Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2015

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2015 at 20:10:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The beach, Black Sea and Caucasus. Gagra, Gagra District, Abkhazia.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 03:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basel - Sonnenuntergang am Rheinufer.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2015 at 22:19:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Basel: rhine banks at red sunset
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2015 at 08:32:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Elephant Rock (I hope you recognize it) in the cliffs of the island Heimaey, Westman Islands, Suðurland, Iceland.
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2015 at 08:21:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A14 Rheintalautobahn
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2015 at 06:15:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The abbey (12th -18th centuries) of Bassac, Charente
Jacek Halicki, Halavar It seems that JLPC is not often at home right now and he don't have his computer to try to correct the photo. My fault, I had not asked him before nominating this photo, sorry. -- ChristianFerrer 10:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2015 at 05:35:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lake Ståvatn panorama
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2015 at 19:09:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) sitting on a rock in the cliffs of Bodega Head, Sonoma County, California.
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2015 at 15:59:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ponte Vittorio Emanuele II San Pietro, Rome, Italy
It might be best if you recluse from voting on a "rival" photo when you are clearly upset about your own failing nomination. -- Colin (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you write the rules Colin? This is just a bad your opinion, and then what do you know if a nomination is "failing"?--LivioAndronico talk 21:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Moreover you criticize my photos making it look this a picture of Leonardo and I can not say my? Be serious please. --LivioAndronico talk 21:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support for me an interesting composition, at the end of the blue hour when the nightclouds meets the end of the day. Its pretty sharp too! Therefore overall pro.--Hubertl (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thank you Colin for this unexpected Xmas nomination. Buon Natale a tutti ! (Did you notice the two anglers ? ;)--Jebulon (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Looks somewhat pale (if this is the right word for the German word "blass" in English). Perhaps a level adjustment ("Tonwertkorrektur") would help. But anyways the clouds on the top are irritating. All in all I think this picture would work better in black/white. However, buon natale a tutti. --Code (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I like composition, colours harmony and in fulview's details (fishermen...) are (for me) interesting --Bojars (talk) 16:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --P e z i (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Thank you very much, but voting period is over... Please keep this support for a following nomination ! --Jebulon (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2015 at 15:52:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ausweis
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abbotsbury, Dorset, UK - May 2012.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2015 at 15:26:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Abbotsbury, Dorset, UK
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Kreuzschnabel 16:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2015 at 19:54:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Guys (Kreuz, Arion,King of schnabel) for me this one have more realistic and less vanished colours, special in the green of the right fruit

Lauro Sirgado, Christian Ferrer you edited the previous version also, what do you think? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment It is you who have seen the fruit in reality, you are the best person to say which is the most realistic. -- ChristianFerrer 07:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodrigo.Argenton: Yes, more ralistic, but... It is a tiff file. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ArionEstar, and? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rodrigo.Argenton: Read TIFF and JPEG (aka JPG). 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rodrigo.Argenton sorry to use Portuguese, but I'm feeling lazy. As duas são bem realísticas lembre-se que um objeto apenas absorve e reflete a luz que recebe, tudo depende da iluminação. Neste caso a foto indicada está com luz direta forte e algumas áreas das duas goiabas estão claras, mas apesar disso a foto esta muito boa. A opção (a segunda) está escura demais apesar de ter maior equilíbrio nas áreas claras. Fico com a primeira: as cores me parecem melhores (O vermelho não estoura) e o domínio do motivo sobre a reflexão é maior. No geral a composição é muito boa a reflexão é atraente e equilibrada gostei muito do conjunto. A sim e atenção com o formato, apesar de png e tiff serem opção nos editores, pelo que percebi, aqui o uso do jpg é padrão para fotos. -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 14:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine for me either way. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lauro Sirgado, esse treco de ser tiff ou jpg é pura frescura... alias, tiff armazena mais info e pode armazenar camadas, o que seria melhor para editar fotografias...
Depois dessa votação vou ter que arrumar umas coisas na imagem em questão, pois, por algum motivo rolou uma perda de dados; vou deixar a versão tiff mais clara e menos vermelha, depois lhe procuro na página de usuário, só para eu ter uma segunda opinião. Abraços. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, tranquilo -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 23:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink#Food
The chosen alternative is: File:Goiaba vermelha.jpg
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2015 at 07:22:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rainbow over Gullfoss ("Golden Falls" in Icelandic), a waterfall located in the canyon of the Hvítá river and one of the main attractions of the Golden Circle in southwest of Iceland. The fall step on the left is 11 m high and the one on the right 20 m high. The amount of water flowing is in summer, when the picture was taken, 140 m3/s.
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Kreuzschnabel 15:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Selwyn College Old Court, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2015 at 15:32:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Selwyn College Old Court, Cambridge, UK
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Kreuzschnabel 15:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2015 at 11:03:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Inside an old Radar base (Belfort, France).
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2015 at 19:12:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of the Assumption in Tarnobrzeg
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2015 at 15:47:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

River Ljungan
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2015 at 03:41:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Papilio polytes
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 02:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2015 at 17:10:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Circus aeruginosus in Estonia
Bad background Merops (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2015 at 11:35:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Skopje by night
I prefer the crop too. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now is photo with crop --Pudelek (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Pudelek:  Strong support now. And Pudelek, more pictures from Macedonia. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2015 at 13:22:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of Macau
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2015 at 01:24:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vydubychi Monastery, Kiev
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2015 at 16:12:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alphonse Bertillon, fiche anthropométrique, 1912
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 16:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2015 at 20:14:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Water castle of the Peyrou, Montpellier
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 16:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Towers

File:Dactylorhiza incarnata - Kahkjaspunane sõrmkäpp Keila.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2015 at 13:34:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Early Marsh Orchid
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 16:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2015 at 00:40:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Young Bison bonasus bonasus
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 16:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2015 at 21:28:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Josefine Hökerberg, Swedish journalist
  •  Info created by Magnus Bergström, uploaded by Kaiketsu, nominated by -- Yann (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A professional portrait of a Swedish journalist. -- Yann (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose DOF is too small. Only the eyebrows and hairline are in focus. –Makele-90 (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose nice, but false focus point: it must be to the eyes not to the eyebrows. Very pity. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose as well. A very striking portrait, but Makele and Alchemist are right about the DoF issue. Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The DOF is short on purpose. This is from a professional photographer. You guys don't know what you are talking about. Sigh. Yann (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment When I see a portrait of someone I generally expect that it will show all the relevant parts of them in focus. So the photographer was a professional ... well, does that mean he or she doesn't have to meet our standards? It may be clever and artsy, but it isn't what we're looking for. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a poor understanding of photographic technic. Shorter DoF are used to emphasize a part of a picture, and it is done here with great mastery, as Colin explained below. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a poor excuse. The short DoF that f/1.8 gives you is great for a insect on a flower, which you would need for emphasis. But here there's no need to make us look at her face at the expense of her hair. A nice choice for a book cover perhaps, but not a portrait. Do any of our other featured portraits of people do this? Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Daniel Case: No. For macro photography, the exact opposite is usually done: closingg the aperture to maximize the DoF. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Yann: I seem to recall some of the macros approved here with a shallow DoF. But if we want to talk portraits there is no denying that f/1.8 is pretty shallow compared to the linked portraits above: According to their EXIF data, the Robert De Niro image is at f/3.5, Merkel at f/4 and Carla Bruni at f/5.6. So I don't think they support the argument that this is standard for great portraiture, no. Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know this kind of portraits and it looks just fine from a distance, but if most of the face are out of focus including important parts such as the lips and eyes then I can not support. –Makele-90 (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The focus "issue" is quite exaggerated. The eyes are "in focus", just not quite as sharp as the rest. Perhaps some comparison with other featured portraits is helpful.
            • Not sure who I'm addressing here as there was no signature to the comment, but I think the commonly understood definition of 'in focus' is (even if we don't understand the technicals behind it) the region in which the circle of confusion is the limiting factor. In other words, the area in which the ability to discern the any sharper focus is limited by either our eye's inability to discern more detail, or by the camera's lens and sensor's inability to capture more detail. Therefore, although there is in theory always a single point that is by definition the 'focal point', in practice there is a range that we consider in focus. This varies from person to person and from camera to camera, but when limited by the camera, it is calculable. By this definition, the eyes in this image are definitely not 'in focus' because we can discern that they are less sharp than the sharpest part of the image. Diliff (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • It was my comment, made at the same time as the bullets below. An interesting definition of "in focus" but another would be satisfactorily sharp, and I've given examples below where the subject's eyes were less sharp than this yet no complaint. I do actually wonder if the photographer could have applied some selective sharpening to the eyes, as is commonly done, and we might never have had this discussion. -- Colin (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of small focus issue happens all the time and is hardly the barrier to FP status some are making here. And Daniel, "there's no need to make us look at her face at the expense of her hair. A nice choice for a book cover perhaps, but not a portrait." is just fundamentally wrong. There's every reason, in portrait photography, to make us look at her face and very little reason for the hair to be in focus. And this isn't Wikipedia -- we are allowed more styles of image-making than technically excellent passport photographs. -- Colin (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: First, in all of those portraits you cited save the Brazilin girl, the focus issue is only apparent when you view the image at full size (and as for her, I would have opposed that one, too, had I voted). Second, disagree with me if you want, Lord knows it's happened before, but don't suggest my reasons for disagreement are "fundamentally wrong". Not while I'm not using your arguments to cast implicit aspersions on your sense of aesthetics. Third, yes, I'm aware the scope for Commons is wider than it is for Wikipedia ... but even so I still think this image is not within it enough to be featured. Fourth, "There's every reason, in portrait photography, to make us look at her face and very little reason for the hair to be in focus," ... I ask you if you'd be willing to say that to her face or her stylist's, for that matter. It looks like a fair amount of work went into that hair, and it wouldn't have been that hard for a picture to have been taken at a narrower aperture setting, even given the lighting or lack thereof, showing it in all its glory. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You say "there's no need to make us look at her face at the expense of her hair" as though that is some truism about portraiture. Sure, some portraits will show hair in detailed focus. Some might even crop out most of the hair. It's just a fundamentally wrong reason to oppose a portrait, and not supported by any serious study of portraiture. -- Colin (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It's just a fundamentally wrong reason to oppose a portrait, and not supported by any serious study of portraiture." Cite please? You might as well just admit it's a matter of taste, and leave it at that. In this case I don't think the hair blurred like it was some protected witness works. It's visible at thumbnail, unlike the other ones. I might not have minded if the hair was largely unlit and shadowed. But it isn't. If this were a general practice of effective portraiture, then a lot of our other featured portraits would look this way. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Daniel - it simply comes down to opinion and taste. Yes, shallow DOF photography is a legitimate type of portraiture, just like B&W is a legitimate type of photography, but it doesn't mean that everyone does and should appreciate it, nor does it make them ignorant for not appreciating it as an artistic choice. We don't have to be knowledgeable about art or photography to appreciate it. It might help to inform our critiques but it is by no means a requirement for appreciation. If we don't appreciate the way the shallow DOF was used here, no amount of argument is likely to change anyone's mind. Diliff (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not about opinion and taste but of expressing one's negative opinion in such a manner that it goes beyond "I don't like the use of shallow DoF here" or "I prefer it for flowers, not portraits". Instead Daniel and others have said the photographer has actually made some fundamental error of portraiture. I find this rude and disrespectful. I was asked to provide examples of other FP that has this narrow DoF, and even found one with the same front-focus issue. But really, our repository of FP portraiture is very small and random and not representative of the gamut of modern professional portraiture. Let's call it a day. -- Colin (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, and agreed. I think the debate was somewhat confused by two parallel arguments. One, that the focus was missed and should have been on the eyes, and two, that the DOF was too shallow. The arguments are related but not the same. For what it's worth, I definitely wouldn't go so far as to insist on the entire head being in focus. That is not always possible even with a studio set up and f/11 onwards, except with small focal lengths (which suffer from other issues). Diliff (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The DoF is indeed extremely narrow and if one pixel-peeps then one can see the sharpest focus is literally a couple of mm in front of the eyes. But the eyes remain sharp enough I can see she is wearing contacts, and the details in her iris and blood vessels. Viewed properly, as a whole image from a reasonable distance like one might a real person, it is a striking photo where her eyes absolutely grab you and there's no other distracting details. I join with Yann in despairing about the quality of our reviews sometimes. -- Colin (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment I nevertheless insist her hair is visually interesting enough, and inextricably linked with her face as part of her appearance, that leaving it out of focus is cheating the viewer. Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I am confused. I wanted to give minus, its looks like hair isnt part of her head, than i read its made by professional. After that i read DoF must be such. --Mile (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per others -- ChristianFerrer 15:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I see no problem with the dof --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Agree with Alchemist. It would be a great portrait (this DoF is perfect) but focus should be on the eyes. In this cases, reframing a bit after focusing can lead to this kind of problem. --Kadellar (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak  Support I agree with Alchemist, but IMO this is a good addition for our people category.  ■ MMXX talk 17:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support smile is beatiful, no problem with DoF. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Yann, Colin, you may add me in your collection of stupid reviewers. I agree with opposers, let me free of that.--Jebulon (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose While i certainly agree that the portrait does not need to be fully in focus in order to warrant FP status, this professional photographer has made the elemental error of portrait photography; they have not focused for the eyes, or as was mentioned above, have lost that focus while re-framing. Quite a shame.Fotoriety (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose difficult, but per Fotoriety --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. I have to agree, if you're going to use an extremely shallow DOF, you need to get the focus just right. The DOF was not an inherent limitation in this case, it was a choice. To me, it looks okay in thumbnail but unpleasant when viewed full screen as the only part of the image really in focus seems to be the bridge of her nose, which has no real detail and as a result, the entire image lacks sharpness. Diliff (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment OK, David is opposed. This carries, to me, more weight than "he's a professional! We peons cannot presume to understand his higher-level artistic ambitions, so we must mindlessly genuflect before his photo!" does going the other way. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I'll take that as a compliment, but I don't want anyone to vote a particular way just because I did. I have some experience with portrait photography but probably far less than the photographer who took this image. I agree (somewhat) with Colin that he likely knew what he was doing. I just personally don't like the result and think he could and should have nailed the focus. That's only an opinion though, no more valid than anyone else's. I admit that I'm kind of a perfectionist in my own photography and that probably informs how I judge other images. But as Colin points out, professionals often actually don't need a perfect photo. I have no idea if this was the photo that the author used professionally or if it was a reject from the shoot. I noticed that some pro photographers keep their best work and upload their flawed images to Commons - in some niches like portrait photography, a bad pro photo is still significantly better than what we already have. Whether this image is good enough for FP... I still believe no, but it's only a matter of opinion. Diliff (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Daniel, I don't know where this "pro == must be right" idea comes from, which you keep attacking. We are entitled to disagree with the end-result, but some humility is necessary when a bunch of amateur landscape/rock/building photographers tells a professional portrait photographer that he's made a beginner error. The argument is "pro == knew what he was doing and doesn't need our advice thank-you-very-much". -- Colin (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: Can you explain what the difference between "pro=must be right" and "pro=doesn't need our advice" is, beyond the wording? Or maybe not, because this discussion is not about giving Mr. Bergstrom advice; he's not participating, after all, and I wouldn't expect him to. This discussion is about whether we as Commons community members believe this picture meets our FP standards. And I would say it did, if the subject's entire head was in focus. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty people including you seem to think he made a poor choice in using narrow DoF for a portrait or had poor focussing technique but these are comments from people who frankly (and I include myself here) have zero experience photographing famous people in order to create a beauty portrait. Diliff has experience photographing Euro MPs as part of a Wiki Loves campaign, but the priority there was encyclopaedic portraits at f/11 and studio lighting and really no creative or artistic choices at all. That's fine for what it is, but doesn't in any way represent what Commons FP people-photographs are about and isn't really the kind of portraiture that most professionals do (which either seeks to make the subject beautiful or perhaps shoots an "environmental portrait" where the image is more than just a head). Daniel, do you think File:Young Ashaninka girl in an Apiwtxa village, Acre state, Brazil.jpg should be delisted? It was even more extreme at f/1.4 and is clearly focused on the nose. Me thinks the issues here are blown well out of proportion when you examine other FPs. -- Colin (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I implied above, yes, if it came to it I would support delisting that Brazilian girl's portrait, yes (although the light there was starker than the light here, which hides it just a little bit more). It's funny you should speak of proportion, because in this image the blurred area is, well, a much larger proportion of the image than it is in the other photos (besides the Brazilian girl) that you linked. You see this as merely different; I see it as distinctive. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This sort of FP candidate just highlights where FP judging fails. We can all agree it would be nice if the focus was just a few mm further back. Some suggest such a narrow DoF should not have been used or if used then this slight focus error should have resulted in a rejected image by the photographer. Some even give advice to the professional photographer that "focus - recompose" doesn't work at f/1.8 (I think he knows). Have any of us taken a beauty photograph of a journalist? One or two may have taken documentary photographs of some European politicians (at a nice safe f/11 with studio lighting). Do any of us take photographs in a professional capacity? We are mostly landscape or wildlife photographers. We nearly always use "found lighting" rather than control it with equipment. We take images for pleasure rather than in a contract. That photographer knew when his shot was good enough, and got paid for it. In judging, we can be predisposed to support a picture or to find fault in a picture. This is natural. I suggest that for portraits, for images taken professionally, for images taken with manipulated lighting or other technical choices we are unfamiliar, we are as a group predisposed to find fault and reject. But nominate a building, landscape or animal, and provided it is taken by one of us and is very conservatively composed, lit and exposed, we are predisposed to support. There really is nothing a Commons FP reviewer loves more than to pick fault in a professional portrait. -- Colin (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Colin: a professional portrait photo ≠ automatically FP for me. And a query: can "we opposes" have our own opinion? Please accept it simply! And a shoot with f/1.8 at 1/250s and ISO 200 is a big beginner mistake for me. Why not f/4 at 1/125s and ISO 400??? Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC) P.S: the DOF calculator tells me: focal length 85mm, f/1.8 and 1.3m (EXIF) distance: from 99 up to 1.01m. Result it is a fragile thing! The lens reviewer: f/4.[reply]
    • Assuming the photo was taken by this Magnus Bergström then mocking him for a "beginner mistake" looks foolish and rude. We love pointing out technical errors that are only visible full screen on a 27" monitor viewed from 30cm. And we love mocking photographers who are not one of us: no revenge voting or harsh response from them! This photographer is no beginner and he has not made a elemental error. He is however human. A professional knows when his photo is good enough, and there are more aspects to this photo than determining the point of focus. This is a living, breathing subject who is not a model paid to spend all day in a studio. And Alchemist-hp, freedom includes disagreeing with each other and making and receiving criticism not just of the image but also of our opinions. If you don't want to read any criticism of your voting, you know where the unwatch button is. -- Colin (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  weak oppose Smile, expression and lighting are excellent, as one would expect from a pro. Colin – certainly this photo was good enough for the purpose it has been taken for. The look on her face is striking. Still, at full view (24" monitor from about 60 cm) I find it really distracting to see her eyebrows and nostrils distinctly sharper than her eyes. Please keep in mind that media on Commons does not only serve one purpose (as might be the case with the original work) but should allow cropping, large printing or hi-res large screen projection. Taking this into account, I find the false focus – even if it’s just a few millimetres – bewildering. My eyes are dragged off hers towards the sharp parts any time I look at them. It is certainly a very good portrait of her but it has this one drawback which keeps it from being multi-purpose IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 16:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kreuzschnabel wrt to your "media on Commons" comment. I agree in essence with that point, otherwise we might as well review "featured thumbnail" for use on Wikipedia, but very few of our FP portrait photos could be used for the varied purposes you suggest. Poster printing (or projection!) of a head-and-shoulders portrait typically requires medium format cameras and studio conditions. The problem here is rather the other way round -- we see so few high-resolution portraits (other than of models) that we don't appreciate that most of them will have "flaws". Even printed A4 in a magazine, one could not detect the issues raised above [Anyone here read a photo book where the author displays two photos with different sharpness or noise and been unable to tell the difference?]. After reading the above comments, I think most people would now struggle to view this photo neutrally and really know if their eyes were being drawn to the wrong part of the portrait, or their brain is taking them there. -- Colin (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak Support per Colin et al. I disagree with saying "A pro does it like that, so it must be right", but I still think that the result is impressive and captivating at reasonable viewing distances. It is clear to me why they wanted a short DOF and missing the target by a mm or two is not ideal, but does little detriment to the effect of the image. Nobody will print this as an A3 or larger and it is much better (imo) than what we often have to work with when considering portraits overall. --DXR (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Colin and DXR. The result is impressive despite the focus issue. · Favalli ⟡ 00:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Its absolutely featureable for me. --Hubertl (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support as the other supporters. --Code (talk) 08:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This thread is the perfect embodiment of why I haven't showed up over here recently—to remain polite, some really have some dust in the eyes. I still struggle at understanding why supporting the rare photos that bring a bit of life and emotions is so difficult in comparison to supporting photos showing a bunch of bricks or a painting. I feel like most of the promoted photos here are the ones showcasing some art made by others and where no artistic input or whatsoever has been introduced by the photographer itself—it's as if only the technical skills were praised, rather than the emotional value of the photo. Is it a consequence of what digital photography and its race to who have the biggest pixel count brought? In any case, I believe that this photo is much better, interesting, and wowable, than many photos being featured here -> heavy support. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that there is more of a technical emphasis here, and perhaps at times it is at the expense of technically flawed but genuinely interesting and artistic photography. But art is inherently subjective, and what works for one person doesn't work for another. I think part of the issue is that people are opposing because the photo doesn't work for them because of the shallow DOF, which is a technical reason, but it doesn't mean the basis for the opposition is 100% technical. A number of people have, when challenged, explained that the limited DOF affects their ability to appreciate the details of the face and hair because they are out of focus - this is an artistic reason. A non-technical person could have the same negative reaction and feeling about the photo but explain their dislike for it in more emotional terms but the fundamental basis for the opposition would be the same - the limited DOF. In any case, I think we have to remember that this isn't a Flickr/500px photo competition and we have different goals and evaluators. It is Commons, and I see its role as more technical/archival than many art-oriented photographers are comfortable with, but rightly or wrongly, that seems to be its niche. Just my thoughts anyway. Diliff (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Diliff, see Choice-supportive bias among the many Cognitive bias. One can tell absolutely nothing from the response someone gives when challenged about their opinion. Indeed, as we see above, one's defence becomes even hardline when challenged. It is clear, from the Young Ashaninka girl photo that if such minor errors go unnoticed early on then the voters will continue to not notice. All we can tell from this vote is that when flaws are pointed out early (even minor ones) it becomes very difficult for subsequent voters to ignore them or to persuade themselves they are not important. Even when evidence is presented that such issues have in the past been overlooked, it is extremely hard for any individual to change their position, especially after a bout of rationalization. My point is that it is now impossible for any of us to look at this photo impartially or to tell whether one's reaction is a neutral response to the image, or a reaction to previous comments. For what it is worth, I don't believe the DoF/front-focus reaction would appear on any forum other than Commons/WP FP, and elsewhere this would simply be regarded as a striking portrait -- I believe the phrase Saffron Blaze uses is that we "chicken shit it to death". -- Colin (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That depends on one’s individual habits of reviewing. As for me, I prefer to first have a look at the picture in question, make up my own mind, then have a glance on what other voters say (sometimes quite contrary to my own opinion, but I have learnt no longer to apologize for being the only opposer among 20+ supporting votes). Thank you Diliff for pointing out that "we opposers" still do have an eye for the beauty of this image (as I wrote explicitly in my vote) but just cannot get over the fact that the focal flaw is distracting in a way exceeding our tolerance threshold. First time I had a glance on this image (before reading others' votes), my eyes were constantly drawn off her eyes towards the sharply focused parts. Took me some seconds to figure out why. Thats an effect hard to excuse for me – all the more on a professional's work. --Kreuzschnabel 11:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • But choice-supportive bias and cognitive bias is just as likely to apply to support votes as well as opposes, so it isn't indicative of anything other than human irrationality. Of course other opinions can influence our own and of course we feel the need to defend our point of view when challenged, but that doesn't make the opinions less valid. As you say, it's impossible to determine whether and to what extent any individual opinions on this photo are influenced by others anyway. We know it can happen because it's been demonstrated experimentally by sociologists but we can't prove any single voter would have voted differently here. The only way to fix this is to implement a system where votes are hidden until the nomination expires, but that would have a big impact on the social aspect of the project. Diliff (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The “genuinely interesting artistic photography” is what you guys openly reject even though such photos should be welcomed as per what I thought were the guidelines of this community. Because yes, at the end of the day, the community decides, and what works for one person doesn't work for another... but if, like me, photographers who have more fundamental interests end up being disgusted by this obvious technical prevalence and vanishes from here, then you've got it your niche—you guys have found a perfect way to perpetuate this culture of “tehcnical first” to keep self-promoting your own photo genre—where it probably wouldn't have been accepted as widely anywhere else on the web—while keeping away the other genres. That's fine with me to have such places, I just wished that it wasn't on a website such as Wiki where I believe neutrality and diversity are supposed to be promoted. Funnily, I initially came here believing that Common would carry such values, hence my immense disappointment.
Now, it's not even a matter of supporting “artistic” photography. Aren't we supposed to celebrate a “wow” here? Do people really need to be able to masturbate on every detail at zoom x10000 to be wowed? Seriously, what's wrong with you people? I wished we were still in the ages of film where we would have a higher respect for the moment captured rather than the freakin' ISO or aperture used.
As an illustration of both my points and frustration, and I'm sorry if this is seen as being offensive, but can anyone please tell me what is being wowed here? I respect the hard work and technical knowledge to get such a photo, but is a fruit really being unanimously wowed? Am I missing something? I wished fruits were that much wowed in real life insted of junk food, it would save many lives. In any cases, how can this be preferred over a beautiful portrait that tells an actual story?
Christopher Crouzet (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christopher we need you and others with differing views to stay and keep questioning our practices and the patterns we fall into. I think one of the problems with this photo and with previous discussion of b&w and low-key photography is when voters step beyond expressing mere opinion as mere opinion, and instead go on to state that an image which exceeds their typically conservative taste is actually flawed and a mistake. The distinction is perhaps subtle but when we fall into that trap we are declaring and teaching that Commons FP has no place for artistic photography where creative choices are made. That is quite different from if a voter had clearly expressed that that the creative choice made was simply "not for them". Let me cite professional portrait photographer Suki Dhanda in her advice for amateur photographers taking portraits: "the subject looking straight at the camera with the focus on the eyes can produce powerful results, especially with a shallow depth of field.". When we declare the opposite, we look foolish. We're all so hung-up on a minor front-focusing issue that the artistic talent (not to mention attractive subject) on display is overlooked. In their review of the best portraits of 2014 in The Guardian newspaper, they choose this photo of actor and writer Mackenzie Crook by Murdo Macleod. Now that's far from being a beauty photo, and certainly not to everyone's taste, but we have there an image by one of the UK's foremost professional photographers, working for an educational medium (broadsheet newspaper), and chosen as among the best from among hundreds of portraits taken that year (so not a "flawed image" "uploaded to Commons"). And, em, the camera has slightly front-focused. I guess it must be shite then :-) -- Colin (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going against the flow is exhausting and that's something that I've learned by experience. I don't want to wear this hat anymore and now prefer to stay aside. I'll probably keep sending some photos from times to times to the FP though, just to see how it goes, with a bucket of popcorn nearby. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christopher, it really seems like you're guilty of exactly what you're accusing us of though. That is, intolerance of people's idea of what makes a good photo. Don't forget that Commons exists to be an educational source of images. We seem to disagree (as per the discussion above on B&W photography) about what importance to place on the educational value in evaluating FP candidates, but it is undeniable that educational value is a pre-requisite for any image on Commons. I think the ideal photo for Commons can combine educational value with wow, but sometimes the wow is in the educational value, rather than in the artistic expression. I think that it is actually your thinking that is limited if you cannot see that there is at least some wow in a well composed and artistically lit photo of a fruit. Why does a photo have to tell a story to be considered great? I would argue that the portrait doesn't actually tell much of a story, and certainly not more of a story than if the depth of field were deeper. Diliff (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you've probably already well undetstood, I'm not the philosophical kind of guy as you seem to be, which leads to make it inherently hard to conciliate how we perceive a same thing. That being said, I'm happy to go deeper on the path of my intolerance, and why not with an extra touch of stupidity/provocation for not trying to conciliate our differences.
I've tried to read some of your points but I still can't get my head around how this DOF, which I find to be a really minor defect here, can affect you guys so much. Not considering an image as educational because of a small DOF shift sounds like a real joke dign of The Princess and the Pea.
  • Do you really have to be a philosopher to appreciate that others have a different opinion and point of view than you do? :-) The simple matter is that some people consider the shallow DOF/focus issue a big issue whereas you don't. If you're happy to remain intolerant, go ahead, but don't expect others to be tolerant of intolerance. The world is full of different opinions, sometimes we just have to agree to disagree. Diliff (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher Crouzet (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Diliff, I think that Christopher was being provocative rather than intolerant. It is a genuine question to query the wow of photographing the mundane in a relatively straightforward manner. (reminds me of my File:Mixed onions.jpg). Saffron is another here who has little patience for that. And it is apparent from that nomination that the support did not flood in but dribbled over days. So the community isn't exactly over-wowed either. That image can only muster "wow" from technical competence, which it isn't guaranteed to achieve (I bet if a "no wow" vote appeared from a regular here early on in that nomination, it would have died). There is a balance, but I think our balance is very much skewed against creative photography and wrongly so. Educational medium is far far wider than "Fully detailed, clearly lit, straightforward view of subject suitable for lead image on Wikipedia". The Guardian is an educational publication (whether one agrees with their politics or not, they present the news) yet its staff photographers are not paid to take technically excellent passport photographs of their interviewees. We really need to stop with this "f/1.8 is less educational than f/11" nonsense. -- Colin (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the Guardian is a good comparison though. They might be a source of news but they extend far beyond that into entertainment. I don't think any of the portraits really relate directly to the news. Most of the time their staff photographers take a nice staged portrait of someone, it's not strictly a news piece or educational. It's more likely to be related to a celebrity, bordering on tabloid. I'm not saying they can't be educational, but the intention is not to be educational but to make them attractive and interesting to sell advertising space. As for the mixed onions image, I probably would oppose it if nominated here, for aesthetic reasons, as the lighting is a bit cool and sickly to me. I don't think many people would support it just for its technicals (sharpness, concise depiction, etc) - I think they would recognise it as a bit weak aesthetically, if not artistically. Diliff (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The portraits generally are taken to accompany interviews which, although not news, serve an educational purpose. Those portraits will be re-used to accompany news if no current image is available. They serve an educational purpose. For all it's faults the Guardian's Scott trust's values are not dissimilar to our own. The "tabloid"/"sell advertising space" is just so much rhetoric and unhelpful. Have you never looked at a fantastic portrait in a newspaper/magazine and just enjoyed it? I hardly think the source of funding has an influence on the type of portrait photography, but perhaps on the budget and quality of photographer. On Wikipedia, the FP standard is that the image should make a viewer "want to read its accompanying article" -- it doesn't require the image's appearance on the Main Page is completely educational in and of itself. That requirement is probably not that different to the brief given to a photographer taking images for an interview. Grab the reader's attention. Make them want to learn more about the subject. The "be educational" is the aspect I think you are getting wrong. It is not our mission to take/collect only educational photographs, though if that is your purpose and intent here than I'm fine with that. It is our mission to take/collect/celebrate photographs that have an educational value. In other words, educational value is a necessary attribute but not our priority. If it were, a police mugshot style image would be a priority. A crop to head-and-shoulders would be a reason to strong oppose for it has less "educational value" than a full-length portrait with height measured on the wall behind. We can celebrate a highly educational image for sure, but provided a photograph of a notable person is recognisable, it ticks the "educational" box and it is time to judge other aspects. -- Colin (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You keep repeating the argument (in various forms in various discussions) that because I'm arguing in favour of educational value then it follows that we should take it to the nth degree and feature only bog-standard 'mugshot' style photography (in the case of potraiture). I've never argued that educational value should be absolute and exclusive, I've only argued that it should be the main goal, and a greater priority than artistic expression. That does not mean artistic expression can't be part of a great photo. It's not a zero sum game, and I believe we can prioritise the educational value without removing all artistic expression from the image. It requires a balance and of course I can't prescribe exactly how we would do so in every situation, but I do feel I'm within my rights to oppose if I feel that the balance is not right for me. I think that's what other opposers are doing here also but I can't speak for them - it's just how I understand it. Anyway, I don't mind this discussion as I do feel we're getting to the bottom of our differences of opinion, but you did mention that you were happy to agree to disagree, so perhaps we should leave it at that for now. :-) This discussion has completely taken over the nomination. Diliff (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it isn't as exclusive as you make out. One doesn't have to consider educational value solely, merely to make it "the main goal", to make this mistake. Cropping is the example that completely blows that argument, for that is always a case where aesthetics wins over direct educational value. Sometimes one can improve both educational and other aspects by our photographic choices, but sometimes one must come at the expense of another. Once you free yourself from thinking educational is the main goal, you can accept that a low-key photograph of a camera and a standard-lit photograph of a camera can both be great photos, can both be educational, and are just "different". Or a narrow DoF and a deep DoF portrait are just "different" and both may be beautiful in their own ways. Or a wide projection of the maximum space in a well lit church interior and a close-up of the stained-glass light falling on some pews can both fantastic photos, have educational uses, but just be different. Honestly, Diliff, if you spend 2015 de-prioritising educational value in your photographs you will imo be a better and more interesting photographer by the end of the year. You certainly have the talent. -- Colin (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diliff, you seems to contradict yourself here. This portrait is certainly not the best possible artistic portrait of this journalist. However, it has certainly a high value to depict her. So your opposition while prioritize value over artistic content seems a contradiction. BTW I am fine that this nomination got into a philosophical discussion over value and educational content. That is in itself an achievement. ;oD Regards, Yann (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I've contradicted myself... I just felt that the missed focus and very shallow depth of field contributed to the image not being among our best images. The flaw in your argument here seems to be that you're using my logical argument about how I value images but inserting your judgement of the value of the image into it. There's no contradiction there, just contorted logic on your part IMO. I would argue that actually this image doesn't have a high enough value in depicting her because of the faults I mentioned already. Instead of trying to find holes in my arguments, why not just accept that we have a difference of opinion about its value? I agree though, I'm happy that we're debating what value is, and how it relates to our voting here, as I said to Colin. Diliff (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the flaw in the picture is complicating a discussion of educational value priority. Clearly nobody would deliberately front-focus a shot. I suspect Diliff would support this if the focus was perfectly on the eyes, even though Daniel seems to think that shallow-depth-of field is in itself a flaw, and Diliff suggests this lowers the EV. But overall, it is about balance and I agree with Christopher about his Princess and the Pea analogy. Clearly we have not noticed this pea before because we have several FPs with poorer sharpness or missed focus on the eyes, and one FP with even shallower DoF and missed focus. And it is also something that professional picture editors don't consider that important as they still choose as "best of 2014" an image with this "flaw". And it isn't bad enough to be a "reject shot" as demonstrated by the Guardian image being used, as well as this photo being used (it wasn't donated to Commons, just had a free licence). So I think there is plenty evidence that our reaction to this photo is out of step with professional and expert judgement on how important a tiny bit of front-focus really is. -- Colin (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The missed focus is, along with shallow DOF, part of why the discussion of educational value priority exists at all in this nomination though, so I don't think the flaw is really complicating the discussion. And I'm not sure if I would have supported it or not. Obviously I saw the previous oppose votes before casting my own and you could legitimately argue that they may have clouded my judgement (as could I claim that you're digging your heels on this because of the previous oppose votes), but I do find the shallow DOF to be limiting in this case. I just don't find it as aesthetic or artistic in this instance as you keep insisting it is. This is not me disagreeing fundamentally with the use of shallow DOF in any instance. I think there are many instances where it's great for removing distractions and really isolating one part of the image in focus. But I just don't think this image does that successfully. The shallow DOF makes her face look quite strange to me, an disorienting effect a bit similar to the shifted focal plane of a tilt-shift lens. Again, just my opinion. Diliff (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 16:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2015 at 12:16:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Horsehair parachutes in Lehtmetsa village, Albu Parish, Estonia
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 16:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2015 at 17:02:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kiernan Shipka at PaleyFest 2014
 Comment This is a higher quality version of the Kiernan Shipka at PaleyFest. Tabercil (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it is a nice picture but not featurable for me --LivioAndronico talk 20:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • How does this compare to other FPC photos of portraits? I could be convinced to change my vote if my impression of other recent portraits was proven false. -- Ram-Man 20:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose We've had some pretty decent portraits in FPC recently and while this is a nice portrait, it's not of high enough quality or as good as some others. -- Ram-Man 19:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Thanks for making the effort to get hold of a higher resolution portrait. Not surprising it is this noisy at ISO 3200. It would have been better to go for a larger aperture to bring down the ISO (and noise). Still a good portrait though with very nice light. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A larger aperture isn't an option on that lens at 250mm. And considering this is equivalent to 400mm on a full-frame camera, the 1/200s exposure is about as slow as one could risk. So I think this is about as good as one could achieve in the circumstances. It is a lovely photo and at "for web use" resolutions the noise is absolutely not a problem. But not enough to achieve FP. -- Colin (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - that was taken at max distance and fastest aperture (f/5.6) possible using that lens. About the only thing I think could've been done using the equipment he had was to maybe drop the ISO down to 1600 (which is as high I'll go with my Rebels in terms of ISO) and drop the shutter speed a bit to maybe 1/125 or 1/160 in order to let more light in to compensate. You're starting to run the risk of getting shots that aren't pin sharp though, and it'll probably be dark enough that you'll need to do some Photoshop work to brighten it up with the risk of introducing artifacts that way. Tabercil (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should maybe have clarified that it would have been better to use a lens, which allowed a larger aperture. Anyway, I feel a bit sorry for having to oppose as I feel the best possible outcome has been produced with the gear at hand. I have nominated it at COM:VIC as the best image within the scope of Kiernan Shipka. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 16:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rügen, Beach at Sellin -- 2009 -- 1.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2015 at 06:33:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Beack at Selling, Rügen, Germany
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 16:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2015 at 22:41:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Palace in Sharivka, Ukraine
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 16:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2015 at 10:55:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Drone fly (Eristalis tenax) on a Meadow Salsify (Tragopogon pratensis) flower
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Diptera
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2015 at 07:17:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Neue Wache (New Guardhouse) in Berlin-Mitte at early morning. It was built from 1816 and 1818 according to plans of Karl Friedrich Schinkel.
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2015 at 14:17:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The beach and the view of Caucasus Mountains. Pitsunda, Gagra District, Abkhazia.
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2015 at 21:20:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Headquarters of E.ON Ruhrgas in Essen photographed at Blue hour
  •  Info all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --XRay talk 06:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose No wow to me, especially not much of "Blue Hour" effect, I think the sky is still too bright. Sorry. Slightly tilted CW. --Kreuzschnabel 08:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thanks for the review, Kreuzschnabel. I made moderate vertical corrections should be OK now. The case with the brightness of the sky is more difficult than it seems to be at the first glance. The building is situated near the town center of Essen - a very densely built area. Thus every blue hour photo massively suffers from light pollution. The time of the photo is already at the end of the blue hour. The building itself is not directly illuminated as it is the case with typical blue hour photos of e.g. important historical buildings - thus I used only the available light. Additionaly I tried to photograph the surrounding trees and the small pond with the winterscape in a way that there are still details visible although only less light reached those deeper parts of the photo - I did that by HDRI technique (forgot to add this info to this photo). I do not expect from you to flip the vote, but probably you do better understand my considerations during taking and editing this photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose the foreground is too dark (maybe too much of black) also the WB is far too blue IMO -- ChristianFerrer 21:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • ✓ Done, Christian, I made some local WB adjustments. A global WB on white snow in shadow areas would lead to a red/orange sky. Shadow parts have always a tendency to look a bit blueish - you can only compensate it by doing a local white balance. I also further brightened the foreground. Please take another look --Tuxyso (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it's an improvment but not enough for my tastes. I've tried on my PC, and you've got very good details in the shadows with a general brightening (shadows, black, dark levels..). And for the sky you have IMO a large margin before it become red/orange, and in more a sky a bit red/orange will be not unatural here IMO. And... best wishes Tuxyso :) -- ChristianFerrer 13:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2015 at 10:57:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An RAF Typhoon taken from the back of a transport aircraft.
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2015 at 10:31:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fresco with CoA of Pope Pius VII
✓ Done Jebulon,thanks for review --LivioAndronico talk 20:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Ora è chiaro Code,grazie e saluti. --LivioAndronico talk 21:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2015 at 21:08:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Original nomination with little chance of success
Pano of Taipei
I will ask Chensiyuan for a new version. I do however also think that the opposes above are pretty harsh for a 48-Mpix image and somewhat reflective of our pixel-peeping disease here. If the image were downsized to 20 Mpix, which is a perfectly acceptable resolution for a landscape, it would be just a bit noisy, probably not enough for anybody to seriously care, so basically high-res-curse strikes again. In addition, I think that those of us who have previously done high hfov rectilinear panoramas know that the quality decreases at the borders due to the projection, which is why patterns like noise become more apparent in those regions, but downsizing etc would remove detail in the center.--DXR (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
+1. It's completely normal for such a wide photo to lose detail and resolution in the corners due to the distortion. And looking at the photo at a slightly reduced resolution makes the issue go away. The quality in the centre is amazing, the quality in the corners is only good. Compare this with any featured non-panorama landscape and it's still far better, so I don't understand an oppose based on this problem. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 10:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that even you, Julian do not see these obvious technical issues as a problem. In the past you looked (at least at my noms) very thoroughly, which is good, and critized the tiniest amount of channel overexposure :) For an FP, DXR and Julian one can expect technical perfect processing - this is not the case here. My point is not border unsharpness but very unfortunate (over)sharpening of noisy areas - keep the noise as it is, sharpening does not help to make the noise looking better! BTW: It is not impossible to make high res panos with sharp and noise free borders. I agree that the quality might be OK downscaled to 20 Mpx - but that does not change my point that there should not be obvious processing mistakes for an FP and the image is not nominated as a downscaled version. -Tuxyso (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this approach will mean that we will keep on featuring our own stuff that checks all the formal boxes, but not other images even though nobody seriously denies their wow. I think that this is unfortunate and not in the best interest of "our customers", that is the passive visitors who want to see impressive, wow images in our galleries. I have contacted the author and I hope that we might get a reworked version of the image, but even if that is not the case I think that this panorama is among the best we have. I myself do what I can to upload very high resolution files in good quality and I am fully aware that you and many others do, but there is only so far we can travel and I fear that FPC was, is and will be eurocentric and a pretty closed circle of guys who rate each others' images and - like Colin said in the portrait review below - the best chance to get FPs is doing conservative and technically correct work that doesn't require much wow as long as the technical boxes are ticked.
BTW: your Yosemite image, which is very impressive indeed, is equirectangular (according to the EXIF), which like cylindric projection does NOT distort the borders. Rectillinear projection, which has been used here, does, so your argument not is not quite valid. Of course you can make multi-row panos etc., but for most panoramas rectillinear projection cannot give equal sharpness everywhere. That is why most church interiors are downsized, even though their center sharpness would be great even at 100 Mpix+ --DXR (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll explain my thoughts in slightly more detail: You might notice that I have hardly ever opposed an image because of noise, because I don't think it's a big problem. Our brains are quite good at looking through noise and seeing the the reality behind it. This is not true for clipping and banding, which look very strange and artificial in my opinion. Especially if clipping exists but isn't at least fully white. But that's all that is, an opinion. It's true though that I'm often concerned about oversharpening, especially if it produces white lines around features with good contrast. Admittedly, that's the case in the corners here, but it's not extreme in my opinion, and most notably, it's not the case in the centre of the frame (at least not to a degree that I find distracting). Most people will view this photo either scaled down to see the whole image or zoomed in to the centre, and in those scenarios, the image isn't flawed. Even at the very bottom, it's still pretty much perfect. Add to that the amazing light, good composition and good resolution and I'm very much willing to accept the flawed quality at the left and right edges of the frame. Sure, I'd like the sharpening to be less there, but this is what we have. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 13:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tuxyso, your comment "image is not nominated as a downscaled version" is a viewpoint for judging I'm opposed to. We don't create versions of files on Commons that are downscaled simply to pass FP. In what way would that serve our mission? I wish there was an easy way to offer a link to a downscaled version of a file by making using of MediaWiki's thumbnail reduction API, but it appears to be crippled for large images where it would be most useful, and there also seems to be issues with sharpening artefacts in the current software. -- Colin (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I agree that there are processing issues that are very apparent at 100%. But with high-megapixel images, we have the choice to review at more modest dimensions. Reduced 60% as noted above and the noise disappears leaving a remarkably sharp picture that is well exposed, very detailed and full of interesting features. The processing issues are frequent with this photographer and I wish we had better communication so he can improve. But sometimes we just have to judge what we have, rather than what we wish or what we would have done differently ourselves. -- Colin (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Fortunately, Chensiyuan has given me access to the raw files. I will try to do an edit myself adressing the comments above. --DXR (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1: Reworked in rectillinear projection

[edit]

Edit Pano

  •  Comment Happy new year to all of you! I have reworked the image based on the raw files, tried to keep the look similar but address the noise/sharpening issue. I think that the issues pointed out above are now solved adequately. Julian, Tuxyso, Daniel Case, Kreuzschnabel and Colin, please have another look. Of course any further comments are welcome. Keep in mind that this is a 100° view, something one gets from a 15mm lens, so it is very wide and the view is a bit extraordinary.
  •  Support --DXR (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Can I suggest you try another projection than rectilinear (e.g. General Panini in Hugin) to see if this minimises distortion at the lower corners. You could use the sliders Hugin has for that projection to keep the top half closer to rectilinear while the bottom remains closer to cylindrical. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, Diliff, here is the Panini general projection version. I am not a big fan of using Pan-gen or any other cylindrical projections in scenes that can be realistically captured with existing wide angle lenses. In addition, the bent street in the foreground that does not exist like this in reality is a EV problem for me. --DXR (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I've changed my support to oppose now as it is no longer the finest: the panini is much better. I agree the street curves but the rectilinear is not without its gross distortions: those buildings at the bottom are not really trapezium shaped -- the width/height proportions are all wrong as well as wonky angles. So at an individual-building-level, the panini projection is greatly superior and closer to reality for EV. One of the glorious features of a high-resolution panorama like this is being able to study it in detail, and that cannot be done as realistically with the rectilinear: if I fill my screen with any portion of the panini projection, it is more or less accurate with no curve visible but if I do the same with the rectilinear, then much of it is very unpleasant and not at all realistic. -- Colin (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DXR, would you consider offering the Panini projection as an alt (and perhaps collapsing the original nomination image, which won't go anywhere now). I think that is the fairest approach (if everyone who voted is pinged) rather than having to go through a possible delist/replace afterwards. Alternatively, if this is too complicated now, just reboot the whole nom with the two projections. -- Colin (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, while I disagree with your assessment concerning the superiority of the panini projection in this case, I'm not too fussed about which version is promoted (as long as one of them is), so I have followed your advice. -- DXR 19:38, 2 January 2015‎
I understand your point of view. I have tried to match the look, which really is not that easy if you are starting from the raw files, but I don't rule out that somebody else could do a better job at this. One observation I have made, also based on the Toledo images I processed this summer (Original, Edit), is that Hugin imo is better at balancing exposure differences between frames. This does however also mean that nice, but somewhat coincidential, gradients in the sky disappear. --DXR (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2: Reworked in panini general projection

[edit]

Edit Pano*

  •  Comment As suggested by Colin. I have expressed above why I prefer rectillinear projection, but of course the reviewers should be free to choose from both options. I'm sorry for the constant pinging, but just for fairness' sake everybody who voted above should be aware of the alt. Tuxyso, LivioAndronico, Diliff, Nikhil, Kreuzschnabel, Julian, Yann --DXR (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Sure! --LivioAndronico talk 19:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Better. Yann (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak  Oppose. I don't really like the way it's curved the horizontal lines in the foreground. For this image, I think Panini is unnecessary. If the horizontal field of view was larger, it would be more useful. Diliff (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The comparison of different projections has imho a high educational value. The answer to the question which one of these is better is imho not trivial and a matter of personal taste. Our "naturalists" will argue that those curved lines are not "real" and are bad per se. For me some curvature in those wide panoramic views has an aesthetic merit. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I would agree with you if it were only a matter of taste, but we still have a responsibility to represent the subject accurately. I'm not saying rectilinear is more 'correct', but it is the projection that we usually expect to see and I think it is therefore the preferred projection except when excessive distortion makes it unpractical. I don't think the rectilinear distortion is enough that Panini projection is warranted, but that's just my opinion. Diliff (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rectilinear is not the projection we see since our retina is not a plane, and it is only a classical choice for 2D works for small angle-of-view (Diliff you will remember from our discussions last year that the great renaissance artists discussed this and thought something round 45-degrees (if memory serves me) was reasonable -- hardly 100-degrees). Our eyes in fact only see accurately in a tiny centre area (as I know you know) and outside this area is very blurred and much constructed by the mind. Therefore I'd claim that the Panini in getting the accuracy right in small areas is far more representative of what we see than the Rectilinear which completely fails to get the accuracy right at the building-level. Neither projections are 100% accurate but the gross building-distortion in the rectilinear is far more dishonest imo. Looking again at the rectilinear, the road may be straight in one axis but the buildings actually look like they are tilting to fall off the bottom of the screen like some disaster movie. -- Colin (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it was far greater than 45 degrees, probably closer to 60 or 70. 45 degrees is quite conservative. I know rectilinear isn't the projection we see with our own eyes but it is the projection that we usually expect to see in a photograph - that's what I meant. I agree with you that the rectilinear projection has its share of problems relating to the distortion, but I generally prefer it as a projection because it preserves the relationship between objects slightly better and objects retain their true shape, albeit stretched along the plane. With the panini projection, objects become bent, and it gives the illusion that the angle of view is much narrower than it really is. This helps with distortion but comes with its own dishonesty. I accept that no projection is free of limitations though, and clearly I'm in the minority this time. Diliff (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • See this reference. "90° is the visual angle accepted since the Renaissance as the outer limit of images projected onto a plane... The practical limit for an acceptable visual cone has historically been a 60° circle of view — a suggestion first made by Piero della Francesca in c.1470 and repeated often since then. In fact, depending on the geometry of the principal form and the location of the vanishing points, a 40° circle of view or less is much more typical. Leonardo da Vinci devoted many pages in his notebooks (c.1490) to the analysis of perspective distortions, and he especially disliked the exaggerated apparent size of the perspective grid as it reached the ground line of the image plane. He recommended painting an object as it appears from a distance of 3 to 10 times its actual dimensions. This is equivalent to placing the figure within a 19° to 6° circle of view. In fact, modern vision research has found that most people say an object "fills their field of view" once it occupies approximately a 20° circle of view; the classical French rule has been to contain the image within a 30° circle of view." I'm not sure about your "true shape" claim -- the individual buildings at the lower corner are surely much closer to their "true shape" in the panini than the rectilinear. Only a mathematician could love the "relationship" those buildings have with reality. -- Colin (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • The difference is that painters like Leonardo had the ability to suspend reality and imagine the view through walls to create the perspective of their choosing. Photographers have to work with physical limitations. I particularly enjoyed reading "Only a mathematician could love the "relationship" those buildings have with reality" though. :-) I suppose you're right. The panini view looks better when viewing at 100%, because you just don't see the bending of straight lines at that magnification. It's more of an issue when viewing the image as a whole, whereas the rectilinear view becomes less distasteful, the greater the viewing distance. Diliff (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support see above. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 22:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Much better. -- Colin (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Colin. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Preferred. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--ArildV (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 17:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2015 at 14:07:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ahja river (Estonia)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2015 at 10:55:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Weihnachtlich geschmücktes Sony Center
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2015 at 14:39:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Oktoberfest girl delivering beer.
  •  Comment I did check with some -EV. Not much to gain. But on the other hand, i like simbioze of ligth colors (white, blonde, blue) so i dont mind some +EV. I would not like to spoil some, maybe author wouldnt like it. --Mile (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

[edit]


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 17:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Melker Altar - Flucht.JPG, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2015 at 11:04:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Melk Altar in Melk Abbey Museum: Flight into Egypt. Painted 1502 by Jörg Breu the Elder.
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 17:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2015 at 13:55:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Original

[edit]

Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe
  •  Info The Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe or the Holocaust Memorial is a large (19,000 m2) memorial located in central Berlin and constructed 2003-2004. We have an existing FP from 2006 with a quite similar compositional idea, but in portrait format and less resolution. Created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Slaunger (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't think this composition represents this monument well. What's impressive is the size and the repetition of so many similar patterns, i.e. File:Memorial to the murdered Jews of Europe.jpg, which cannot be seen here. Sorry. regards, Yann (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry,for Yann --LivioAndronico talk 18:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The repeating pattern of the monument is well represented. I like the simplicity of the shot a lot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Comment Thanks for the reviews so far. By not showing how large the monument is, and not showing any boundaries in the photo, it gives a perception of infinity, and makes the observer curious just how big it is. At least that is my intention, but I respect if not all reviewers get this compositional idea. An objective is also to visualize the abstract shapes of the monument without being distracted by the surroundings. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support At all my visits to this Memorial, I always tried to understand the deeper meaning behind. And I found different answers. This picture reminds me very directl at some of the jewish cemetaries, i.e. in Praha or the old one in Vienna and makes me thoughtful. According to my experience with this "monument", its a realistic, narrow view with a lot of meanings. The one pylon (can I say pylon?), leaning right and/or the two next, leaning slightly left, makes this impression even stronger. --Hubertl (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I forgot to say, that at my first visit, this monument reminded me instantaneous at the strict geometrical order of the barracks of Auschwitz, even when you can´t see them as they were, but you see the hundreds of chimneys left. One after another, almost as far as you can see, especially, when its a foggy, cold and windy november day.--Hubertl (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The existing FP is like a work of art and very good composition and subtle tone (though let down somewhat by the compact camera used). This one isn't working for me at the moment. I've suggested a crop that I think is stronger and enhances the "perception of infinity" (because there's no stop at the bottom). -- Colin (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

[edit]
Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe
  •  Info I made a crop below following the proposal by Colin to further emphasize the 'infiniteness' of the monument (less is more). I agree it is a good suggestion. The crop has a better composition regarding the diagonal going from the lower left corner to the upper right corner (a slightly wider crop than proposed by Colin). -- Slaunger (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Slaunger (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I didn't (intentionally) suggest cropping the width. I suggested less on the bottom but this works too. However, I took a wee bit off the top too, to avoid the distracting sliver of detail in the top left, and I still think that would help a bit. -- Colin (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Colin I actually meant wider - vertically, so I think we agree;) (Is there an English word for that?). I uploaded a new version where I took a few pixels more off at the top per your suggestion. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"taller" -- Colin (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose as above --LivioAndronico talk 08:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 17:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2015 at 06:37:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 17:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2015 at 09:32:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

After chrismas 2014 there was a day of heavy snowfall in Belgium and a sunny day afterwards. This is a picture of a frozen...
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2015 at 09:23:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

After chrismas 2014 there was a day of heavy snowfall in Belgium and a sunny day afterwards. This is a picture of a frozen lake (ven) in the Kalmthoutse Heide.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2015 at 20:46:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Warm front
I based the picture off this image which has the same temperature graph thing. The important thing that it shows isn’t how the warm air is hotter than the cold air but that it goes opposite the usual trend where it gets colder the higher up you go. You also can’t put it outside a corner of the graph bc it has to cut through a region where there’s both hot and cold air, and I’d rather not put it on the side bc then you’d have to shear it oblique to fit the perspective which would be confusing too—Love, Kelvinsong talk 15:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see where it is coming from, but I do not think it works in the source either (for me at least it is also ambiguous). -- Slaunger (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kelvinsong, Slaunger are correct, suggestion: use a colour differentiation in the profile, on the bottom edge the temperature is high (use full red) rising the temperature down (use red to blue degrade) on inversion layer the temperature is high (reverse to red using degrade), and in the top edge direction the temperature down (reverse to full blue using degrade), I believe this helps the interpretation in a profile without reference axes, the temperature profile is relevant I think you should stay. The infographic is very good, congratulations. -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 17:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I did as you said—Love, Kelvinsong talk 19:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Almost. I believe you are using transparent layers, the profile should "overlap almost", in the case of temperature profile in the ground has to be very strong red and much more blue at the top, there must be consistent contrast between the colors in all altitudes: The inversion layer is clear and correct other areas would improve with higher contrast. Sorry my insistence but otherwise not notice real difference in understanding the profile and thanks again for the effort, I hope it helps -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 22:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that’s because the bottom branch goes purple to blue but the top branch goes red to purple which is harder to see than the blue–red contrast at the inversion thing. The gradient goes straight horizontally it’s not like along the path or anything—Love, Kelvinsong talk 15:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kelvinsong, Ok, try it. Remember it is only a suggestion, just to help. I changed the gradient to adjust the colors vertically. I'm bad at it are not well balanced in the extremities, but may help. -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 16:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Just a quick technical question regarding the SVG: Is the inlaid text embedded in a manner in the SVG, which allows easy localization to other languages than English? -- Slaunger (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yep! It’s in a hidden layer in the SVG. The displayed text is an outline render of the actual text bc the wikipedia renderer sucks at text—Love, Kelvinsong talk 15:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, and yeah, I know the renderer sucks. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 17:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2015 at 03:13:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Black-faced Impala
✓ Done Jee, I uploaded a try. -- ChristianFerrer 12:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Christian. Jee 12:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 06:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2015 at 20:25:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Interior of the Cathedral of Amiens
Thanks for your question. This is the original photo, however, this is ~98% of the total size of the painting, at the top there is a small cut of a few pixels high, you can compare this with the other version. The court is due to brightness problems in the room , the top frame creates a dark shadow over the painting without detail. It is important to emphasize that this was not a digital cut, was a cut in the composition. I will try upload raw file to commonsarchive this weekend --The Photographer (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media#Religion

File:Juist, Watt -- 2014 -- 3546.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2015 at 06:05:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mud flat near harbour of Juist, Lower Saxony, Germany
In my opinion, it is a beautiful illustration of a sunset in the mud flat (nature reserive in Lower Saxony) at low tide. That's just a minimalist. Do you think this is too less for a nomination?--XRay talk 11:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't know. It just doesn't have that much wow for me. That dark boat is somewhat ruining this for me as it starts to dominate. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As a sunset picture this doesn't jump out at me. Not minimalist enough for a minimalist composition (too much random stuff in the water), and not enough going on for a regular composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I can't see a educational propose here, could be any place in the world with water, and I can't identify what's the black points (birds, right? What's the specie?), and at the first look in fullscreen I thought "nice rock, wait, this is a rope?", and then I zoom in and saw the boat... why this it is so dark?  Comment For me, you could crop the button, see the wind line there? This do not add to the composition, and create a mess in the photo. The sky do not add to the photo too. I saw some sticks (I add a note in one of them), do you know what's that, it intrigued me. -- RTA 08:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sticks are branches marks the fairway. It's near the harbour. --XRay talk 10:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nils Torvalds MEP, Strasbourg - Diliff.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2015 at 22:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nils Torvalds
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Petra Martic 1, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2015 at 22:22:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Petra Martic serving
  •  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. Petra Martic, a Croatian professional tennis player serving at Wimbledon in 2013. I figured with the recent heavy discussion regarding portraits and technical issues such as imperfect focus, I'd nominate a challenging image and see what the consensus is. Although focus is not perfectly centred on her face, I think overall sharpness is satisfactory for a non-studio 'action shot' taken in late evening light though and the lighting and composition is pleasant, but I'm interested to see what others think. -- Diliff (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Diliff (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 02:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It's really not so much a portrait as a sports action shot. A little CA on her left arm but what can you do that you might not have already done? Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)-[reply]
  •  Support that's for me a "wow(!) effect" only... --Bojars (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support In the WP:FP you said "there is strong contrast in the late afternoon light and that's what's great about the image IMO. I've got plenty of images of people serving in even, overcast lighting but that also makes the image a bit... boring and undramatic." In addition to the lighting, the subject is positioned well with no distracting background (the scoreboard adds context) and the pose is caught just right with the eyeline towards the ball in the air. -- Colin (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --El Grafo (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support For me there is no doubt that the "pose", the light and the nice background are very good. If I saw this picture on a serious news site in an usual resolution, I would rather like it and surely not notice that is wasn't shot with a 300 2.8. The only caveat is of course the sharpness. Personally, I have some experience shooting cricket at comparable focal lengths, albeit with inferior equipment and I found it hard to get perfectly sharp images and ended up with a comparable amount of remaining "not-quite-sharpness". Given the type of image we have here and the uniqueness, I think that the flaws are within an acceptable range. --DXR (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have been photographing cricket? What kind of strange German-living-in-Paris are you? :-) Cricket must be a lot harder to shoot with 300mm actually, because the action is a lot further away than on a tennis court. I would have thought a 600mm would be more useful, but only the professionals have access to that kind of lens. Diliff (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Haha, well first of all, I'm primarily a German-living-in-Germany... just was in Paris for a semester abroad. Tbh, the cricket I photographed in Germany was pretty informal and just a team of Indian students (and me). I shot on APS-C, so it was a bit longer, but surely still too short. BTW: my very first upload here was also cricket-related ;-). --DXR (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:19, 07 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2015 at 23:29:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tampa, Florida
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2015 at 07:54:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mud volcanoe in Azerbaijan
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Goświnowice - zakład produkcji etanolu 03.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2015 at 19:28:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ethanol production plant "Bioagra" in Goświnowice
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Industry
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2015 at 19:29:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Farm building after sunset near Hvolsvöllur, Suðurland, Iceland.

Alternative

[edit]
Farm building after sunset near Hvolsvöllur, Suðurland, Iceland.
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Habibi2006prצילום חביבי - יוסי צבקר.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2015 at 23:26:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hakol Over Habibi
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2015 at 08:13:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hammarby sjöstad
@Code: Sorry I forgot. ✓ Done now.--ArildV (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Julian Herzog: Its hand held. I just walked past when I saw the reflection in the water (I had the camera, but no tripod with me). Most of the water is covered by ice (with a thin layer of water on top), which creates the strong reflections. I took the photo yesterday, and today is the most ice is gone (because of strong wind and mild weather). So it is not possible to take another images.--ArildV (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2015 at 23:26:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Alternative

[edit]

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2015 at 10:36:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wat Khon Tai Temple


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2015 at 00:32:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Paperbark Maple Bark
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2015 at 07:39:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A SVG Representation of a Rubik's cube. Showcases how realistic vector images can be.
Black areas are fine for me—you wouldn’t really be able to discern those edges. but like make the specular dots smaller and brighter—the thing looks a bit too rubber-y. Also make sure you like clip-mask the reflections in the black parts bc the gaussian blur goes on forever and you want it to stop when it reaches the edge of the black part—Love, Kelvinsong talk 14:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2015 at 14:59:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

les Îles Ballestas et la Réserve nationale de Paracas Pérou
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gjirokastër Castle (by Pudelek) 5 - Clock Tower.JPG, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2015 at 13:26:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gjirokastër Castle, Clock Tower, Albania
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2015 at 19:35:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Porto Palermo Castle, Albania
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2015 at 20:50:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2015 at 10:04:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2015 at 22:26:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pyrrhula pyrrhula male
Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2015 at 11:33:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Groove-billed ani
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2015 at 22:59:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A young Ural owl who has just left the nest
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 04:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2015 at 21:41:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Elliðaey is one of the Westman Islands, and the third largest island in Iceland having an area of 0,45 km2. It is believed to have formed in an eruption about 5-6 thousand years. The island is uninhabited, but there is a hunting lodge, as you can see in the image, constructed in 1953. The island is still privately owned and operated by the Elliðaey Hunting Association and is accessible via a rope on its lower east side and by a boat from the mainland.
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Ron Lalá - 01.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2015 at 16:20:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ron Lalá, theatre company
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2015 at 19:51:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sète Harbour Sunset

Alternative (not cropped version)

[edit]
Sète Harbour Sunset.
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena
The chosen alternative is: File:Sète Harbour Sunset 04.jpg
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2015 at 01:14:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bald eagle in a nosedive
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PetarM (talk) --Mile (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2015 at 08:56:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cane Hill Asylum water tower in Coulsdon, South London, after the hospital was demolished in 2010.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PetarM (talk) --Mile (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2015 at 20:51:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Preston Cenotaph
Thanks for the considered review, Julian H.. You're right about the composition, in part due to the limitations of the surrounds, although I thought the "lone figure admiring the dressed cenotaph" motif added a little bit of flavour. The cenotaph - designed by Giles Gilbert Scott - is certainly of greater note than the post office. --Baresi F (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PetarM (talk) --Mile (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2015 at 20:58:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"The brook Tuxerbach in Austria is fed by melt water of the Hintertux glacier area."
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andromeda Galaxy M31 - Heic1502a Full resolution.tiff, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2015 at 15:37:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Andromeda Galaxy
 Comment Other versions:
Regards, Alan (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2015 at 17:07:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Euphorbia characias
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2015 at 16:05:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eurema blanda
  • Thanks. This is one of my best photo of a butterfly having plenty of details (as Crisco commented in my Flickr stream). Here the subject perches on the joint of a moss covered retaining wall on my hip level; so an easy shot on my knees. The butterfly is perching parallel to the wall (not perpendicular); but close subject distance helps to blur the wall only an inch behind. :) Jee 03:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2015 at 14:16:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Schwäbisch Hall (Marktplatz) in winter.Baden-Württemberg, Germany.
Simulate a cut in the antenna is not a good practice because it alters reality. On the other hand, you apply noise reduction in the sky, however, this has created a white aura on all objects where it is particularly visible in the antennae. I suggest the right job with layers to remove the white aura using cloning. --The Photographer (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Info That "auras" are called clouds, and due to snowy wather, relfections, and strong ligths in the back you can see them as such, and can be seen in original also. Just write a mail if you want to observe. --Mile (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
clouds do not generate drop shadow --The Photographer (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Wells Cathedral West Front Exterior, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2015 at 11:21:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wells Cathedral West Front
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2015 at 00:15:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Selfie by Christopher Michel in a Lockheed U-2 at 70,000 feet
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Be..anyone (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2015 at 11:27:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Man holding a candle at a demonstration supporting Charlie Hebdo in Strasbout following the shooting of 7 januart 2015
  •  Info Man holding a candle at a demonstration supporting Charlie Hebdo in Strasbourg following the shooting of 7 januart 2015. Created by Ctruongngoc - uploaded by Ctruongngoc - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Rama (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm really not sure that we should be examining a reporter's photograph, of an event less than 24hrs old, to see if meets the "featured pictures" criteria. We aren't the picture editors of a daily newspaper. This one can sit a while so an unemotional assessment of its qualities can be made. My 2p. -- Colin (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well either the photograph is good, or it is not. The context changes nothing to that, and I trust people to have enough maturity to assess the image for its value rather than for some irrelevant criterion. I happen to be rather reserved on the hommages to Charlie Hebdo, which I have never liked, and to think that this is an excellent and exceptional photograph. Emotion is indispensable to assess the overall quality of the image, and irrelevant for everything else. Rama (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as simple as "good or not". As a photograph in isolation, the image has some technical and artistic weaknesses, though the candle light on the guy's face is interesting. It doesn't clearly demonstrate there is more than one or two protesters never mind the scale of the crowd. It might have extra value (an FP criterion) when regarded as an image of a historical event. For for that, it needs to be "historical". It isn't about having "enough maturity" to judge this today, when the news and current-affairs conversations talk of little else: you'd have to be some kind of Vulcan. Please let this image deserve its FP status at a later time, rather than having any perception that votes are somehow influenced by recentism and emotion. Surely if it is "exceptional" then it will still be exceptional in six months. What is the rush? -- Colin (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, if the image is exceptional, it is irrespective of the context. So as much as I agree that the image will remain exceptional in six months, I think it is whatever the context is. We are not going to give featured status out of pity for the fate of other people not on the image. Rama (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, your argument is illogical: I'm arguing we can't reliably judge it today, not whether context matters to its exceptionalness. As an image of a person lit by candle, it is unexceptional and has technical issues. Perhaps as an image of this event it might gain value, but not today. -- Colin (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are contradicting yourself: you cannot state first that it is not possible to judge the image, and then that it is "unexceptional and has technical issues": you are judging the image. Which is absolutely fine, but the entire construct about "today" is empty. Rama (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I said. Do you spot the word "reliably". You'll have to take my unreliable "oppose" since you won't accept that today is not a good time to be doing this. -- Colin (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(I think you have one negation too many in your sentance)
If I understand you correctly, you are positing that the context should be taken into account to judge whether minor defects in a photograph should be overlooked or not. I have never observed that line of reasonning in FPs; much to the contrary, I have seen quite a number of candidates rejected on technical grounds when the chosen settings were the best possible for the shot (e.g. "too much noise" for a distant action shot in a covered arena with limited lighting). Rama (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* My grammar is fine. No you don't understand me correctly. I have better things to do with my life than continue this conversation... -- Colin (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

[edit]
Sète Harbour Sunset.
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2015 at 22:09:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Karja Church, Saaremaa, Estonia
  •  Support an very good picture from an ordinary church, the breath of the history of 600 years of history on the edge of christianity. Sometimes, we should hold on a minute or two.--Hubertl (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Excellent light and sharpness, but I don't find this church very appealing neither charming. I think the picture deserves a better crop, and I find the shadow of the bush disturbing just in front of the entrance of the building. I'd like to see the base of it, too.--Jebulon (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Be..anyone (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2015 at 19:44:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2015 at 16:04:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Air ambulance Cologne
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2015 at 00:29:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Anacopia fortress. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia.
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2015 at 10:49:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Girl in Margarita Island.jpg
Do see all these very elementary mistakes so obvious. What if this had been done on purpose?. I've noticed a lot of negative comments about you and appreciate much, thank you. --The Photographer (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its not posible fix that, thanks for your comment --The Photographer (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Almeida Júnior - Saudade (Longing) - Google Art Project.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2015 at 19:50:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Longing, by José Ferraz de Almeida Júnior, oil on carvas, 1899. Located in Pinacoteca do Estado de São Paulo.
@XRay: For original colors, see File:Almeida Júnior - Saudade, 1899.jpg. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC) In fact, for original colors, only going to the Pinacotheca. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ivar (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2015 at 12:25:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ivar (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2015 at 16:36:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

American crocodile, Rio Grande de Tarcoles, Costa Rica

Alternate

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2015 at 16:36:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

American crocodile, Rio Grande de Tarcoles, Costa Rica
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ivar (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2015 at 13:28:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cyanistes caeruleus, UK
Confirmed results:
Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ivar (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Gymnadenia conopsea - Harilik käoraamat Niitvälja.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2015 at 13:16:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The white fragrant orchid
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ivar (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2015 at 21:58:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Blue hour shot of the Prince Philip Science Museum, part of the City of Arts and Sciences, Valencia, Spain. The 40,000 m2 museum was opened on November 13th 2000 and was designed by Santiago Calatrava.
  • Of course it's a matter of taste and I never implied otherwise - all my statements included 'I think' or 'in my opinion'. ;-) I also agree that the detail of your image beats the ones I linked as they are all downsampled web images. I did say I thought your image was well captured. It's hard to compare lighting because most of the images I linked to were taken in daylight. I was using them only to compare angles to explain that the angle you chose was not as interesting or aesthetic for me, because many of the sweeping architectural flourishes are absent or not exhibited clearly. The last linked image taken at night does have better lighting though IMO because the building is lit from the interior, although was taken a bit late in the blue hour for me. Diliff (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose Agree with Diliff, very hard for eyes, not sure what is straigth. There is something more of an issue - PD. If you check street lamps on the left, and some sticks of rigth side, this photo need distortion correction. --Mile (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Better now, PD corrected. --Mile (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ivar (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2015 at 21:59:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the Ósvör maritime museum, located in the village of Bolungarvík, Vestfirðir, Iceland. The museum consists of a double 19th century fishing base, a salt hut, a fish drying area, a drying hut and a typical fishing boat of that time.
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ivar (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Temple Church 5, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2015 at 11:29:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Temple Church Interior
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ivar (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2015 at 06:32:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ivar (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Vanellus armatus - Etosha 2014.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2015 at 17:21:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vanellus armatus
Cayambe, are you sure that this is CA? I would be surprised if such a professional lens had problems like this. I think it rather looks like shadows that appear very cool because the warm colors of direct sunlight have been used as neutral tone. --DXR (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DXR: you are right, shadows indeed. However, this bird has no light-blue feathers anywhere and therefore, IMO, this picture cannot be FP. --Cayambe (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The feathers part of the light blue color in the shadow is true blue. The lens is full OK. Take a look to this image, also with a blue shadow and here shadow color. You have in Namibia an extemly color temperature = colored shadows! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Alchemist for the explanation. But please, allow me to stick to my opinion, which is that those blue shadows induce us into believing that there are blue feathers in this bird. Let's see what others will say. --Cayambe (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can remember, the light was very warm and the bird had orange/yellow feathers ;-), so I had to do a bit of color correction to cool it down to more normal colors which in turn gave the white shadow a bluish tinge. I'm currently traveling and away from the originals, but I'll be happy to post the original unprocessed form for comparison when I get back home at the end of the week. Cheers. :-) -- ~y (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does the picture make the viewer believe the rocks are blue also? -- Colin (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the reality. All people can believe what they want. Now "we" know it better!? ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that Cayambe argues the blue shadows make us think the plumage is blue, yet we do not think the rocks are blue. So perhaps that argument doesn't hold. -- Colin (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad when he contribute high resolution pictures instead of heavily downsampled one to hide all drawbacks. Pinged Yathin as he seems available now. :) Jee 02:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC) It seems lights matches with his previous fp. Jee 03:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. My thoughts: Yes, the white balance is a little bit too cool if it was taken in late afternoon light. There's no absolutely correct method of selecting the white balance, particularly when there is both sunlight and shadows (or any other source of light), but as a rule of thumb, I usually try to find a neutral WB when the photo was taken around midday, but I leave a bit of warmth when taken in early morning or late evening because I think that's how we see it. Our eyes can partially correct the WB but we still see warm light as warm, so I think it's better to keep some of that warmth. I think this image's WB is perhaps overcorrected in this instance, but the blue shadows don't bother me too much because I'm aware of the effect. I'd still like to see an adjustment to WB though if it can be done from the RAW file. Diliff (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 04:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:58:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mute swan (Cygnus olor), WWT Arundel, West Sussex, England
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2015 at 14:32:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Reading, by José Ferraz de Almeida Júnior, oil on carvas, 1892. Located currently in Pinacoteca do Estado de São Paulo.
@XRay: For original colors, see File:Almeida Júnior - Leitura.jpg. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMO you can compare with the original painting only, not with a digital copy. Please have a look to the version history, the colors vary always. --XRay talk 18:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@XRay: Oh yes! But this Wilfredo's version is much better. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@XRay: I don´t know what original colors is, however, if you want, you could download the RAW file (see image description) and try revelate it by yourself and show us. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem. It is difficult to compare for this kind of picture. But: Your image is really good, you got a support vote.--XRay talk 04:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@XRay: I thought that reality is one, like truth, but everyone has their own interpretation. I was present in front of the original painting, but my revealed, is just my visual interpretation of the colors present and not the original colors. If you can provide some way to get the original colors from the RAW file, it would be very important. The support vote is not important to me, but to learn to get those original colors. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, LVM-Versicherung -- 2014 -- 3276.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2015 at 11:46:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Crosswalk between the two towers of the LVM insurance in Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2015 at 19:46:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2015 at 21:35:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tower house in Żelazno
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 09:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Towers
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2015 at 22:10:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
You guys are seriously missing the point. -- Colin (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course it is about camouflage, but I just don't find the result visually appealing, which is important for that kind of simple composition (that might be a matter of taste). And yes, the B/W is perhaps tricking our eyes here (though it is not that hard to see the animal...), but for such an image it is closer to reality (and better to reflect the actual level of camouflage) to have the image in color.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2015 at 14:37:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pillars of Creation
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 09:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2015 at 10:17:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sergels torg
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 09:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Slezské Beskydy - Rytířská stezka (cesta Nýdek - Velká Čantoryje).JPG, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2015 at 11:40:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Silesian Beskids
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 09:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2015 at 10:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bas-relief "Battle of Devas and Asuras" Temple d' Angkor Wat.- Siem_Reap (Cambodge)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2015 at 06:29:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Suaeda vera
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2015 at 20:12:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stone bridge in Bardo
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /— Revi 13:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2015 at 21:09:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Scallop anatomy
I considered a numbered version, but ironically, as the numbers increase it becomes increasingly difficult to keep track of which number corresponds to which anatomical part! I could reduce the number of parts mentioned, but the parts mentioned here are a consistent list of those usually covered in the anatomical literature on the animal (while still leaving out many of the more obscure parts, if you can imagine!). As an SVG, it should be translatable into other languages fairly easily (which is supposed to be one of the great things about the SVG format, yes? Though it seems it is seldom enough actually done...). Also, heads-up: image now passes SVG validation! Don't know why I didn't take care of this before now. Lastly, have fixed the issue with the eyes turning out very small and black. Now they should all appear large and blue, as intended. -KDS4444 (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can see your point. The blue circles are still black dots in my Firefox 32.0, but I just noticed that it also somehow manages to render DejaVuSans as a serif font, so that's not unlikely to be my browser's fault. →  Support --El Grafo (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now passes validation! Support vote? Yes? -KDS4444 (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KDS4444 (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2015 at 10:51:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hydrographic surveying squadron
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:02:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

British Army Reservist soldiers train with the Italian Army.
What has this got to do with FPC? -- Colin (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just thinking out loud while I was typing ... Daniel Case (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2015 at 09:11:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Campidoglio and Vittoriano
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:FIFA WC-qualification 2014 - Austria vs. Germany 2012-09-11 - Thomas Müller 01 edit.JPG, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2015 at 06:11:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thomas Müller
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Feldberg - Jumping Snowboarder1.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2015 at 21:46:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jumping Snowboarder
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gymnadenia odoratissima - Lõhnav käoraamat Niitvälja.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2015 at 17:50:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Short Spurred Fragrant Orchid
  •  Info Short Spurred Fragrant Orchid, created, uploaded and nominated by Ivar (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose According to the EXIF this was shot at f/14, yet the DoF is extremely shallow. It appears artificially (and poorly) blurred or else it was taken with extremely poor focus. Compare to this image which is technically superior. -- Ram-Man 03:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment That comparison is a bit unfair. Your "superior" favorite has over four times lower resolution with no EXIF data at all. The Orchid on my image was pretty small, so I had to get very close to take full portrait and therefore DOF was shallower than usual. But calling it artificially and poorly blurred is imho too harsh. --Ivar (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC). And that's not even important, that this species grows only in few (less than 10) places in my country and I had to hike in the Bog to find it in the perfect evening light. --Ivar (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies for the poor comparison. What I meant was this: the other image shows superior depth of field and better subject sharpness while still having a blurred background. Was this retouched? It should be declared if it was and why were the flower petals and stalk blurred (bad masking?)? But if it was not blurred, then at f/14 the focus and sharpness should be on par with the other image. Something does not add up here. And FWIW, I wouldn't support the example image as a FP. -- Ram-Man 12:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It was in my intentions to support anyway this nomination (colors, details, composition, all work for me). But I rather agree with Ivar, the quality of the Ivar's image is far much better in all points. The exemple shown by Ram-Man is certainly downssampled, and even so downsampled that we can judge correctly about the DOF, and the quality is so poor that I'm not able to say correctly what is in really in focus. Some parts are also a bit overexposed. -- ChristianFerrer 07:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The out-of-focus/blurred petals on this image are visible at thumbnail size. It's not an issue of downsampling. The other image shows that there was no reason for this image to have out-of-focus petals. -- Ram-Man 12:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Code (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. But as a user recently switched from a compact camera to a DSLR, I understand what Ram-Man stated above. It is very difficult to get reasonable DOF at 100mm if we are at closest subject distance. So we have two choices; increase the subject distance and crop the image, or use a longer lens. Choice two is expensive. Jee 03:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 10:24:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

House in Costa Oriental
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2015 at 13:25:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Katy Perry, November 2014
  •  Comment The point is that a reason for opposing is given here. For me, the harsh contrast with the white background is distracting. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lady Lotus: Hm. I don't think so. It's a matter of composition. As Uoaei1 said, the contrast between foreground and background is quite harsh when the background is simply white. This is quite distracting. If the background was different, I would certainly support the nomination. I hope you don't take my oppose personal, it's not meant this way. It's certainly a good picture but for me it doesn't meet FP standards. --Code (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— Revi 14:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2015 at 18:12:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Laekvere pine
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2015 at 21:49:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Plantations de café sur le "Plateau des Bolovens" Laos.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Olustvere manor distillery in Estonia
I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2015 at 13:32:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Plakias Beach, Crete
  •  Info Plakias Beach, Crete. All by --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- ChristianFerrer 18:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I want so much to like this one, and it seems so much was done to bring it up to being presentable on first look here. But that effort may in fact be its undoing. First there are the blown clouds at the right, which tip you off that, whatever else might have looked right at the time of the shutter falling, the sun was too close to that side. Second, there seems to have been a fair degree of processing and sharpening done, evident from the ridgeline and sea in the center. That might not have been a problem except it seems to have been done to compensate for shooting a landscape like this at f/8, rather than the usual landscape sweet spot of f/11–16. Was there some reason for that aperture setting? Because I think this deserves more, and shooting with a narrower f/stop might have eliminated the need to work on it afterwards. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2015 at 15:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Deputies in the Chamber of Deputies of the National Congress in Brasília, Brazil, commemorating the promulgation of the Constitution of Brazil, in 1988.
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— Revi 14:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2015 at 05:51:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /— Revi 14:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2015 at 12:04:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Shop of Tingqua, the painter
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— Revi 14:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skopje 2014 - Archeological Museum of Macedonia.JPG, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2015 at 18:01:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Skopje, Macedonia
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— Revi 14:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2015 at 13:30:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ceiling frescos in Herzogenburg Abbey Church (Lower Austria)
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /— Revi 14:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Swiss Open Geneva - 20140712 - Semi final Quad - D. Wagner vs D. Alcott 26.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2015 at 12:03:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— Revi 14:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2015 at 22:59:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Centaur and Lapith. The Parthenon sculptures, British Museum.
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— Revi 14:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2015 at 11:26:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Deer taken in the fields of Rocha , Uruguay. It is a kind of deer in recovery, they were near extinction.
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /— Revi 14:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Wells Cathedral Chapter House, Somerset, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2015 at 18:13:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wells Cathedral Chapter House
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /— Revi 14:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2015 at 07:12:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Seed Box Echinacea purpurea (coneflower)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— Revi 14:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2015 at 23:56:07
Beautiful Basilica Photo

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— Revi 14:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2015 at 14:01:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Annapurna Range and a temple outside Muktinath on the Annapurna Circuit
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2015 at 13:57:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Annapurna Range between Ledar and Thorong Phedi on the Annapurna Circuit
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2015 at 23:24:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dendrogramma enigmatica holotype
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2015 at 07:31:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sacred Heart Church, Munich, exterior
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2015 at 18:22:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

West façade of the New Schleissheim Palace, one of the three palaces in a grand baroque park in the village of Oberschleißheim, a suburb of Munich, Bavaria, Germany. The palace was a summer residence of the Bavarian rulers of the House of Wittelsbach. The palace was erected by Enrico Zuccalli in 1701-1704 as the new residence, and after an interruption due to the War of the Spanish Succession, continued by Joseph Effner in 1719-1726.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Olustvere manor distillery in Estonia
I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2015 at 09:44:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A photograph of a female American military officer in uniform, in front of the flag of the United States.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /— Revi 14:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2015 at 05:38:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Spitfire
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2015 at 22:14:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2015 at 09:46:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bouzigues, Hérault, France
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Calidris alba - Laem Phak Bia.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2015 at 05:57:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sanderling
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Canterbury Cathedral Trinity Chapel Stained Glass, Kent, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2015 at 18:15:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Canterbury Cathedral Trinity Chapel
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2015 at 13:33:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cappella della Madonna Del Rosario in St. Mary above Minerva.jpg
  • Thanks RTA but unfortunately in Rome if you leave a tripod in a church that seems to have gone out a gun and I have to hurry before it gets security, though maybe that lents so I would have a lens to 2000 dollars and a Reflex to 300 dollars --LivioAndronico talk 08:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean about a tripod? They are not friendly towards photographers with tripods? I occasionally have that problem but most of the time it's fine in the UK (and also fine from my experiences in Lithuania, Latvia and France). I don't think a tilt-shift lens will really solve the problem that much though. Even if you use tilt-shift, you usually will not get the perspective correction perfectly adjusted (it's not always easy to see when it is correct in the viewfinder), and will still need to make a minor adjustment in Photoshop afterwards. Diliff (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diliff I write what is reported on a photography site: For the City of Rome a tripod is occupation of public land. Such employment must be authorized specifically for that place and that time. On a par with a crew that has to turn the scenes for a movie.You can get around the ban by placing the tripod on benches or on the rubbish bins.Also buildings or historic fountains eg. the Fountain of Dioscuri (Piazza del Quirinale) try to come closer with a tripod, even at night. A free hand whenever we want, but with no tripod.Then it's different if you fail to establish a dialogue with the representative of the forces before checkout which, as our equipment is really a camera, allow a few moments of recovery.--LivioAndronico talk 14:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diliff Did you saw the first version? [2], this you can easily correct with the T&S lens, tilting you could fix the perspective, and actually the lack of the floor in the picture could also be fixed by shifting creating a panoramic photo, of course it's a trick lens, and expensive one, but if you have the money, and take a lot of building photos... -- RTA 18:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but there is nothing that a tilt-shift lens can do (perspective-wise, that is) that can't be fixed equally with software... As long as the shift is not extreme, there is no significant advantage to a tilt-shift lens for this purpose. A tilt-shift lens can actually shift the focal plane too, which is something that software cannot do, but that is not a factor in photography like this. Diliff (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but in software you will lose some resolution, creating a smaller picture, nothing to worry about if you will not print... I was kidding when a suggest t&s lens, because that could solve the issue, but is ridiculous expansive, specially comparing cam+lens used here "D3200 with 18-55mm" ~450 USD versus ~2000 USD just for lens... And shift the focal plane, for me, is the only reason to have one of these. :D -- RTA 19:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment. I think it's unfortunate that you weren't able to capture any of the floor. Currently, it's hard to know if the camera viewpoint was only just above the floor, or at head-height. Diliff (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know Diliff but unfortunately my lens from that distance takes only that portion and then I had to "lock" the tourists. In addition, the pope was coming and there was security everywhere.Thanks for your opinion anyway --LivioAndronico talk 14:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should consider shooting panoramas. ;-) Then you are not so restricted by your lens angle of view. But yes, I understand why you would use this framing if there were distracting tourists in view. Better to take the photo when security is much less strict though. Perhaps you could revisit sometime? Diliff (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree... :P -- RTA 19:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, but in Rome there is always the security ,especially in churches like this where there is the body of Catherine of Siena --LivioAndronico talk 20:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2015 at 22:53:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cascade in Aïn Legradj in Bordj Bou Arreredj province (Algeria)
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Church of Saint-François-Xavier Interior, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2015 at 05:50:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2015 at 22:08:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Holmbergs lighthouse after sunset, Suðurnes region in the Southwest of Iceland.
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Towers

File:Feldberg - Jumping Snowboarder5.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2015 at 21:44:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jumping Snowboarder
Funny: some would prefer a more narrow crop, others prefer the opposite. I guess I have found a pretty good compromise :-) --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say that compositional issues will always be a matter of taste. That’s why we do majority votings here, often showing divided opinions. This person hovering in the air is obviously jumping from? over? anything, and I prefer to see this anything in the image to get a full impression of the action going on, as in images like this for example. Others want to see the person isolated, flying through space – that’s a different image with different intention (and in that case, the twigs are distracting, you’d need nothing but blue sky around). Looking for compromises often results in unclear compositions :-) --Kreuzschnabel 09:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not unclear for the majority. I think the figure of the boarder is clear and ästhetic so that a concentration on this is justified. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Olustvere manor distillery in Estonia
I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2015 at 12:44:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Paeonia 'First Arrival'
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2015 at 11:34:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2015 at 13:45:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hong Kong, Tsim Sha Tsui (Kowloon), viev from 30th floor of "iSQUARE" to West at evening
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Olustvere manor distillery in Estonia
I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/January_2015&oldid=148694009"