Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2010 at 15:49:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Battle of Mount Sorrel - Battle Map - June 6.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Battle of Mount Sorrel - Battle Map - June 6.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2010 at 19:04:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Budda.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Budda.svg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2010 at 09:04:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cadolzburg SK DSC 0080.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cadolzburg SK DSC 0080.jpg
Well, my canon also has automatic sensor cleaner. I wish you saw how many dust spots I have :). Anyway I am sure about 2 dust spots. If you'd like me to. I could upload an edited version to show where they are.On the other hand I could live with them, so Support --Mbz1 (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Colors look a little unnatural. The vegetation is yellowish to an extent that I'm not sure can be explained by the time of day, and the sky seems desaturated. Standing by on this one, in case any smarter minds disagree. Severnjc (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2010 at 13:51:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Camaret Steine SK DSC 0009.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Camaret Steine SK DSC 0009.jpg
Ok ok, i had even support that one. Its similar but not the same. Different colours, different stones, another place and different image size --Simonizer (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2010 at 19:22:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cliff erosion in Pacifica 2009-12-23.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cliff erosion in Pacifica 2009-12-23.jpg
Yes, the crane makes the photo heavy on left, but on the other hand, without it the documentational value of the image would be lower. Anyway, I think this is a good news photograph and doubt that anyone else could have done it better from this angle. I just don't think it's exceptional enough to be featured. --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is only the best image of erosion on Commons, the image that not only shows erosion itself, but the work that is done to fix it, but of course it is not good enough to be featured I guess . BTW, if I may ask, what was wrong with that image File:Bluff erosion in Pacifica 2.jpg, on what side it was heavy :) --Mbz1 (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down - it was a neutral vote, not even an oppose! :-) I just think that these pictures were not aesthetically as exceptionally superb as e.g. your best pics, like File:Crepuscular_rays_and_Dead_trees_at_Mammoth_Hot_Springs.jpg or File:Seal_Rock_from_Cliff_House.jpg, are. While falling of a house into Pacific is of course very important and we should take erosion seriously, in my opinion we are not talking about historically very important pictures here compared to e.g. first aeroplane flight etc. Therefore, I expect the aesthetics to be on par with the other FPs. This is just an opinion of one Commons user from a distant country - don't take it too seriously! Keep up the good work and Happy new year! BR, --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2010 at 18:21:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Crownshaft Roystonea -1.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crownshaft Roystonea -1.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2010 at 21:52:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:HK NOHAB Di 3 007 near Bablak.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:HK NOHAB Di 3 007 near Bablak.jpg
Neutral There's something about a mile-long object that is just hard to capture on film. When I think of the best images of trains, what comes to mind are the old B&W early 20th century industrial images showing the machinery, the complexity of the vehicle. This one just doesn't seem to capture 'train' as well as it could. Also the subject is fairly small and we can barely see the rails, which are a fairly important part of the train concept. Severnjc (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About not seeing the rails: There is often no other way to get a background that isn't cluttered except standing a bit lower, as I did for this picture. Otherwise you'd have to be in a desert to get a calm background :) (we'll try that in February in Morocco). --Kabelleger (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm afraid that composition (too much foreground) and quality here are a little bit too average for FP. But yes: we need definitely more good railway pictures at Commons! Interesting and very nice view of a legendary European engine from the 50's. This model - based on the famous F7 of General Motors / EMD - was not only built in Sweden by NoHAB, but also in Belgium by AFB (Société Anglo-Franco Belge de Matériel de Chemins de Fer) for the Belgian and Luxemburg state railways. In Dutch these engines are called "Bolle Neuzen" (Round Noses). -- MJJR (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2010 at 18:26:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Juvenile Araucaria Sapling.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Juvenile Araucaria Sapling.jpg
Info I can't help the noise - the branches in the background are difficult to shift. The location is Kolkata, India - Kumar83 17:26, 30 December 2009 (IST)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2010 at 21:28:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment I know it is probably the best and neutral way to vote for a picture, but it is common practice that authors support their photos, you can do that! Ditithe penguin — 22:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know, and I've been doing it for a long time, but I decided it's more fair that way, when I'm both the author (well, co-author) and nominator. Wolf (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2010 at 20:38:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2010 at 23:32:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Redsea sandstorm May13-2005.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Redsea sandstorm May13-2005.jpg
The black lines are country borders, and as far as I know, all of the images from NASA's MODIS have them drawn over the image. Ks0stm(T•C•G)14:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's really not sharp at full res, unless my computer is acting up. It's a wonderful image, perhaps English Wikipedia? Ceranthor16:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2010 at 09:31:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Saddle tor to Hey tor pano.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saddle tor to Hey tor pano.jpg
Info This images is a panorama made up of 5 images showing part of eastern Dartmoor in the snow and some sunshine. It includes a number of tors including one of the best known Hey tor. There is a lot of detail viewed fully zoomed and it captures the beauty and bleakness of a moorland landscape.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2010 at 21:50:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sinaia - military cemetery from WWI (bw).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sinaia - military cemetery from WWI (bw).jpg
wydaje mi się, że lepiej oddaje atmosferę starego, nieco zaniedbanego cmentarza. Kolory mogłyby tutaj rozpraszać odbiór zdjęcia --Pudelek (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is that tight crop for? Is this a place for documentation or for artistic impressions? I don't agree with a neccesity of desaturation for the sake of "atmosphere". --Blago Tebi (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Zasadniczo bardzo mi się to zdjęcie podoba, ale nie jestem przekonany do tej dekoloryzacji. Sugerowałbym raczej pobawienie się balansem kolorów tak, aby kolory zostały, ale aby powstało wrażenie "wyblaknęcia" czy też jakby imitacji starej fotografii. Wolf (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nie jestem zwolennikiem zabaw z kolorami. To jest, moim zdaniem, zbyt duża ingerencja w fotografię, która ma w końcu coś dokumentować. Usunięcie kolorów do bw to rozumiem (w końcu to widać powyżej), ale już sztucznego "wyblakiwania" generalnie nie stosuję --Pudelek (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Blago. The photo was taken last July, not before the development of color photography. It's a nice image, but removing color information is removing information. Severnjc (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2010 at 17:15:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Upper Meavy valley in snow.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Upper Meavy valley in snow.jpg
Oppose Regretful oppose. It's certainly a good picture, but I can't believe that it wouldn't be possible to take a better one, especially as the Upper Meavy Valley isn't going anywhere. The amazing view would seem to lend itself to a panorama; as for the ponies, right now they're big enough to catch the eye, but really too small to contribute to the picture. Severnjc (talk) 11:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Hate to oppose, but the background is highly distracting and it seems like everything leads into the lower erm, valleys. Ceranthor16:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2010 at 17:04:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Whitehousenight.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Whitehousenight.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2010 at 20:19:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Diya 2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Diya 2.JPG
Info - This picture was taken on the first day of the festival of Kali Puja in Kolkata, India - the lighting of the oil lamps or diyas is to keep evil spirits at bay. It was almost a new moon and the picture was taken at a moment when there was no breeze, allowing a perfect flame. Kumar83 (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2010 at 01:49:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Year of the ram4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Year of the ram4.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2010 at 15:06:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo December 2009-5a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo December 2009-5a.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2010 at 09:59:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schoolgirls in Bamozai.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schoolgirls in Bamozai.JPG
Info One of my favorite images from Afghanistan, where colors like this aren't seen very often. These girls are sitting in their section of a school in Bamozai -- the school consists of the shade of some trees in a nearby orchard. They look so happy because they just received the backpacks in front of them, which are probably the first school supplies they've ever owned. Some of the alkalai is blown out, as the girls were sitting in the shade rather than the direct sun. Fixed by Herby. Thanks man! Severnjc (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I am saddened to see that even when we (the 'west') try to do good, we can't get away from blatant corporatism and the imposing of consumer culture. Why not plain backbacks ? --ianaré (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2010 at 21:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:First flight3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:First flight3.jpg
Oppose - Same reasons as last time. In dark areas, too much detail is lost. I still think there's something wrong with the contrast/levels. Problem areas marked with image notes in the preview above. Lupo14:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps your monitor needs calibration? This was reedited to address those concerns. This does bring out more detail than the previous nomination. Other (non-uploaded) edits that go farther than this give an unnatural appearance. Would gladly send you the interim version if you'd like to try it yourself. Durova (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My monitors are all fine, I think. (Using several different monitors and computers, in fact; same problem on all of them, and one of them is a calibrated 27'' iMac screen that is used for semi-professional graphical work.) Just compare with the unrestored original where the details are visible just fine. In fact, I just verified in GIMP that large parts of the shadow on the right man's back and left arm are just black (#000000). So it's not my monitors, but really something in this image. Lupo16:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you can tell from the difference in filesize that "original" wasn't the actual starting point for this restoration. The Library of Congress later uploaded a much higher resolution version that was probably scanned separately. This restoration was edited from the highest resolution source file, although I had to convert it from 16 bit to 8 bit in order to upload to Commons. It gains an order of magnitude of resolution, which seems worth the loss of a few folds in Orville's jacket sleeve. Durova (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, compare these two crops:
Cropped directly from the 232MB TIFF scan from the Library of Congress (Converted from 16bit to 8bit by the GIMP)
As you may notice, the 16-to-8bit conversion still leaves much more detail than what remains in the restored version you nominated here. It is evident to me that something with the histogram adjustments went wrong. Lupo13:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support That flight was no big achievement, really, but the photo... Yes, its quality is an achievement to be proud of. Wolf (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2010 at 17:13:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sayornis saya2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sayornis saya2.JPG
Support Interesting image, good colours, but please cut away the left edge to this point: behind "cre" from the words "createt by Basar". You will see: The image will be better. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A mechanical application of the rule of thirds. Loses lead room and crops out the leftmost part of the plant, which destroys the impression of a rising diagonal from left to right that gave the original composition dynamism. Now this bird has nowhere to fly. Durova (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2010 at 10:06:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Thomas Bresson - Fort de Roppe (abri-caverne) (by).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thomas Bresson - Fort de Roppe (abri-caverne) (by).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2010 at 05:34:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Antep erased2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Antep erased2.jpg
Oppose -- I prefer to File:Antep 1250575b.jpg (also your work :)). I think version b is more natural. In version erased2, there are serious problems especially at the egde part with its rough trimming and it has lost the originality of historical artwork. Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Please could you provide a png "other-version" with transparency? I assumed this one had it, but only just realised it was a jpg. --99of9 (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I supported that version too, but the general consensus was that the colours were not correct. So if we are featuring this version, I would have liked a transparent version available with good colours. --99of9 (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2010 at 02:07:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bicheno Seascape 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bicheno Seascape 1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2010 at 21:22:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Glass Beach Fort Bragg 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glass Beach Fort Bragg 2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2010 at 21:25:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Glass Beach Fort Bragg 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glass Beach Fort Bragg 3.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2010 at 00:20:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lakeside of Mono Lake.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lakeside of Mono Lake.jpg
Question - Are the plants overexposed during the digitization? I'm not sure. Maybe slightly smaller gain would be better. Furthermore, I'm not sure since I haven't been on the spot, but you might want to try adding a little bit of red, too. These are just some thoughts. Great picture anyway. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, MattiPaavola, I made an update with color correction and added a little bit of red. I think some red has been lost by projections of the slide in the last ten years.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the corrections. I think the overexposure on the highlights is now lower and OK IMO. But, about the colors, I think I was wrong when I was speculating about adding some red. I started a discussion about the details on your talk page for not to bother everyone. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2010 at 18:46:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Petra Jordan BW 16.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Petra Jordan BW 16.JPG
Oppose The approved file name format is with lower case jpg. The file is not in line with basic guidelines, so I think it should fail because of this. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2010 at 20:53:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Potato with sprouts.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Potato with sprouts.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2010 at 16:11:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Versailles Chapel - July 2006 edit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Versailles Chapel - July 2006 edit.jpg
This was nominated a while ago and failed because of stitching faults (and overblown colours). I've since gotten around to reprocessing it and fixing the stitching faults so I present it for your reconsideration! Diliff (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2010 at 15:11:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Antep 1250575b.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Antep 1250575b.jpg
Comment Too much information about the original artwork is missing. Otherwise (despite being rather fragmentary) it is a nice picture. It's just not clear exactly what it is. Kleuske (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2010 at 10:01:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lake Te Anau Night.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lake Te Anau Night.JPG
Comment for now. Kallerna has a point but I think with a crop and a tweak it might be better. Not sure if I will have time to get something done for a while now tho. Lack of geo tag is a pity too and that I can't solve - worth asking the user? --Herbytalk thyme18:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The approved file name format is with lower case jpg. The file is not in line with basic guidelines, so I think it should fail because of this. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2010 at 14:45:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Múzeum slovenskej dediny 10.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Múzeum slovenskej dediny 10.jpg
Oppose the subject of this image is dull and technically it is not well executed considering that the horizon line is distorted, also it is not very sharp and detailed.--Avala (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2010 at 19:54:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:BrockenSnowedTrees.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:BrockenSnowedTrees.jpg
Comment Errr...this was taken in 2005, and it shows. It's blurry, pixellated at high res and has rather unnatural colours. Might I suggest getting a new onitor before nominating any more pictures? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2010 at 19:21:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Durga Puja Lights.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Durga Puja Lights.jpg
Info Characteristic neon light images glow as midnight revellers throng the streets of Calcutta during Durga Puja festivities.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: quality and composition issues : blurry and subject cut off --ianaré (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2010 at 06:45:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fotothek df ps 0000005 Straßenbild mit beräumtem Gehwegabschnitt.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fotothek df ps 0000005 Straßenbild mit beräumtem Gehwegabschnitt.jpg
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.
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2010 at 12:24:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hibiscus20091227.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hibiscus20091227.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2010 at 17:53:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:HillInlet ST 03.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:HillInlet ST 03.JPG
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Oppose The approved file name format is with lower case jpg. The file is not in line with basic guidelines, so I think it should fail because of this. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2010 at 18:32:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:In the Web.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:In the Web.jpg
Info - One rainy morning, I spotted a soldier ant in my garden that had fallen from a slippery branch into a spider web. After observing it for a while I took this photo which I had to crop a bit to remove water splashes - Kumar83
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: severe quality issues including heavy noise and blurriness. --ianaré (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2010 at 00:46:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Big issues per Matti
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2010 at 07:12:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Splash 2 color.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Splash 2 color.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2010 at 07:59:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panthera onca at the Toronto Zoo 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panthera onca at the Toronto Zoo 2.jpg
Support Sometimes you come across an image that just grabs you. Aaargh, what a yawn! There is an alternative image, file:Panthera onca at the Toronto Zoo.jpg, though I prefer this one -- that extra kink in the tongue does it for me. It's possible the image is too dark, though hopefully that could be addressed with adjustments.-- Father Goose (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2010 at 03:13:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stockholm photochrom2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stockholm photochrom2.jpg
Info The Stockholm World's Fair of 1897. The domed exhibition hall was designed by Ferdinand Boberg, a prominent Swedish architect of the era. That structure and most of the other installations were subsequently destroyed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2010 at 13:28:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A church in Scotland 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A church in Scotland 02.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2010 at 14:35:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Acid tower (aka).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Acid tower (aka).jpg
Oppose - This is very sharp and shows the tower very well, but I'm sorry, but I find the sky very boring. It feels like the blue channel is overexposed or the weather was just really dull. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2010 at 13:31:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Juggling on the Berlin Wall 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Juggling on the Berlin Wall 1.jpg
{{oppose}} Of the three i like this the best. But the picture is much too late to be of any real historic interest, and it isn't of a quality that makes me wanna FP it. 20:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment Here's hoping it doesn't step on Yann's toes to offer a restored edit, but his user talk says he'll be unavailable in the near future. Thanks very much to Yann for copylefting and uploading these historic images. Offering this alternate version with warmest wishes for a happy new year. Durova (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2010 at 10:46:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Michael Gernhardt in space during STS-69 in 1995.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Michael Gernhardt in space during STS-69 in 1995.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2010 at 18:21:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Austrian National Library-2.1.2010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Austrian National Library-2.1.2010.jpg
Comment Does it seem a little tilted and perhaps the bottom cut off some? Also, it looks like the exif information was removed. Basar (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is a reshoot possible? I like the setting, and the colours are very good, but as has been said, the crop is very tight. I would also prefer a higher resolution, but if that's not possible, just do your best. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2010 at 20:08:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Larus heermanni13.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Larus heermanni13.JPG
Comment My major concern was the highlights on his head. The histogram looked ok, but there isn't much detail there. I took some less exposed photographs of the subject, and they indicated there may not be much detail there to start with. -- Basar (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The approved file name format is with lower case jpg. The file is not in line with basic guidelines, so I think it should fail because of this. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the guidelines state the extension can be spelled jpg or jpeg. I don't see that it says it must be lower case or can't be upper case. Upon review of the featured picture directory, I found a number with capitalized extensions. Does anyone else concur that a capitalized extension is not allowed? Basar (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course .JPG is OK. I upload almost all my files like that. This is the first time ever ive heard anyone complaining about that. It could be nice with a geotag or a info about where the file was taken in the file description. --Korall (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2010 at 23:22:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:US Navy 090711-N-9712C-003 Eight F-A-18 Hornets assigned the River Rattlers, Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 204, fly in formation over southern Louisiana's wetlands during a photo exercise.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:US Navy 090711-N-9712C-003 Eight F-A-18 Hornets assigned the River Rattlers, Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 204, fly in formation over southern Louisiana's wetlands during a photo exercise.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2010 at 16:10:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vuokatti 2006 060.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vuokatti 2006 060.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2010 at 21:22:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ferris wheel Nice Dec 2008 a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ferris wheel Nice Dec 2008 a.jpg
Support Fine colors, great resolution and sharpness, nice composition. Could you correct the crop so the circles at the top and the bottom are not cut? --Pjt56 (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2010 at 00:23:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Golda Meir2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Golda Meir2.jpg
That's what makes it valuable. But to put her on the front page or similarly prominent, I believe she would need two complete arms. --99of9 (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2010 at 21:04:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hochälpelealpe Panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hochälpelealpe Panorama.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2010 at 21:38:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Plafond de la chapelle des Maccabées 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Plafond de la chapelle des Maccabées 3.jpg
Oppose Very good shot for a single exposure, and certainly deserving of QI status. However for FP status, I would have liked to see a stitch. This would have given better resolution and the corners would be in focus. --ianaré (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A very beautiful picture. I liked especially the colors. But see guideline FP: Every important object on the picture should be sharp. Je-str (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2010 at 17:30:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Polish Army Kołobrzeg 077.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polish Army Kołobrzeg 077.JPG
Comment Perhaps some of you remember this nomination, which failed due to technical issues. I believe this one is better, both technically (far less noisy) and in terms of composition (the presence of the car, the soldier is little more than a shadow hidden in the smoke). It is my personal opinion that there are mitigating factors for the cropped mirror - the image was difficult to take. Note that they are not wearing masks. Polish soldiers are tough :) You can also have fun looking for a few little intricacies of the picture, if you want to. Wolf (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2010 at 20:21:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Żelazny and Boeing Stearman 2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Żelazny and Boeing Stearman 2.JPG
Oppose The approved file name format is with lower case jpg. The file is not in line with basic guidelines, so I think it should fail because of this. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the first time in 24 years I am speechless. Really. I find it unbelievable that a person boasting over 16,000 contributions has never actually taken the time to read the guidelines about file types, and instead invents his own guidelines just to have a reason to oppose. Sweet Jesus, I thought such things only happen in Poland. Wolf (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have made over 16,000 contributions, but I do not boast about it. Also, I have not made up any guidelines. Perhaps you are confusing file types and file extensions. You have linked pages to file types, but not about the file extension to use. Please see Commons:File renaming and Commons:First steps/Quality and description. The latter says "For photographs, use JPEG (file extension .jpg or .jpeg)" and clearly indicating what file extensions are to be used. I am not doing this to just oppose, but I think that featured images should be in line with guidelines in every way. I realise that it would be fairly easy to rename the file, and if this is done, I would not oppose. I would like to see better compliance with basic guidelines in the featured images in general. Incidentally it is against wiki-guidelines to use eastereggs, so please remove the linked images from above. What are the eastereggs meant to mean? What happens in Poland? Snowmanradio (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What happens in Poland? This. This exactly, to the most minute detail. And above all, I refuse to comply unless I am given a proper justification of why it is essential and indispensible for the three letters to be lower case. If it is not essential and indispensible, I see no reason to comply, other than courtesy - I swear to God, I would not have a problem with this if you decided to let me know about it in a gentle and civil way (like you did just above), but you chose not to. Compare my oppose to SSL's recent nomination of F/A-18s which were preceded by at least two requests to shorten the filenames. More than that: I see every reason not to comply, as a gesture of civic resistance against such harmful actions. Because I do - with full responsibility, having thought through what I'm just saying - consider such voting as harmful. Mind you: not what you are trying to achieve, not the endavour of having extensions in lower case. But using this as a basis to oppose is, to the best of my judgment, contradictory to POINT. To sum up, quoting from the page linked by you: As a matter of principle it's best to leave all files with generally valid names at their locations, even if slightly better names may exist. Thank you for your attention. Good night and God bless. Wolf (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is unfortunate that we end up with featured images with file extensions that are not in line with the basic guidelines, and are likely to become bad examples of file naming to the general reader. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2010 at 15:05:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo December 2009-12a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo December 2009-12a.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2010 at 22:49:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2007 10 25 - Greenbelt - Water drops on a Saab 9-3 roof 1.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2007 10 25 - Greenbelt - Water drops on a Saab 9-3 roof 1.JPG
Oppose This is one of the most beautiful images I have seen here lately. Unfortunately I have to oppose because of the sharpness issues and relatively low value outside the art world. --MattiPaavola (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The approved file name format is with lower case jpg. The file is not in line with basic guidelines, so I think it should fail because of this. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant artistic picture. (Note that if this was adjusted to the other file format and slightly sharpened, it would probably get more support in a re-nomination). Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2010 at 18:23:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Altocumulus cloud.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Altocumulus cloud.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2010 at 23:30:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Australian Pelican Kioloa.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Australian Pelican Kioloa.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2010 at 22:35:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cheetah Umfolozi evening.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cheetah Umfolozi evening.JPG
I like that the feet are blurry and the eyes are sharp, shows the movement of the cheetah. The "antenna" is a branch, unfortunately --Wegmann (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question First of all I like the photo and you will get my pro. There is only one thing: The crop is for my taste a bit tight. I would be interested in the original photo to see if a wider crop makes sense. --AngMoKio (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
unfortunately it the picture is not cropped - it is the original one, I might have other pictures with more landscape on it, but then the cheetah does not look in the direction of the lense --Wegmann (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2010 at 04:02:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Find the range of your patriotism2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Find the range of your patriotism2.jpg
Info 1918 recruitment poster with an unusually good use of negative space for its era. The simplified composition and stylized lettering prefigure the Art Deco esthetic.
Not sure how Ambrose Bierce relates to this. Vojtech Preissig was a typographer and graphic artist who aided the Czech resistance during both World Wars. Unfortunately that got him into trouble during World War II; he died in Dachau in 1944. Durova (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"PATRIOTISM, n. Combustible rubbish ready to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first." Kleuske (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like the nominator said, it shows the aesthetic of the period and the culture very well. The fact that the artist eventually died at the hands of the Nazis is fascinating. Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2010 at 05:38:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:MaryRose-wooden tankard4.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:MaryRose-wooden tankard4.JPG
Comment Nice visual impact. There is some CA on the top inner handle and the top left of the tankard. Any chance of a fix? --99of9 (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no clue how to do that. Im just happy the Mary Rose Trust chose to donate a lot of images to Commons and I would be glad to display at least one of them as an example of our finest images. --Korall (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of linking to a page where I dont find the information, could you please provide a good reason why the case of the file extension is important enough for an oppose?--Korall (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The page linked above says "For photographs, use JPEG (file extension .jpg or .jpeg)." See also Commons:File renaming, where you will see files with bad names are also changed to jpg with the lower case. I expect it is because you can get File:Book.jpg and File:Book.JPG, which is confusing to have files with the same name except for the file extension. I think that FPs (the best on commons) should follow the guidelines. If you are going to upload a new version with a fix as suggested by an earlier reviewer, then please upload the modified version with a lowercase file extension. Snowmanradio (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that text says nothing specifically about the case of the file extension. I think you are over-interpreting the guidelines and I do not think that reason is good enough to start renaming files. File renaming causes a lot of work on the other wikimedia projects that uses the files so frankly I think its best to leave the files with the names they already have. Every letter in the file name is case sensitive while naming files so there is a very large number of ways to name files with very similar ways and get confused. Please read Commons:File renaming that explicitly states 6 good reasons to move a file. Changing the case of the file extension is not one of them. --Korall (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Korall on this one, what exactly is accomplished by renaming these pictures? Is the quality of the image diminished in any way by having .JPG instead of .jpg? As far as I'm concerned, it's a giant waste of time and effort. The extension could be, .JpG, .jpg or even .JpG, and I wouldn't give a hoot. We should be grateful that people like korall, Wolf and others are generous enough to put their pictures on Commons for free. If you want to argue the toss, start a discussion on the talk page, in the meantime, strike your votes and get some commons sense. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2010 at 09:57:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - It's nice without doubt, and I really like it for its visual appeal. Unfortunately the composition and overall nature is not quite up to standard. Sorry. –Juliancolton | Talk03:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2010 at 16:41:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Peleş - gardens1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Peleş - gardens1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2010 at 17:25:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rippon tor pano.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rippon tor pano.jpg
Info Panorama looking South-West and West from Hey Tor on Dartmoor, Devon, UK in snow. It is made up from 4 images.
Info This image does have some similarities to this one in that they were taken less than a kilometre apart on the same day. However the similarity ends there for me as they were taken looking into opposite directions looking & into quite different conditions. To me this one reflects a bleaker and more remote scene well. There is a little light and the detail is there but in the distance the snow is falling and the weather closing in.
I'm learning about personal taste and I appreciate the feedback too. If I'm honest I prefer this one but I felt the other had more "easy impact". This is much moodier but reflects the scene well (imho!). I've got a few panos from today but I'm working on them at present and there was no snow (just some frost). Thanks --Herbytalk thyme17:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd support without hesitation if it wasn't for one thing: The pano is tilted. A CCW rotation of between 1 and 1.5 degrees is all that's required (check the horizon on the right quarter of the image for example, that terrain is approx level), I would do it myself and present the alt but it would be better if Herby did so as I would lose more of the scene working from this file than Herby would working from the originals.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to the ordinance survey map the cairns on Rippon tor are on almost exactly the same contour line as the tor itself making the image a pretty true representation to me. I see from the file history that the image has been adjusted by 0.5 deg already. I don't see compelling evidence for any further adjustment I'm afraid. --Herbytalk thyme09:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still prefer a bit more, but no point arguing ad infinitum over such a minor issue. I think its within personal preference anyway as opposed to serious issue so I'll Support.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2010 at 01:28:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Flea Scanning Electron Micrograph False Color.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flea Scanning Electron Micrograph False Color.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2010 at 01:33:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Neonatal tetanus 6374.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Neonatal tetanus 6374.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2010 at 02:12:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ari-Hest-December-2009.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ari-Hest-December-2009.jpg
Support I believe that its an interesting and detailed representation of Hest's live music, especially with the color scheme. His expression in his face and eyes look almost mystical and dreamlike. I have almost no knowledge of the technical specifics of the image, so I cannot comment on that. Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2010 at 21:42:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hofkirche Dresden bei Nacht.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hofkirche Dresden bei Nacht.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2010 at 03:35:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dresden photochrom2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dresden photochrom2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2010 at 10:02:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:New River Ft Lauderdale.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:New River Ft Lauderdale.jpg
Comment It looks like the horizon is curved: the building on the left is clearly leaning a bit, while the ones in the middle are straight. Maybe try a restitch with more vertical guides? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2010 at 06:17:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sydney Opera House with Tall Ship.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sydney Opera House with Tall Ship.jpg
Comment I'm prepared to accept that there are better pictures of Sydney, but this isn't a picture of Sydney. It's a picture of the harbour. Having more sky, and the tops of those not very interesting buildings would draw the eye away from the actual subject of the picture. IMHO of course. YMMV. Regards, Ben Aveling12:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically it's more a picture of the Opera House than the harbour. A good image of the harbour would show its expanse, not a tiny fraction of it in front of a notable building. And even if it were of the harbour, it's usually a compositional faux pas to crop the tops of buildings, trees etc when it's unnecessary to do so. Diliff (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2010 at 11:42:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Araucaria Resin.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Araucaria Resin.JPG
Info Unusually shaped fingers of resin extrude from the trunk of a mature Araucaria columnaris specimen at Hooghly near Bandel in West Bengal, India. Location is 22°55′22″N 88°22′46″E - Kumar83 17:21, 7 January 2010 (IST).
Comment The glossy texture of the fully solidified portions make it appear overexposed - the finger on the extreme left (and the lower part of the long finger), not being too viscous illustrate the difference - Kumar83 19:41, 7 January 2010 (IST).
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2010 at 12:38:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bandel Rose.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bandel Rose.jpg
Comment I thought the contrast between the blossom and the surroundings makes for a better picture - a radiating beacon of loveliness in an ocean of bleakness perhaps ? (with apologies for the poetry) - Kumar83- 17:39, 8 January 2010 (IST)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2010 at 15:34:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Episyrphus balteatus 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Episyrphus balteatus 1.jpg
Support Beautiful picture. I was a bit concerned when I saw the file size that it might be suffering from compression artifacts or reduced color, but viewing the picture at full resolution I wasn't able to spot any problems. DOF could be a little higher, but you got the entire head and most of the body in good focus. A focus stack might have gotten better results, but I don't think the DOF is so shallow as to be a problem. The green plant parts in the lower left are a bit distracting as they intrude on the focal plane, but again, that's a minor quibble. Severnjc (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The picture was taken free-handed, and the fly was gone within a second, so there was not much time for a focus stack :-)--Pjt56 (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2010 at 23:22:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:US Navy 090711-N-9712C-007 ight F-A-18 Hornets assigned the River Rattlers, Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 204, fly in a column formation over southern Louisiana's wetlands during a photo exercise.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:US Navy 090711-N-9712C-007 ight F-A-18 Hornets assigned the River Rattlers, Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 204, fly in a column formation over southern Louisiana's wetlands during a photo exercise.jpg
Neutral Very nice image but I don't like the extra-long file name!! this make it hard to use images on other projects, also there is no more space for edit summary. ■ MMXX talk15:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What's on the picture is spectacular, but i'm not impressed by the picture itself. Sharpness, composition... Not bad, but no cigar. B.t.w. is the top plane wearing soviet markings? Kleuske (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2010 at 23:22:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:US Navy 090711-N-9712C-008 Four F-A-18 Hornets assigned the River Rattlers, Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 204, prepare to break out of formation over southern Louisiana's wetlands during a photo exercise.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:US Navy 090711-N-9712C-008 Four F-A-18 Hornets assigned the River Rattlers, Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 204, prepare to break out of formation over southern Louisiana's wetlands during a photo exercise.jpg
Oppose Noisy and dull colours. The name is indeed extravagant. Pieter Kuiper, the DoF is all right, what you see is atmosperic disturbance from the engines of the first plane. Rama (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I hope I don't step on anyone's toes, but I think the original image has a lot of potential and decided to give it a try. I increased the contrast of the midtones to get the terrain sligtly more visible and tried to improve the composition by cropping. Warning: this now falls slightly under the 2 mpix recommendation. --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2010 at 23:22:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:US Navy 090711-N-9712C-011 Two F-A-18 Hornets assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 204 and two F-15 Strike Eagles assigned to the Louisiana Air National Guard 159th Fighter Wing fly in an echelon formation.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:US Navy 090711-N-9712C-011 Two F-A-18 Hornets assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 204 and two F-15 Strike Eagles assigned to the Louisiana Air National Guard 159th Fighter Wing fly in an echelon formation.jpg
Comment Back by popular demand, these pictures depict aircraft of VFA-204 'River Rattlers', with an appearance by 2 F-15E Strike Eagles of Louisiana Air National Guard 159th Fighter Wing in the photo above. Vote for one, all four, or anything in between.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2010 at 01:01:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Supercellule orageuse.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Supercellule orageuse.jpg
Support Personally, I would probably have denoised it a bit, on the other hand the noise helps give structure and texture to the clouds. The tail cloud video is very interesting too. --Slaunger (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2010 at 17:21:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sava Bohinjka.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sava Bohinjka.jpg
Oppose I would have voted neutral without that drinking water exception dot. The photo itself in stunning, but there's too many problems with quality. It's too soft and blurry, CA and partly overburnt. Sorry. —kallerna™14:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2010 at 17:03:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Question Could you please add to the description? At least say which order the shots are in and how long between each shot. Perhaps record the exact 4 times and location. Also you might want to look into the slight CA around the edges. --99of9 (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2010 at 22:26:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Damaliscus topi.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Damaliscus topi.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2010 at 22:28:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Great white shark and cage diving 2.wmv.OGGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Great white shark and cage diving 2.wmv.OGG
At lest now I know that somebody watched my video! thanks, but I am not sure what did you mean with "What is the point"? The point is to show great white shark swimming, or it is an every day sight for you?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - An interesting video, but not really of high quality IMO because of the main subject not being very visible and because of the camera shake. A side comment: I think we should have a separate system for giving recognition for videos. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2010 at 20:13:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tide Pools at Pillar Point 7.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tide Pools at Pillar Point 7.jpg
2273
691
715
539
3000
3512
There is something strange going on here, whihc is apparent in full resolution. First of all there is a bad horizontal stitch and the is an abrupt change in the image going from very sharp and crisp to blurred. Moreoever the area has areas in it, which seems to be due to an unfortunate blenidng between two or more images, where there is displacement between the two. --Slaunger (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Intriguing symphony of different sea animals with very interesting colors. Is the saturation really like that or have you given it a hrmph on the saturation knob in the editing process? In certain areas immensely crisp and detailed. However, there is a bad area (cf. annotation) and I think that the composition is a little bit too busy for my taste. --Slaunger (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while quality is great, I think there's a bit too much going on on the picture. It's dominated by the massive surface of the pillar, and details are lost when viewing on zoom level lower than full view. --Leafnode✉13:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2010 at 17:33:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Rome panorama sb1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Rome panorama sb1.jpg
Oppose Several obvious vertical bands of bad stitching. Noisy sky and too uneven color reproduction of the sky. Otherwise a nice view. --Slaunger (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2010 at 15:08:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mravaldzali st.George catheral.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mravaldzali st.George catheral.JPG
Oppose The approved file name format is with lower case jpg. The file is not in line with basic guidelines, so I think it should fail because of this. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support To partially counteract the JPG-oppose. I don't think that is a good reason to fail. The file name can be changed easily if it's inconsistent with the regulations - just post a rename request. We shouldn't need to go through a whole new FP evaluation just because of a small technicality like that. --99of9 (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2010 at 05:56:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:NorthBeach WillingaPoint Bawley.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:NorthBeach WillingaPoint Bawley.jpg
Comment Thanks for your review. I see what you mean. I've now uploaded a version with adjusted levels which brings out the texture better. --99of9 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then I didn't see what you mean! Can you explain what light quality is exactly? This was taken on a midsummer day in Australia - so I had plenty of light, but that's obviously not what you mean. Do you mean how diffuse/direct it is? If so, which are you after? --99of9 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. Interesting read. The problem is that most of his specific recommendations (dawn, dusk, clearing/oncoming storm) change the behaviour of the people on the beach. The aim here was to include typical beach activities, and for that you need typical atmospheric conditions. The hunk in Speedo's for Durova would probably not be there at dusk :). --99of9 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2010 at 01:10:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Weathered growth rings at Aztec Ruins National Monument.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Weathered growth rings at Aztec Ruins National Monument.jpg
Support I was just about to complain about the borderline resolution when I realized it is a scan of a photo from 1978. I must say the photo has a very good quality considering this. I also read about the camera you used then. Cool camera, for its time I must say. Very nice texture.--Slaunger (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2010 at 21:44:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ardea Alba in Hugh Taylor Birch State Park.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ardea Alba in Hugh Taylor Birch State Park.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2010 at 16:25:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Circumzenithal arc and sundog over Cirrus clouds.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Circumzenithal arc and sundog over Cirrus clouds.jpg
Info A more or less rare display of w:Circumzenithal arc, which is also called "upside down rainbow" and a brighr w:Sun dog
Oppose -- I understand this must be very rare, but both features are rather small & not well pronounced. I could not see sun dog until saw image notes. Otherwise 90% of the image is random blue sky. Renata3 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The idea was to show how both features look together. Many people, who see a sun dog never bother to look up, and to see, if there's something else at the sky. I see Circumzenithal arc about 2-3 times per year. In many places it is much more common occurrence. How many of you have ever seen one?--Mbz1 (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2010 at 19:07:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info La Giralda, the tower of the Cathedral of Seville. An interesting angle that made getting the tower in the frame possible. It's 97.5 m (320 ft) high. Featured on English Wikipedia.
I did also do this panoramic stitch but because the plaza is quite small, and the tower is very tall, there is significant distortion. There is no way to show the whole tower from this angle without distorting it unfortunately. Diliff (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for showing me the context, amazing tower! I agree that one looks distorted because of the height of the tower. In this case I think you could have stitched just one landscape frame below this one, and refrained from perspective correction. --99of9 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2010 at 17:19:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mirounga leonina.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mirounga leonina.jpg
Support *Jumps on top of the pile-on* You might want to let BV know you nominated his inage, Wolf. Let him know it's enjoy more success than the last time someone nommed an image of his... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2010 at 01:51:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Slap Savica.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Slap Savica.jpg
Oppose This is a very difficult subject. You have used a very wide angle lens, but somehow I still would like to see more at the bottom: where all that water is going to. Might not be possible to achieve without stiching at least from this camera location. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Matti, this is the only view you can get from the sightseeing point in a closed pavilion. The old way on the left side of the image is forbidden, there is danger to life after a landslide. If you want to see more: have a look to this web site with the views from the now forbidden way made in the time before the landslide.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I too really wish that I could see exactly where the water went to, but that's not really a major issue to me. The overall quality of the picture is excellent apart from that. Thumbs up. Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2010 at 06:59:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Limnodromus scolopaceus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Limnodromus scolopaceus.jpg
Comment I appears to me that there are several dust spots. Some of them are probably small droplets of water out of focus, but it appears to me that several of those are at improbable places and cannot be droplets. It may be my eyes deceiving me though, so I will not oppose for that reason. Besides that: Very good photo. --Slaunger (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, they are out-of-focus objects in the water. I think I see them transition from the focused area to the background. Basar (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2010 at 10:49:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sediment in the Gulf of Mexico (2).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sediment in the Gulf of Mexico (2).jpg
Info Tropical Storm Ida had come ashore over Alabama and Florida, immediately east of the area shown here, a few hours before the image was acquired. Much of the dirt that colours the water is likely re-suspended sediment dredged up from the sea floor in shallow waters.
Comment I suppose you mean the diagonal stripes (presumably artifacts of the satellite imaging method)? I suppose I could try editing them out later — if I could get the mesh out of File:Speyer Dom BW 1 (edit).jpg, I should be able to fix a couple of stripes. Not on this laptop, though. And not over the original image. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2010 at 18:32:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Burrow Mump.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Burrow Mump.JPG
Comment A really good photograph. The question is if the technical quality of a point and shoot camera is enough to take an FP. I don't know. (BTW, this comment is a good candidate for the most useless comment of the day now that the JPG/jpg discussions have started to settle. :-)) --MattiPaavola (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's the difference between lowercase file extensions like .jpg and capital file extensions like .JPG? I thought that one of the criteria for FPC' s is the quality of the image and not the file extension. --Patriot8790 (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Patriot, there have been some opposes recently from a specific user regarding whether or not an uppercase file extension is within the guidelines. See here and here. Frankly, you can safely ignore this; it's not part of the criteria and most likely never will be. Maedin\talk13:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2010 at 20:38:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:KässbohrerPB260DW 3.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:KässbohrerPB260DW 3.JPG
Oppose Sorry, to me this is one of those pictures, that could be QI or VI, but not FP. The centered composition is bit dull, the crop is bit tight and I can't see anything really special in it. —kallerna™15:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose technically fine, but for encyclopedic purposes (e.g. for Australians who have never seen such a machine ...) the part of it doing the actual work (i.e. the device at the back!) should be better visible. --Pjt56 (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2010 at 17:56:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Trier Porta Nigra BW 5.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trier Porta Nigra BW 5.JPG
Oppose Night lights like these make everything seem too yellow IMO. Also, there is a distracting car trail on the left. --99of9 (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2010 at 19:22:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:MGB HGe 4-4 II mit Glacier Express kurz vor Oberalp Passhöhe.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:MGB HGe 4-4 II mit Glacier Express kurz vor Oberalp Passhöhe.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2010 at 23:55:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Phalanx CIWS test fire - 081107-N-5416W-003.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Phalanx CIWS test fire - 081107-N-5416W-003.jpg
Info For those of you wondering what the white dome shaped object is, what you're looking at is the en:Phalanx CIWS (Close-In Weapons System), designed to destroy missiles, aircraft and other 'close in' threats. It has a fire rate of 3000-4000 RPM, and is mounted on nearly every ship in the US Navy.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2010 at 06:32:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mauritania boy1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mauritania boy1.jpg
Question Nice shot! What are the artifacts in the upper right corner? They look like fingerprints on my old slides ... :-) --Pjt56 (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That was also my first thought. But if you look closer you see more trash in the background which indicates a pretty dirty beach. And yet the boy bites the raw fish ... So the trash could be part of the picture's message!? --Pjt56 (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but I don't think it's an outstanding portrait - rather a snapshot. Light is flat, background is messy, DoF is too deep... --Leafnode✉13:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background. Pile of dirt next to left ear, green trash above head. Thats a pity, as the boy would be great. --Leuo (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the garbage as it adds another dimension of information about whether it was a clean fish (per ptj) :) --99of9 (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2010 at 13:28:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Devon fields stitch.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Devon fields stitch.jpg
Info A Panorama of rural/agricultural landscape in south Devon, UK with some snow. It is made up from 7 images.
Info It is possible that some will say there is no "wow" with this image and, in a sense, I accept that. However I see this as a high quality illustration of a highly typical landscape in the west country of the UK. It shows a timeless setting of fields, hedges, sheep, a barn, woodland in an elegant way and I feel that timelessness is worthy of being featured. With agriculture and the landscape changing such scenes will not always be there. Distant moorland can also be seen.
Neutral per Michael Gäbler. Apart from the oversaturated shadows it´s a great picture, and I´ll instantly support if you desaturate them a little. I love the "pattern" created by the paths Nikopol (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When people ask nicely I do try and listen :) New version uploaded with blue toned down a bit. I guess some of the shadows did look a bit "off". I have slightly boosted the sky which suffered otherwise. If folk see this as overdone please do let me know. Thanks --Herbytalk thyme16:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2010 at 18:33:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Poppies in the Sunset on Lake Geneva.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poppies in the Sunset on Lake Geneva.jpg
Info This is almost certainly Papaver rhoeas, the common or field poppy. However, as I'm not 100% certain of the species, I haven't marked it as such in the file description. Please remember that species identification is not an element of the featured picture criteria.
Sorry, I didn't notice the border! Oops, :) I've removed it now. I also used Noiseware Professional to fix up the noise a bit. It may not be enough to change your mind, but hopefully an improvement nonetheless. Maedin\talk20:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Noise is ok now, I don't mind the DOF very much, the "back lighting" I even find very positive, just the halos are a bit disturbing. -- H00500:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi kallerna, I noticed that you very often oppose a nomination by just saying "poor quality". I hope you don't bother me telling you that I believe that, except for really obvious cases, it should be a courtesy to the nominator to be a bit more specific. -- H00512:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with kallerna, there are flaws. I just decided that other aspects of the photograph outweighed the technical inferiorities. I appreciate that kallerna didn't really need to embellish in this case. Maedin\talk12:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Worth pointing out to anyone here that some who are here are not as experienced as others and may well wish to learn about their errors so it is helpful/courteous to comment fully IMO --Herbytalk thyme08:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 11:03:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset Starnberger See.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset Starnberger See.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 08:55:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Michael martin wüste (49).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Michael martin wüste (49).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 08:43:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vourvourou-Greece.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vourvourou-Greece.jpg
Oppose A little too harsh light for my taste, a nice view but the composition does not really catch my eye. I suggest you use the {{Information}} template to properly describe your image on the image page. You could add value by adding a geolocation (including a heading) and link the location to relevant page(s) on Wikipedia(s).
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2010 at 20:15:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Volcan de Colima 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Volcan de Colima 2.jpg
Oppose Yeah haze is a problem, and the composition is rather uninteresting as well in my opinion. Besides that an impressive sight. It must have been great being there to see with own eyes. --Slaunger (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2010 at 13:32:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:KinkakuJiDetail.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:KinkakuJiDetail.jpg
Oppose The light and colours are good, but there is no clear idea in the composition. It is OK to zoom in on details of a building, but the crop should be well thought out then, and it not the case here, where the corner of the roof is cut off, and there is a distracting perspective distortion/tilt. --Slaunger (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2010 at 12:24:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama Istenmezeje2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama Istenmezeje2.JPG
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2010 at 22:46:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Belém Fishing port and Ver-o-peso 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Belém Fishing port and Ver-o-peso 02.jpg
Oppose Graininess esp. visible in the sky ; lack of sharpness and some distortion, esp. in the top left corner ; possibly over-processed/over-smoothed (oily appearance in some places) ; and, unfortunately, the composition is too busy imho, lacking a focus or a directing line. Sorry. --MAURILBERT(discuter)04:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Pictures like this are great fun to examine. Unfortunately I agree there's a graininess problem, and I'm also disappointed by the bottom crop (perhaps none better was possible). --99of9 (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2010 at 20:18:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fog on the tree line in the Rocky Mountain National Park.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fog on the tree line in the Rocky Mountain National Park.jpg
Kallerna, please read the name of this image: "Fog on the tree line in the Rocky Mountain National Park." This is an image about fog. Therefore it must be grainy, this is the quality of fog. I read in the regulation of FP (see above): "Focus - every important object in the picture should normally be sharp." Normally, not always. Sharpness is needed only in normally cases, if an image can be sharp. But this image shows the grainy effectiveness of fog.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I have to agree with Kallerna that there is too much film grain/noise visible taking into account the relatively low resolution of the image. Nice picture otherwise! --MattiPaavola (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2010 at 04:55:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schiller edit1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schiller edit1.jpg
Neutral Technically high quality portrait of Goethes friend. However, such an idealized "pretty" portrait does not really make a significant impact on me as an observer. I find the portrait rather uninteresting, actually. --Slaunger (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm glad it's not a misspelling, but I stand by my (changed) vote. The reason for the restoration can't be a factor in whether it should be featured. --99of9 (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very sorry, Durova, once again great restoration work. But being from 1905 (Schiller died in 1805) and no other sources given I'm afraid this portrait is far from authentic (even the name is spelled incorrectly! And look at his nose on other portraits ...). Featuring it would give it false importance. There are lots of authentic, contemporary Schiller portraits available. --Pjt56 (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a misspelling: Schiller was ennobled in 1802 by the Duke of Weimar and changed his name slightly. The caption in this portrait uses that version. This restoration was performed for the specific purpose of showing to German archives to seek access to better material. If those negotiations yield a digital file of equivalent technical quality from a likeness taken during his lifetime I would gladly delist and replace this. Durova (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The von indicates his acquired nobility and is spelled correctly, but Fredrich instead of Friedrich is incorrect. It may be the adaption of his name into another language (which one?), but this would again support my doubts about the authenticity. I can offer to help you to get access to German archives if you're interested (let's continue this on our talk pages). --Pjt56 (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2010 at 12:38:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:St Paul's Cathedral, London, England - Jan 2010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Paul's Cathedral, London, England - Jan 2010.jpg
Comment I've annotated some issues with ghostly people at full-res. Aren't people annoying! ;) This isn't an oppose, because you've given us such high-res that I don't even deserve to be able to see them. But I am wondering if you can improve them with the original images? --99of9 (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to improve it, because this is a HDR shot. If anything was moving in the various segments, not only do you have motion-blur ghosting, but you have three sets of movement because of the three exposures that comprise each segment. It was shot on a tripod so there shouldn't be any movement of the building, hopefully. ;-) I could possibly blur/clone the people out completely, but they're fairly minor issues IMO. If this wasn't HDR, I could also get PTGui to output a layered PSD file and remove them completely, but since it is, I had to output it has a .HDR file (layers flattened prior to this point) and process it in Photomatix post-stitching. It all gets a bit messy! Diliff (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, people are bloody annoying! It was so much worse than this image suggests. I spent at least 10-15 minutes waiting for the right moment to avoid them walking through the shot. The things you do for photography... there's a story like that behind many of mine! ;-) Diliff (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really excellent! (Btw: the ghost people don't bother me, but I noticed a small dust spot in the sky, just right of the tower). -- MJJR (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why did you remove the ghostly-like effects? That's merely Father Bennett Edwards and his fellow departed friends coming by to comfort the current parishioners. :-D Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me the perspective is to marked. I think it might have been better if photographed further away from the buildings, or perhaps a perspective correction might help. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective and slight lack of midtone contrast. I tried an edit with subtle changes, but the perspective is tricky... Well, seems it will get featured anyway :) Nikopol (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The perspective was probably corrected by the book: the verticals are vertical. Unfortunately, the result isn't this time really pleasant regarding the tower IMO. Sorry. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually apply some compression to the horizontal extremes, but I guess it wasn't enough. I just didn't want the scene to look too squashed as a result. Unfortunately (IMO anyway) this is the most aesthetic view of the cathedral. Diliff (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2010 at 01:02:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:White water in the Savica.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:White water in the Savica.jpg
Oppose It is a fine photo of two streams combining, but the competition is hard for these types of photos, and I do not think this one is quite on par with what we already have with streaming water. The main problem as I see it is the composition, which is not so interesting and eye-catching. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2010 at 19:11:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment - Any chance of finding a similar image with a higher resolution? This looks like it would succeed a nomination handily if it weren't relatively small. Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no way this will be featured. It is way too low resolution (for a start). I don't know what the point of contesting the FPX is. Both the nominator and now თეკა have contested (perhaps friends or sockpuppets?) without explanation. I suggest you both hang around FP for longer before submitting again. --99of9 (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wasn't referring to you. You correctly raised the size issue in the first place. Pjt56 then tagged this as FPX because the size made it so unlikely to succeed. The nominator Gaeser and თეკა were the two who contested the FPX without explanation. --99of9 (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2010 at 06:31:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support High value, great light, colours and overall quality. I agree with the disposition to use a black background as explained by the nominator. --Slaunger (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2010 at 22:30:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Keswick Panorama - Oct 2009.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Keswick Panorama - Oct 2009.jpg
Support Excellent composition, lovely colors and super high resolution. The only downside is that some of the houses are blown, but that is acceptable taken into account all the plus sides. Thanks for the great work! --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. By the way: High over the one sea at the back in the white clouds near the top of the image is a little blue thing. What is it? --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see it as well and my guess is that it is Superman, who is really pissed because his red cape was stolen and used as sail on that little sailboat on the lake . --Slaunger (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "Hey, I can see my house from here!" No, but really, this is a wonderful shot. It makes me want to visit England. Also, I love how this photograph tells a story. Tiptoetytalk07:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2010 at 22:03:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - difficult light with multiple types of light sources has caused issues: white balance in front and overexposure on the church towers. --MattiPaavola (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great atmosphere and light, but the building at the left hand side is blurred, and the ISO 400 has introduced a little too much noise in this nocturnal setting. The image also seem to have a slight clockwise tilt. Was it hand held? If yes could have benefitted from a tripod perhaps? --Slaunger (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The orange lights are not that orange like in the picture, the Týn church could have some perspective correction, some buildings seemt to be in weird angles. --Aktron (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2010 at 22:53:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info There are about 22000 protected tumuli in Denmark and they are characteristic features of the typical flat, cultivated landscape. This is one of them, from the bronze age called Tinghøjen which I pass regularly. Today, the light and mood was special and I had my camera in the car, so I took a few photos of it. I think the somewhat melancholic mood fits well with a grave, which is probably over 3000 years old.
Support Probably not as sharp as it might be but even if it was an "ordinary" hill it would be a nice one :). As it is it has a good EV and is a well composed image. The info is useful too (I do wish more people would give more info). --Herbytalk thyme10:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have now (to the best of my ability) added an English translation of the known registrations for this tumulus based on the link that was already there on the file page. I hope that adds to the fleshing out requested. As for slight blur/resolution, I was a little in doubt of what would be the best composition in the end when I was on-site, so I took a relatively wide view and experiemented with cropping it at home until I got the nominated result. Due to the crop the resolution is non-optimal. I also took another photo, where I zoomed on the tumuli. This one resolves the tumulus a bit better, but I find the composition too uninteresting to consider nominating it at FPC. With respect to Kallerna's comment about the ordinarity of the subject, I can somewhat acknowledge this. The tumuli shown is not a special tumuli but just one of several thousands. And when you just pass them they quite frankly normally look quite uninteresting. My objective with this nomination is to try and make a regular/common subject look visually appealing and interesting. Had it been just a hill, it would have dissapeared a houndred year ago as a result of repeated plowing. The bushes on the tumulus indicate that it is untouched by agricultural machinery. That is how thousands of other tumuli have dissapeared, amongst those another tumulus, which once was right besides this one. Today that area is agricultural field and completely flattened out. --Slaunger (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting historical subject and nice winter light! As there is only one hill visible, the English description should mention "tumulus" (singular) and not "tumuli" (plural). -- MJJR (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, you are right. I've corrected it on the file page(s) (and in my comment above). And thanks for your appraisal of the winter light! --Slaunger (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2010 at 20:24:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Ottawa - ON - Library of Parliament.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Ottawa - ON - Library of Parliament.jpg
Oppose Nice light, colours and interesting building, but I find the centered composition rather uninteresting, and the sky could use a denoise. --Slaunger (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It must have something to do with the tigh crop, centered (or should I say "invasive"?) composition, and foreshortening, but I just can't say "wow"... --MAURILBERT(discuter)15:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2010 at 03:00:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:NYC Public Library Research Room Jan 2006.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:NYC Public Library Research Room Jan 2006.jpg
Support An excellent shot especially taken into account the low amount of light and the motion of the people. Please link to the building or document the architect. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Shouldn't they be put up as alternatives to one another? Otherwise how will we know which version to remove from FP? --99of9 (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2010 at 17:42:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Famine in India Natives Waiting for Relief in Bangalore.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Famine in India Natives Waiting for Relief in Bangalore.jpg
Support Highly evocative image. Thanks for the quality scan. The only slight issue I noted was a little seam, perhaps from a fold. --99of9 (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice and informative illustration of the Indian famine. Too bad the author is not known. I would be happy to support if the seam I have indicated would be repaired. --Slaunger (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2010 at 14:35:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Great Britain Snowy.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Great Britain Snowy.jpg
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of too low resolution. Great picture though! I'd certainly support it as a valued picture! --Pjt56 (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC) thanks for uploading the high-res version --Pjt56 (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have uploaded a higher-res version straight from the source and updated source and copyright info. In my opinion this can be featured now. le Korrigan→bla18:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special - typical Northern European weather. It is beyond my comprehension what caused such a fuss about the topic. Wolf (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not live in GB nor know the details of usual winter wheather there, but from reading articles like w:Winter of 2009-2010 in the United Kingdom it seems like a quite unusual wheather situation for GB and it is my impression that complete snow coverage of GB is a seldom event. The snow depths and cold temperatures are also unusually severe as I understand. --Slaunger (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The media are reporting that it is the most severe weather for 30 years. Equally 30 years ago the snow, while bad, was not as extensive across the whole of the UK. As such this image is rather unusual to say the least. --Herbytalk thyme09:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2010 at 10:54:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nelson Falls.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nelson Falls.jpg
Still seems fairly tilted. Perhaps it's an optical illusion due to the irregular path of the water on the falls. There aren't any known verticals, and it's a wide angle view, which complicates it. Diliff (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Photographing a waterfall like this in direct sunlight is a bad idea in my view. The brightness across the scene would vary dramatically and it wouldn't look very good. Unfortunately a blue sky tends to imply that the sun would be out. I don't think blending such extremes in brightness would look very good either. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not too fussed about the sky, but to feature a detailed landscape like this, I'd want a higher resolution. Additionally, there's a fair bit of red CA on the dead tree trunk lying on the left that you might want to look into. IMO the foreground is really nice. --99of9 (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2010 at 23:46:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:African Lion Resting at the Entebbe Zoo in Uganda.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:African Lion Resting at the Entebbe Zoo in Uganda.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2010 at 18:53:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brienzersee from above.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brienzersee from above.JPG
Oppose Ok composition, but dull light and contrast. Since the trees take so much of the picture area I would expect them to be brighter. Please try shooting early morning or late evening instead. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2010 at 23:24:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chordeiles minor -British Columbia -Canada-8c.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chordeiles minor -British Columbia -Canada-8c.jpg
Neutral A great capture, but the plants look somehow overprocessed / posterized. I personally prefer more conservative treatment, therefore neutral. Nevertheless nice. Nikopol (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed that. The fairly good description of the location is a reason for saying it would be nice, but not a requirement. --Slaunger (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2010 at 21:49:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry to spoil the party, but I do not really think the nominated photo is quite on par with other mammal FPs. For zoo shots I expect a little more, like this. Here the light is flat, and the overall technical quality is good, but not impressive. I also think it has a little too much point-and-shoot character for my taste. Don't get me wrong. I think it is a good photo. I would be happy if I had taken it myself, but I just do not think it is among the 1/2300 images that should get FP status. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point for me why i nominated this zoo picture is, that it looks very natural. You dont really see that its a zoo picture. If this picure would have been taken in Siberia it would look very similar. --Simonizer (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that for a zoo-pic, it does not appear very zoo-like. But I do not feel convinced that it looks very "Siberian" either apart from the snow. Anyway, just ignore the pedantic here. The photo will get promoted anyhow ;-) --Slaunger (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2010 at 02:12:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ari-Hest-December-2009.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ari-Hest-December-2009.jpg
Support I believe that its an interesting and detailed representation of Hest's live music, especially with the color scheme. His expression in his face and eyes look almost mystical and dreamlike. I have almost no knowledge of the technical specifics of the image, so I cannot comment on that. Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2010 at 17:54:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Codiaeum variegatum - male flowers - Kroton 003.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Codiaeum variegatum - male flowers - Kroton 003.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 14:07:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Snow-covered fir trees.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Snow-covered fir trees.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Too small and overexposed snow --Korall (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 06:04:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kyrgyzstan Ala Archa National Park 04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kyrgyzstan Ala Archa National Park 04.jpg
Patriot, thanks for finding and nominating beautiful images, but please check that the resolution is at least two megapixels since that is the requirement for Featured Pictures.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: its resolution is below 2 megapixels. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 06:16:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zagori Dragonlake and Gamila summit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zagori Dragonlake and Gamila summit.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: its resolution is below 2mp --Basar (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2010 (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.
Weird the resolution is so low considering it has been taken with a 12 Mpx camera...? Maybe a higher resolution could be retrieved?--Slaunger (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Speaking with myself). Perhaps not so weird as the creator states that he is happy to contrubute with images comparable to his gallery page, that is, lousy resolution. --Slaunger (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2010 at 05:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brienzersee high.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brienzersee high.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2010 at 12:59:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Su-27UBM Radom 2009 c.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Su-27UBM Radom 2009 c.JPG
Support Given that the particular fighter crashed the day two days after (I've seen a video clip from it previously, terrible accident I must say), I think this merits promotion for its historic value combined with its technical merits. --Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2010 at 11:29:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support It is a brilliant, eye-catching composition. Good light, colors, DOF. The tight crop on the leaves to the left bothers my eye a little, but I am not sure how to fix it without ruining a nicely balanced composition. --Slaunger (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2010 at 13:02:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Incomplete description on image page. Who is depicted? Fairly good light on statue, but distracting fence on left hand side, unbalanced background (dark on right hand side), and uninteresting composition. Has a little point and shoot character. --Slaunger (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2010 at 22:47:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mooncolony.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mooncolony.jpg
Support It's pretty detailed work, and overall an interesting scene. There is a signature on the original which gives a different date (1997) to the image summary. --99of9 (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Excellent composition and nice details, but why isn't it razor sharp? I'm guessing this is a rendered image and therefore the result should be pixel-sharp. --MattiPaavola (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, everything is possible, but the colors and the infinite DOF kind of hint IMO that it is a drawing/rendering. But, after thinking it a little, I think I'm going to Support it anyway, since the production of this pic has required lots of imagination and time anyway. And, it is razor sharp in full screen (at least with my screen. :-)). --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2010 at 22:39:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pingvin Expo Lisboa.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pingvin Expo Lisboa.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2010 at 23:57:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:US Navy 090210-N-9671T-144 A port security boat patrols the waters near Kuwait Naval Base.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:US Navy 090210-N-9671T-144 A port security boat patrols the waters near Kuwait Naval Base.jpg
Oppose Nice action, but a significant fraction of the boat is obscured by the water splash, the light is rather flat and I find the photo too dark in areas were interesting details could have been revealed. I'm OK with the crop. But considering the bar for military shots is quite high, this does not quite make it over it in my opinion, but close. --Slaunger (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - While I agree the crop could be better, that is a hard image to capture. I agree that it has enough "wow" and other quality factors to be considered a featured image. Tiptoetytalk07:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Featured picture candidates/File:US Navy 090210-N-9671T-144 A port security boat patrols the waters near Kuwait Naval Base-2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:US Navy 090210-N-9671T-144 A port security boat patrols the waters near Kuwait Naval Base-2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2010 at 07:08:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Albatros fuligineux.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Albatros fuligineux.jpg
Comment I agree the photo is very good, but there is more to FP than pretty pictures. There is also meta-data. The file description page does not tell anything about where this bird was photographed and under which circumstances. --Slaunger (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the uploader/creator has not edited or uploaded on commons since November of 2006, with no contributions elsewhere. I doubt that any more information could be gained, because he did not specify an email address, either. Ks0stm(T•C•G)18:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2010 at 17:11:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Enallagma cyathigerum 4(loz).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Enallagma cyathigerum 4(loz).JPG
Oppose Sorry, I changed my mind based on composition issues raised below, and by the fact that this particular species is already featured 3 times. --99of9 (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but unimaginative composition of a subject I feel I have seen too many photos of. I also find the twig in the background distracting. I miss Richard. --Slaunger (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2010 at 07:35:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:P1140409 Hepatica nobilis.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:P1140409 Hepatica nobilis.jpg
Oppose Sorry, poor quality / posterization. It´s quite obvious on the leafs underneath the flower. Would be nice otherwise :( Nikopol (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2010 at 07:29:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:P1170085 Coenonympha glycerion.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:P1170085 Coenonympha glycerion.jpg
Kallerna, I think this image has the wrong name. The right name of this file could be "Dew on the Coenonympha glycerion". The right name is important for FP. Would you say "the file has good quality" if it would have this name?--Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is some posterization, but the subject is really beatiful. However, the description is quite short. I'm willing to support this if you elaborate a little bit - e.g. why there is water etc. BTW, is the EXIF time stamp (04:33) correct? Add some text about that as well, please. --MattiPaavola (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, now the search engines also find it based on "dew". Thanks for the wonderful photo (and waking up for it rediculously early :))! --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but Oppose per Kallerna! I really like this picture (like the most of Darius' pics) but IMO the quality isn't compatible to our macro standard. There is posterization and nothing is really sharp. Maybe its because of noise reduction and then sharpening to much, I dont know... If you compare them to already featured macros like these for example, I hope you will see what I mean. If it's possible I'd like to see an completly unedited version of this. Best regards Leviathan (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Leviathan is right about the technical issues, but for me the wow just overrides the flaws. But I´d like to see an unedited version, too. Perhaps a little overprocessed? Nikopol (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2010 at 23:30:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Thanks for your comment. It was an 80mm lens, so I probably couldn't hold it still enough (hand held) at 1/80s. --99of9 (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hope you don't mind I took the liberty of doing this. Great moment; a bit hard to distinguish the important part from the original. Durova (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good Durova, thanks. I liked the highlights on the fur in the original, but you've definitely improved the background and how much the animals contrast.--99of9 (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2010 at 17:42:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Isophysis tasmanica.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Isophysis tasmanica.jpg
Comment Nice composition, colours and light. I am not too keen though on the tight crop on the left hand side. I think it should be given a little more breathing space so to say. --Slaunger (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2010 at 23:23:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:KunaWomanSellingMolas.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:KunaWomanSellingMolas.jpg
Oppose Very nice colours, quality and subject, but I find the pose of the woman too arranged for the photographer. If the photo had shown her in action interacting and selling her goods to a costumer I would have supported. --Slaunger (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2010 at 18:15:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bucegi mountains panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bucegi mountains panorama.jpg
Oppose A lot of positive things can be said about the technical aspect of this photo, but it has one serious problem in my opinion; there does not seem to be a clear idea with the composition, which does not really catch my eye. --Slaunger (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2010 at 10:52:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sheet Lightning over Mt Wellington.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sheet Lightning over Mt Wellington.jpg
Support Great quality image...as a matter of interest (to me, at least, since I would like to try sometime), how do you take pictures of lightning? Ks0stm(T•C•G)06:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have been away from some time, by I just noticed the CC-BY-SA license. As I recall you previously used the GFDL-1.2(?). I'd just like to say it is great you are now using the CC-BY-SA as it is a much more useful license . Cool. --Slaunger (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The own garden argument is certainly a valid reason for omitting geodata. The nice thing about the date field is that if the correct format is used it will be displayed in language-localized form for users depending on their selected lang. So it is always a good idea to fill in that field although it may seem redundant considering it is in the EXIF. --Slaunger (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 17:43:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hohenzollernbrücke Köln.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hohenzollernbrücke Köln.jpg
Neutral Sharpness and contrast are astonishing, composition is also working. On the other hand the highlights are plain yellow, which is very salient given their size. Nikopol (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good sharpness/DOF/light/colors. There are a few minor blown areas, but I can accept that. It is a pity that there is no EXIF information regarding camera settings. I was curious to see which settings were used to capture this one. --Slaunger (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 09:00:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tours - Cathédrale Saint-Gatien - voûtes de la nef.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tours - Cathédrale Saint-Gatien - voûtes de la nef.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2010 at 12:01:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:8827 - Venezia - Arsenale - Cannoni sec. XVIII - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto, 10-Aug-2007.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:8827 - Venezia - Arsenale - Cannoni sec. XVIII - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto, 10-Aug-2007.jpg
Oppose I think an FP should be self-explanatory to a great extend, and I find it very hard to figure out what is going on in the photo without looking at the image page description. The composition does not seem to have a clear idea either. --Slaunger (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality, historic value and I love the composition. I disagree with Slaunger about FP should be self-explanatory, there are a lot of impressive pics that are incomprehensible without a description page... --Phyrexian (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2010 at 15:03:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination pagenomination page
to add or modify image notes.
Comment Beautiful lighting, but the left crop - right through the middle of the flower - is strange. Can you change that? --Pjt56 (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The denoise certainly helped, but there is still some speckled patchiness in the petals. Perhaps it is not possible to solve post-processing. --99of9 (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Somehow I liked the original crop more than -the current one. It used to be an interesting forest of orchids and now it is just an orchid. (Macro standards for single flowers are really high here.) That said, both crops suffer IMO a little from central composition (see en:Rule of thirds or en:Golden ratio). The lightning and the DOF are quite good IMO and create a nice feeling. If you are going to reshoot you might want to increase DOF slightly and lower the ISO setting. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Opinions, of course, are different. A forest of orchids... that's possible... focusing on one also, interesting enough I think. More DOF, less DOF... The remark on the composition helps! I'll go for one more picture here. Lowering iso setting... 50 is this one. Paul Hermans (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Lighting is great and I like the composition, but it seems a little oversharpened to me (certainly these are not jpeg artifacts?). Do you have suitable processing software? If not, I´m shure someone here will help you out. I would support a version with better sharpening. [That´s the problem with asking for opinions: you get a lot of them :)] Nikopol (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your comment, Nikopol. This picture was taken, not as a jpeg but it is a raw image, imported in Photoshop CS3 and saved as a png. The aperture f9, already sharpens the picture. I had it sharpened more in photoshop and denoised because of previous remarks. Don't tell me now it is too sharp :-)
Comment May I propose that the different versions made during the review would be uploaded with different file names and promoted here as alternatives since it is now quite confusing to know which comments apply to which version. (Actually, we really should be having this discussion in Commons:Photography critiques instead and just the end result should be posted here.) Anyway, my comments regarding the fourth version: the white balance is off and the right crop is too tight. My personal favourite so far is the first version (with denoising). --MattiPaavola (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New comments for a new alternative with the black background
Comment I looked at the photography critiques page, ther was no entry for december 2009 and I created the possibility to make entries for 2010... So, I give it a new try here, my last one. Paul Hermans (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Featured picture candidates/File:Phalaenopsis_amabilis_alternative_candidate_.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Phalaenopsis_amabilis_alternative_candidate_.png
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 14:02:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aebnistettenflue entlebuch 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aebnistettenflue entlebuch 01.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 12:16:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:La pista Valon sopra le nuvole.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:La pista Valon sopra le nuvole.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 14:12:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2010 at 01:06:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info My high school physics tells me that since it went about 2cm off the ground, I had about 0.12s to capture it in flight. Basically I was just lucky! --99of9 (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Good moment, good composition, but sorry, I find the colors a little boring: the grass should be greener. (I even tried tweaking it a little (offline), but didn't manage to get both the bird and grass nice at the same time with small effort.) --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "The grass should be greener" sounds like something my forefather European settlers must have said when they originally came to Australia and all their crops failed :-P. If you see green grass in my photos it's an anomaly - we're still in a bad drought. Perhaps the manicured lawns around buildings are green, but out on the headland it is certainly not. --99of9 (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - :-) Actually, in your first version the grass looks fine to me (but then the bird becomes too dark :-/ ). (Says a person who has never visited the southern hemisphere! :) ) --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It is a good action shot of the magpie, and this edit is an improvement as compared to the original. I would have been glad if I had taken it myself. Notwithstanding, the light is unfortunate - a bit too harsh and the part of the bird facing the observer is too much in shadow for my taste - too many details are missing due to that IMO. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I also had to think about the light, but in the end for me the "capture of the capture" is just enough (I have never myself accomplished a shot like this). Wow makes up for flaws for me... BTW, with my firefox colors and lighting look very different (harsher contrast and more warm tones) when viewed at this page than when I click on the picture. Any idea why? Is firefox capable of color management in "full quality view"? Nikopol (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2010 at 19:10:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Reposaari.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reposaari.JPG
Neutral Excellent composition and good light, but unfortunately unsharp. Kallerna, I find this much more interesting shot that your alternative one because of the stormy sea and nice "late" afternoon winter light. --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2010 at 00:27:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Early in the morning in Grand Canyon.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Early in the morning in Grand Canyon.jpg
Info Tiptoety, what do you mean by that? I made grain- and noise reduction three times: with Silver fast Ai Studio (Nikon M), with Dfine 2.0 from Nik Software and at last with Adobe Photoshop CS 3. Every grain- and noise reduction damages the pixels and the sharpness of the image. I think, I made enough. The Dfine 2.0 from Nik Software shows today no noise in the image, not even in the sky. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - noisy and dark. Also it seems that the attempt to reduce the noise has to led to image being quite blurry and soft.--Avala (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 09:32:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mountains & Clouds.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mountains & Clouds.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 09:27:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment I think the left crop is a bit distracting. If the whole plant was cut, I think I would support. Interesting setting for sports. --99of9 (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice light and scenary. But the crop of the helicopter and to a lesser extend the crop of the plant is not good. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bush is still there + it's uninteresting without the helicopter + the motorcycle is now too small part of the photo, as it is the main subject. —kallerna™17:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Featured picture candidates/File:Rally_Dakar_2009_9-2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rally_Dakar_2009_9-2.jpg
Support Let's try this version. Wider crop on the sky, distracting parts of the plant removed. I didn't want to remove a whole plant. It's nice to see some life in the desert. --Lošmi (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question I agree this is getting better and better. I have a question. It appears to me that in the original source the rotor blade is cropped. How did you manage to avoid that? Did you rescontruct it and realso recontruct a lot of sky. In that case I must say it is well done, and I think you should mention more details of what you have done on the image page. Next, there is something wrong with the license on the image page as there is a warning. I think you should fix that. Finally, it would really be nice to know a little more about the location. Could it be geocoded or could some location information be added to the description - as much as is known? If these issues are addressed I am happy to support. --Slaunger (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't know where to start from :) Yes, I reconstructed a lot of sky, and a rotor blade as well. Basically, I was just using clone and healing tools. I added more info in the description. I'm glad you like how it came out. I don't have more details about location, because I'm not author of the photo. I uploaded a file using "derivative file from Commons" option, as many times before. It shows the source (original photo), so I don't have a clue why this warning appeared. Maybe someone has an idea? --Lošmi (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding the information about the processing done on the photo. Isn't that template warning simply a missing author field in the licensing template? maybe the Dakkar organization would be interested to know about this soon to be promotion, and would have more info on the location? --Slaunger (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. You were right. I added an author in the PD template manually. I don't get why this wasn't copied automatically, but anyway, now it's ok. Thanks for the tip. --Lošmi (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I am letting my conditional oppose be here, still hoping that at least an approximate location can be found and added. (I am still impressed but the reconstructions you have made, I really think it is very well done!) --Slaunger (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the compliment. As far as we know, approximate geolocation is this. Considering that the image is in the desert, I guess it's Atacama Desert, because it's the only desert that they mention in the route description on the official Dakar website. But, that's only my assumption. --Lošmi (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I tried searching for photos from the Atacama dessert. I wouldn't say that the kind of sand seen on the photo seems to be representative, but I did find a few photos, where the sand look just right, like Moon Valley. So plausible, yes, but an assumption as you say. Of course stating that the location is possibly from the Atacama dessert in the file description would be better than nothing I guess. Linking to the route already on Commons would also add value I think. --Slaunger (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 10:44:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Fe Super Chief.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Fe Super Chief.jpg
*Neutral nice picture, historical value, but the sky needs cleaning, and I'd prefer a tighter crop (not necessarily landscape)
--Pjt56 (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC) sorry, I hadn't seen Matti's version --Pjt56 (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I decided to try to clean the dust from the sky and tweaked also the color curves a little bit. Not really Durova-quality, but I'm interested to hear comments since this was my first "restoration" try. --MattiPaavola (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree it is a historically interesting photo, but it does not have the wow for me. The main subjects are too remote to be interesting. The centered composition does not help either. --Slaunger (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 22:59:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bildeiche bei Albertshausen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bildeiche bei Albertshausen.jpg
Comment I think it could be further cropped on the left and lower side, plus the signs are distracting. Besides: Why / How did it take 13 pictures for this shot? Is it an HDR or High-DOF panorama? Nikopol (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ich denke schon, aber natürlich wird er so etwas eingeengt und das mittlere Schild könntest du höchstens rausretouschieren. Du kannst ihn ja mal als Alternative anbieten. Nikopol (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, ich habe es unten mal als Alternative reingesetzt. Das Schild in der Mitte hatte ich schon mal versucht rauszubekommen. Da es aber teilweise in den Zaun hineinreicht, habe ich es nicht hinbekommen. -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First of all; My compliments for the stitch. Stitching photos of a tree with so many details at this distance without parallax errors is challenging without very good camera control. At least, I find it hard to do. As a consequence of the stitch you have very many details in the branches and twigs of the tree. Having said that, the centered composition is really too uninteresting for an FP. The light is rather flat too, and I find the sign in front of the tree mildly distracting. --Slaunger (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 23:26:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brown pelican splash.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brown pelican splash.JPG
Oppose Sorry, but while I understand that it's technically fine and the subject is interesting, I still can't see the wow. The problem is the angle, you can't see almost nothing else than the back of the pelican. —kallerna™11:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Commons refers to the wikipedia for file guidelines; "For uniformity, lower case file name extensions are recommended." as quoted from Image titles and file names on the English wikipedia. I think that a file that does not follow the basic guidelines should not attain FA status. I think that the image does not show the dynamics of the fishing process - I am not sure if it has dived or or was swimming on the surface. Perhaps this sort of action shot may be been better illustrated as a video, or caught on a still at a critical revealing moment. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
English wikipedia is not commons. Commons is not English wikipedia. This file was not uploaded primarly for use on English wikipedia, and Enlish wikipedia is not my "home wiki" so I do not really care about their guidelines in this case (Its totally possible that there are som good stuff in there but they do not override the guidelines on commons in the commons FP process). It is possible that a lot of local wikipedia projects have different guidelines about files. I dont know all those languages so I cannot tell which they are.
As already pointed out for you, several times, by different users, there are no specifications of the case of the file extensions for uploading on commons. If you would like to see guidlines about that on commons, please start the discussion on the guideline talk or some other suitable place. The FP candidates is not the right place for that kind of discussion. Please respect that for nominations in the future.
Yes there are file specification for uploading to commons. See Commons:First steps/Upload form - "You should use a descriptive name and follow the draft Commons language policy and/or the Wikipedia naming conventions for the language used, which give guidance on capitalisation, non-alphanumeric characters, etc." Snowmanradio (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The pelican was photographed in California - an English speaking region - so it would be a good idea for it to follow the English wikipedia naming conventions. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brown pelicans typically dive from the air head first into the water. The image was taken after a dive. What generally happens after a scene like this is that they empty out the water that was collected with the fish with their heads up on the surface before they swallow the fish. --Korall (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2010 at 19:27:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eiffel Tower 20051010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eiffel Tower 20051010.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 00:24:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Petrified wood in Petrified Forest National Park.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Petrified wood in Petrified Forest National Park.jpg
Oppose Something about the colours or lighting is hard on my eyes. Sorry I'm not more specific, I'm not sure what it is. --99of9 (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting photo and subject, but ackward/busy composition and I personally dislike the messy mix of colors and textures in the nomination. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 13:15:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Crepuscular rays over Plymouth Sound.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crepuscular rays over Plymouth Sound.jpg
Info Crepuscular rays spreading out from the sun over Plymouth Sound, UK. Plymouth Breakwater, with its fort and lighthouse, and a Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship are also visible.
Neutral Really spectacular sky, uninteresting foreground (and the patch of grass somehow distracts me in full sreen). Therefore neutral.Nikopol (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutraltending towards oppose. This is a very nice image of crepuscular rays, but the competition is hard for FPs with this topic, and I do not quite think it is on par with more recent CR FPs.
I certainly agree the competition is getting hard on CR imagery. That said, I think that this picture (as well as File:Indre Fure, Stadtlandet.jpg and the 2 you have submitted for delisting) are quite different from the other images you mentioned. The CRs in Mila's images that are the result of tree shadows in mist/steam relatively close to the camera. On the other hand, the CRs in this picture are the result of cloud shadows in haze several miles from the camera (IMO the more frequent formation mechanism). Given the different origin of the rays, I wouldn't really say the existence of FPs of one type should exclude FPs of the other.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I acknolwedge your point about different formation mechanism, so I have striked out my "tending to oppose" remark. I still maintain my slightly upstream neutral vote though. The reason being that I would rather see contributors trying to contribute with new subjects and display a little more ingenuity in what they nominate. I think we have many gaps in our FP gallery concerning subjects, espcially concerning topics related to people, history, science, society, culture, politics, etc. Topics were getting images, which the magical wow is perhaps a little more challenging than CRs . For me, the CR images, though nice and educational when not overdosed are starting to be a bit like the notorious sunset/sunrise images, which are all beautifull, but of questionable value. This is not meant as criticism of your photo (which is very nice). More a general comment regarding the distribution of FP topics with CRs FPs taken as an example. --Slaunger (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah fair enough. I don't think CRs are as bad as sunsets (yet), though I didn't really go out of my way to take this picture it just happened :) I wish we would get more FPs on "valuable" topics too, but some topics are always going to be easier than others (anyone say macro?) - in any case that's a discussion for somewhere other than here...--Nilfanion (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2010 at 21:46:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:CargoNet El 14 on Dovrebanen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:CargoNet El 14 on Dovrebanen.jpg
InfoCargoNetEl 14 with a container train on the Dovre Line, near Dombås, Norway, about one second before transforming us into snowmen :) I quite like the light and the dark background in this picture.
Comment I checked a few cases of clearly visible (!) posterization and in most cases the two colors differed only by one bit in two of three color channels. So at the moment I think that no, this can't be fixed, because it seems that a resolution of 8 bit per RGB color (a limitation of the JPEG file format and the screens everybody has at home) is just not enough in this case. --Kabelleger (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Herby. Think I can see what you mean about the sky, only on my screen it´s not that bad. But to me the first version without the rotation appeared more natural (you can see it when looking at the trees to the left). I think instead of just rotating it, a slight correction of the perspective would produce a slightly better result. Nikopol (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the issue here is that the catenary masts are far from vertical; I tried to find a good compromise, but still, some lean to the left, some to the right... --Kabelleger (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I just uploaded a new version. I corrected the perspective a bit, because after Nikopols comment I noticed that the masts of a power line in the left background were not vertical as well. Moreover, I used Photoshop's highest possible JPEG export quality, hoping that it might mitigate the posterization issue somewhat (however, on my two screens, S-PVA and TN, I don't see much change). --Kabelleger (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 15:37:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gyps fulvus at zoo Salzburg-0001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gyps fulvus at zoo Salzburg-0001.jpg
Comment A great picture and I´ll love to support, but I have a question beforehand: To me, it looks as if you blurred the foreground (and background?), whereas the animal has had a heavy share of sharpening, which creates a hard visual contrast. Do you think a version with a bit less strong / obvious postprocessing would be possible? Nevertheless I really like your image (lighting, posture of the bird)! Nikopol (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I used a very fine sharpening for the feathers, and I blurred the background to avoid unnecessary noise in the dark background which would increase the file size without any informnation. But there is no blurring to avoid any structures in the background.. This from the lens (300 mm plus 2x extender, resulting a 600 mm lens on a fullframe sensor, so a very narrow depth of focus. You can see that in the bird itself, the "farest" parts of it start to blurr also. But I would be able to produce a version as you described. I will wait for further comments. (Hope you can understand my english) MatthiasKabel (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good image, but I agree with Nikopol. Currently there are e.g. noise drops falling from the mouth against the very smooth background. :-) --MattiPaavola (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've uploaded a version which muc less blurred in the background and has no blurring in the foreground. I think this picture needs a little blurring in the background otherwise you are able to see the structure of the camera sensor. MatthiasKabel (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice bird, although the pose covers up a fair bit of the shape. Processing artifacts are still too obvious. The line between head and background is spotty on one side and smooth on the other (if you really want to do this differential processing, perhaps you need to blend it at the edges). The leaves below are too noisy (sharpened noise?). --99of9 (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per 99of9, but I´ll support if you manage a denoised foreground and work a little on the edges. Is it possible you sharpened all of the picture and then blurred the background? I would suggest sharpening only the bird with help of a mask and selectively denoising fore/background. Nikopol (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks for the tips. So I tried to follow them and made an new approach Created a version with only a small amount of noise reduction and a version with the old sharpening. (Each version from three different aperture levels from the raw file.) Blended these versions with a smaller blending on the left side an a wider on the feathers at neck an head. Blending was done with individual pencil strokes on a mask not with a fixed radius to prevent the contours of the feathers as far as possible. Smoothed the beak, reduced the colors a little bit. MatthiasKabel (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The leaves are greatly improved. The whole image now has normal-looking noise, so I think your noise-reduction is now too small :), but am willing to overlook this given the high-res file size. I've struck my oppose, and will change it to a support when you clone out the dust spot I've marked. 99of9 (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I´ve also struck my oppose, it´s much more natural-looking now. IMO noise is OK, and if you look into the things mentioned by 99of9 / Herby, I´ll support too. Nikopol (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice work. I notice a few processing artifacts on the edge between bird and background, but it is nothing serious. I guess that all the editing and blending, the EXIF has gone as well? Would it be possible for you to add manually some details about camera setting, lens used, and postprocessing steps on the image page? I realize quite some details are given here, but this page is not the natural place for reusers/interested users to look for it. Thanks. --Slaunger (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good resolution although noisy in places. It looks like the photograph was taken from below the captive vulture, and I think the view should be better for a FP. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image description was disappointing for a scientific illustration, so I have put in some more details in the image description to help to bring the associated documentation to this file up to a basic standard. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I had to correct one point of your corrections ;-) Yes, the photo was below of the bird, which is the natural point of view for an human watching a bird on a tree. There are some other pictures of these vultures from different point if view, perhaps also better for scientific purposes, but not such good colors as this picture. Gyps_fulvus_at_zoo_Salzburg-0002.jpg - Gyps_fulvus_at_zoo_Salzburg-0015.jpg MatthiasKabel (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 18:11:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:San Sebastian at night from Monte Urgull.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Sebastian at night from Monte Urgull.jpg
Done The lines are not parallel, but I didn´t want to overdo it since I was afraid to hurt the composition (especially the triangular shape). I think it should be OK now. Nikopol (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Well, in full resolution, light and image quality is not that impressive, but it rarely is in night shots. In 1:1 it looks pretty good, but it does not quite make it over my bar. I suggest you geocode it. Adds value to the image page. --Slaunger (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I started uploading images, I tried it once, failed (though maybe it was just a problem with my firefox), and now I am a little unmotivated. Maybe you now a foolproof tutorial? Yeah, I know I´m lazy ;) Nikopol (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2010 at 22:01:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Despite the tilt, there are mores technical issues like some CA, and also too much contrast because of applied normalization. But even if they all were fixed, the composition would not really strike me for a FP. --Leuo (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hmm the buildings are leaning, the snow in the foreground is nothing really nice (especially that gradient grey→white), the corners of the picture are darker than the centre... --Aktron (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 21:30:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fraxern 06.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fraxern 06.JPG
Oppose I thought about it a long time, but the composition does not quite convince me. IMO the path visible to the right side of the image is spoiling it. It´s a good atmospheric image, but for me not outstanding enough for FP, sorry. Nikopol (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for composition reasons. The tree is too dominant in the composition. Especially the thin branch partly obstructing the view is distracting IMO. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2010 at 18:08:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pinus Radiata Resin.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pinus Radiata Resin.JPG
Info Resin bead on Pinus radiata tree stump. Beads of resin ooze from the stump in hot weather. Initially soft lumps of jelly like this one, they dry out and crystallise like the remnants in the foreground.
Comment Commons refers to the wikipedia for file guidelines; "For uniformity, lower case file name extensions are recommended." as quoted from Image titles and file names on the English wikipedia. I think that a file that does not follow the basic guideline should not attain featured status. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, but this is not one of the criteria for featured pictures. We vote for featured pictures mostly for their quality but not for their file name extensions. --Patriot8790 (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My earlier point and shoot used upper case for jpg extension. Frankly at the time I would have had no idea how to alter it and would have/did upload files without any thought on whether the extension was upper or lower case. --Herbytalk thyme18:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have linked to a recommendation for lower case file extensions with added explanatin that the guideline was written with the intention of enhance uniformity within the project. I see no reason why FPs should disregard these recommendations. It is easy to inadvertently upload with uppercase JPG, especially if a camera uses uppercase JPG; however, when editors become aware of the guidelines then the file extension can easily be changed simply by typing in the lower case. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If only we were as precise in terms of quality as we are something so unimportant as this. Additionally I see that is an en wp policy. As such it has no actual standing here on Commons, Thanks --Herbytalk thyme11:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Refreshing topic, good color, light, overall quality and fair resolution. But it is not really eye-catching enough for me to be FP, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2010 at 10:44:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The hidden fires of the Flame Nebula.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The hidden fires of the Flame Nebula.jpg
Support Heavy file which can bring about some uploading problems. But scientifically an extremely interesting picture. -- MJJR (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2010 at 15:49:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Audi e-tron.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Audi e-tron.jpg
Neutral A good image, but I feel it to be too commercial for Commons' main page, sorry. (Maybe after 50 years once it has gained some historical value. :-)) --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't knock commercial!! Wouldn't it be amazing if every commercial was under a free licence? This one is, and it's got EV, and it's one of our best pictures. Therefore FP to me. --99of9 (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral After thinking this a little more, let me set my words differently. If other manufactures notice that there is a great product picture of an Audi in the main page with lots of visibility, they might start contributing free high quality images of their own cars here. I agree that it would certainly be a positive thing. However, while this particular product image is technically perfect, I would prefer to see the car in action for it to be an FP. Or, if it was an exhibition shot like this one, a nice catch in the composition, e.g. related to a person presenting the car, would make it FP IMO. Therefore, I decided to keep my Neutral vote, sorry. Don't get me wrong, this is certainly a valuable contribution to Commons - I just don't think it is an FP. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically perfect, with encyclopedic value and you might even attest it some wow, if you like cars. I would myself never take pictures of cars, but this is not the MOMA, but an encyclopedia. So IMO there is no reason not to feature this. Nikopol (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is an excellent and useful image. That it is the product of a commercial enterprise neither adds to nor diminishes that. --KenWalker (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can somewhat follow MattiPaavolas argument, that it would be cooler seeing the car in some kind of interaction, with a road, a driver or something else. On the other hand, another important state for a car in a parked state, and here the exhibition state is excellent because getting an accurate and detailed representation of the car in a parked state is optimal under these circumstances. And I think, that in its form, which could be presented in a car magazine, it is an excellent piece of work as a good representation of these kinds of staged photos. It reminds me of the argumentation and controversy that took place when this model photo was promoted. I would not support a flood of such images though, but it introduces some pleasant diversity in the FP gallery. --Slaunger (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2010 at 15:12:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:From O Pupers last light-3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:From O Pupers last light-3.jpg
Info Looking due South from Outer Pupers on the southern edge of Dartmoor in Devon, UK. It shows the southern edge of the moorland as it changes into agricultural land. Taken stood on a tor for which Dartmoor is well known in the last light before sunset and giving a sense of scale (and some cows!).
This picture has a really good mood. I have ended up watching it many times once I have browsed through the candidates. The light is awesome! I don't like the horizon being in the vertical center, but I Support this anyway because of the excellent feeling in this photo. (Herby, would you be willing to make an alternative version with some sky cropped away (and maybe or maybe not also a little bit from either left or right for not to make the aspect ratio too wide)?) --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lighting and atmosphere. Perhaps the composition could still use a little less sky, but the more you crop, the more of it´s color it looses. Nikopol (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Interesting view and light, but I get a little dissapointed when viewing it in 1:1. Has some kind of combined smoothening/sharpening been done to this? For instance, to the left where there are two cows, the texture of the grass looks very soft (too much noise reduction?), and I also wondering about the colors. Has the saturation knob been given a hrmph to make it more colorful, the two aforementioned cows have colors, which seem unnatural/oversaturated for me? Finally, I would have preferred if a few of the cattle had been much closer by, as they would have been more immediately recognisable for what they are when seeing the image in smaller size, by which the eye could extrapolate to the smaller cattle in the background and deduce what they were. Would have given a better feeling of the (very large) depth in this photo. --Slaunger (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate the time taken to comment at length. A number of issues I do understand (& maybe agree with :)). The only thing I would say is that the saturation on this image has actually been turned down a bit as the original looked rather unbelievable! The light quality that evening was quite remarkable. --Herbytalk thyme09:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for not being annoyed by my pedantic comments . Yes, light conditions at dawn can sometimes be very surreal and deceiving and I take my suspicion about turning the saturation knob back. That time of day is my favorite hour as well due to the unusuals sights you can be lucky to find. --Slaunger (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2010 at 22:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Egyptian camel transport3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Egyptian camel transport3.jpg
Comment I am happy enough to support this, evocative and well worked image. At the risk of encountering vast arguments is it worth downsampling at little as 1:1 the quality (understandably) is lower? --Herbytalk thyme11:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Instead of just opposing. May I ask, what is so particularly interesting about a 1918 photo of a caravane of camels, where nothing much but contours are seen of the camels and people? Due to the light, only a rough idea about the clothing (which could be historically interesting) and building in the background is seen. Evidently I am missing a point. What is the point? I am willing to listen and learn. --Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. First of all, Duraova, if you think this rather lengthy post takes too much focus away from the nomination feel free to move it to a subpage... I agree it is esthetically pleasing in the FPC preview but seen in full screen I think it has a dissapointing detail level - also considering that it is a 1918 photo. I am also curious to know more of the location of the photo. "Olivet" is mentioned, and in searching for that I had a look at The History of the Canterbury Mounted Rifles 1914-1919Chapter XV. How the Regiment Went Up to Jerusalem and Through the Wilderness to Jericho., where I found the following quote:
Bethlehem was reached at 5 o'clock on the morning of the 23rd, after passing through the village of Bethany and on round the shoulder of Olivet, where on the clear dawn of a winter's day there burst upon view, with her long battlemented walls and her towers and domes silhouetted against the sky, the city of Jerusalem, seated upon her hills. This view, above all seen of the Holy City, will our men ever remember.
According to the English Wikipedia, Bethany, today known as al-Eizariya is located on the southeastern slope of the Mount of Olives. Apparently, Olivet can also refer to the Mount of Olives. If anyone can confirm that, it would probably be worthwhile to specify a location of about 1 km to the East of Jerusalem in the image page.--Slaunger (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph was taken by an organization called American Colony Jerusalem, which consistently captioned the Mount of Olives as Olivet (Olivet is one of its alternate names). Compare to this caption in the same handwriting where "Olivet" is adjacent to "Mount Scopus". Mount Scopus overlooks Jerusalem. Durova (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Ok. Thanks for the reference to that other caption. Given that I used quite a long time figuring out what Olivet meant, and assuming for a moment that I am not the only historically ignorant user here, unfamiliar with this (for me peculiar) synonym for an in fact very notable place (the photo is more than just esthetics for me now), who could be confused as well, would it not be worthwhile to add this explanation explicitly to the file page including some wiki links to save others from doing the same investigations? --Slaunger (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Has some esthetic qualities and is from an interesting location and time. However light obscures historically interesting features such as clothing and features of buildings, and overall image quality somewhat dissapointing in full screen - even for a 1918 photo IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2010 at 20:31:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Mountain Exhaled.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Mountain Exhaled.jpg
I too tried my luck yesterday, but also failed on the vignetting lefthand. But instead of just cropping it out I might try to clone it out a little later (I was too tired yesterday), since the composition might suffer otherwise. Nikopol (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do do cloning but I am not particularly good at it. This image does deserve the work I think, if you can do it that would be good. Thanks --Herbytalk thyme13:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? Did the Canadians sell and move Alberta to Russia? Excerpt from the object location stating ..116|11|27.17|E|region:RU..??? My guess is that we should just flip the sign on the longitude here to W. Can anyone confirm that? --Slaunger (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2010 at 00:40:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Heinrich Heine 1837.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Heinrich Heine 1837.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2010 at 14:49:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support This is an excellent picture in terms of composition, colours, lighting, sharpness and mood (though I would probably crop away a slight part of the bottom sea, but this is a highly personal opinion). --Cayambe (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some second toughts after reviewing with another monitor: the highlights are burned. Is there any change the author could lower the exposure or just the highlights from the original raw file? Also, any volunteers to lower the vignetting after that? :-) I think it would be worth it for this excellent composition. --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did take a look at this. Most of the vignetting went quite well but the bottom right was persistent. Care would also need to be taken with lower exposure only as there are already some clipped areas at the other end too. Throw in the ca and while I agree it is a nicely composed image there is quite a bit to do to really get it to an FP standard maybe? --Herbytalk thyme17:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image has a slight CW tilt. I would like some more location info on the image. The Limfjord has a coast line of about 1000 km, so specifying nothing but the Limfjord is a too unprecise specification of the location IMO. Good light and composition, but not too impressive overall image quality. --Slaunger (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice work! I enjoyed using the 360° panoramaviewer for this as well. Since it is 360° and sunny, the sun sort of has to be an element of this, despite the ugly side effects this gives for areas in vicinity of the sun disc due to imperfections in the optics, etc. I guess it is impossible to try and repair some of that damage, or that a repair would not look natural? I also enjoyed the thorough image page description, geocoding, annotations and thorough categorization of this photo. Something which is too often not given the attention it deserves. --Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Matti. Of course, a bit less trails in the snow would have been even better, but that´s not a fair demand. (BTW, I have been snowboarding on the Diedamskopf a couple of times :P). Nikopol (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2010 at 16:11:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Corvus monedula-0001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Corvus monedula-0001.jpg
Comment I presume that it was free-flying in the zoo grounds - can you clarify this in the image description? The image description was disappointing for a scientific illustraion, so I have put in some more details in the image description to help to bring the associated documentation to this file up to standard. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have rephrased it a bit. I have seen Jackdaws and crows in Whipsnade Zoo, England - I think Jackdaws tend to live in family groups. Would you say that the flock was large or a group of about 10 to 20 or so? I would like to quantify the number of Jackdaws in the flock a bit better. Why not add an image description in German (or your native language)? - it is a Austrian zoo. Incidentally, have you got any photographs of the parrots in this zoo? Snowmanradio (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The shadow, which is cropped of a little bit distracts me somewhat. IMO the shadow should either be entirely in the frame, or cropped deliberately, so to say. (Hope you get the idea, I have difficuties expressing precisely what i mean in English). --Slaunger (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point about the shadow, and perhaps a little more foreground might help place the bird in the centre of the image and let us see a bit more snow (but not too much). When the shadow is included the bird might be too far over to the right, so some extra space might be needed on the right of the bird. another option is to do a tight crop focusing on the bird, but I suspect it might not be so clear what the bird is doing. Snowmanradio (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Concerning a tighter crop and a centered composition, I agree that is a good path for use in, e.g., a taxobox. Encouraging photos well suited for online display on Wikimedia projects is the focal point of the Valued Images program, for which this photo, when cropped as you say, may be a very good candidate within the scope Corvus monedula. However, the focal point for COM:FP is a little different IMO with more emphasis on the esthetics, technical quality, resolution and composition, and here a centered composition with a tight crop would be the wrong avenue to follow IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2010 at 23:28:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Erdfunkstelle Fuchsstadt.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Erdfunkstelle Fuchsstadt.jpg
Support This photo has two great assets. The composition and the light. It is really eye-catching, especially the light on the largest antenna to the left is exquisite. It almost looks like something from a science fiction film, only it is for real. It would be great if a de-en dual-language user could make a translation of the German description to English.--Slaunger (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2010 at 23:40:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tepic fruit stand.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tepic fruit stand.jpg
Question Is grain unacceptable in analog photography? Could grain be an element of design? Could there ever be a scale of acceptable grain or will it always be a subjective evaluation? Did critics of analog photography put a magnifying glass to every image looking for grain? When choosing a car does one look at the underside to see if it is aesthetically appealing? Does an out of focused part of an image ruin the entire image? It could, or it could not. A photograph is a collection of elements, and very, very seldom will they all be at their technically best. Noise is the digital version of grain. Grain/noise is a result of ISO. ISO is a result of light conditions most of the time. There has always been grain/noise, there will always be grain/noise. Whether it works or not will largely depend on the degree of magnification/reproduction and viewing distance. Even the most grainless/noisless image will show grain/noise at certain magnification. Let´s throw Robert Capa´s work into the trash... too grainy ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, Grain is fine. Especially in analog photographs. We sometimes added grain to digital images to make them look less sterile (in print). There is really no point in zooming to 100% and then to say, ahh, but it has grain. This image, downsampled to 3000x2000 px has grain directly comparable to digital images. But it makes no sense to downsaple it just that the "grain comments" stay away. --Amada44 (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Welcome back, Tomas! I have missed your photography! Especially i am hoping to see more of your people photography in the near future. I really love the idea with the composition in this photo. It seems for me though that the colors have been tweaked, for instance, that the fruits have an increased stauration or that the background has been selectively desaturated? If something has been done to tweak it, i think it would be relevant to mention on the file page. I don't know what has happened but the fruits look a little too colorful IMO. Concerning noise, it does seem a little excessive, although I actually perceive a lot of it as texture. I was wondering if an overall better photo could be acheived by selectively desaturating the BG elements quite a bit, and then also decrease the saturation a little on the fruit to remove some of the perceived articifiality that I get from it - that would probably also reduce the noise problems to a more reasonable level? --Slaunger (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slaunger: Thanks for the welcome! This is the scoop on this pic: light conditions low, hence ISO 800, hence noise, hand held camera; autolevels in PS, middle tones adjusted for more saturation, background as is, not unsaturated, sharpened and added contrast. Normal darkroom procedures, 45 sec adjusting all. The original capture of the camera, due to chip bias, WB, etc., etc., is not a true reflexion of the scene, and even less of what the brain sees. So I adjusted image to reflect what my brain saw, my vision. Color fidelity in anycase is never right, too many variables. Image is as I like it noise and all. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for explaining what you have done. Now, I did you a favor by correcting a spelling mistake in one of your categories. Now, would you be so kind to add the editing details in a {{Retouched}} template to the file description, because that is where they belong. As I recall you are usually, let's say, quite laid back concerning the image descriptions and categorization of your photos, thus I am asking you kindly hoping to motivate you. Meanwhile, I will consider your reply and think about my vote... --Slaunger (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing on my talk page that you do not consider your edit a "retouch" - which I can follow - it is of course OK just to add a description of the editing steps in the description, such that others curious to understand how this photo was realized could learn about it. --Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2010 at 08:57:37
Info This is an unsharp, noisy photo of the Golden Gate Bridge promoted back in 2005. Also, the lights on the bridge are horrible. I can say with certainty there are better pictures of this bridge on commons. (Original nomination). Tiptoetytalk08:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2010 at 23:54:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Geirangerfjord LC0188.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Geirangerfjord LC0188.jpg
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Info The fjord is one of Norway's most visited tourist sites and has been listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The fjord is deep enough so that it can be navigated even by cruise ships. So for example the right one of the ships in the pic is the Queen Elizabeth 2.
Delist Resolution no longer meets requirements. On its own that's not enough for a delist vote from me, but when we have FPs of sufficiently similar subjects, that is a killer blow. --99of9 (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2010 at 20:31:47
Info Considering the borderline resolution, the image is not sufficiently crisp by current standards. So is the noise and composition. We have severalsuperiorFPs of crespuscular rays, especially from the creator herself , so I think we should clean out a bit. (Original nomination)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2010 at 21:02:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:LightsVintageMBTruck 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:LightsVintageMBTruck 2.jpg
Info created by --Pjt56 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC), - uploaded by --Pjt56 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC), - nominated by -- Pjt56 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Info Lights on a vintage Daimler-Benz truck (Mercedes-Benz Museum, Stuttgart, Germany)
Oppose Top part of the radiator is less unsharp than some other parts of the image. I like the idea/composition however at 1:1 it is not sharp enough for FP for me I'm afraid. --Herbytalk thyme18:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Composition and the harmonious colors are nice, but the others are right about sharpness... Do you think you can improve it without bringing in too much noise? Nikopol (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I have uploaded a sharpened version. If this one is still not good enough I have a reason to visit the museum again (and ask for permission to use a tripod) ... --Pjt56 (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this version, since the sharpening is done well (except for some haloing, but IMO it´s not grave) and because I love the colors. But there is one thing: This time, you did not correct the perspective. It is only a small change, but in comparision, I think like the composition of the old version better ;) Nikopol (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Next try :-) Your point is valid from an aesthetic point of view, but when I look at the raw picture I'm afraid that the parts on the probably hand-build truck are far from being really vertical and/or parallel. I did my best to correct this in the image. --Pjt56 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I already imagined that the correction might maybe not be completely realistic (though pleasing in terms of composition), and I think you found a good compromise there. On this version, with the decrease of halos you again reduced overall sharpness (I would have recommended selectively taking out only the halos in a mask, since the rest of the image was desperately longing for sharpness). But as it seems, all your fine work will not convince the rest, so maybe you really should try reshooting if you want to return to the museum anyway. But thanks a lot for your work! Nikopol (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the arrangement of the two lights and unusual subject, but somehow, it just does not induce significant readings on my wow-o-meter. Overall quality is OK. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2010 at 16:41:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sellers translating along truss during EVA-3 on STS-121.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sellers translating along truss during EVA-3 on STS-121.jpg
I´ll also Support. It´s evoking awkward felings, seeing him hanging there above the earth, just as if he really might fall if he let go. And nice quality, BTW. Nikopol (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by unknown - uploaded by Labattblueboy - nominated by Labattblueboy -- Labattblueboy (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment A partially restored version is also available at Image:Battle of Mount Sorrel - Battle Map - June 6 (restored1).jpg.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Labattblueboy (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Question Don't we have FP like this already? —kallerna™ 17:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing special.--Garrondo (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Neutral a bit too tight - I'd like to see a wider perspective --Leafnode✉ 13:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
. BTW, if I may ask, what was wrong with that image File:Bluff erosion in Pacifica 2.jpg, on what side it was heavy :) --Mbz1 (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
.jpg)
Cropped directly from the 232MB TIFF scan from the Library of Congress (Converted from 16bit to 8bit by the GIMP)
Cropped from the nominated File:First flight3.jpg
.JPG)
_(by).jpg)
I withdraw my nomination--Per Kallerna.Patriot8790 (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
.jpg)
_204,_fly_in_a_column_formation_over_southern_Louisiana%27s_wetlands_during_a_photo_exercise.jpg)
_204_and_two_F-15_Strike_Eagles_assigned_to_the_Louisiana_Air_National_Guard_159th_Fighter_Wing_fly_in_an_echelon_formation.jpg)
Szajci reci 18:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
talkstreet 14:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
je t'écoute 13:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_edit.jpg)
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
anyway I've removed them. ■ MMXX talk 22:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
19:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
.jpg)
.JPG)
Smirk • Richard • [®] • 01:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Done. Now OK ? - Darius Baužys → talk 19:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Overprocessed. --Slaunger (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(by).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_204,_fly_in_formation_over_southern_Louisiana's_wetlands_during_a_photo_exercise.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_204,_fly_in_a_column_formation_over_southern_Louisiana's_wetlands_during_a_photo_exercise.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_204,_prepare_to_break_out_of_formation_over_southern_Louisiana's_wetlands_during_a_photo_exercise.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_204_and_two_F-15_Strike_Eagles_assigned_to_the_Louisiana_Air_National_Guard_159th_Fighter_Wing_fly_in_an_echelon_formation.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(by).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(by).jpg){kind=link}
_(by).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_(by).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_204,_fly_in_formation_over_southern_Louisiana%27s_wetlands_during_a_photo_exercise.jpg){kind=link}
_204,_fly_in_formation_over_southern_Louisiana%27s_wetlands_during_a_photo_exercise.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_204,_fly_in_formation_over_southern_Louisiana%27s_wetlands_during_a_photo_exercise.jpg){kind=link}
_204,_fly_in_a_column_formation_over_southern_Louisiana%27s_wetlands_during_a_photo_exercise.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_204,_fly_in_a_column_formation_over_southern_Louisiana%27s_wetlands_during_a_photo_exercise.jpg){kind=link}
_204,_prepare_to_break_out_of_formation_over_southern_Louisiana%27s_wetlands_during_a_photo_exercise.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_204,_prepare_to_break_out_of_formation_over_southern_Louisiana%27s_wetlands_during_a_photo_exercise.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_204,_prepare_to_break_out_of_formation_over_southern_Louisiana%27s_wetlands_during_a_photo_exercise.jpg){kind=link}
_204,_prepare_to_break_out_of_formation_over_southern_Louisiana%27s_wetlands_during_a_photo_exercise.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
_204_and_two_F-15_Strike_Eagles_assigned_to_the_Louisiana_Air_National_Guard_159th_Fighter_Wing_fly_in_an_echelon_formation.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_204_and_two_F-15_Strike_Eagles_assigned_to_the_Louisiana_Air_National_Guard_159th_Fighter_Wing_fly_in_an_echelon_formation.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
Strong support Noisy on dark areas and partly bit underexposed - but fantastic result! Love it! —kallerna™ 12:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
