Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2018

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

File:Paris, Eiffelturm -- 2014 -- 1272.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2018 at 13:32:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2018 at 00:43:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2018 at 06:05:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Passer montanus montanus in Malaysia, cropped.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2018 at 06:02:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Shell of a Pagoda Prickly Winkle, Tectarius pagodus
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2018 at 14:54:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Wittelsbacher foutain is a monumental fountain at the north border of Munich downtown (Germany).
* Yes there is a halo on the horse's chest Diego. Otherwise very nice (apart from the fag ends!) Charles (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2018 at 10:13:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Young boy smiling, holding a fighting rooster in Laos
Thanks, Peulle, but please sign your edit -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a laser light, which makes kind of red spots at long distances, sometimes used by teachers on their board. And pretty sure this is not attached to the rooster but hold in the boy's hand -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2018 at 10:41:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cat pulling a string

Alternative (portrait crop)

[edit]

  •  Oppose Unremarkable. We have hundreds of photos of house cats and this one doesn't seem to have any special qualities or outstanding characteristics. The primary criteria for featured picture is value and I don't see this photo having a lot of value for the projects. Kaldari (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It shows the cat behavior of pulling on a string, which could easily be used in an article on cat behavior. If you find the subject and composition unremarkable, those are perfectly reasonable reasons to oppose, but being sure a photo couldn't be used in an online article (and I remind you that neither is this VIC where value is the be-all and end-all nor is Commons solely for the use of Wiki sites) IMO shows a lack of imagination. We've repeatedly seen examples of photos that were claimed by someone not to be encyclopedic and were subsequently used appropriately in Wikipedia articles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2018 at 21:06:16 (UTC)

  • At high tide
    At high tide
  • At low tide
    At low tide
  • Not in a vote for a set, but I tend to feel similarly. I think that if these two photos are made into a single composite photo, that could be a good VI (VIC doesn't accept sets anymore because of some technical problem). I'd consider supporting the second photo for FP, but probably not the first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm a little surprised by this. Normally voters tend to want plants to be at their best, looking as good and natural as possible. In this case that would be the left photo, I thought it would be the right one that would have a hard time. But if it is the general feeling, sure, I can withdraw this and submit just the right-hand one. That would also leave me free to later submit a photo of the high tide version that I think is better, just not as an identify species photo. --Cart (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I actually like the lefthand one more ... the other one has some sections of the plant that seem posterized. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daniel, the parts of the algae that are not filled with the produced oxygen are thin as film, so a couple of layers of them, as there is in some places, creates a very homogenous patch that looks like a posterized part. That's what's happening. Not the easiest growing thing to deal with though. Anyway, it might be better to do these one by one. --Cart (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2018 at 13:22:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church ceiling in Gondar
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2018 at 19:29:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of the Matanuska River near Palmer, Yukon, Canada.
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2018 (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 3 Jun 2018 at 15:57:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wood white butterfly (Leptidea sinapis) female
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2018 at 02:53:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Waimea Canyon, also known as the Grand Canyon of the Pacific, located on the western side of the island of Kauaʻi
Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/United States
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2018 at 15:11:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rocks of medieval cliff-side fortress Tustan, the Carpathian Mountains, Ukraine.
  •  Comment Very nice composition, lovely. IMO the image needs at least a perspective correction. And there are a lot of lens flares, may be dust on the lens. --XRay talk 06:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it was not dust on the lens. It was a high humidity and it was windy that day. As result there were many small drops of water and snowflakes (some of snowflakes are visible as short white strips) in the air. So I think that flares are result of sun rays passing through small water droplets. I like how these flares look here, so I don't want to remove them. --Rbrechko (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11-mm lens... It will be hard... I think that rocks will not fit into the frame or will be too flattened after perspective correction. Maybe I'm wrong, but in this case bent fence makes photo more dynamic. --Rbrechko (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

[edit]

  • It feels more natural, but you lose the most dramatic gestures in the clouds and the fences on the right are cropped worse on the bottom in this version. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity, anyway; I appreciate it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2018 at 08:50:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Apple Park, the corporate headquarters of Apple
Damn you. You made me laugh so hard I spilled my tea. Now I have to make new tea and it's all your fault. ;-P --Peulle (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2018 (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 8 Jun 2018 at 11:37:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Infrared photography of the Dent de Vaulion taken in the Vallée de Joux.
  •  Comment Noice levels are always high when you deal with infrared photography. You can't treat it as normal photography. The grass is annoying though, it looks like a tear in the photo. Fixable? --Cart (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With a lawnmower, yes. I don't think it's possible in post - too much work for too little reward.--Peulle (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
--Cart (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it better ? I tried to fix the problems. --Lahminewski Lab (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2018 at 10:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Desna river, feeder of the Southern Bug, at meadow
@Ikan Kekek: I distinguish them by fog being general all over, something that shrouds everything. Mist, by contrast, is in little patchy areas like these, near the ground, where it doesn't obscure all you can see or only in a very small area.

I think the meteorological distinction is that if visibility within is less than 5 km, it's fog; otherwise it's just mist. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Ukraine
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2018 at 13:34:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2018 at 09:42:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fuerteventura - beached whale
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2018 at 10:12:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Melolonthinae on a banana leaf
  •  Oppose Support Excellent I'm sorry, but nobody asked me opinion before remove my review note. BTW, I have worked in photographs with a high level of complexity and even some in which I put my security at risk and I understand the enormous work that this has, however, I can not be a justification for ignoring my recommendations and especially the comments of Charles, another expert in this type of photograpy. --The Photographer 14:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Photographer: your note was not edited on the right page. There's no reason to read "blow area" on this file. Such kind of note is rather to specify the gender, or any detail that will help the observer to understand the content. Here you're talking about technical aspects, related to this nomination. Then, you're welcome to paste it on this nomination page, instead, if you want. But as I said, this is not blown : the focus is right, from the original files -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Photographer: Just be informed that a note added directly on the file page is considered as vandalism, and must be removed. You can strike your "Support Excellent" for any other reason, but please do it in good faith and in good knowledge. As mentionned in the page Commons:Image_annotations#Examples_of_inappropriate_and_not-informative_notes: "adding clearly inappropriate notes to images is considered vandalism and, if repeated, will get users adding such notes blocked. The types of notes described in this section should be removed." That's what I did, and there's no point to be upset about that -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that it was a vandalism, I think that you should report it to a admin. --The Photographer 22:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
✘[No] Caution : Revenge vote 1 2 is not acceptable here. And yes, such subjective note like "This photo is underexposed" edited on the file page is vandalism from the official guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My oppose is because the blow area in the image,[1] a note added for me, and of courese removed because it was a "Vandalism". --The Photographer 00:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not true. This note was added on the 26th May and not followed by any change nor comment on the nomination page until I legitimately removed the notes on the 27th of May. The "Support excellent" was still there on the 27th at 12:59. Thus clearly a revenge -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I invite you not to take my comments personally and if you are not accepting criticism of your images, maybe FPC is not a good place. After removing my note, you have called me vandal and a liar, which is a clear violation of the terms of service. --The Photographer 01:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Ikan. This picture is at least 12 hours work. About 3 hours shooting, 3 hours selecting the files from several series, 3 more hours improving the result on photoshop after focus stacking, and then 3-4 hours spent trying to identify the species. Installing the studio with lightbox, lights, tripod, camera and remote, finding a background, and positioning the insect is just the beginning. Working with living animals is never as simple as with inanimate object. See on this video what's the normal behavior of this beetle when it is not running away ! Not moving so much, but far enough to make you wait, wait, and patiently wait. Then sometimes it stops, so gooood you can start shooting. However, it's not just a single shot you make, but between 20 and 25 in order to create a single series with focus stacking. Each picture requires attention and vigilance. Most often, when you are at your 12th or 13th photo, then the animal decides to incline the body, or to move its leg, or the head, a short move that totally ruins the whole series. Better to change the angle and start a new compo to save time in the next step (selection). This day, I made about fifteen series. A few ones failed due to minor errors, like eyes not exactly in focus, some others failed due to the composition (one leg badly positioned for example), and many ones failed due to strong noise or low DoF, because 400 iso or f/7.1 was not adapted (though you have to be quick). Finally I got this version shot at 160 ISO and this one here at 50 ISO. This last series was made after the shooting session was finished, the equipment tidy, and the beetle already released on its support on my terrasse. But... funny thing, it finally got asleep, there ! So I started a new session, with the same equipment, and luckily managed to make these shots at ISO 50 /large DoF. Next step : selecting the files = very long ! Always zooming, sticking your eyes to the screen, find the file showing sharp eyes (very important), processing in the software, deleting some extra shots or some weak ones, etc. After that, choose the best series. Here again, zoom and compare, and it's not as quick as it seems ! When you have your final pictures, they're never perfect. Don't believe that the (excellent) software Helicon focus gives such a result right after processing. Because of the blown borders of the different parts, there's always a margin around the body where the background is not as sharp as the near area. The software is able to see a sharp hair, but when the focus is on it, then the background behind is blurry of course. So you don't have this missing part. A lot of work must follow on Photoshop, and this is also an important task. To finish, you have your beautiful piece of art, then you just need to upload it on Commons. But... I spent more than 3 extra hours trying to find the species. I'm a photographer, not a zoologist. Sure, I'm able to search and I managed to find this Eurema blanda, this hypomeces or this lytta in the past. However, the task was not as simple with this body. Spent unexpected hours on Wikipedia, Wikimedia, Google and BugGuide to identify the object, but that Melolonthinae really looks rare ! A similar one is shown on this blog, but without absolutely any detail. Now I am of good will of course, and ready to investigate further, but I honestly don't know how. Any clue welcome. This photo IMO is interesting for its level of details, especially the legs. This is a 28 Mpix sharp image. Totally agree that the species would be a great value, but the only thing to say now is it's big (51 mm) and found in Laos. See on Wikipedia, the Melolonthinae page, many tribes are just inexistant. I can guess it's a Melolonthini, but wikipedia doesn't mention this part of the world in its distribution -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. Hats off! I just hope someone can identify at least the genus. Jee, you haven't come around here for some time. Do you have any idea what species or genus this beetle is? Any other entomological experts we could ping, given that Charles would have presumably spoken up if he knew more specifics about this critter? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It might be very difficult to narrow down the ID any further without examining the specimen by experts. Usually they will not comment more even if asked. Jee 04:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Thanks, Jee. Since it doesn't seem practical to narrow down this insect's identification more, I'll support. If we can ever determine what species it is, it could be a VI, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's too easy to pretend a cat is not a cat as long as you don't prove it's a dog or a rat. Ikan, this specimen is most likely a Lepidiota (Melolonthinae -> Melolonthini -> Leucopholina -> Lepidiota). There's no page about this genus on Wikipedia in English, but one in French (Lepidiota) where it's said this Melolonthinae is common in South-East Asia. Size vary, and there's a few similar specimens on Google, examples : 37 mm, or 55 mm. Then now specified in the description & category -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In retrospect I should have pointed out the editing errors on the previous FP nomination. I think when the proposed image is an artificial, though impressive, studio creation we can demand standards that are completely unrealistic for a traditional image. Yes the editing must take a very long time, but if the end result can be improved then we are entitiled to point out the flaws. Charles (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made an error in adding notes on the file page. I apologise for this. I have done this for five years and this is the first time someone (Cart) explained the correct procedure. So I put my 100% valid notes in the wrong place, but that is no reason for Basile Morin to accuse me of vandalism. That is just provocative and not worthy of a talented contributor to FP. An apology would be welcome. Charles (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  procedural oppose. The image notes were added in good faith but in wrong place. Basile should have transferred them here, rather than just deleting them and expecting reviewers to redo all their hard work. Removing such notes is the equivalent of deleting a reviewer's text. Absolutely not acceptable. Nor is are the references to vandalism, which clearly does not apply to any reviewer here. I expect to see such words struck from this page and some attempt by Basile to make up with Charles and The Photographer, who are understandably upset. -- Colin (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Disagree : "Procedural oppose" is not a valid reason to invoke here. Nor a correct way to review any photograph in FP. All the nominations should be judged for their technical and aesthetic features only, not by the personality of their photographers. Discussions are of course welcome, and we can always debate about some minor improvements, when those are reasonably justified. But it is not acceptable that good pictures suffer from fanciful oppose votes and reciprocally bad pictures fanciful supports, only because their nominators express dissenting or consensual opinions. We should use the template {{Abstain}} in association with such off topic comments, but definitely not send an appreciation likely to influence the final result. Considering a work is insufficient just because the photographer agrees with the official guidelines (readable here), it's like promoting a terrible snapshot because the author is a nice person. This bad practice favors a stressful atmosphere with unreliable reviews and more swinging votes like this one recently, when a basic support suddenly became a "strong oppose because of course Colin knows best and apparently I'm a complete moron"  : Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Bondinho_do_Pão_de_Açúcar_by_Diego_Baravelli.jpg. Also we should neither harrass any user like Poco was harrassed here Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Pantages_HDR.jpg, and several times before. That problem occurs today again and I consider this so called "procedural oppose" precisely anti-procedural. More an extra mean of pressure to gain dishonest comments, that I'm not ready to spread. Unless other former edits get beforehand revised too, in the context my quotes are just timely. Sure we must be inclined in scanning our own creations with open eyes, by accepting all the fair reviews, favorable or unfavorable. Even if they were very minor, the corrections that Charles suggested at first were made, and a grateful reply sent in stride. Check the corrections in the history to see they match with the 7 notes added. Following this correction, 6 new notes arrived, with completely unrealistic expectations, in my opinion, for the reason a focus stacking work can never be perfect, from the technique itself consisting in mixing different images, that's just impossible. Not only removing such notes is acceptable, but it is even clearly recommended : "The types of notes described in this section should be removed." Maybe these notes should have been transfered on the discussion page, but because I found them more fanciful than serious, I prefered to invite the users to reiterate their wrong work, through an invitation to read the guidelines. It's true sometimes acurate and fair reviews can greatly help. Supports and Oppose's give objective sights on our personal creations. They're more than green and red lights, more than "likes" and "dislikes", they really provide orientations. Some tips can be useful in the current nominations, some others may be followed for the next times. But we're free to decide. Wikimedia Commons is not a dictatorship. Nobody here shall use their voting power to try to influence our thoughts, decisions, and personal actions. If the picture is good, its promotion is logics. If it is bad, it must fail for explicit reasons. But sending the message that a picture is bad just because such behavior would be much appreciated gives the worse example of what FP should be. Actually, this picture now suffers from two revenge votes, one from The Photographer and one from Colin, both sending whimsical and contradictory signals. Counter productive -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My objection is not with the "photographer", but with the nominator's actions/comments at this nomination, where negative review comments were removed and discarded by the nominator, and then false defamatory accusations of vandalism and revenge voting made against the reviewers. I see that Basile has now highlighted, rather than struck, his accusations of vandalism, and has made further dismissive and bad-faith accusations against reviewers wrt revenge voting. Basile, you are wikilawyering. If you had moved the misplaced notes to this page, and responded to them respectfully rather than dismissively, then we wouldn't have had this mess. -- Colin (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Disagree The given link above points towards the original file, not towards the current nomination page. Because no "negative review comments" has never been removed and discarded from this page. Only undesirable notes from the original file got lost (and definitely lost I hope), for a justified reason. Now talking about "defamatory" is absolutely ridiculous and disproportionate. "Bad-faith accusations" are also not true -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I found them more fanciful than serious". You deleted them and did not copy them here, because you thought they were not serious good faith review comments. I never said the review comments were removed "from this page"? Review comments, made as part of the FPC process, by good faith reviewers, albeit on the wrong place, were removed and deliberately discarded by you because you didn't like them. You've accused those reviewers of being vandals, of making "fanciful" reviews, and of revenge voting. On what planet is that acceptable? -- Colin (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Order_:_Coleoptera_(Beetles)
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2018 at 21:11:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Algae in Brofjorden at Govik
  • Ermell, I would also have liked to have more parts sharper, but as the algae grow under water (which is not so clear) they are constantly moving and even on this extremely sunny day, a tradeoff had to be made with DoF to get the shutter speed short. The water "steals" too much of the light so this is the only way at a reasonable ISO. Photographing things under water is a bit different than on land. --Cart (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - I kind of hate to be a killjoy, but the thing is, it does remind me of a kind of abstract painting, but not a kind I like. I think I'd need more happening in the lower right corner for the composition to fully work for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination I don't think this is going any further, thanks all for your input and comments. --Cart (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2018 at 12:10:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hemprich's hornbill
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2018 at 21:00:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Free and wild exemplar of a female moose in Potter marsh, near Anchorage, Alaska, United States.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •  Info Exemplar of a female moose (Alces alces) in Potter marsh, near Anchorage, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poco2 21:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info This shot was not taken in a zoo. It's a wild and free animal and I was really lucky to have the chance of a close shot. Btw, we have no FPs of any moose/elks. Poco2 21:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Poco2 21:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nice shoot, Why this 1000 ISO? It was done from a helicopter? the animal is sick (excessive amount of flies in the dark part of his leg) ? --The Photographer 21:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The Photographer, if you check the exif data you'll see that I used 67 mm, not 670 mm, so I wasn't really far away, as said, I was lucky, it came from the blue. I used ISO 1000 because the lighting was tricky and the exposure time had to be short to get it sharp. I don't see this animal sick because of a minor cut in one leg, wild animals get hurt from time to time, that is how life out there looks like. Poco2 20:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment We may not have any moose FPs but I'm not wild about the quality of this photo. The light is very harsh and it makes it's fur look strange. Our moose usually have a deep warm brown tint to their fur. Are the Alaskan different? They are a nuisance on the roads here, so I usually get a very good look at them when I step on the brakes to keep from colliding with them. Unfortunately, they are always gone by the time I can get my camera out. --Cart (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cart: I haven't see so many of them that close, but you may be right, so I warmed it a bit. Regarding the quality, I challenge you to find out something better out there...I don't say that this would be a reason to consider this FP, but that may be a reason to figure out that capture a moose is not so easy (and in this case in her habitat, far from the road). --Poco2 20:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, there are a lot of good moose photos here in Sweden. They are not hard to find or shoot, it's just that those photographers are not active on Commons (you can picture Google "älgtjur" to get what I mean). The rest they really shoot them during our annual moose hunting season. There are too many of them so they need to cull the population, and moose meat is the most delicious thing you can get. They are also part of our cultural heritage. I'm sorry that I'm so used to good moose photos, having grown up with them around me, that I just can't support this. I expect to see a healthy and robust animal for an FP, something like these specimens (this or this, as you can see we even get them in our gardens). I'm not much of an animal photographer myself, but we do have a moose park just around the corner here and I've been thinking about maybe visit it. Animals in a park is about the level of animal photography I can manage. We'll see. --Cart (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly can't speak for Alaska, never having been there (and the parts of Yukon I've been to have neither roads nor moose), but someone I met once from New Brunswick said they are a problem on rural roads there ... basically, he said, if you hit one at full speed and you're not driving a pickup or SUV, you're going to die when the moose's carcass goes through your windshield, as they are that heavy. Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. They are top-heavy and not built for colliding with. My little Mazda is no match for them, so you have to be alert here when driving. --Cart (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first version uploaded look less  Overexposed . --The Photographer 21:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment You challenged me to find a better photo. Now that I've fixed it a bit, I would much rather see this photo (compo, specimen, angle) over the nominated but none of them are FPs IMO, both have tech flaws. --Cart (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Cart, lease, don't compare zoo or garden images with wildlife shots, that's just not fair. I traveled far away to have a chance to see a moose in its enviroment, I didn't go to the closet zoo were after paying 20 euro I can shot all animals I like Poco2 22:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course I'm not, don't be offended. That is a wild moose that has wandered into a garden from the forest to steal apples. They do that all the time in autumn. Sometimes the apples have been on the ground for a while so they have become fermented and we get drunk wild moose wobbeling around and some local hunter will have to come and shoot the moose. As you can see, that is a low garden fence. It is useless to keep the moose out of the garden, they just step right over it. Sweden is the country with most moose per forest area in the world. Here their natural habitat is in every forest patch between our houses and farms, so it is natural for them to get close to people and houses. We have to shoot about 100 000 of them each year to keep the damage they do to our forests at a reasonable level, in Alaska they shoot 7000 per year and Alaska is four times as big as Sweden. --Cart (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Most of our nature photos are specimen photos, with little artistic creativity, and so we value seeing a sharp clear image of a healthy typical animal or plant. Rarely we get beautiful compositions and beautiful light or we get interesting behaviour captured. Here is neither. The lack of existing moose FPs seems more to do with the arbitrary demographics of Commons photographers than any particularly difficulty finding/photographing one. We have better pics of similar mammals. -- Colin (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per my discussion/reasons above. --Cart (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination --Poco2 20:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2018 at 20:07:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Autumn in the Carpathian Mountains, Ukraine.
Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:50, 5 June 2018 (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 14 Jun 2018 at 05:29:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Brown tabby cat on tree
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 10:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2018 at 19:32:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Amanita frostiana
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2018 at 12:44:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Dernekamp, Feld -- 2018 -- 0050.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2018 at 15:47:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Barley field in the hamlet Dernekamp, Kirchspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
  • I know the argument of DoF, but I can't follow. I'm trying to identify the problem, but I can't. IMO a lot of straws are sharp (enough). And DoF is good with f/11 (and APS-C Sensor). More means more diffraction and loss of sharpness. --XRay talk 07:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @XRay: FWIW, I don't think DOF actually is the problem here. I think it might be that the sections that are +/- in focus are all concentrated in the lower half of the frame, so the fraction of out-of-focus background is pretty large. Moving the sharp sections higher up towards the center (by pointing the camera down a bit or shooting from a slightly lower position) might help – but then you'd probably have to deal with additional out-of-focus foreground … --El Grafo (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, placing the DoF in the middle and you'd end up with something like this. Messy. I didn't even want to upload this at first since it came out so bad (and this was my best try) but if it can serve as an example of what middle ground focus can do, so be it. --Cart (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2018 at 02:32:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Crag over glacial lake
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2018 at 21:46:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eagle River Park, Anchorage, Alaska, United States
Better now. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Too dark now, IMO. It doesn't seem likely those clouds would be that dark with so much light in the foreground. Could you move the sliders back a considerable distance toward the way it was? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:05, 7 June 2018 (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 7 Jun 2018 at 07:07:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Waidhofen an der Ybbs, Lower Austria
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2018 at 18:17:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lightnings, over Belfort (France).
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2018 at 18:15:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lightnings, over Belfort (France).
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2018 at 20:08:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bridge over the Nenana River, Healy, Alaska, United States
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2018 at 20:25:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of Agüimes, Gran Canaria
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2018 at 05:21:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Interior of the parish church Waidhofen an der Ybbs, Lower Austria
  • @Code: There are 36 individual pictures in total, 3 rows and 3 columns with 4 exposures (+2/0/-2/-4), processed with PTGui and Lightroom. I use {{LargeImage}} whenever an image is larger than 50 MPix – this is the general recommendation. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2018 at 14:44:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tunnel Belliard exit (Brussels)
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Belgium
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2018 at 21:35:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

NSB Di 4 on the Saltfjellet
Confirmed results:
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail Vehicles
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2018 at 09:03:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aerial view of Golden Gate Bridge from the south
  • It was a Cessna 172M. My coworker graciously offered me a ride in his plane. Drones are prohibited over the Golden Gate Bridge. Since the Cessna was moving, I couldn't quite line up the bridge perfectly, but I think I got it fairly close. dllu (t,c) 10:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'll support it as a VI, but I don't think the rendering of the bridge is quite good enough for FP - sorry. It just lacks the crispness we tend to see in other featured photographs.--Peulle (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Peulle; I also think the WB is a little on the warm side, and those boat wakes are a little distracting. Under different circumstances, though, I think a photo like this could be featurable. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I don't think the boat wakes can be helped. Take a look at Category:Golden_Gate_Bridge_aerial_photographs. Boats, or boat wakes, can be seen in every photo. It is a rather popular bridge and there's a lot of boat traffic when the weather is good enough for aerial photography.

dllu (t,c) 21:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be helped; perhaps by flying out shortly after dawn (especially at this time of year) when there aren't likely (IMO) to be many people pleasureboating. Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I don't think there's anything wrong with the crispness: aerial photography is often not as good as this. I do agree the WB/colour looks warm, though not sure when it was taken (the timestamp is surely wrong). I'd support if the WB is correct or fixed.
  • Ah, I didn't spot the "(UTC)". Not perhaps very helpful for the file description - a local time would be useful. Well, if you think the warmth is due to the time-of-day then I guess I  Support. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use UTC for my photos because I'm tired of having to change the clock in my camera every time I travel to a different time zone, and every time daylight savings time changes. Besides, all timestamps on Wikimedia Commons are in UTC. I suppose I could add to my upload script the ability to convert it to local time since I include GPS coordinates with every file. dllu (t,c) 00:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be helpful. The fact that Commons timestamps are UTC is irrelevant -- we need a universal time for knowing which actions occurred before which, regardless of where the person was located. But a photograph, if it shows a time at all, should be local time. -- Colin (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2018 (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 12 Jun 2018 at 09:40:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wu Tingfang (Premier of the Republic of China) during his U.S. tenure, 1908
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2018 at 18:54:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rainer Pariasek
  •  Comment When preparing the camera for the first shots of this evening I set the aperture to f/3.5 to still have a low enough ISO. But even at f/3.5 it has a very shallow DoF at its full resolution of nearly uncropped 46MP. The right eye is pin sharp but the nosetip and the quite exposed left ear looked strange to my eyes when pixel-peeping at 100%, so I decided to downscale it for upload. --Granada (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Don't rules say that photos shouldn't be QIs if they are downscaled to look sharper? People shouldn't be penalizing a humongous photo because it's not sharp at the very largest size (maybe with the exception of some panoramas and such). Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This is clearly against the rules. The supporters above should reconsider their votes. How could we expect anybody to upload pictures at full size if we're going to promote this one? Regarding Granadas concerns it's perfectly fine not to have everything in focus here. A shallow DoF is quite a normal thing in portrait photography. We already had this discussion several times. I'll consider changing my vote to support after a higher resolution version has been uploaded because it's a very good portrait otherwise. --Code (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 CommentDownsampling images of living persons is even advised under certain circumstances, so this was not at all against the rules. --Granada (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if full resolution could be offensive, but not in order to appear of better quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - I have to agree with Code. It's against the rules. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I cite the rules: "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality. Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file. Downsampling images of living persons is advisable if the images would otherwise show details of the body (e. g. skin, teeth) in unacceptable magnification, which could be considered offensive or violate the person's rights.". Please could someone update the rules so that they strictly prohibit any downsampling? And remove that sentence about living people. Thanks in advance. --Granada (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
btw: it now has its full resolution. --Granada (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support reinstated. IMO, irrespective of questions about rules, the photo is so much more impressive this way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:52, 9 June 2018 (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 8 Jun 2018 at 16:38:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Black bearded man smiling
  • The grey gradient of the background added in post-process around the head seems to cover part of the hair and the ear, especially on the left side. The feather option of the selection before creating the blur was maybe not well adjusted. In this case, one must generally proceed in several successive stages. It looks like too much of the material have been trapped in the process -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ikan is the image you see with "posterization lines" simply the full size JPG resized by your browser to fit the screen, or is it a scaled down version generated by MediWiki (like the above "thumbnail" or preview size). If the latter, then we are at the mercy of the MediaWiki settings wrt how much jpg-compression and sharpening they apply when generating thumbnails. -- Colin (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're like curved striations around his head, and they are visible when the full JPG is resized to fit completely on screen and when I increase the size of that by as much as 300%, but not when I view the file at full size. Strange, I don't think I've seen another instance of this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The unfortunate result is that it's hard for me to appraise this photo because I can't perceive the whole composition at full size, but it looks damaged at smaller sizes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I see the ripple effect as you describe. Strange. Posterisation in an monocolour graduation is an unfortunately common problem and I suspect mostly due to the limitations of 8-bit JPG and our non-HDR monitors. Sometimes it can be hidden by applying a little noise. It isn't necessarily due to an artificial post-process graduation, as it can occur a direct photo of light graduating (e.g. clear blue sky). -- Colin (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basile Morin: How do you know it is a "studio" picture? According to the source, this comes from a series of homeless people portraits. Of course, the man posed, but I don't see any information about a studio. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yann, "studio shot or photo" is only a photography term. It means just about any photo where the person is posing under some kind of controlled circumstances. It can be as simple as letting someone sit on a chair by a window to be able to control where the light comes from. The photo session doesn't have to be done in an actual photo studio. A series of "studio photos" of homeless people can easily be done say in a hall where they give out food to the homeless or someplace similar where those who are being photographed feel comfortable. --Cart (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only a photography term? There is quite a difference between a casual pose, and a real studio set up, in term of light quality and potential photographic equipment... Yann (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it is, but still many photographers use the term in this way to describe photos like this to tell them apart from other portraits like these: 1 2 3. I didn't invent this use, I'm just trying to explain it, so please don't shoot the messenger. ;) --Cart (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Cart. And yes, Yann, I believe it's a studio shot because it seems staged, and the light well controlled. Also remember you asked the same question on this nomination. But I'd like to insist on the very rush post-process here. If this treatment after shooting is not obvious to your eyes, look at this similar picture from the same artist. The background definitely got artificially blurred all around the face. This problem doesn't mean the picture you've downloaded is not beautiful, nor of great value, just maybe not the perfect candidate for FP. I've added a note. Also I think it would be interesting to mention in the description that this person is homeless. It makes the portrait even more interesting -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2018 at 20:18:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lopesan Baobab Resort, Maspalomas, Gran Canaria
Confirmed results:
Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:52, 9 June 2018 (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 8 Jun 2018 at 17:19:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sound suppression water system test at KSC Launch Pad 39A
  • This is a top-down photo, you can't do perspective corrections on those without the result looking really weird. --Cart (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see en:Perspective (graphical) and en:Perspective control. The architectural photography where building verticals are absolutely vertical and parallel is itself a distortion and a form of "constructed perspective" that the eye would never see. It approximates reality only when the viewer is infinitely distant from the subject, and becomes increasingly unrealistic when very close to the subject -- hence some of our "corrected" images of buildings have bell or clock towers that look too large. It is also only valid when the viewing direction is perpendicular to a building (parallel to the ground), or close enough that we don't spot the error. Here, the view is most certainly angled down and we can't start to pretend it was ever parallel to the ground. There may be some en:Perspective distortion (photography) if an ultra-wide-angle lens produced an angle-of-view that is uncomfortably large, but there's no EXIF data for the image. -- Colin (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2018 at 16:50:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Savage River, Denali National Park‎, Alaska, United States.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 03:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2018 at 06:16:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Canyon of ToroToro in Bolivia
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2018 at 19:36:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

American raven (Corvus corax sinuatus) vocalizing at Point Reyes National Seashore, Marin County, California
 Comment Yes, I adjusted the shadows. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2018 at 07:59:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Amur leopard (Panthera pardus ssp. orientalis) in winter, Zoo Schönnbrunn Vienna, Austria
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2018 at 05:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2018 at 11:19:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Female moose in Grand Teton National Park
  • Poco: Do as you whish, but you asked me to look for better moose photos, I did and stumbled upon this. I really like it so I can't see why I can't nominate it. I honestly have you to thank for finding it, if you hadn't challenged me to come up with something better (I can't resist a challenge as Colin also learned), I wouldn't have found this. There are no sneaky thoughts behind this, that is not my style. I'm too blunt to have any hidden agendas. You know that if I find a photo I think is worthy of an FP, I will nominate it as I have done many times before. It's as simple as that. Once again thanks for the push to find this. :) --Cart (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poco you wrote "I challenge you to find out something better out there." This is standard "find great picture -> nominate it at FP". The only person who seems to be making a point is you. -- Colin (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:38, 10 June 2018 (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 Jun 2018 at 08:06:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of the sunset in Conques, Aveyron, France
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places#France
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2018 at 07:52:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Seriema in the zoo in Vienna, Austria
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2018 at 14:37:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Iyasu's Palace
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2018 (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 10 Jun 2018 at 16:38:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Alternative

[edit]

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2018 at 05:54:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Porch with frescos and staircase of the parish church Saint George in Sternberg, Wernberg, Carinthia, Austria
Need verticals fix --The Photographer 10:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done @The Photographer: Verticals were being fixed. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 07:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2018 at 16:38:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Traffic signs during re-paving of a road in Brastad
  • Well, 'ordinary day scene' was not what I was going for, so I guess I flunked this one. Re-pavement of a main road is done about once every 10 years or so, and that is not something you can document every day. I liked all the little traffic sign "seedlings" that seemed to have sprouted along the curved road. That's what made it special to me. If this was how our roads usually looked, we'd be in trouble. ;) I don't want to de-noise it too much, since it would take away the grittiness of the scene. --Cart (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Norwegian roads are so bad I see this kind of roadworks all the time ... ;-D--Peulle (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, commiserations. --Cart (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you know, I like to challenge that from time to time with more documentary or journalistic content. Sometimes it works, most of the times not, but it's worth a try. --Cart (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2018 at 14:21:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sochi Sky Park
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chitraas, Wama, Nuristan, Afghanistan - panoramio.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2018 at 11:43:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chitraas village, Wama District, Nuristan Province, Afghanistan.
Colorwise it looks a lot better, but it's still a lot less sharp then an FP of this type should be. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Good work! That sure is better. However, the upper left corner still looks a little strange, and not just at full size but at 240% of full screen on my laptop. I think there's still some CA. I will consider whether to strike my oppose vote, but I don't think I'm ready to support, at least not yet. Would you like to do a bit more work on that corner? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That corner is really in shadow, so a totally different light than the rest of the photo. I think got the CA, what you see is probably blue tint of shadow. I think it would missrepresent the landscape if I brought too much of that part into sunlight. I can try to do some work on it though. --Cart (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2018 at 18:25:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Male white peacock
 Comment well, lighting conditions were somewhat challenging... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2018 at 21:20:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gutweed at low tide in Brofjorden
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Other lifeforms#Algae
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2018 at 02:35:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A BART train in San Francisco


Scrollable version of above
  •  Comment I am aware the colours aren't perfect currently, but they are vastly better than before. I've spent a lot of effort trying to mitigate the tinge and I think that now they have been reduced to a point that doesn't significantly detract from the image. As for holding up the colorchecker passport, remember the line scan camera can only see a tiny 1px slice of it. There is no way to image the whole passport at once. Moreover, every pixel has a slightly different sensitivity. For example, the greenness is much stronger towards the top of the image than the bottom (as seen between cars 349 and 1644). I think you are probably right that calibration in the field would be better than calibrating at home since the sensitivity and noise level of the sensor seems to change with temperature. If you can think of a way to move the colorchecker passport in such a way that it is possible to programmatically recover which of the squares each pixel is looking at, such that each pixel has the chance to look at all the squares, all the while not changing the angle of the colorchecker passport with respect to the light source (assuming the colorchecker passport isn't perfectly Lambertian), while moving it fast enough that the thing can be captured without a significant change in the sun's position --- please suggest such a method so that I may implement it. By the way, of course the colours are less accurate for dark areas. Like all image sensors, this is a (nearly) linear image sensor, whereas the image shown here is a gamma-corrected image using the piecewise sRGB function. The slope of the sRGB function, as you may recall, is 12.92 in the dark region. Any constant additive noise in the sensor, such as thermal noise, in that region will be amplified by 12.92 times. If you consider the fact that the shutter speed used here (around 1/30,000 s -- I'll have to check when I get home) is several times faster than the fastest possible shutter speed of your DSLR camera, you'll see that the noise level is actually fairly reasonable. dllu (t,c) 07:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Here is a link to the 4096 calibration matrices (3x3) that I'm using. If you find more accurate calibration matrices for this particular photo, feel free to make a pull request. dllu (t,c) 07:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about a compromise? I guess your hands are free while ur device scanlines the train. You could take pictures of the passing train with a "regular" camera (which would be easier to calibrate using the color checker) and use the outputs as reference (don't ask me the details, I don't know how). Sounds feasible for someone versed in image processing. - Benh (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My colour checker idea was a bit of a joke really. But Benh's idea is a good one. For most purposes even, getting the colours similar by eye would be good enough -- a whole lot better than trying to remember the sky colour or shade of a poster blue. Wrt variation between pixels, surely that is something you can calibrate at home in the studio with reference images -- isn't the variation in the field a global effect? Wrt your shutter speed and amount of light captured, do you have any idea what the equivalent ISO of a regular camera would need to be? Does your camera need focused or is it like a pinhole camera? -- Colin (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The variation seems to change with temperature and time or something. Now that I think about it, the green cast can also be due to lens flare since the sun was in the background. I calibrated the camera at home but it was several months after the photo was taken, and the greenish cast towards the top of the image didn't seem to show up in my calibration data. And yes, the camera needs focusing. It just uses a regular photographic lens (Nikon F mount, manual focus). Nailing the focus of a large aperture lens when you only have a tiny sliver to look at is incredibly challenging (I think this was shot at f/2.8). The length of the sensor is 28 mm, about the same as the diagonal length of APS-C sensors. I spent all afternoon scanning BART trains and this was the best one I got. By the way, in case you were interested: here's a video of me scanning a Queensland SMU 260 recently. I'll process and upload those soon. Uunprocessed, uncalibrated sneak peeks SM260 SM220. dllu (t,c) 09:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles

File:Eriphia verrucosa female 2012 G1.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2018 at 07:10:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Warty crab female (Eriphia verrucosa)

File:Ipomoea purpurea 2016 G1.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2018 at 07:03:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Morning Glory (Ipomoea purpurea)
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2018 at 16:54:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Yukon River, Carmacks, Yukon, Canada.
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2018 (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 21 Jun 2018 at 17:52:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Our Lady of Lourdes Church as per from hill in Tiruchirapalli, India.
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above comments. Yann (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 18:02:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sunrise through rocks near Thotlakonda beach in Visakhapatnam, India
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above comments. Yann (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  •  I withdraw my nomination --
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 15:28:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Royal horse-drawn carriage
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 21:13:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Volvo V40 Cross Country
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 19:04:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lake Morské oko in May
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 17:28:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vihorlat in November
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 07:30:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

On a bed of roses
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2018 at 07:10:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Square in Luxembourg City
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2018 at 12:33:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2018 at 12:12:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Silbertaler 1632 Leopold V. von Österreich-Tirol
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Not an acceptable license. Yann (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2018 at 06:24:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fields between Kirchlauter and Neubrunn in the Haßberge Mountains
  • For whatever it's worth, I really like the road curving from the lower right to the upper left. Obviously, everyone will react differently to a photo. Thanks for considering it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places#Germany
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2018 at 05:07:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Meadows with Swiss pine trees (pinus cembra) larch trees (larix decidua) with the Odles Group and the Stevia Mountain, Puez-Geisler Nature Park, Dolomites. A UNESCO World Heritage Site
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places#Italy
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2018 at 21:43:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sunset in Tok, Alaska, United States
Better now --The Photographer 18:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:58, 14 June 2018 (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 18 Jun 2018 at 06:05:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Attacus taprobanis
Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Saturniidae_(Saturniids)

File:Dassault-Dornier Alpha Jets - Duxford Air Festival 2018 - 2.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2018 at 16:18:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dassault-Dornier Alpha Jets at the Duxford Air Festival 2018
I use a selective denoise with Neat Image, using the manual selection patern tool and playing with Luminance and Chrominance reduction ajusting it manually and in this case I'm not applying any sharpening. It is more better than the global lightroom destructive nr --The Photographer 18:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Martin I've uploaded 70 photos taken at the show, which you can see in my recent upload log. The light at the beginning was pretty bad but improved towards the end, when the jet formation display took place. -- Colin (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport#Military jet aircraft
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2018 at 17:51:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view (360°) from the Horse´s Head ofer the Rhön mountains
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places#Germany
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 22:00:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Harper's for September (2015646443).jpg
 Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. Yann (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 14:13:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lukáš Bundil with in Valašské Meziříčí 3.6.2018.
 Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Faro de Maspalomas, May 2018 -2.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 08:08:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Maspalomas Lighthouse
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 09:46:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Čeština: Pohled na Studniční horu z Růžohorek.
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: The resolution is below minimum size requirement --Milseburg (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 06:30:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of the issues identified in the above opposes Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 02:31:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pamban bridge located in between Pamban and Indian mainland
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the technical quality and composition are far from FP standards.--Peulle (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 17:30:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 10:31:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Traditional Handlooms in Nepal
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2018 at 18:04:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:00, 17 June 2018 (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 17 Jun 2018 at 02:49:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:22, 17 June 2018 (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 16 Jun 2018 at 21:42:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fort de la Chartreuse (Belgium)
  •  CommentI understand and was afraid of this which is why I made the alternate after I nominated it.
I don't like the alternate as much for several reasons.
I think the tighter crop is less pleasant to look at and that the ground in front of the picture does add to the composition (the leading space itself and the random bits of broken stuff and litter), and it seems impossible to remove the part of the bike that covers the ground.
The bike definitely adds an imperfection to the picture and I would have liked to have an alternate where it's naturally not there but I think it's an acceptable imperfection, I enjoy looking at this picture over long periods of time the most out of all the pictures in my rotating background, hence I ended up nominating it, of course I am biased as I love that bike which gets me into all these cool places and brings some of the fondest memories I have whereas it may in fact just be an eyesore.
Last but not least I think this picture deserves a chance over the inpainted one because it's real whereas the other one has had a significant part cloned out, that process itself is an imperfection and it brings many.
I thought I would withhold the alternate for another submission if this one fails but it wouldn't be very nice to spam you over eighteen days with the same picture, so I'm adding it as an alternate. I'd much prefer if the original got promoted but the choice is yours. --Trougnouf (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poor decision making. I like to include my bicycle, and I spent too much time (~90s) doing unnecessary exposure bracketing when I could have used that time to take a picture with the bike, one without, and a third trying to hold an acrobatic pose for 30s, or explored that amazing place further. (I highly recommend it if you are ever in Liege, it's an abandoned military base turned into public parc that nature reclaims, all within the city, although I didn't see any wildlife except for a cat and the first squirrel I've seen in Belgium.) --Trougnouf (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (cloned-out bicycle and crop)

[edit]

  •  Comment It's a dark place, still there is plenty of room on the histogram, I increased the exposure on the original but it will take me some time to update this one as I have to redo the cloning and I'm currently without a mousetrackball. --Trougnouf (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2018 at 04:50:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 13:04:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Iustitia & man in white
 Info QI is a good place to start; if promoted there, the image will be seen to be of good technical quality. VI is a good place if you think the image is a good illustration of something specific, e.g. the best image on Commons of a specific object. Here at FP, only very good technical images that also have a certain wow factor are usually promoted.--Peulle (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation! QI would be a good choice, but I just read in the QI guidelines that the image must have been created by a Commons user, which is not the case here. And VI doesn't seem to apply to this photo. That's a pity... —capmo (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment This is not the work of a Commoner, so it can't be a QI. I like the composition very much, however the quality is not there. Specifically, the man's clothes are overexposed, among other issues. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your comments. I'm withdrawing the nomination for lack of technical quality. —capmo (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--—capmo (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 06:07:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Line up of the Brazilian team before the match on June 10th 2018 in Vienna
* it's either a copyright violation or supported by WMAT ;) --Ailura (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Exclusive, unique and elitist. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Right place, right time, right settings. Charles (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per El Grafo and a BIG congratulations to you for getting such a photo! --Cart (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Llez (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 10:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I was going to protest the uniqueness of the image since the situation is fairly ordinary and there are millions of team photos on the web - it's not like this is a WC final or a famous team (yet) - but then I realized that as far as Commons are concerned, this is probably quite unique indeed.--Peulle (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --A.Savin 15:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Great job Granada, thank you for your unique and valuable contributions for the project. --Podzemnik (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --XRay talk 18:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Cool Poco2 20:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Could someone explain why this photo is unique and notable? So far the comments all seem to be from the perspective of sports fanatics who know some special context. --Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically what Peulle said. It's a fairly standard team photo taken prior to a male international association football match. The context here is access to take such photos is highly restricted. Think photographers working for Reuters, AP, AFP etc. So it's rare in the context of Wikimedia Commons for such a photo not to be a copyright violation. -- KTC (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused about whether this is a famous team. Puelle said they're not famous. Granada implies they have a shot at being world champions (or was that a joke because they're actually nobodies?). Is this the national team from Brazil? If so, I'd assume that they'd be famous. —Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's the Brazil national team. What do you mean by famous? Individually, each of the players are well known, some of the best in the world etc., including one who is the world most expensive footballer by transfer fee. As a footballing nation, Brazil is one of the if not the most famous. But this particular group of players, they haven't won anything yet, it was just a friendly match. Compare to say a team photo taken at this match. -- KTC (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eve Teschlemacher: I think KTC summarized it fairly well, but just to clarify my own point, I'll elaborate. This is the real Brazil team, so they are famous, but they're not legendary. The 1974 Netherlands team with Cruyff, Neeskens, Rep etc. is legendary. The 1962 Brazil squad with Garrincha, Vavá and Pelé is legendary. This team is just the current Brazil squad and we don't know if they will reach such heights yet, meaning that an image of the squad might have less of a wow factor and be less "featurable" since there are literally millions of photos of national teams out there. It was also just a normal friendly match, not an image taken in an extraordinary situation. The reason this is still eligible for FP on Commons is that most images like these are taken by photographers who retain their copyrights and as such the images don't find their way to Commons. Remember, images with FP status are described as "some of the finest on Commons". Note: on Commons, not "on the web" or "in existence". Since there are so few of these images on Commons in the first place, that can make the image eligible for FP.--Peulle (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:18, 17 June 2018 (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 17 Jun 2018 at 10:43:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of the Caldera El Golfo and Charco de los Clicos, El Golfo, Lanzarote

Alternative (downsized)

[edit]

Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Spain
The chosen alternative is: File:Caldera El Golfo 02.jpg

File:Schloss Gluecksburg msu 2018 -7111.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2018 at 13:13:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Glücksburg Castle in the town of Glücksburg, Germany.
Confirmed results:
Result: 27 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications

File:Bissendorf - Schelenburg - Wasserschloss -BT- 01.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2018 at 08:26:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Water castle Schelenburg. Bissendorf, Lower Saxony, Germany
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 21:31:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alaska Range from Tok, Alaska, United States.
  • If we look at the tallest mountain peak (which seems very far away, effectively at infinity), then the distance from the peak to the top of the image is longer than the distance from the peak's reflection to the bottom of the image. It seems this can be fixed by rotating the image 0.4 degrees counterclockwise around the middle of the left edge. dllu (t,c) 21:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/United States
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 19:55:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Petr Lexa with Czech pop band in 03. 06. 2018.
 Comment @KTC: Should be fixed now … --El Grafo (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2018 at 16:32:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Plaza Mayor de Santa Ana and City Hall, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
IMHO composition is centered, not remarcable main subject, btw, tilt --The Photographer 18:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main issue to me is the perspective, I would have enjoyed it from a lower point of view, not sure whether just pitching down the camera would have made it. Poco2 16:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 19:55:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Czech pop band in 03. 06. 2018.
 Comment I moved the page and I changed the file. --Patriccck (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 23:21:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Laurier Quebec mall, Québec city
✓ Done Please add more examples. --The Photographer 00:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found two more :) --Podzemnik (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Thanks --The Photographer 01:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't has more quality of it because it was taken using a cheaper Chinese very compact camera Yi. --The Photographer 11:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin Right, sorry for that, I deleted my notes. --Podzemnik (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're judging the image, not the camera. Cart takes FP's with a 1"-sensor compact camera all the time, but the tiny sensor in most compact and phone cameras will struggle to compete at FP -- I think we have a few that were taken outdoors in great light. FP is for the "finest on Commons" and the Places/Interiors category is full of technically very fine photos, many of which are super sharp and detailed and also handle the dynamic range seen in interiors. You wouldn't expect such a camera to compete at FP for macro or bird photography either. -- Colin (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I'm impressed with this photo, but you do have a lot of tough competition in the interiors category, so why don't you tweak the photo so that there is no longer a blown area, for example. And was the mall actually brighter in general? If it was, you could work on that, too, right? Anyway, looking for an objective set of criteria that automatically result in passing at FPC doesn't work when "wow" is one of them, and I think you would agree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2018 at 14:54:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ruins of a mill
 Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Cart (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2018 at 03:23:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Slza 3.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 07:24:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bell hung on the narthex of the St. George's Church in the village of Budinarci, Macedonia
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 12:48:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
 Support OK, that explains it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2018 at 13:10:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Castle ruins of Aggstein, Wachau, Lower Austria
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Austria
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2018 at 22:23:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Golden Gate Bridge as seen from Hawk Hill
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:23, 20 June 2018 (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 20 Jun 2018 at 00:51:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Singer Maarja Nuut at Viljandi Folk Music Festival (2016)
✓ Done Kruusamägi (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the person is identified by name and her performance is probably recognizable to her friends, family and fans, it is right to add the template. "Better safe than sorry". --Cart (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:32, 20 June 2018 (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 19 Jun 2018 at 23:03:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of Estaing, Aveyron, France
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places#France
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 05:59:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

João Miranda header
The nomination was withdrawn, dude ... :P --Peulle (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes a post-withdraw support can prompt a user to re-open the nom. Such votes serves a purpose, dude. --Cart (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if it would be a good idea to reopen this nom. After closing I've uploaded a downscaled Version as I am stil convinced that it is a good shot hit in the perfect moment despite some missing sharpness. --Granada (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:30, 20 June 2018 (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 Jun 2018 at 07:46:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kjæret boligeiendom
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 16:01:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kokořín Tunnel in the Czech Republic
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 05:15:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A man in the NYC Pride Parade in 2017
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 19:54:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A wedge on a newly constructed support for preassure tanks
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 15:15:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A pedestrian bridge leading to Thatipudi Dam hole near Visakhapatnam, India
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of all these opposes with no new supports. Daniel Case (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baker Beach 2.jpg (delist), delisted

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 22:55:43
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 11 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --A.Savin 00:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 22:49:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wooly torch cactus
  • Ha! I said "I have never seen a cactus look so much like a bird." Looking at the FP category, I see that in 2013 we have promoted another picture of the same species with some [rather creepy] birdlike qualities! I see in that one there was a suggestion to brighten it. We will see if that is echoed here -- brightening is definitely possible, although the brighter it is the more detail will be lost at the base of the spines. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This I do not understand. I look at the image that was featured and does look to have been taken with a flash, and I see less detail/clarity than in this one, and I have a hard time imagining how a flash would be an improvement. Maybe I've just never used a good flash or known how to use one. New version uploaded - I just went back and brightened the subject in Lightroom and uploaded a new version. Presumably this is not what's being recommended here? If not, could someone link to a good example of a white subject made clearer using a flash? — Rhododendrites talk |  14:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a flash used in this, this and I used a flash directly on the birch in this. These are some that I could come up with right away, there are probably more/better examples out there. I think flashes are more in sync with cameras these days. Using a flash is a new tool in your camera box, it takes a bit getting used to as do all new photo things. :) Not so long ago you had no idea about CA or stacking, and look at you now! :) I thought I'd plant this seed in your curious mind. --Cart (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I do need to experiment with it more, it's true. In this case, I remain mystified how this is preferable to the current image, and skeptical (glibly, likely) that a flash would produce something preferable to simply amplifying existing light in post-processing. If the tastes of FPC are such that the other image is deemed superior, then it is a standard I'm not inclined to aspire to, for better or worse. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as the specimen goes, yours is way better. :) The think a flash could have done for you here, is put a bit if sparkle in the needles and bring out the definition of the green/grey/brown plant texture of the cactus skin. It would also have lifted the shadow where the "beak" joins the main plant and made the red a bit more prominent. --Cart (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that. I'll take a closer look when I'm on my desktop. Based on how this nom has gone so far, I suspect there's not a version of this image that would be featured, but maybe I'll try it again sometime down the line. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, the illusion isn't the basis for the nomination. :) I just think it's a high quality depiction of an unusual-looking species -- that it looks a bit like a bird makes it kind of fun, but I wouldn't nominate it just on that basis. Not expecting this to change anyone's mind -- this clearly isn't going to pass either way. Just want to be clear about my motivation. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  18:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 18:57:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The gates of Chirk Castle
@Podzemnik: , remember to sign your !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Oh lala, thank you! --Podzemnik (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Doors
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 20:31:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mountains in Iceland, taken from a plane
Confirmed results:
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Iceland
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 21:40:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Unidentified ceiling in Panam Nagar
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 21:53:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Edison's Greatest Marvel: The Vitascope
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:36, 21 June 2018 (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 Jun 2018 at 10:37:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eastern black-and-white colobus (Colobus guereza matschiei)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 10:18:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Common blue butterfly (Polyommatus icarus) male
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fundación César Manrique - Park wall.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2018 at 10:56:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Park wall by César Manrique, Fundación César Manrique, Tahiche, Lanzarote, Canary Islands, Spain
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 15:55:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Yanasen Temple, Ayutthaya, Thailand.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puerto de Opakua - Paisaje -BT- 01.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2018 at 19:08:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Landscape at the Opakua mountain pass. A stile, pastures, fog and the Iturrieta mountain range. Álava, Basque Country, Spain
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 19:56:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
 Support--Peulle (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Of course! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - I think I'd like a little more room on the bottom, but that's a beautiful tower and very well photographed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I gave it a bit more space on the bottom. --Podzemnik (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The photo seems to be oversharpened with a bright edge around every dark object, and the effect is visible both at full size and at thumbnail size (this seems to be the case with all your night photos). I would recommend not using the "clarity" slider too much for this type of photo, as artifacts from that slider are particularly obvious against the smooth sky. I am also not sure about the composition. It seems to be not quite centered, but not sufficiently off-center for an interesting asymmetric composition. dllu (t,c) 08:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you dllu, what's you're saying is really valuable to me. I actually don't use the clarity almost at all but yes, the bright edge was caused by using too much of sharpening. It seems like night photos don't handle as much sharpening as day photos. And yeah, the composition was somewhere in the middle - I tried to give it a bit more space. Do you think it's better? And thanks again for your comment, I'm basically starting with a night photography and every advice is welcome. --Podzemnik (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2018 (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 22 Jun 2018 at 00:09:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Obra de Teatro Don Quijote en el Teatro Teresa Carreño
To create the sentimental effect of solitude like if god is not there --The Photographer 10:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With this explanation, I find it compelling, but without it, I didn't get it. So in order for me to support, I'd need for this explanation to be in the file's description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Laura Fiorucci gracias a ti por permitirme tomar fotos de tu obra. --The Photographer 22:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Non static scene, in a low light condition interior and a Nikon D300. Of course it has noise, IMHOW aceptable. --The Photographer 22:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Events_(Arts,_concerts,_shows...)
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 11:15:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Publicum telephonum usitatum in Cechia
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per Peulle. Yann (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 11:56:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Andkjelvatnet lake seen from Durmålstinden
Hi Storkk, what does really "sliders" mean? I used a polarizing filter. The picture is taken north of the polar circle, and the light is said to be different up there than elsewhere. Kind regards --Frankemann (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hej där! "Sliders" är det engelska ordet för de knappar och kontroller som man styr inställningarna med i ett bildbehandlingsprogram som till exempel Photoshop. Dom kallas så för att dom liksom glider på ett spår. Det har alltså bara att göra med efterbehandlingen av bilden och inte vilka tillbehör du hade på själva kameran. Ha det gott, --Cart (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wi nøt trei a holiday in Sweden this jër? Daniel Case (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jo ar ålväjs velkom her, just giv mi ä kål. --Cart (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cart, thanks for explanation! Have tried such Image Manipulation Programs, but this has not been the subject of this. Also thanks to Daniel Case for explanation about Arctic light conditions. Funny, it's this kind of light I'm most used to. Kind regards --Frankemann (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I should also say, having done my share of landscape shots in soft Arctic light, that yes, this looks authentic to me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Okeydokey, I was waiting for Daniel's view on this since I know he has some experience with such photos. I mean, I've been up far north, but that has always been during winter when you can't really do anything but night photography. --Cart (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of my Ivvavik pictures, this seems the most similar to me, although with less haze. The rock does sort of have a similar cast. The colors of the landscape, although I'm sure the underlying geology is different, seem right to me in this picture.

At a similar latitude, the landscapes of Sarek National Park nearby in Sweden have always struck me as very similar photographically to Ivvavik, and that's another point of comparison. (I have decided, for that reason, that I ought to find a way to visit Sarek one day. Besides, it speaks so much of Swedes that they are such Trek fans that they named a national park for Spock's father . Daniel Case (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only seen Sarek in February, -32 C but spectacular auroras. --Cart (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:10, 22 June 2018 (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 22 Jun 2018 at 19:30:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Monument to Prussian field marshal Blücher, Berlin, Germany, 1961, with WWII damages still to be seen.
  • Ahem Peulle, the building in the background is part of the historical context of when the statue was dissembled and the building was a ruin. It's an iconic photo from the days of the Cold War in which the "de-throned" man from the statue looks at the ruined city. Please compare with more recent photos in Category:Blücher-Denkmal (Berlin) where it looks very different. --Cart (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's part of the image but it's terribly rendered. That would be fine if it was just a background feature but it's not.--Peulle (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a film photo and you can't expect the same quality for that as with digital photos, even if this was made by a large(r) format camera (negative 6 x 6 cm, imagine a sensor that size...). --Cart (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6x6cm is medium format --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! --Cart (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6x6 should have very high resolution, even if it is an old photo. High quality 6x6 films easily resolve over 100 megapixels of detail [2]. Even for 1960 film I think it's still possible to get better quality. I think the problem here is with low quality scanning and digital postprocessing. dllu (t,c) 22:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point there about the scanner. Most normal film scanners are just made for normal 35 mm film, a 60 x 60 mm would require something else. The scanning function on a printer with scanner would not be enough. --Cart (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did use a flatbed scanner with a dedicated 6x6 negative holder, but I hat no interest in getting a 100 MB file, so I chose a lower resolution than technically possible. And no, probably there wouldn‘t have been a gain in quality. --Till (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It can sometimes be advisable to do the scan at maximum, post-process it like that and then downsize it for publication. We did that when we scanned old glass plates at a museum and found out that was the best way to get it as sharp as possible. --Cart (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I enhanced the descriptions. --Till (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:19, 22 June 2018 (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 26 Jun 2018 at 13:16:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Joséphine-Charlotte metro station entrance and main part of the platform
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 13:55:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Street art mural in Curitiba, Brazil
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 15:46:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Osteospermum ecklonis in Dunedin Botanic Garden, Dunedin, New Zealand
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 17:27:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Purple rain on roof
  •  Comment I think this discussion has popped up so many times (even on one of your own noms) that we should know it by now, but here goes: Educational value is not a requirement for FP, see FP General rules # 7 "Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.". If you look though the PTOY categories, you will find a lot of just artistic images. --Cart (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yann: Well, I could argue that there is probably some article that could use a photo of falling rain or that it could illustrate the color mentioned in the file description or a photo article about different filters or to illustrate monochrome images. There are several places where it could have educational value if you insist on an FP needing such, I just didn't think I would have to bring it up since it isn't an issue per previous discussion mentioned above. As long as you have some imagination, there are always articles where a photo can be used. --Cart (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • All photos on Commons must have some educational value, otherwise you should open a DR. I do think educational value is a quality we look for at FP, along with technical and artistic qualities. (The requirements mention we seek "valuable pictures" more than just pretty pictures, and this is an educational media repository, so I think it is fairly obvious what we should value). A photo with all three is a winner and a photo that is deficient in one of them inclines one towards negative voting. We all differ in our judgement of these three qualities and having wow in one of them can compensate. What isn't a requirement for FP is encyclopaedic value, which implies the image would be useful to illustrate the lead of an article at Wikipedia, or that the image is itself must be a source of encyclopaedic information. Instead, I think a wide variety of images can be used as illustrations on educational articles, as Cart notes, with a bit of imagination.
However, I do think the meta use of an image to illustrate just that style of photography or processing is the weakest argument for educational purpose. For example, I believe File:Bluebells ICM, Ashridge Estate, 2015.jpg has educational use beyond merely illustrating Intentional camera movement. Another example are the POTY 1st and 3rd prize winning photos File:Glühwendel brennt durch.jpg and File:Glühlampe explodiert.jpg. The former is not used on en Wiki at all, and the latter only to illustrate high speed flash photography. Yet people, including Yann, support these eye-candy photos, and the whole wiki community thought they were the very very finest featured images for two years running. Neither of those light bulb photos illustrates anything realistic, just the artistic imagination and technical talent of the photographer. -- Colin (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To me, these 2 pictures of light bulbs illustrate chemical and/or physical properties. Yes, the setup is artificial, but the result has high educational value to me. Cart's picture is nice, but colored that way, I don't see any EV. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So natural or black and white are OK and have EV, but no other colors? Then how about photos like this, no EV? Or sepia or cyanotypes? I'm just trying to find out where the boundaries are. --Cart (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For old images, I always think that black and white is better than sepia, but other disagree. There is an obvious educational value in coloring the Ebola virus, but I don't know the technical details of electronic micro-photography. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining your standpoint on this. --Cart (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Yann it might be helpful to be less black & white (ha!) about saying there isn't "any EV". I can appreciate that colour toning an image is (a) not to everyone's taste and (b) can limit its usefulness vs a neutral tone. This image assumes people want or are happy with using a purple rain image vs original coloured or neutral b&w where they could apply processing themselves. At least Cart did upload the colour original. We've all seen how someone can wreck a perfectly good photo with too much HDR or sliding the Highlights to -100 or Clarity to +100, etc. The result might rarely be appropriate for some illustration and be tasteful to some people, but not many. So I respect your claim that the processing here may limit the EV, but think it is hard to claim there isn't any EV at all. -- Colin (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! The original is not bad at all and I totally respect yours and Martin's votes. But like so many times, I want to try out new things and see where they lead me/us. At least all versions are there for anyone to use freely and that is most important. Btw, the yellow dots are not leaves but lichen as it says in the text. --Cart (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Featured pictures are images from highly skilled photographers and illustrators that the Wikimedia Commons community has chosen as some of the highest quality on the site." As this is an image that does not not reflect reality then it is submitted as an artistic creation 'of the highest quality' and I don't think this is. I will continue to oppose any images that in my opinion do no favours to the Commons FP project. I think it is important that FP images would be rated by those not in our community as being outstanding in their genre, whether it is landscape, interiors, wildlife, sports or whatever. Artistic images have their place of course, but the artistic barrier needs to be as high as the technical barrier is for most nominations. We should make every effort not to devalue the FP award, but it is unfortunately very difficult to guarantee objective voting when many of the voters are also nominators. Perhaps we should be forbidden from voting when we have a live nomination? Would that work for everyone? See talk page. Charles (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative - original

[edit]

  •  Info Before tensions get any higher here, it might be a good idea to offer the original as an alt. Anything to keep it mellow. --Cart (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Cart (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Jee 02:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - I support this version, too. I find poetry in it. Not every FP has to hit you over the head with how specially decorated it is or whatever. Beauty also lies in simplicity, when done right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Cart has a great eye for patterns, but for some reason, I don't feel totally comfortable looking at this picture. The picture seems imbalanced and the composition seems haphazard... the strong diagonal lines are neither parallel patterns, nor do they converge in a meaningful way. The raindrops seem to be distributed nonuniformly, with fewer around the bottom-right-most line. The depth of field seems insufficient, leading to only a narrow horizontal band that is sharp; but the out-of-focus areas aren't blurry enough to become an artistic bokeh either. Ultimately the eye wanders around the image looking for detail and is left unsatisfied. As a final straw on the camel: among the yellow particles are scattered throughout the image (which are fine), there's a particularly large clump on the left, visible at thumbnail size, which draws too much attention to itself. dllu (t,c) 06:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think dllu's comment sums up the problem with photographing rain very well. When you shoot rain, the weather is always bad. A bit self-evident, but you have bad light and you are dealing with raindrops that are very small and you need detail, so you are left with a narrow selection of ISO and DoF. To get this many splashes in the 1/125 sec (0.008) you have as your timeframe, it must really come down. You might think a normal rain will do but I've tried that and at best you get about 5-7 splashes in the area of your frame. The sound when this rain hit the roof was deafening(!), and it didn't fall uniformly but moved with the wind. Personally, I don't think the non-uniform pattern is a flaw. It makes it look natural, otherwise you could just bring out the garden hose. Rain is something that's available to most of us to photograph but there are reasons why we don't have that many good photos of it here. You can't predict or plan a rain photo unless you are a storm chaser. --Cart (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is a really good photo, facing about the same problems as I had. I hope he had a waterproof casing for his camera! Even if I was standing in a window, I had to wrap my camera in a towel because of all the splatter. :) --Cart (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main difference between File:Falling rain in mexico.jpg and Cart's photo is that that photo tells a story with a human element. When a story/scene is sufficiently compelling, even the sloppiest opportunistic snapshot can be an FP. Cart's photo, however, relies entirely on interesting patterns/textures in my opinion, so I hold it at a higher bar for technical and execution quality. Now, I agree with Cart that it's incredibly difficult to take a good photo of natural phenomena like rain, and a lot of it does come down to luck. But certain factors, like focus, framing, and lighting, can be controlled. For the uneven distribution of raindrops, the easiest remedy is to take many, many photos in quick succession, and select the most aesthetic arrangement of raindrops (Cart may have already done this). Since this is an art project, stacking or compositing different frames may not be entirely out of the question either. Also, water droplets in the air against a dark background look really cool [3], but a lot of this can't be seen in this photo because the top half of the image is the same shade of light grey as incoming raindrops --- a problem which may be mitigated by a polarizing filter or directed artificial light for the raindrops. Another possibility is to take this photo from farther away and higher up using a longer focal length, so that the scene appears compressed, allowing us to focus on the texture when all straight lines are nearly parallel and all raindrops are nearly the same size. Conversely, we can also take the photo from close up at a low angle, to isolate a single row of raindrops while rendering other droplets as artistic blurry blobs. We can also use a tilt lens or a camera that supports Scheimpflug movements to get the ground plane entirely in focus. The possibilities are endless, and heavy rain isn't exactly rare (try the monsoon season in Singapore) so I think it should be possible to achieve better execution. dllu (t,c) 09:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree totally with what you say (yes, I took and have taken many, many unpublished photos of rain, this is the best so far) and that the possibilities are endless, but in the end it comes down to just one thing: Actually doing it and publish it here. --Cart (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena#Storms
The chosen alternative is: File:Purple_rain_on_roof.jpg
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 06:10:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Checker Taxi cab from 1978.
@Ikan Kekek: I didn't retouch this photo. - Groupir ! (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course my remarks are for the photographer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Still at 'no' here. The level of sharpness is not high enough; it's kind of telling that the "checker" sign is unsharp too, despite the image being one of a checker cab.--Peulle (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The brightness is good now, but I'm with Peulle that it's not sharp enough for FP. And I don't even mean the depth of field, I'm not sure any part of the cab is actually sharp. -- KTC (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - It looks a lot better, but I agree with the others that it probably needs more sharpness. I don't know if that's possible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 14:22:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Windmill and nuclear power plant in Doel, Belgium
  •  Comment What is technically missing? I think the camera settings were ideal, ISO200 is the lowest my camera goes, F/9 is optimal on this zoom level with my lens, I don't think the focus is a miss, and I even had the camera on a tripod to do exposure bracketing in case that was necessary, it doesn't look flawed to me at a reasonable zoom level. If there's anything I missed in software I would be happy to improve it. --Trougnouf (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - I find this photo compelling: The unbalanced nature of the photo that Basotxerri is complaining about is part of what I see as the dystopic new technology dominating over the windmill and the benches, grass and so on that are attempting to pretend everything is alright. I get the feeling in viewing this photo that everything other than the ugly, polluting new technology will be annihilated before long. And it looks fine to me, technically, though I could be missing something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The technical quality is fine. It's an APS-C camera using the right settings in the daytime. The juxtaposition of the two power plants is quite interesting. I would support, but the composition is a bit left-heavy. The left of the image is a lot busier than the right. Meanwhile, I don't know what Ikan is talking about regarding "ugly, polluting new technology". The nuclear cooling tower only outputs pure water vapour, and is shaped in a beautiful hyperboloid. dllu (t,c) 06:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Industry#Belgium
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2018 at 12:47:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Trougnouf I doubt that FPCBot will understand that template ... Poco2 06:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not be ignored like any irrelevant template? In any case I  Support this image. --Trougnouf (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We FP photographers can usually figure out the "codes" used in file names, but please think about always making the info understandable in some way for other users. --Cart (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cart: my comment was not an "excuse" not to do that, no problem with that, I added the information and will do it in the future (if not, then just due to my advanced age) Poco2 09:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poco My comment was not in any way meant as critique, just a friendly reminder also directed at other photographers who might read this. Your noms are well visited and this thread seemed like a good place for such a comment. I apologize if it sounded like something else. --Cart (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2018 (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 Jun 2018 at 14:41:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family Rosaceae
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2018 at 05:10:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Schwarzseen ponds in St. Valentin, Villanders South Tyrol - Protected natural monument.
  • Thanks, but that's not necessary, it such a little nudge that is needed. I only used the 'Hue and saturation' in Photoshop (ctrl+U) and toggled the 'Hue' ("rainbow slider") to -6 and got this result. It's just a suggestion, it might not be to everyone's taste. --Cart (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Italy
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 17:27:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Large Gautama Buddha statue in Buddha Park of Ravangla, Sikkim - Front Telephoto Shot

--Trougnouf (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2018 at 13:08:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cathedral of Our Lady of Nahuel Huapi, San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Bad light, perspective distortion. Yann (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2018 at 05:33:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Photo of No. 45 Fenyang Road, Shanghai, designed by Ladislav Hudec. Built in 1932, it was the former official residence for Deputy Inspector-General of the Chinese Maritime Customs Service. It is listed in the Shanghai Cultural Relics Protection Unit and the Shanghai Heritage Architecture List.
  •  Oppose The size is better but sorry the verticals have not been fixed. The top of the building is thinner than the base. You need to use a software like Lightroom or Photoshop to change the appearance and make it closer to the reality. But my oppose is because after correction, there will be too little space on the right of the building, with the roof cut. So unless this image is a crop from a larger file you can compose differently with more space on the right, I'm afraid the whole will look tight within the space -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: That's why I created File:Residence on No. 45, Route Pichon (old).jpg, since Antigng's version is of low quality in my opinion. --WQL (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that seems like a roundabout and unusual way of doing it when the overwrite could have been moved to a new file instead. --Cart (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Perspective distortion. Yann (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 12:25:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Siberian winter damselfly
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata

File:Fundación César Manrique - post.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 14:27:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Top of a post of a cordon, Fundación César Manrique, Tahiche, Lanzarote
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2018 at 07:46:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Germany, Munich, Nationaltheater
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 13:24:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view from the Wachtküppel in the Rhön Mountains
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Germany
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 19:50:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Glacier in Diamond Beach, Iceland
  • Perhaps just this exposure correction is enough to make the picture looking artificial. You can try to improve it, yes, though the glare on top with the wave cut too short are also bothering in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2018 at 16:03:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cezembre island after bombing in August 1944
  •  Oppose (Edit conflict) File:Cezembre_Bombing_2.jpg already is a comparably low quality digital reproduction. (Handwriting/Typewriter is unsharp, so the rest is also not as sharp as it could be. At least in the areas depicting the main photograph, it also has some weird JPG artifacts that clearly show the borders between the 8x8 pixel blocks used by the jpg algorithm (best seen at 300% zoom, but it affects picture quality at normal magnifications as well).) Something went wrong there. The version presented here, on top of all that also has a considerably reduced color palette: the "original" had 252 shades of grey (normal for 8-bit grayscale), this one has a mere 39 unique values. This results in what I'm tempted to call strong pixel-level posterization. Something went very wrong there.
TL;DR: This is a very bad digital reproduction and even if it was improved by re-cropping the source file it would still be a pretty bad digital reproduction. --El Grafo (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yann's edit fixed the "posterization" issue, but the rest of my comment remains untouched by that … --El Grafo (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Certainly a valuable image, but not excellent on the technical and aesthetic aspects -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thanks everyone for the input, and thanks to Yann for improving all the images I uploaded of the bombing of Cezembre. I understand this falls short of the requirements here, and I will therefore submit this picture to the Valued Images. Skimel (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination Skimel (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik(talk) 21:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2018 at 11:20:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A non-breeding American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) in the Putrajaya Wetlands, part of Peninsular Malaysia. Note that the black flight feathers are hidden within the white plumage.
•  Comment I agree with you, Ikan, however, the bird was a mere metre from shore. Guess I'll have to be luckier next time, hahaha. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik(talk) 09:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 22:43:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2018 at 10:21:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dutch bicycle a.k.a Roadster bicycle
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lopesan Baobab, Maspalomas, May 2018 -3.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2018 at 18:41:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lopesan Baobab Resort, Maspalomas, Gran Canaria

Alternative - uncropped

[edit]

Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture#Spain
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2018 at 16:01:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The red clover (Trifolium pratense). Ukraine
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Flowers
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2018 at 13:15:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Soyuz rocket and spaceship
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:12, 25 June 2018 (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 30 Jun 2018 at 03:39:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A pier at a campsite during sunset, Sidney Spit, Sidney Island, British Columbia, Canada
Thank you, Ikan Kekek, I might give the picture you mentioned a go after this nomination is finished. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:04, 26 June 2018 (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 26 Jun 2018 at 15:44:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of an ocean from an island.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 13:38:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 09:33:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

long underpass in Finland
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2018 at 20:26:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cambodia, reliefs in Ta Prohm Temple
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black-crowned Night Heron -- Nycticorax nycticorax.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2018 at 03:27:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A mature adult Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) on top of a tiled roof.
 Comment Eh, @Ikan Kekek: , I thought so. It was on a roof, which was pretty hard to avoid capturing in the picture. Guess I'll have to retract another nomination. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And to think I thought the wow factor would be enough, hahaha. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 09:04:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Colorful floating bungalows in Don Khon, Laos
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik(talk) 14:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places#Laos
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 09:02:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Colorful shophouses in Koon Seng Road, Singapore
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik(talk) 14:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places#Singapore
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 07:38:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hermione (ship, 2014)
  • On the photo: I love the ship and the harbor, but the bottom crop isn't working that smoothly for me and the right crop, with the one unsharp object in the lower right corner, is bugging me. I don't know what a photo that included more that is now below and to the right of the crops would have looked like, but I think I'd like this photo better if you did a horizontal crop right in front of the unsharp post, thereby also getting rid of a lot of the tents. The tents don't disturb me per se, but they kind of clog up a section of the photo. I think my proposed crop would create a more unified composition, but of course others might disagree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Light is just great, but considering the Hermione the main subject I think that the angle is not the best as a good portion of the subject is hidden behind the tents Poco2 19:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main subject is the whole scene, of course it is not the ship alone! I don't understand how can someone can think otherwise...! poor review, really. I will not be surprised if someone says the third window of the second boat is not under the right angle this is very disturbing!, and there is a big very very disturbing thing out of focus at bottom right, oh and so many boring tents!! where are the specialist of the oppose votes, there are many reasons here. Come one!! it is easy! Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand how you do write this, poor reaction, really. Surely are we reviewing the whole image, but it's a matter of fact that something in the image will caught your attetion at first, to me that is the ship and looking at it is not pleasant because it is partially hidden. It could have been the area where the sun hid but those cranes are not appealing to me, or it could have been the tent, which are really prominent and a distraction in the composition. Your reaction is disrespectful. If I had written some bullshit but supported you wouldn't have probably complained, and I didn't even opposse. With this attituted you can expect next time something like "Oppose, I don't like it", and I hope that you don't complain then again as it is in my eyes the kind of review you are asking for. Poco2 07:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I was going to oppose based on the tents until I read Cart's !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm surprised that nobody talked about the title "File:Hermione (ship, 2014), Sète 2018.jpg" as we see only the back of the ship and it is only about 10% of the image. Nobody? and nobody oppose for the way the first tent is cut at bottom? and the "forbidden sign" at bottom? not disturbing? the second crane is misplaced too? no? isn't it? Sometimes FPC is not the research of the finest picture, but the competition of the poorest review. That is a snap shot, but a lucky one, that's all. Better for me to stop talking, please continue. Christian Ferrer (talk)
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 09:11:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Loxura atymnus
  • @Jee: OK, I saw it now already -- I think it would be then unfair to demand you to fix it -- no problem, I'll fix it for you (it's quite easy), but as we have the occasion, maybe you send me your raw file -- I would also try to fix the noise better. If interested, mail me? --A.Savin 20:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A.Savin and Jee I've uploaded a version of the JPG without the dust spot. Then afterwards a version processed from RAW that tries to be as similar to the original as I can get it, and it has less JPG noise/artefacts. -- Colin (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2018 (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 30 Jun 2018 at 19:05:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Houses on Fondamenta Sacchere and the Rio delle Muneghe canal in Venice
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2018 at 10:45:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Shell of a Wavy Moon Snail, Cernina fluctuata
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik(talk) 13:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2018 at 06:11:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Northwestern view of the subsidiary church Saint Henry the Emperor in Görtschach, Hermagor, Carinthia, Austria
  •  Weak oppose Seems overly processed to me. There is a mildly disturbing halo around the steeple in the sky, but there also seems something wrong with the overall contrast. The face of the tower also seems quite disturbing to me. Storkk (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik(talk) 13:04, 27 June 2018 (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 1 Jul 2018 at 06:40:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mules during 2013 North India floods
  •  Comment - I don't see how we could know that other members of the Animal Kingdom are incapable of feeling hope. Otherwise, I agree, but it's best for you also not to editorialize about things we can't know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's anthropomorphising, if we want to be technical about it ;-). I see also the editorialising is in the FPC note too. That's too much. Please keep this sort of thing off of Commons. We're just an image repository. -- Colin (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but I'm saying, it's also best for you not to make that kind of declarative statement of your opinion on this if you don't want a discussion. Note that I've avoided stating my opinion except to say that I don't see how we could know that all animal species other than Homo sapiens couldn't possibly feel hope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik(talk) 13:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2018 at 17:41:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Ich kann nicht Malaiisch. Vielleicht Deutsch?
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2018 (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 1 Jul 2018 at 17:35:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ryxö island nature reserve in Brofjorden
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places#Sweden
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2018 at 18:27:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2018 (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 2 Jul 2018 at 15:32:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Orange Daylily after a rain
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asparagales
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2018 at 15:00:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kluane Lake, Destruction Bay, Yukon, Canada
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2018 (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 28 Jun 2018 at 20:01:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of the Copper River, Glennallen, Alaska, United States.
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2018 (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 4 Jul 2018 at 21:21:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tractor for the transport of tourists and luggages from boats to the seacoast in East Rai Leh, Thailand
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2018 at 22:40:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Front portico of Milano Centrale railroad station
✓ Done Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it matters to anyone who doesn't have issues with the composition, I have sharpened up the sides. Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2018 at 07:01:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A female adult Black Hornbill (Anthracoceros malayanus).
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2018 at 05:37:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Spotted Turtle Dove (Streptopelia chinensis), Austins Ferry, Tasmania, Australia
@Ikan Kekek: , it's just a picture I came across and thought it was nice, so actually if it really is nice someone might just renominate it, hahaha. I don't mind! GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2018 at 22:32:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lychnis chalcedonica flowers
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family_:_Caryophyllaceae
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2018 at 12:50:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rainy Dutch landscape
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2018 at 09:18:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramiv view from the Großer Leuchtberg near Eschwege in Hesse
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Germany
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2018 at 04:40:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Changing the Guard ceremony in Québec during the summer
That event is always full of people and yesterday there was around 1000!!. I can remove this man, however, it not wil be the reality of the moment --The Photographer 12:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose A great composition with Quebec's most prominent landmark in the background and colorfully dressed soldiers in front, but I think the background could nevertheless have been sharper. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Daniel Case, thanks for your suggestion, however, I did this on purpose becasue the main subject is the guards and not the Château Frontenac. Additionally, this is technically not possible with the latest cameras and lens generation cover so much depth of field in an action picture. Having said all this, I used a combination of two images to get a clearer background, please let me know what do you think --The Photographer 00:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose There's ghosting from the merge. Even if there wasn't, the improved sharpness of the background is minimal. -- KTC (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KTC you're right, I rollbacked it --The Photographer 00:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2018 at 04:00:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Langer Eugen, Bonn - detail of facade
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture#Germany
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2018 at 13:01:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fabbriche Nuove by Jacopo Sansovino in Venice. Facade on Grand Canal.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 10:33:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Heliopsis helianthoides
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asterales
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 09:10:44 (UTC)

  • Male dorsal
    Male dorsal
  • Male ventral
    Male ventral
  • Female dorsal
    Female dorsal
  • Female ventral
    Female ventral
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2018 (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 30 Jun 2018 at 09:10:44 (UTC)

  • Male dorsal
    Male dorsal
  • Male ventral
    Male ventral
  • Female dorsal
    Female dorsal
  • Female ventral
    Female ventral
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2018 (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 6 Jul 2018 at 12:03:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dome of Dormitory of the Theotokos Church in the Treskavec Monastery, Macedonia
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik(talk) 08:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2018 at 16:37:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
 I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.

Alternative

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Famberhorst (talk • contribs)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik(talk) 08:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/June_2018&oldid=572660207"