautifull landscape, the nice und interessting routeing to the lighthouse. -- Wladyslaw (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice compo, but also ... several dust spots (at least 5), CW tilt (horizon is not horizontal), sharpness could be a bit better and I'm not impressed with the light (midday sunlight in the summer makes the image flat). --Ivar (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dustspots removed, bit sharper, horizon is horizontal IMO (see note), I like the light --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Would have preferred less harsh light. On the other hand light is harsh a lot of the time in this location at that time of year. The horizon is wonderfull, and the composition is good. Quite striking. --Slaunger (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:1 rocinha night 2014 panorama.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2014 at 00:07:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Panorama of the Rocinha, Rio de Janeiro at night, the largest favela in Brazil, with the Morro Dois Irmãos under the clouds, in the background, in June 2014. Created by and uploaded by Chensiyuan - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 07:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not only a very interesting image, well exposed etc... it is also unbelievably sharp... I can almost see the mobile game the girls in the foreground are playing... :-) Really good!! —Arturo de Frias Marques (talk)
Support I have never seen so many satellite dishes in a single image before! Very detailed and interesting to explore. The file page could benefit from a geolocation. --Slaunger (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Slaunger:

Done. Approximate geocoordinates added.

ArionEstar (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ArionEstar: . Thanks. Regrettably, the GeoCommons database is currently unavailable, so clicking the links in the Location template does not work, so I have not yet had the possibility to 'enjoy' the geodata. I have notified Dschwen about that problem. Maybe he can help, or knows who can help fix that problem. --Slaunger (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ximonic (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fun to compare feature-for-feature with the somewhat wider daylight image made from the same vantage point. Kbh3rd (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big wow, and interesting to explore (enjoyed coming across the two girls who must have a very nice moment on that roof). But just can't help thinking how even better these wonderful panoramas would be if author were a tad more careful when processing her/his pictures (noise, CA, which are the easy steps...) - Benh (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aceptable ISO for the night and amazing panoramic view --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 05:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Huvudsta May 2014 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2014 at 12:34:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Huvudsta metro station, Stockholm. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Lights a little bit overexposed (see clock in the background). --XRay ^talk 18:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost abstract. Not bothered by the clock; it's an inevitable consequence of keeping the shutter open for the motion blur. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per XRay, very cool effect with the motion blur on the train. --Slaunger (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:ISS-20 Thunderstorms on the Brazilian Horizon.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2014 at 23:52:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by a NASA Expedition 20 crew member - revised and renominated by Ras67.
Info The photograph includes: an unstable, active atmosphere forming a large area of cumulonimbus clouds in various stages of development, the Rio Madeira and Lago Acara.

IMHO all issues from the previous nomination are fixed (the corresponding picture is in the file history).

Support As nominator -- Ras67 (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love the reflections on the rivers! -- Wolf im Wald 00:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love the meteorology! Kbh3rd (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support My country! ArionEstar (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dramatic view and good wow. --Slaunger (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow is almost guaranteed in images from ISS, but this one has extra wow... Kleuske (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Satellite images

Space exploration or Satellite images? J e e 03:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Satellite images because all the images in Space exploration shows humans and/or human materials. Here it's a satellite image. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 05:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dauwnetel (Galeopsis speciosa). Locatie De Kruidhof.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2014 at 05:20:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The beauty of decay. Wonderful colors of Large-flowered Hemp-nettle (Galeopsis speciosa). created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are you sure about the species identification? because Galeopsis speciosa seems a bit different, see File:Galeopsis speciosa - blossom (aka).jpg or File:Dead nettle.jpg. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 07:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This photo shows not the flower, but shows the plant in the faded state. This picture was made in a laboratory where the names of the plants were in anywhere. --Famberhorst (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very nice image and plant however the crop is a bit tight at right (cut leaf) and at bottom -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 06:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Correction crop. If you find it more beautiful, I can plant any center.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Much better. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 15:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deer Stag AdF.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2014 at 07:51:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Arturo de Frias Marques - uploaded by Arturo de Frias Marques - nominated by Arturo de Frias Marques -- Arturo de Frias Marques (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arturo de Frias Marques (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeExpression of the deer is good, but DOF is bad. –Makele-90 (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Resolution is at the low side, it is not so sharp and the DOF is low, but for me it is mitigated by a very good composition and timing. Like the details such as the leaf in the antlers and that part of the antlers are broken. You feel the testosterone and aggression. --Slaunger (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It found it beneficial to elaborate a bit on the description on the file page, especially to indicate the location (I propose that you acquint yourself with geocoding your wildlife images in general) and whether it is a true wild life shot or of a captive individual. There are also some strange empty categories on the file page, which I do not understand. Are those vernacular names in Spanish? Please avoid those, just categorize to the latin species name as you have done and the location as you have already done. --Slaunger (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dman41689 (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose – too bad, it’s a breathtaking pic, but I’d expect at least the leaf to be sharp (as an eye-catcher). --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support Wow, but borderline DOF and resolution. --Ras67 (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 15:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:View from Col d'Izoard.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2014 at 10:52:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominatored by NickGibson3900 -- NickGibson3900 (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- NickGibson3900 (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Nick, but the image you have nominated has been overprocessed to death. Strong yellow cast, very artificial looking background. I would propose that you try to nominate a few photos at COM:QIC to get some feedback on the technical aspects of your photos prior to nominating at FPC. Less than one in a thousand images on Commons becomes featured. At QIC you are likely to get qualified feedback which will help you improve your photography. --Slaunger (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~sorry, bit this is an color accident and full posterized.~~ --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better now, but now too noisy and too soft = unsharp. I think your camera (iPod touch) isn't perfect for this kind of FP-shoots. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above -- Jiel (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. At first I thought the point of this image was to demonstrate the dangers of overprocessing. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Slaunger: @Alchemist-hp: @Jiel: @Daniel Case: I completely understand all of you and I have uploaded the original photo which isn't over processed. NickGibson3900 (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The new version is much better and good for many uses. Unfortunately, it is still not at the quality level expected for a FP, but that is admittedly very hard to achieve with a mobile phone/ipod camera. --DXR (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Remix from original - View from Col d'Izoard by NickGibson3900. Please dear NickGibson3900 evaluate this alternative, I liked the picture and I think this might be useful. If you do not agree please comment that I remove this alternative. Partial fix noise and intensified colors. Thank you -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 00:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like it Lauro Sirgado, lets go with this one. NickGibson3900 (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose better, but still posterized. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It has improved a lot from the first version now, but I am afraid that the technical quality is just not good enough for FP. Sorry, but it is very challenging to reach FP status with such a very compact camera as in the iPod touch. Quite nice view, but it does not stand out in particular as compared to the many other excellent mountain views we have. --Slaunger (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Nice pic but bad quality. You don’t need a full-frame DSLR, even my compact Pana Lumix would have done much better. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 15:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beach of Seaside in Walton County in Florida Panhandle.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2014 at 20:38:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info I made the color slide 1991 with Olympus OM-4 and Kodachrome 25 Reversal film, 35 mm, ASA 25 daylight and scanned it now with the scanner Nikon Coolscan V ED and Vue Scan 9x64 (9.0.82). I like the colours by Kodachrome 25. They are unchanged after 23 years. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree Michael. The scan really looks good after 23 years. I would normally object to such a photo due to limited value, but the composition and colors are really great and a pleasure for the eye, so I will make an exception for this revived little gem . --Slaunger (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I had not noticed the missing tube problem at first. Striking my support for now. Will support if fixed. --Slaunger (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Supporting again after tube fix. Now that I know there was a problem there I cannot help notice that the tube fix looks a little weird. I think it could be further refined, but not enough for me to oppose as it is now. --Slaunger (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WOW! but what about the vanishing tube? --82.57.142.136 22:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This really is something different. I would also support if the tube was solved. --Ximonic (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done I rebuild the image. The tube is returned. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ximonic (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is some color banding on the sky. --Ivar (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The image is clearly manipulated (compare original with current) so needs a "retouched" template. The sky is very posterised -- you've ruined it with the alterations. I think you should go back to the original and just fix the little black top-left corner and leave the rest alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs) 23:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin; nice compositional idea but way too processed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like it now. The sky's still a little dark but ... you are playing it off the pink umbrella so that's forgivable. A nice inviting image otherwise. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done I rebuild the image like Colin wrote. Please check the image. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much better now imho - there's nothing wrong with a bit of sea grass lying around on the beach etc. However, compared to the original version, the sand has lost a bit of detail now (kinda looks a bit overexposed?). --El Grafo (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you, I rebuilded the image in detail. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)--Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better. I'm still not convinced this small picture is special enough for FP, but not strongly enough to oppose. -- Colin (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. --El Grafo (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 22:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berlin, Denkmal für die im Nationalsozialismus ermordeten Sinti und Roma Europas -- 2013 -- 4627.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2014 at 19:30:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 19:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 19:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like very much the simple composition (less is more). The leaf in the foreground is a little distracting and I would consider cloning it out (although the dead leaf perhaps adds a bit to the meaning of it all, I am not sure). The flower looks not so good in full resolution, either soft in focus and/or oversaturated. I do not know if something can be done with that? Otherwise very nice. --Slaunger (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that the image without the leaf is more perfect. I find, however, that the lonely leaf fits well to the symbolic monument.--XRay ^talk 07:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After giving it some thought: Your are right regarding the leaf. How about my comments regarding the orange flower? Also the reflections in the water look a bit strange - a little like paint brush strokes from an impressionist painter. Anything unusual regarding the postprocessing worth mentioning? I think sharpness is OK. --Slaunger (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advise. The orange flower is natural, there is no additional saturation.--XRay ^talk 15:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*

Support Nice composition, although I think the technical quality of the orange flower is not so convincing. --Slaunger (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I like the composition (including the leaf), but sharpness lets it down, sadly. Kleuske (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 22:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:MS Hilligenlei Abend.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2014 at 15:15:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dirtsc - uploaded by Dirtsc - nominated by Dirtsc
Support -- Dirtsc (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice ! -- Jiel (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are a few minor problems, for example some CA on the right and a lack of sharpness (which is hard to avoid with ships and long exposures, I know). But the main reason why I don't think this deserves FP status is that the main subject is quite obstructed. Together with the long focal length, this weakens the composition in my opinion. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian. Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice mood, light and exposure control, but I think the main subject is too obstructed by the pillars in front. --Slaunger (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 22:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anolis marmoratus Lamarre 2010-04-05.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2014 at 21:45:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info The leopard anole (Anolis marmoratus speciosus in this case based on the location) is normally either bright green (male) or brown (female), but it can also change its color with mood and surroundings - a common characterisic of Anoles. This individual I found in a bush, in a village in the southern parts of Grande Terre, Guadeloupe, where I heard noise and found this little well camouflaged individual, which I guess must have been lurking for prey and/or defending its territory. It was difficult to get clean shots of the creature as it was moving fast when I came nearer. This shot is not perfect either as a leaf in the foreground slightly overlaps with the tip of its mouth, but I find it is mitigated by the difficult conditions of the shot. --Slaunger (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not sharp, but beautiful composition and colors, and big wow for me. And I prefer this over the numerous super easy sharp shots we find too much over here. - Benh (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support sharpness could be better but per Benh. --mathias K 15:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dman41689 (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Nice photo, but the DOF is very small. --Ras67 (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles

File:Schloss Schönbrunn Wien 2014 (Zuschnitt 1).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2014 at 21:39:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 21:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 21:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The building lot and the car in the park are disqualifying for me, without them I would support immediately. Sorry! --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high detail level, crisp, good light, colours and excellent exposure control. The construction work and car are a bit unfortunate, but I find it fills such a small fraction of the entire view that I do not see it as a problem, and certainly much less prominent than in other FPs. --Slaunger (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Very good! --mathias K 15:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. The van is a real pity, but the cranes are just part of the city imo. --Kadellar (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, I also like the tiny construction lot. One minor issue: If you take a look on the foreground there is a visible variation of sharpness on the grass areas I guess due to stitching. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dman41689 (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

File:Anne Giardini 2014.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2014 at 07:08:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by SFU Public Affairs and Media Relations - uploaded and nominated by Dman41689 (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dman41689 (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this is a portrait of good technical quality. Good resolution, light and colors. As a portrait, I find it unimaginative from a comositional point of view, stiff and boring. All leading to low wow despite the fancy outfit. --Slaunger (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 15:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kormoran gi susi krilata, Prespa.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2014 at 08:45:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MartinDimitrievski - uploaded by MartinDimitrievski - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lots of dust spots/droplets everywhere, quite noisy, head of bird in shadow, low detail level on bird, sorry. Not all is bad though: I like the simple composition.--Slaunger (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger. ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 15:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pyrrhosoma nymphula.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2014 at 05:04:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Biopics - uploaded by Biopics - nominated by -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 05:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 05:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dman41689 (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The lower wing and the tail are hurt, perhaps not fatally, by the narrow depth-of-field which otherwise contributes greatly to the image. (I don't like bugs, but this one's rather pretty.) -- Kbh3rd (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality; complementary colors --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - --Kbh3^rd talk 02:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Галичица, поглед на две езера, 2011.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2014 at 08:56:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Darkocv - uploaded by Darkocv - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a large very blurred area, which has to be fixed if possible (see annotation). It would add value to the file page if the photo was geolocated, and if a bilingual editor could also provide an English description on the file page, it would be great too. In my opinion the vertical resolution is too marginal for a panorama. --Slaunger (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to support this but cannot with those smudges. Simply cropping them out results in a much less satisfactory composition. I would also be happy to see annotations on the image description page identifying salient features, such as which lake is which. @Slaunger, I added an English description based on Google Translate aided by my recognition of all words but one being cognate with the Russian I know. (I would never blindly trust GT.) Kbh3rd (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kbh3rd: Thanks for taking your time to process my request. --Slaunger (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 15:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:UZ ER1 Inkerman with harbor.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2014 at 19:51:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Visiting Crimea in May 2013 was a very lucky and very good choice, I guess now it's much less relaxing to run around with a camera and take pictures of trains and infrastructure... well if the bridge at Kerch gets built, I guess we can go there some day and take pictures of RZD trains...
Comment An elektrichka (class ER1) is taking the tour around Sevastopol Bay and has just left Inkerman. In the background you can see some ships of the russian Black Sea fleet.
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question This may be a stupid question, as I do not know the topography in the area, but was your vantage point ground-based or airborne? --Slaunger (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We were standing on a hill. I don't have a drone (yet?). --Kabelleger (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The vantage point just seemed very high, but then again, I live in Denmark :) --Slaunger (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Kabelleger: Sorry, I'm somewhat curious about your comment. What shall "now it's much less relaxing to run around with a camera and take pictures of trains and infrastructure" mean? OK, I don't know about the situation in Crimea *right now* (do you?), but I guess it is not much different from that in April'14 (after the crisis), as I was there and took several photos including such of trains and no one disturbed me. But well, if you prefer a development like in East Ukraine (by the occasion we may ask our still active Commons admin Butko who is afaik from Donetsk, how he is now...), it's of course your choice and there is nothing to discuss further. --A.Savin 20:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sorry about my stupid and obviously misleading comment. I don't know the current situation in Crimea, I was just *assuming* that the security forces are currently much more twitchy than a year ago, which may well be relevant, since e.g. some bridges were actively guarded. I'm not at all trying to say that a situation like in Luhansk or Donezk is in any way better (in fact I'm deeply disturbed by what happens there). --Kabelleger (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Completely all right with A.Savin on the political situation and on the inopportuneness of such comments because comments call other comments in reply. However fortunately Kabelleger seems to be a better photographer than a good diplomatic commentator of the political current events. I was thinking maybe too much sky, exactly 1/3 of sky would maybe be better but finally it is well (better) like that. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 22:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I'm sorry, I should have kept my mouth (keyboard) shut. Kabelleger (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Three monkeys.JPG--Jebulon (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seljalandsfoss July 2014 -1.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2014 at 05:30:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Seljalandsfoss is a southern Icelandic waterfall with a drop of 60m. Taking this shot was quite a challenge as I had to use a tripod on a very narrow pathway, constantly fighting the spray blown over from the waterwall. I usually avoid using my 17-40 at 17mm - general sharpness could be better and my ND filter created a very strange vignette in the corners, but here I didn't have any other chance. What I like about the image is the wild and yet calm mood it conveys. All by myself --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot. -- -donald- (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I tried something similiar at the Zion National Park. My shot was by no means as good as your shot here. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Main object/subject in shadow, and I'm not a fan of long exposures for waterfalls (matter of teaste, sorry).--Jebulon (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject completely in shadow (and clouds that look as if they have overexposed areas that the software tried to fix). — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Long exposures can make moving water look more like moving water, but there is a point after which it starts to not look like water anymore. That can look very nice from an artistic point of view, but it tends to decrease the educational value. So in order to be featurable, an image like this (imho) must outweigh the reduced ev through an enormous amount of WOW – which isn't the case here (again: imho). Also: unfortunate lightning. --El Grafo (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Ivar (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 22:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Alright, got it. Thanks for your reviews. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Benny Trapp Triturus macedonicus Griechenland.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2014 at 11:35:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Benny Trapp - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support: As far as I can tell, that's good quality for an under water shot. The nose appears to be slightly out of focus and the given location is pretty rough, but all in all it's a very nice shot. --El Grafo (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose: I know these underwater shots are hard, and the few times I have tried, the results have been pretty miserable, and not as useful as this nomination. But when I compare with our existing FP gallery of underwater shots, this seems no quite to climb over the bar. The separation from main subject to background is not so clear, the triturus appears for me a little oversharpened. The composition, while good, is not quite on par with FP level too IMO, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 05:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cuneiform Inscriptions of Darius and Xerxes - Ganjnameh - Outside Hamadan - Western Iran - 01 (7423532748).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2014 at 16:32:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Adam Jones - uploaded by mrjohncummings - nominated by Ahura21 -- PERSIA♠ 16:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PERSIA♠ 16:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs categorization and could benefit from geocoding. Subject is interesting, but light is harsh, and composition seems arbitrary. --Slaunger (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 21:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Juvenile Night Heron at Abbotts Lagoon.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2014 at 14:26:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I took the liberty to elaborate a bit on the categorization of the file page. --Slaunger (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't resist. Wow. --A.Savin 20:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dman41689 (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 17:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent job. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Professor Amanda Fisher FMedSci FRS.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2014 at 16:32:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Royal Society uploader - uploaded by Royal Society uploader - nominated by Ahura21 -- PERSIA♠ 16:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PERSIA♠ 16:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A valuable portrait of good technical quality of a notable scientist. But I miss the wow, sorry. As a portrait I find it lacks expression, the composition is not interesting, nor the light. There are at least three dust spots, which ought to be removed. The photo would be an excellent candidate for COM:VIC. --Slaunger (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also technically not convincing. Bottom crop (cropped hands) is unfortunate. Also the slight cutting of the arm at the right looks rather random. Some shadow parts are imho too dark. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 21:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Żelazno, kościół św. Marcina o zmierzchu.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2014 at 18:09:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Kreuz schnabel 19:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very NICE. Compliments Jacek Halicki --LivioAndronico talk 18:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors.--Tuxyso (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Jielbeaumadier chenille etretat 2011.jpeg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2014 at 17:42:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A caterpillar in Étretat, Normandy, France. Created by, uploaded by, nominated by me -- Jiel (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2014 (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: it is below 2MP.

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:2013 Ząbkowice Śląskie, Rynek, dom nr 22, 06.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2014 at 08:43:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I don't find the subject featurable enough. --DXR (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per User:DXR. Sorry Jacek:) --Halavar (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Wolany, kapliczka.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2014 at 09:04:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice place! --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Very pleasing to look at, good light and colors, but I do not think the almost centered composition is properly balanced, which for me leads to 'only' moderate wow, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would be better with less grass in foreground. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 04:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 18:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and 7 Poc o² 18:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kenraiz (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 04:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Mont Saint-Michel - BeBo86.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2014 at 15:41:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by BeBo86 - uploaded by BeBo86 - nominated by BeBo86 -- BeBo86 (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- BeBo86 (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is quite good, and I like the compositional aspect of the curved road leading to Mont Saint-Michel. However, I think the crop is a little too tight and the image appears a little soft in focus, especially on the buildings closer to the littoral water and at the edges of the photo. The FP bar for this type of photos is just a little larger in my opinion. I had a look at the file page, which was over-categorized. I believe I have fixed that, and also added a few categories of relevance. Still a good photo, but not quite FP for me, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dman41689 (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info @Slaunger: - yes you are right, the building close to the littoral tower is a pity. However, I did not want to use higher f-stop, because as a result exposure time would have been extended -> this was a no-go, because it was quite windy and my tripod was not as stable as it should have been ;-) But I think the details of the main subject - the abbey - are well focused. Thanks for helping with categories!!!
Oppose. I don't think the white balance is set correctly, it seems too greeny yellow tinted to me. The middle is reasonably sharp but it becomes quite soft around the edges. There would be no benefit in using a smaller aperture (higher f-stop) as it would have just made the image less sharp. Most lenses are sharpest at around f/8 and start to become diffraction limited from f/11 onwards (with an APS-C sensor such as the NEX-5N's). I think the issue with the softness is primarily down to the lens and not the settings. Diliff (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Diliff: is downsampling an option? BeBo86 (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it's an option but not a good one because it doesn't fix the problem, it just hides it. I know we can sometimes be critical of an image's sharpness at 100% and be less critical of a downsampled image that has the same real level of detail, but I don't think that downsampling is the right way to think about the problem. Diliff (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. That's why I did no downsampling. I can not change the behavior of my lenses. If 1000€ equipment is not sufficient for FP (at least in this case) I have to live with that ;-) BeBo86 (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with the comments of Diliff. Don't go down the downsampling path - it does not lead to real improvements, but often loss of information. --Slaunger (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Downsampling does not necessarily yield loss of information, as most of the data in picture is made up from interpolation (which is why Slaunger said "often loss", but even this is exaggerated IMO). Moderate downsampling probably won't remove actual data in many many cases. Anyone familiar with image or signal processing to help sort this out? In any way, I don't think it solves the pb either. If someone judges an image by its sharpness when viewed at 100%, then she/he is the problem. - Benh (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not going to go off-topic (again) in detail on this but I disagree with Benh. The complex "interpolation" involved in Bayer-sensor demosaicing does not mean downsizing is a "no loss" image improvement technique. And photography isn't a data capture activity anyway (consider bokeh, or the pleasing grain in certain b&w films). -- Colin (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Slaunger, Diliff, Benh, Lauro Sirgado thank you all for your comments. I took everything into consideration and decided to upload another version with better sharpness Done, improved white balance Done, wider crop Done and (slight) perspective correction. Hope you like it (even if there is a shade in the foreground) :-) BeBo86 (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I have also commented on your talk page, I do not think it is a good idea to introduce a completely new image in the same nomination. Dman41689 has voted support, but that is for an entirely different image, and that is very confusing. Therefore if you think your original version will not pass the review, you should rather upload your new candidate under a new file name, revert the replacement in this file, and then withdraw this nomination. Once you have withdrawn you are allowed to nominate the new picture and start out fresh. At the same time you will also comply with our policy Commons:Overwriting existing files. It is of course great if you have found the feedback contsructive and that this has given rise to the introduction of another candidate, which addresses the issues raised. --Slaunger (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination BeBo86 (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Remix from original - Mont Saint-Michel - BeBo86.JPG by BeBo86. Please dear BeBo86 evaluate this alternative, I liked the picture and I think this might be useful. If you do not agree please comment that I remove this alternative. Adjust colors, improved sharpness. Thank you -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 17:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the alternative is a good improvement, but still the crop is too tight IMO, and the soft focus at the sides are almost impossible to fix and still prevalent in this edit, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- hi @Slaunger: , np, the target is to generate a useful alternative for evaluating and Commons (and ty for comment ; ))) ) -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 18:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, Lauro Sirgado and your helpful edits helps improve our repository! --Slaunger (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this version --Halavar (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eisenach Germany Burschenschaftsdenkmal-02a.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2014 at 07:22:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Cccefalon. The fresco of Otto Gussmann is placed in a cupola, hence the circular depiction. -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- truly great work documenting this piece of art. Thank you! -- Ariadacapo (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the/this kind of evidence --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good photo with excellent exposure control, colors and detail level. Interesting fresco as well. --Slaunger (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 06:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 12:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work! --Halavar (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Breathtaking. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 20:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support really nice image! --Chmee2 (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 12:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Ioannovsky Convent SPB 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2014 at 07:37:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Convent of Saint John of Rila - the largest convent in Saint Petersburg. --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info created, uploaded, nominated by Florstein -- Alex Florstein (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Strange processing with very bright shadows, combined with flat light, makes this look very two-dimensional. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You've never seen some object at midday, illuminated by direct sunlight? Well, you can admire it now. --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, maybe I'm wrong about the processing and this is just how it looked. That doesn't change the visual result, which doesn't appeal to me personally. Which shouldn't lead anyone else to not support this or change anyone else's judgement in any way. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 18:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral very good, maybe it lacks a bit of white (for my tastes), maybe not. I don't give my support because the crop is too tight at bottom IMO. The fisrt upload is much better (crop and colors)! IMO -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 23:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Christian! Maybe I'll try to nominate that version sometime in the future... --Alex Florstein (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 12:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kolomna 04-2014 img11 Skating arena.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2014 at 18:29:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by A.Savin --A.Savin 18:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 18:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a good candidate. Have you considered cropping a little more (not much) of the top and bottom? I think it could improve the composition. --Slaunger (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current one is precise 3:2 ratio, the crop I find good as it is and would not change (some space to breathe is always needed). --A.Savin 20:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support OK, that's reasonable. --Slaunger (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 05:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 20:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 12:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Phoenicopterus ruber in São Paulo Zoo.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2014 at 14:36:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support My country! ArionEstar (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support A little bit DoF missing. --XRay ^talk 18:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually think the DoF is just right. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 06:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Portrait format would be better than this landscape format. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional oppose~~ The background is posterized. Will support if fixed. --Slaunger (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Slaunger: this can be a focus's effect or not.

ArionEstar (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ArionEstar: I doubt it. My guess is, it is the result of a selective background blur in postprocessing (which is sensible for getting good bokeh) gone haywire. I doubt it is present in the raw file. I think it can be salvaged by reprocessing the raw file. --Slaunger (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On several occasions I have encountered the same problem. I will try to solve the problem this weekend, however, it would be interesting for someone to show the way of how to solve it. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: My method is very simple-minded, I just mask the background and apply a selective Gaussian blur of modest radius. I usually do not get any posterization from that method. If your raw is posterized, I have no idea how to solve that. (Is it?) --Slaunger (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing in a little of the original noise should, in theory, fix all banding issues. I highly doubt that the RAW has banding, because banding doesn't exist if there is noise (which is why a little noise is a good thing and adds information), and a camera producing a RAW without any noise at all would be new to me. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 21:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Slaunger: Thanks for the comments, nice review Julian. I've been looking for different ways to solve the problem, however, add Gaussian blur is exactly what I did and what I think caused the posterization. I Rebuilded from RAW. I have added more information on this, please let me know if it is well --The Photographer (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You new edit is better, although it still has a little pixelation. I usually find for photos taken with my camera, that if I use a pixel radius of 5 in the selective Gaussian blur, I normally avoid the banding effect. I actually just tried that out on your unaltered version below, and I ended up with banding at approximately the same level as in your new edit. Then I tried again with a radius of 3, and now the banding has gone and the background remains slightly noisy as mentioned by Julian. I can upload it over any of the version, if you would like to see it? You can just revert if 'no me gusta' :-) It is not revolutionary at all but something a little in between your two versions now, and it is close to (if not) nitpicking. --Slaunger (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just stroke my conditional oppose as the banding/pixelation has improved to a level, where I do not object to it. --Slaunger (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply do it, please!! --The Photographer (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done as requested. Note that I have taken the unaltered version below as a basis for just doing the selective Gaussian blur with a pixel radius of only 3. I have done nothing to increase sharpness or anything else in the edit I have uploaded as a new version of the original candidate. --Slaunger (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to spoil the streak of supports, but IMO the picture has lacks wow and sharpness. --Gra phi um 14:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Oops..."voting period is over". --Gra phi um 14:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 11:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Pope Francis Korea Haemi Castle 19.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2014 at 09:11:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jeon Han - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- russavia (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Jkadavoor mentioned on IRC this might need a rotation, if so could others help out with it. I feel it might be fine as is. russavia (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know whether the pole need to be straight. Good work probably in a condition where flash is not allowed. J e e 09:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The green tint, also compared with the watermarked version, should be fixed I think. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julian H, could you fix them? Jee 16:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can try later. Or is it possible to fix the tint without re-compressing the image? Probably not, but that would be ideal. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: New version uploaded. I had to remove the html link from the EXIF because commons won't let me upload a file with html syntax in the EXIF. Why that worked the first time, I don't know. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Julian. We've a discussion about the html tags in EXIF, and our understanding is only html tags like <a> are prohibited; plain URL has no issue. J e e 02:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the left "border" is not totally vertical. See note. It's fixable? ArionEstar (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can't consider that pole which is part of popemobile. J e e 02:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. Habemus Papam! ;-)

ArionEstar (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Kbh3rd (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 00:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just an old man with severe delusions. DoF is quite shallow (hand is blurred). -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hand is cut and blurred --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice shot, but low wow and blurred hand makes is less eligible for FP. Left edge of the image is confusing. Pugilist (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop too tight (by both camera and popemobile), unfortunate background (what’s that thing just behind his head?), and I don’t like the central composition and straight-into-the-lens look either. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the upper background makes the picture unattractive to me. --Cayambe (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above Jiel (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Revi_complaint? 13:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gra phi um 14:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have now thought about it for some time and the background is still bugging me. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 08:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 11:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:RedCCTV.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2014 at 11:51:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Red brick building roof edge corner detail

Info created by Lawrence Jesterton - uploaded by Tuválkin - nominated by Tuvalkin -- Red brick building roof edge corner detail shot showing tin rooftiles, fancy decorative brickwork, and four security cameras painted the same shade of red. blending in the building. Lotsa wow IMHO, but no idea about techical aspects, as I am a know-nothing about photography; lack of geolocation, or indeed of any useful description about the location, detracts a lot for its positive points, but maybe it will be identified. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nom. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Missing sharpness, and strange composition for me (I would maybe support a detail view of the Moscow State Historical Museum without rather boring elements like cameras and ladders). --A.Savin 13:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the identifying the place (I been a few times but back in 2000, was not sure…) — that matters for me more than this being a FP or not, frankly. Along with the intrincate brickwork, the “camo” cameras is for me the wow factor on this photo, although I can see that what’s my wow is next guy’s ew. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per A.Savin... though I understand your idea. --Cayambe (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, plus bright areas overexposed. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 12:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:St. Jakob Kirche Rothenburg 2014.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2014 at 21:33:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info St. James's Church in Rothenburg ob der Tauber photographed from town hall tower
all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Kbh3rd (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like very much the mix between new and old tiles on the various buildings. Very crisp (downsampled?), good colors and exposure control. --Slaunger (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel and long discussion about the optimal pixel size of panoramas

- Info It's a stitching of 3 vertical (hand-held) images (I've added background information and Pano template to the image description) to increase detail sharpness and to avoid border unsharpness. I've used Hugin for stitching and as far as I can remember Hugin moderately downscales the output image which is imho eligiable to create crisp images with good detail sharpness and no problem due to the high resolution. I made some final, very subtle local (on the church building) brightness adjustments with Viveza from NIK filters. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Tuxyso: Hugin does nothing you doesn`t tell it before. You can scale the output image just the same way like in PTGui for example. So if Hugin downscales your pictures then something's "wrong" with your prefs. My tip: try to stitch the pano with the highest possible settings (compression, resolution...) and if downsampling is necessary do it in the final past processing. regards mathias K 06:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    - Sorry mathias but you are wrong. Hugin downscales the output image to 70% (per default!). You can surely change it, but if you take a look e.g. at this newsgroup post there seem to be good reasons for a slight downscaling regarding lens/sensor limitations. You never archive the full sensor resolution (despite you own a Zeiss Otus lens) - take a look on DxOMark and compare different lenses. Thus it is no bad idea to keep the default setting of Hugin as it is. IMHO photos have to look "crisp" / sharp at 100%. Nearly every pano here on Commons is slightly downscaled and exactly that is the reason why panos often have brilliant detail sharpness. 13,9 Mpx are definitely enough. Your suggestion to do slight downscaling in past-processing (and not by Hugin) is worth a try - thanks for the hint - I will make some comparisation in the future. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I see that newsgroup posts the old myth about the Bayer filter justifying a 70% downsample. Well a 70% downsample of a 36MP image is 17.7MP. Yet somehow the Sony FE 55mm or the Zeiss Otus 55mm both achieve a 29MP rating on a 36MP camera according to DOXMark. And a Sigma Art 50mm achieves 17MP rating on a 21MP Canon (which is only 10MP after 70% reduction). Lens quality, diffraction, sensor noise, anti-aliasing filter, software lens-correction, perspective correction, rotation, and JPG compression all result in different forms of image degredation. None of these lose information in quite the same way as a downsample/upscale process would. Lens resolution varies across the image (centre sharper) whereas downsampling loses resolution equally. The desire for perfection at 100% is just an artefact of how we look at them (click on the image and bang! 100%) and the culture of pixel peeping. An ideal situtation would be for the uploader to be able to set an best-viewing-resolution for any given image and the software defaults to zooming at that level. This would allow Tuxyso to upload a 20MP image and have the Wiki software present it at 14MP (with a touch of output-sharpening). This downsample-and-sharpen-for-presentation is how most photo websites work, including MediaWiki. Having said that, the biggest degredation with a stitched image is usually the perspective correction and rotations that can occur, which can in some (but not all) images massively stretch parts. While there's no point uploading a very soft/noisy image, I don't think asking for all our featured photos to be this crisp at 100% is a desirable goal. Please nobody think that downsizing 70% is necessary for FP. It is a 50% reduction in MP. I'd have had to reduce my A33 images to 7MP if that was necessary and I've got plenty single-shot images that are sharp at 14MP without resorting to Zeiss glass. Tuxyso, for modest stiches like above, I suggest you try a much more conservative downsample at Lightroom-export stage. -- Colin (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I often save panorama with no downsampling in Hugin and get good results. Here is a 81mp panorama created from 5 hand held vertical photos.--ArildV (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I use PTGui for my panoramas, which is very similar to Hugin in its options for generating the final output. Here the default is "optimal", which effectively downsamples to the level of pixel crispness shown here. I always change it to "maximum", which I think correspond to not downsampling in any areas of the blended photograph and then in the final stages of the processing (GIMP in my case) after rotating, tweaking perspective I have a look at the pixel quality at full resolution, and then try-out different levels of downsampling, if any. If I have used my 18-55 mm kit lens, which is honestly speaking a pretty bad lens when it comes to CA and other lens distortions, I sometimes go down to half the original number of pixels in the worst cases (example), whereas if the images are based on my better 55-250 mm lens I downsample much less, typically down to 75% of the original pixel count depending on field-of-view and ISO (example). That does not give me the same per pixel crispness as in the candidate here, but at the same time I believe the information loss is marginal, meaning it will be optimal for large scale printing (in the unlikely event, anyone wants to do that, lol) avoiding visible pixelation. I agree with Colin that there should be better options for reviewing at a fixed resolution, to discourage the pixel peeping. I once had a 35Mpixel nomination, not downsampled, with rather bad per-pixel quality, which I 'refused' to downsample, because information is lost. There was a long-winded discussion with many examples given for what happens with down- and upsampling, which might have your interest. --Slaunger (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Ha ha! I argued the opposite way three years ago! I agree with my old self that there does come a point when the 100% image is mush and we're kidding ourselves that it is worth keeping/uploading at that level. But with a good camera and a good prime lens, many people get excellent results with no downsizing at all. Slaunger, when you say "half the original number of pixels" I take it you mean a 50% megapixel reduction (i.e. about 70% reduction in each linear dimension). I thought Tuxyso had reasonable kit and so was surprised he felt it necessary to half his megapixels before daring to show his work here ;-) -- Colin (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Colin, actually I think you have been pretty consistent:) My nom was with a crap 2007 compact camera sensor. I did mean 50% reduction in the number of pixels, i.e. approxiately 71% the number of original pixels on each side. Yes, I do think that with Tuxyso's gear, there is no need to downsample so much. Information is lost irreversibly in the process in getting all the crispiness. --Slaunger (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Just for information purposes I've uploaded a full res version. It just confirmed my standard procedure :) I am not convinced with the detail sharpness there. If I click on photos on Commons they should look crisp even at 100% view (I know this point is controversal). Probably I will set Hugin to less downscaling when I take photos with the exceptional Sigma 18-35 f1.8 lens which I will receive today :))) I also compared downscaling in Hugin with Hugin fullres and output downscaling with Lightroom. I could not see any significant differences (despite the larger file size). --Tuxyso (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun with the 18-35! I guess you're the first one here to use one, but what I've seen so far is pretty nice! Imho the full-res image is still good and downsampling doesn't add value. --DXR (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! The full res is very good. No need to downsample such a beauty:) --Slaunger (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support crop a bit tight but still very beautiful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review Martin. For information purposes I've uploaded a version with a wider view. I think my choice for the crop is OK as it is. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well maybe this is just me, but I'd support that. That's a more convincing photo to me. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but the wider view is MUCH better. --Kadellar (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, Kadellar. My problem with the wider view is that the interesting city and background around the church distracts from the main motive - the church. From a documentary perspective I still think the nomination at hand is better suited than a wider view. The photo here shows St. James's Church in Rothenburg ob der Tauber, the wider view would be a different motive, e.g. View over Rothenburg with St. James's Church and surronding landscape. Probably I can do a further candidature with the wider view but I think the motives are too similar and some reviewers would protest against a nomination. Any opinions / suggestions on that topic? --Tuxyso (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image is better, for example, for the article about the church, because it shows only the church, as you say (and because we use small sizes at the articles). However, as a picture, the wider view is more impressive. I wouldn't nominate the other, it would be almost "delist and replace". --Kadellar (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 11:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Hawk T1 Aircraft High Above RAF Valley with Benevolent Fund Logo MOD 45150071.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2014 at 15:13:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ashley Shelley (Royal Air Force) - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Ariadacapo -- Ariadacapo (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ariadacapo (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very creative, but the horizon is not "horizontal". ArionEstar (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. To me however, it’s part of what makes this picture so great: the sense of space, dizzing trajectory, and incredible point of view... Ariadacapo (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support And I think it is reasonable to align the crop with the aircraft and not with the horizon, which plays a relatively small role composition-wise. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 07:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pugilist (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Awesome! --Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --LivioAndronico talk 17:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, what a great image! --Halavar (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's not the average shot! -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice ! Pleclown (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Mig-29s intercepeted by F-15s - DF-ST-90-05759.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2014 at 15:19:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Staff Sgt. Kevin L. Bishop (US Air Force) - uploaded by WarBaCoN - nominated by Ariadacapo -- Ariadacapo (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ariadacapo (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Kbh3rd (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry. The (stated) subjects are no more than specs. There's a lot of cloud and condenstation trails, which look very exciting, but if there are Mig-29's and F-15 displayed is anybodies guess. Kleuske (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, the contrails are the picture. The fact that the objects that make the trails are miniscule does not detract from them in the least. That those objects are named does not make it mandatory that I be able to read the serial numbers on them for this to be a valuable, high quality image. Kbh3rd (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As per Kbh3rd. Plenty of Wow. -- Pugilist (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, unusually Awesome! contrails. --Slaunger (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kleuske + tilted horizon. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The tilted horizon caused by the photographer's aircraft banking to the right and the contrail of one F-15 crossing up and over the other's path both make this a very dynamic photograph. You can practically feel the velocity as the nearer pair of aircraft close in on the farther pair. If there's a rule that says horizons must be horizontal, remember that breaking rules can make for much more interesting composition. -- Kbh3rd (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dman41689 (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kbh3rd, absolutely! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't think we need to be able to identify the planes, we can probably trust the caption and appreciate the composition as it is. It does look almost too perfect, as if they knew exactly what they were doing and what kind of photo they would get. Maybe I'm wrong and it was just an extremely lucky photo. :-) Diliff (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support If the FP gallery is about the “wow” effect, and that a picture of flowers or of an old pope gives you that feeling, then I don't see how this one couldn't be part of it. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That is just because it is very difficult to take pictures of young popes, since centuries...--Jebulon (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Halavar (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Nymphaea in Červený Újezd.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2014 at 14:54:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: created by Yalagch - uploaded by Yalagch - nominated by Yalagch.--Yalagch (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Central part of the flower overexposed, background heavily noisy. The species needs to be identified (and categorized). Please, try Quality Images first. --Cayambe (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Partial Done Nuphar pumila -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 03:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cayambe. I would like to add though, that I think the composition is good. --Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Yalagch (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Remix from original - Nymphaea in Červený Újezd by Yalagch. Please dear Yalagch evaluate this alternative, I liked the picture and I think this might be useful. If you do not agree please comment that I remove this alternative. Cleaned, partial fix bg noise, fix overexposure and a bit intensified colors. Thank you -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 00:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Yalagch (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weil am Rhein - Vitra Slide Tower2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2014 at 19:35:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a very sharp, clear photograph. But I don't know if the composition is best – I don't see the purpose of all the empty space on the left/upper-left. I suspect that a more dramatic photograph of this is possible under different lighting conditions. --Kbh3^rdtalk 02:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject has a sparse, minimalist design. I see how perhaps the composition with all that empty space mimics that. The color of the sky works well with the luster of the metal, also. --Kbh3^rd talk 05:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is already a FP of this tower: File:Weil am Rhein - Vitra Slide Tower16.jpg, which is much better than this one. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) This is a detail shot and has also a different purpose! (2) There is no limitation about objects that have to be FP . --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Neither motive nor composition appeals to me. What is special here? What are your reasons for nomination? Probably I oversee something. Multiple FPs of one object are imho no problem in general. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We see the observation platform and the clock. A legitimately detail shot of this observation tower. ~The reson for nomination is because I think this is a very uncommon and interessting tower. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is FP, not FT, meaning we feature pictures for their excellence, not towers. While the tower may be very interesting, this picture isn’t. It shows high quality but nothing special to me – no wow.

Oppose --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some like special objects in pictures, some not. So what, Kreuzschnabel? No need for snotty commentary. I just anwserd a question of a other user. So stay calm. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly calm, don’t worry (it takes much more to upset me). My "snotty commentary", as you called it (not entirely unsnottily, if I may say so), was a reaction on your statement "The reson for nomination is because I think this is a very uncommon and interessting tower". I agree – it certainly is. But that does not automatically make any picture of it as uncommon and interesting, too. We feature uncommon and interesting pictures here, and not necessarily pictures of uncommon and interesting things. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For sure an interessting object makes not always an interessting picture. It would be much more helpfull if you could argue why. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not always easy to say why a picture does not rise fascination. There’s nothing really wrong with this picture, it’s just not looking that special. Composition is one issue as already touched by others: too much sky, too little tower. Anyway, I am not obliged to justify my vote. I just answered to your reason for nominating being the uncommonness of the object, instead of the picture. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't find the composition particularly striking either, and that sky is just not right. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Niterói Contemporary Art Museum 2011a.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2014 at 23:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rosino - uploaded and nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is not bad however the image lacks of qualities, sorry. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 23:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination In the other nomination I will modify the contrast of this image. ArionEstar (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Niterói Contemporary Art Museum 2011.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2014 at 23:54:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rosino - uploaded and nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good idea of composition however too much predominant of the museum IMO -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 23:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Christian Ferrer: I respect your opinion, but I think if there wasn't a predominance of the museum, almost nobody would appreciate/understand the architecture of the museum. Greetings! ;)

ArionEstar (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jiel (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:A butterfly feeding on the tears of a turtle in Ecuador.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2014 at 12:07:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ama la Vida TV - uploaded by User:Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- russavia (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not resting at all. It obviously feeds on the turtle's tears. Gidip (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gidip: Should I withdraw the nomination out of respect for the turtle? We can't have a FP showing an unhappy living thing. russavia (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Gidip for the info. J e e 16:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The crop is not ideal but the moment is very nice and so is the quality. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kbh3rd (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dman41689 (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technical quality is not perfect, but this image has great wow for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The focus is not where it should be, there are some really distracting bugs in the background, but yes, it's a thing I wasn't aware of, and it's big wow for me as well. - Benh (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The photo would benefit from cloning out the dark spot left of the butterfly (another insect) and perhaps by cropping out the blurry stem (see my annotation). For now too obvious photographic flaws for me, but can be easily enhanced. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fabulous photo, regardless the high JPEG compression. --Ras67 (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting, and striking photo. --Slaunger (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As long as my adressed photographic issues are not resolved. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that all those flying insects are same butterfly. Sometimes, such realities (why and how those butterflies are attracted to reptile tears) have more educational value than artistic perfection. J e e 16:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a crop as proposed for comparison. Indeed it looks better! --Ras67 (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very interesting. Great shot! --Halavar (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jiel (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /— TintoMeches, 13:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles

File:Sympetrum striolatum - Eisenstadt.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2014 at 18:38:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Spacebirdy - uploaded by Spacebirdy - nominated by -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most parts of the dragonfly are blur and the cluttered background is distracting. --Gra phi um 14:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The narrow DoF that so often helps pictures of this kind doesn't work here with the orientation of the critter taking most of its body out of focus. Compare to this bug where there is just a bit of softening at the end of the tail and one wing. There is encyclopedic value here in the fine detail visible in the head, face, and upper thorax. But one's eye expects to be able to see the entire creature just as well. --Kbh3^rd talk 16:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 17:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Venice - Gondolas - 3833.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2014 at 17:33:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Jorgeroyan - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea compositionally but the sky is overprocessed and noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Externsteine am Wiembecke-Teich.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2014 at 16:00:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks definitely oversharpened to me, sorry. Rock edges against the sky look unnatural. Or maybe the sky has been hard-edge selected and modified. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Kreuzschnabel, it looks almost posterized. Would expect that to be easy to reduce a bit though. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014.04.12.-09-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim-Landkaertchen erste Generation.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2014 at 15:23:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fine composition and colours, but butterfly not really in focus, a pity. --A.Savin 11:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Angle from which the butterfly was shot results in some parts being out of focus. --Gra phi um 14:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sarcophagus door in Consolata Cemetery.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2014 at 11:42:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by myself -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, distracting shadows of trees, crop too tight. This can be QI for sure (although noise is quite high), but for me this is not FP. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shadowns of trees could be interesting, I think so. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Indeed nice mood with the light and the shadows, however the crop is too tight at left and at bottom. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 22:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— TintoMeches, 14:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Kanał Młynówka i mury miejskie w Kłodzku.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2014 at 21:22:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jacek Halicki - uploaded by Jacek Halicki - nominated by Jacek Halicki -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good idea of composition however too much predominant of the shadowded bridge. This kind of very contrasted image is a hard challenge and I think HDR can be a solution or maybe the use of some filters. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 23:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jiel (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catedral de Puebla, México, 2013-10-11, DD 15.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2014 at 10:49:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Blue-hour shot of the spectacular catholic Puebla Cathedral, build in 1649 and of Herrerian style, Puebla, Mexico. All by me, Poc o² 10:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 10:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (for now) Impressive colors! I don't know, but the left tower just doesn't seem right. It appears way too massive, maybe due to an overly extreme correction of perspective distortion? I wouldn't mind some degree of converging lines... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin Falbisoner: looks overcorrected perspective-wise (though I must admit that this looks like a rather difficult perspective to get right). --El Grafo (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above Jiel (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Alternative in landscape format Poc o² 20:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 15:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above Jiel (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the perspective is ok, and the quality is very good. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 12:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination (both alternatives) I am this time really surprised about the poor support of these candidates Poc o² 08:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pont de la Victoire, Sète, Hérault 03.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2014 at 06:08:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 06:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 06:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting light. --Halavar (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jiel (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment White balance seems too yellow. Yann (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Yann, thanks for suggestion I tried a less yellow version. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 05:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Halavar, Jiel, new version uploaded. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 05:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks all, but now I am not any more convinced. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 05:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:The combine John Deere W540 in the barley harvest.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2014 at 20:01:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the photo, which has a good composition, nice light and mood. The wow is limited though for me, it is more a good QI for me, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting enough for me. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough wow for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support Perfect colours, balanced composition, you almost see the harvester turn to the left now, and the dust cloud is the icing on the cake. Pity it’s a bit small (cropped from a larger exposure I fancy). --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boeing FA-18F Super Hornet at take off Danish Air Show 2014-06-22 aligned.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2014 at 18:14:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Slaunger (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info A Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet taking off at Danish Air Show 2014. The F-18 is a seldom guest in Denmark, the last time it landed in the country was in 2009. This year it showed up at the Danish Air Show 2014 held at Air Base Karup with over 120,000 spectators (2% of the population). Probably because it is a candidate for a replacement of the existing fleet of 30 General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. The two other candidates are the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. --Slaunger (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, but I would stamp out two spots (birds or whatever it is, see note). All in all the surface of the plane looks relatively soft. Did you apply some NR or is it due to shooting conditions (speed, Mitzieher)? --Tuxyso (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good shot. I also find that it looks like the noise reduction was very strong. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Tuxyso: and @Julian Herzog: : Thanks for taking your time to scrutinize my nomination. Concerning the two spots, I have checked with other shots taken in fast sequence, and I found that the largest one was an OOF mast and the other one is a small could (which looks a little like a bird). I have now cloned them out and updated the file. Concerning the processing of the photo and your comments about possibly too aggressive noise reduction, I have now documented the editing process in great details on the file page. I always do noise reduction in the raw converter, and here the default settings are one for luminance and two for the chroma noise (range 0-20 for both settings). I have incremented the chroma noise reduction by one to three in the oploaded file. I still would not call that aggressive at all though as the maximum is 20. Initally I had problems with blown areas on the white sun-exposed landing gear and a dark "belly" of the aircraft as it is in shadows in early afternoon strong sunlight. To counteract that I have gone down 1/3 in exposure, reduced highlights almost as much as possible and boosted shadows as much as possible in the raw editor prior to jpeg conversion to get out the details of the belly. Since it is ISO 100, this did not lead to too much noise in the shadows. I think that a modest DOF combined with a bit of motion blur from panning (not much though as the shutter speed of 1/400 s is still relatively fast) gives the washed out effect of the foreground and a little less pronounced in the background.. For me it helps separate the main subject from background and foreground. And it also gives a feeling of action. --Slaunger (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably you can try selective (only for shadow parts) noise reduction techniques for future shots. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Tuxyso: Thanks for the suggestion. I have a slight practical problem with doing selective noise reduction using my existing tools. The NR in my Canon raw converter works only on the entire image, and for my postprocessing editing tools (GIMP) there are no tools out of the box (as far as I know), except for selective Gaussian blur, which is a too primitive algorithm. I have read there are some GIMP plugins around for doing more sophisticated NR, e.g., separating between luminance and chroma NR using sophisticated algorithm. It appears they are not so easy to use, but maybe I should just 'bite the bullet' and learn how to use them. --Slaunger (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The easiest and best solution for selective NR I found yet is the tool Dfine from the Nik-Tools (no surreptitious advertising, I really like it). By manual setting of control points you can include / exclude similiar image areas from noise reduction. Example: Without selective NR this photo would have excessive noise on the sky or the main motive had not been sharp. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for the advice, Tuxyso. It is a very remarkable photo you are referencing to, and the tutorial was very instructive and impressive to see. I am currently considering a significant upgrade of my editing tools and gear, and this is valuable input in my considerations. --Slaunger (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, makes sense. The large resolution is also slightly misleading. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good shot! --Halavar (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 20:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gra phi um 14:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Johnnie Walker Splash.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2014 at 12:15:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- excellent photograph (possible trademark rights infractions (?) ignored) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! You could increase the eductational value if you describe in-detail (on the file description page) how the photograph was created. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support vielen Dank für die Nominierung Tomer :-) --Böhringer (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I bet they use it in their ads. Very slight CA on the upper drops but that's being way too picky. I added an English translation of your description. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but too bright. --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 12:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! --Halavar (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not wow for me, just a glass Jiel (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support But agree that the background is too bright for my taste Poc o² 17:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk)

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /— TintoMeches, 13:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink