Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2016 at 14:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2016 at 13:50:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kapellen natuur 2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kapellen natuur 2.JPG
Oppose - I like photographs in which the viewer looks through vegetation, including backlit trees, and it's even nicer to combine that with reflections in a pond. However, there are three problems I see with this photo, two major and one minor. The major ones are: (1) The focus is significantly blown (as Code says, the sky is blown, but it extends to a lot of the vegetation beyond the immediate foreground); (2) relatedly, light this glary needs a denser screen of vegetation for a better composition. The minor one is that the crops on the left and right sides seem a little random, though they could be tweaked slightly if the two major problems didn't disqualify this photo from consideration for a feature. But I like your sensibility and hope you continue to take photos of similar motifs. If you take one that's sharper and has either softer light or a denser screen of vegetation, try again, but in the future, you might want to nominate your photo for Quality Image first, as this one probably wouldn't be approved for that, and if another photo is, you can at least be reassured that it's likely to be technically in the ballpark for Featured Picture consideration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of far from usual FP criteria, especially the overexposition of the sky.--Jebulon (talk) 00:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2016 at 13:15:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tram Pesa Twist 71-414 in MSK (img1).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tram Pesa Twist 71-414 in MSK (img1).jpg
Support - At first, I just saw a picture of a tram. Then I looked at the picture as a whole and saw a really pretty scene with a good composition that features a tram and a do not enter sign in the foreground. This is really fine work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose I like the colors and the light, and overall this captures the feeling of a large Russian city зимой. But ... the abundance of detail left of the sign overcomplicates it for me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2016 at 13:14:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tel Aviv Central Bus Station, Levinsky St., Neve Sha'anan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tel Aviv Central Bus Station, Levinsky St., Neve Sha'anan.jpg
Oppose Too much dark concrete, presumably the bottom of an underpass. There's a better picture with a 4:1 panoramic crop of the lower portion, focussing on street-level activity. But even in that crop, the lighting and technical qualities aren't quite FP level. -- Colin (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2016 at 11:15:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Damos und Musidora.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Damos und Musidora.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2016 at 11:42:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Joseph Kriehuber, Ein Matinée bei Liszt, 1846.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Joseph Kriehuber, Ein Matinée bei Liszt, 1846.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2016 at 21:12:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ascensor del Monte de San Pedro, La Coruña, España, 2015-09-25, DD 99.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ascensor del Monte de San Pedro, La Coruña, España, 2015-09-25, DD 99.JPG
Info Panoramic lift to St Peter's Hill, La Coruña, Spain. The lift operates since 2007 and the length of the served drive is 100 m and a height of 63 m. All by me, Poco221:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suppose I do, too, and I'd happily support that photo for FP if it's nominated, but a view from a hill that includes the elevator is an entirely different type of picture than a view of an outdoor elevator shaft up a rocky hillside with the elevator on top in the distance, so isn't that a bit like saying "I prefer goat curry to roast chicken"? Either dish can be a great one of its type, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2016 at 14:54:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bebenhausen Juni 2014.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bebenhausen Juni 2014.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2016 at 14:56:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sigmaringen August 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sigmaringen August 2015.jpg
Support - Very nice photo, pleasant to look at and good enough for a feature, in my opinion. I don't love how the buildings are cut off on both sides, but that probably couldn't be helped. Great focus within the town; only in the sky beyond is it slightly noisy, but not bad at all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another lovely little village. I'm sure you might have liked a little more sun, but we can't have everything (where would we put it, for starters? ) Daniel Case (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2016 at 23:09:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:YBCO video.webmCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:YBCO video.webm
Support - Fascinating. You might want to edit the description - there are now 2 English descriptions, the second of which is slightly longer than the first. Had you intended one of the descriptions to be in another language? Also, I was wondering how it was safe for someone to use their fingers; I guess despite the liquid nitrogen, it wasn't that cold where they were touching? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2016 at 04:12:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment - The source appears to be too bright, but Adam, is it possible that you may have darkened the restoration a bit too much? The file does look good at full size, but I feel like the left (viewer's right) side of the congresswoman's face is darker than optimal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel sure you're being faithful to the original photograph, I'll defer to your judgment. No sense in penalizing you for what I would consider a shortcoming of a historic photo. Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to be faithful, although there's always judgement calls when you don't have the original - preferably the original person as well - in front of you. The trouble is that there's not really one unambiguously best solution here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's nothing particularly interesting about this portrait for me (no wow). She seems to be wearing pretty strong glasses, which makes it look like there is a large, rectangular section cut out of her head between her right brow and cheek. --El Grafo (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2016 at 20:47:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - This is quite a closeup! Much better than the eukaryote picture. Most of the mushrooms are very clear and for a bokeh background, it's not bad. I'm willing to tolerate the unsharp wood in the foreground, which bugs me more (though a partially corrective crop might be possible), because most of the mushrooms are so impressive and it's a good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2016 at 00:20:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Earthworm head.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Earthworm head.svg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2016 at 14:49:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ессентуки 4.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ессентуки 4.JPG
Comment - I'm tempted to support this photo because it's so striking and novel, but why is it fuzzy, does it have to do with where the light is coming from, and is the fuzziness something that should be remedied or would doing that decrease the accuracy of the representation? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2016 at 16:25:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Whilst time is unveiling, Science is exploring Nature CROPPED.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Whilst time is unveiling, Science is exploring Nature CROPPED.jpg
Support An unusual medium: a ticket to a museum. Professionally digitised, with tweaks by uploader. Unusual subject matter: personifications of Science, Nature and Time. Remarkable in particular that, in the 18th century, Science was depicted as a woman. -- MartinPoulter (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I may make up my mind later, but at the moment, I'm unsure, because I like the image but agree that it's pretty small, and maybe if it were bigger, the resolution could be even better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2016 at 07:42:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Leighton-God Speed!.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Leighton-God Speed!.jpg
Comment - I did a Google image search of this painting, and I can't really tell which reproductions are best, especially because I don't remember seeing this painting in the flesh. This one seems good, but I will defer to those of you who feel better able to evaluate this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2016 at 20:29:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nebel fließt über die Rhön.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nebel fließt über die Rhön.JPG
Support - Beautiful and impressive panorama. I might have liked what would have been even further to the right, but that's really the only thing I can say about this photo that isn't wholly laudatory. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2016 at 21:39:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria in Traspontina (Rome) - Ceiling of the sagresty.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria in Traspontina (Rome) - Ceiling of the sagresty.jpg
Support Good job considering the long exposure. Maybe something could have been done to compensate for the lighter colors of the ceiling, like an ND filter, but the fresco came through well enough. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2016 at 21:42:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria in Traspontina (Rome) - Dome and ceiling.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria in Traspontina (Rome) - Dome and ceiling.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2016 at 12:45:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ak55-Busy afternoon.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ak55-Busy afternoon.jpg
Comment - *I basically agree with you. The women are beautiful and so are the fruits of their labor. In addition to your suggested crop, I'd also suggest cropping that part of the blurred background that's above their heads. It's a pity, because the basket is nice, too. I may oppose this photo, particularly in its current form, as it's clearly a VI and I suppose it's a QI, but is it truly "one of the finest images" at present? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a core principle of my aesthestics that subject and cultural value don't make an image or any kind of art good or bad. They can increase the interest of a work of art that's already good, but they can't make one that sucks into good art (I could give various analogies with other artistic media, but probably the easiest is to compare Picasso's "Guernica" to some poorly slapped-on graffiti that says "Fascists suck!!!!"). Now in this case, the image certainly doesn't suck, but it has to first of all stand on its own as an image before I'd be willing to consider other factors. As a matter of fact, your argument is tempting me to tilt toward opposing featuring this photo... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I looked at the photo again. I guess I'm more or less neutral because though I don't like the degree of blur in the photo, it is both well-composed and, other than the blurring, an interesting and pretty image. But I don't feel impelled to support it, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk)
Comment - It would take a lot of time for me. I don't use Photoshop too often. However, if someone else makes the crop, I'll have a look at the result. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, Cropping is easy with Commons:CropTool. Make sure you select "lossless cropping" (too keep all the quality) and to upload as a new file (since such a big crop mustn't be done in-place and also this is a prize-winning image we should leave alone). But I actually don't like the crop suggestion. -- Colin (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this framing and disagree on cropping. There's nice eye-line and leading-line factors with the subjects faces, the knitting, the needles, arms and their legs and basket. The subjects and their accessories make a very attractive picture. Ikan, "value" (i.e. educational value) is in the guidelines as a FPC factor to consider. So it isn't just about whether the photo is good art. We're an educational project after all, not the local camera club. On the negative point, the colours are a bit blown in places (which is probably hard to avoid) and the photo has been saved in AdobeRGB so everyone looking at this with a mobile browser will see dull colours and grey skin. -- Colin (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do take educational value into account, but I wouldn't support featuring any picture on educational value alone. I appreciate the advice on cropping, but based on the comments, I'm not sure it's worth doing because it doesn't look like it would get support. Besides, I'm not positive it would solve all of my problems with the depth of field and resulting focus issues. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2016 at 11:29:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Beach in Helsingør, Denmark.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beach in Helsingør, Denmark.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2016 at 17:49:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fashion designer in St Louis in Senegal (croped).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fashion designer in St Louis in Senegal (croped).jpg
Support We also need a better description, I cropped the original version, that have too much negative space, and some distractions, unfortatly I didn't found a crop good enough capable to include the fabric. -- -- RTA17:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm sure you won't be surprised that I don't like all that blur in either version. I haven't decided yet whether to oppose on that basis. The original version has a better composition, though, and I don't see the advantage of the crop except on the left side. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's useful but not a great portrait, mainly because of the angle chosen. There's no dynamic to this perpendicular shot, so the subject looks like he's frozen. If we were more facing him and higher up then the image would have more energy, and we'd see the fabric he is working on. -- Colin (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I do prefer this crop, but there is an apparent dust spot on the inside left forearm that I cannot note because it's within the large area already annotated (Or at least I don't know how) that I would like to see removed before I register my !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support this uncrop version is better i believe, if you corp the left side and make it more like the first one. Speaks more than the crop version. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2016 at 15:08:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cuevas de Hércules, Cabo Espartel, Marruecos, 2015-12-11, DD 22-24 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cuevas de Hércules, Cabo Espartel, Marruecos, 2015-12-11, DD 22-24 HDR.JPG
Comment The Caves of Hercules are of archeological, historical and mythological significance and are located 14 kilometres (9 mi) west of Tangier in Cape Spartel, in the North of Morocco. The cave is part natural and part-made, as the Berber people cut stone wheels from its walls (as you can appreciate in the image) to make millstones, expanding the cave considerably. The name is dedicated to Hercules as he is believed to have slept in the cave before doing his 11th labour, which was to get golden apples from the Hesperides Garden.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2016 at 17:26:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - Beautiful. Note how, unlike some other photographs, this one has pinpoint clarity throughout, including the nearest parts of the floor, which are unsharp in some photos nominated here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2016 at 21:28:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dawn in the harbour of Sète.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dawn in the harbour of Sète.jpg
I withdraw my nomination No, it was taken at 16mm with a 16-24mm lens. It was my choice and I assume. I'm not going to crop it, to make a "zoom-in" picture, and to save the little part that can be saved, and certainly not to make a fp with a little part of this image. The next time I will try to do better, it's all. Thanks you all. Regards, Christian Ferrer(talk)19:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm not seeing it either. Yes, there are nice things happening with the light, but they take up less than half the picture frame. I don't find it easy to move my eyes around the picture frame, perhaps partly because most of it is at about the same level of low light. Sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2016 at 12:32:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Question - Please explain what you guys are seeing that's wowing you. This is definitely a nice QI, but what makes it more than that to you? To be sure, the cattle are somewhat irregularly centered, which is nice, but I'm unsure I'm satisfied with the forms of the trees in the background. This picture doesn't scream "FP" to me, and I'm leaning to voting against it on that basis, but I'd be really interested to hear you out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For me it's the way the dark cattle look against the complimentary light green of the grass and their spread-out but still pretty tight formation. Also the reeds gel a bit with the legs and upturned horns. The trees in the background don't take anything away from the focus of the image, the cattle, and are a pleasant enough backdrop. That's my take, now back to my Flickr2Commons cleanup. INeverCry20:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2016 at 19:05:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Entrance La Rochelle old harbor.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Entrance La Rochelle old harbor.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2016 at 18:17:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Funifor Arabba Porta Vescovo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Funifor Arabba Porta Vescovo.jpg
Support I don´t have any problems with the shadows at all. It is as it is, on the north side of mountain, there is no sun for month. For me very impressive and well done too! --Hubertl00:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a great winter mountain landscape, a great picture of the cable car and has great perspective, all of which distract me from the shadow . Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't dislike shadows in general, I just don't think this particular shadow helps the composition in question. In the end, it all comes down to a matter of taste once again --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As they say, there's no accounting for taste (or in French, chacun à son gout). But I think the contrast of shadow and light is central to this composition, not a distraction from something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2016 at 23:14:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mooste mõisa auruveski 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mooste mõisa auruveski 2013.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2016 at 23:35:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Unknown - Statuette of Aphrodite Leaning on a Pillar - 55.AD.7.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Unknown - Statuette of Aphrodite Leaning on a Pillar - 55.AD.7.jpg
Info Aphrodite, terracotta with polychromy, between 250 and 200 BC. “Leaning on a pillar, Aphrodite, the goddess of love, wears a large wreath of flowers and a cloak draped around her hips. The goddess's pose is based on a much earlier, clothed statue of Aphrodite made by the sculptor Pheidias in the 400s B.C. In accordance with later Hellenistic tastes, the terracotta's artist chose to depict her semi-nude to emphasize her sensuality. The goddess's outstretched left hand originally held an offering, probably either a dove or an offering bowl. The figurine, originally brightly painted, still bears traces of red paint. The city of Tanagra in northern Greece was a leading producer of small terracotta figurines, which were exceedingly popular in the 300s and 200s B.C. Women, especially elaborately and stylishly dressed women, were the favorite subject matter, but the figurines also often portray handsome youths, children, and Eros, the winged young god of love.”
Support While we have a lot of painting nominations, we don't have that many of sculptures, and very few of that quality. -- Yann (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as uploader. For those who don't have the script, the image is 78.92 megapixel, which is pretty insanely detailed for an object of that size, and it's a 'official' image from the museum, so it's quite unlikely a better one of this work will come along any time soon. Revent (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2016 at 12:31:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2015.08.19.-05-Mannheim Vogelstang--Gammaeule.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015.08.19.-05-Mannheim Vogelstang--Gammaeule.jpg
Support - That's good camouflage! I had to look at the photo's page 3 times before I noticed the moth, although it's more clearly visible at full size, since you can see its hairs. I like the composition, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I agree it was great camouflage, so great that I was asking myself, more than once, "Why did he nominate this picture of a dead leaf?", it just doesn't have any wow for me as an image. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - However, I still think this photo is interesting enough to feature. Pure interest plus technical quality and a good composition seems to me an acceptable substitute for "wow", and besides, I'm kind of wowed by the depiction of camouflage. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2016 at 20:51:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gibbaeum nebrownii.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gibbaeum nebrownii.jpg
Oppose - Interesting shape! However, this photo doesn't have a very good composition, in my opinion, and I find the unsharp plant to the right very distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2016 at 19:39:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sangker river fishing boats 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sangker river fishing boats 2016.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2016 at 21:21:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I wasn't sure at first, but there are enough things I like about this photo to make it a solid choice for a feature. Great clouds, light and reflections, nice contrast between the calmer clear river water and the ocean surf, and the composition is very satisfying to move my eyes around. I also like the echoed diagonals of the terrace and buildings vs. the geological division between the river and ocean that's on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2016 at 07:29:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2013.06.23.-08-Wesenberg-Rauchschwalben.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2013.06.23.-08-Wesenberg-Rauchschwalben.jpg
Comment - I love the birds and the fact that none of the picture is blurred, but I'm not quite as sure about the composition. I'm wondering whether cropping just above the nails might make me like the picture more. I'm not going to try tonight, but perhaps someone else will. Right now, I'm finding this a bit borderline for a feature, and probably on the "high Quality/non-Featured" side, purely based on the way my eye would rather move around a cropped version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is the natural environment where this species of birds breeds and rears his offspring. I see that as part of the composition. Also the spider web below. --Hockei (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, I see that. But I'm not suggesting a crop of the image below the birds, only of part of the image above the birds. If the image were cropped above the nails, which important part of the birds' environment would be lost? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, still not seeing it. I was liking this photo better than before, but it looks like the same photo, when I compare it to a preview of the preedited file from an edit screen. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This would fail on the usual criteria of the background, but it really does work and is a 'natural' setting. I like the composition. Charles (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2016 at 11:30:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I like the light and the composition as a whole. I think this one, too, is worthy of a feature. Your photos of this town are an amazing project. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Cathedrale de Chartres. Stained glass window, the life of Jesus Christ - All together makes the complete window, Lithographer:Emile Beau, Drawing by Paul Durand. Chromolithography by Hangard-Maugè, Paris 1867. These Scans are made from the original lithography, the sheet sizes are about 106 x 72 cm.
Info Scanned, postprocessed, uploaded and nominated by Hubertl19:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC) In fact, I found this big map in the Bundesdenkmalamt in Vienna during my time there as Wikipedian in Residence, nobody knew before, that it exists! It was a great moment, indeed![reply]
Support I am very impressed. Each of these would FP on its own, and in addition, they create a wonderful set. Certainly one of the best stained glass, and may be even art reproduction we have. Yann (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think you should come to France, and see the real one as reward for your finding ! I'll try to stitch it as a whole.--Jebulon (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question The unrestored versions you provide are marked as public domain. These restored versions are licensed under CC BY SA 4.0 and marked public domain at the same time. I was wondering what your copyright claim is aiming at? The "restoration"? The faithful reproduction of a 2D public domain work? Something else? Regards, Christoph Braun (talk)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2016 at 10:41:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cime de Caron France top station from SE on 2015-01-05.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cime de Caron France top station from SE on 2015-01-05.png
Support I again nominate a photo because I really enjoy moving my eye around it, but this is also of some specific instructional relevance, as it would be our first Featured Picture in Category:Top Station, and it is in fact used in w:Top station. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything is good or excellent in this image. Light, composition, sharpness, "life", landscape, etc... Maybe a slight color banding in the blue sky, but according too my little experience, it often depends of the monitors. FP without doubt for me.--Jebulon (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ordinarily I'd say it was too cluttered, but the people there are a necessary part of the lift's function. And the lift and the landscape are strikingly juxtaposed. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2016 at 16:30:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Divinity School Interior 3, Bodleian Library, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Divinity School Interior 3, Bodleian Library, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg
Question - That's a good point. The composition you linked is better. Should that disqualify this image from consideration, as a less-great version of a FP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it shouldn't disqualify it. Every voter should decide, with all the information in mind, if this photo should be an FP in addition to the other one. That's my opinion at least. — Julian H.✈ 08:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably too late to change this nomination (and it looks like it will pass), but maybe this image could have been nominated instead, as it is the view from the other end of the room, instead of from the same end. Diliff (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this one does not add anything to the previous already FP of the same place. FP should be rare. Per discussion.--Jebulon (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am with Jebulon here, great quality of course, but the picture is just a few steps further in comparison to this other FP of David. Both are too similar to me (with no essential change in the composition) in order to grant to both of them the FP award. --Poco223:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2016 at 20:45:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de Santa María de Huerta, Santa María de Huerta Soria, España, 2015-12-28, DD 28-30 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de Santa María de Huerta, Santa María de Huerta Soria, España, 2015-12-28, DD 28-30 HDR.JPG
Support Per others. Would've liked it even more if it had been taken with a longer focal length form further away, but I'm gonna assume that this was just not possible. --El Grafo (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2016 at 06:04:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Patrick Stewart 2012.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Patrick Stewart 2012.jpg
Support - Mild support, as it's a pretty good portrait of an important actor with his award at a significant event, though I don't really feel wowed by it, partly because of his facial expression. Also, while the image is big enough for me, it is a little small for FP, if I understand correctly that 6 MP or greater are preferred. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan there's no hard-and-fast rule. One 6MP image might be pin sharp and full of detail whereas a 12MP could be soft focus or so much NR there's no detail at all. But it would be hard to get much larger image for this ISO and 12MP camera used -- even a little cropping could reduce the MP considerably. An event photo like this can't really be compared to a studio photo in terms of expectations of resolution, say, though that means it has to compensate in other ways, and this rather boring pose doesn't imo. -- Colin (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Code. It is a shame so many events use these "repeating logo" backgrounds. No more than QI. The use of f/9 was probably not a great choice, raising the ISO high and robbing detail. No colourspace. -- Colin (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2016 at 10:09:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rio Marin Venezia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rio Marin Venezia.jpg
Comment Thanks for the support Daniel. I usually, as in this case, don't sharpen and camera settings are neutral in regard to sharpening. Actually I like this picture for the crisp rendering of lights. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I respect that opinion. It's a very good and informative photo, but I understand the pro and con arguments on whether to feature it or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yann. I like the composition but the lighting is far from good. Maybe this spot could be FP at a differnt time --Poco223:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2016 at 06:11:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Per Pine. To elaborate on what I see as the historic importance of this image:
First, I don't think there's any other free image showing most of the original Star Trek cast (William Shatner does not seem to be present) plus Gene Roddenberry (nor, of course, could there be the likelihood of another one, as four of the people in that group are dead). A more striking detail whose significance is not immediately apparent is that Leonard Nimoy and Roddenberry are not only standing next to each other but are actually looking like they're enjoying it, something you might not expect given Nimoy was in protracted litigation with Paramount at the time and was rather upset with Roddenberry personally for showing all the blooper reels at conventions. That adds a lot of significance to this.
It's too bad about their clothes, but as my wife and I frequently turn to each other and say "It ... was ... the ... '70s!"
Second, to me this marks a key moment in late 20th century history: the moment when science fiction began to inspire reality. NASA's astronauts might have named the ships on one of the Apollo missions after Peanuts characters, but they never would have dreamed of naming one after a ship in a sci-fi movie or TV series; the success and influence of Star Trek changed that in less than a decade. And look where things have gone from there ...
Support I am very much in favor of this image (as per Daniel), but I suggest the careful use of noise reduction software, as there is a significant amount of noise all over the image (e.g. the sky). As an example of what can be achieved (in this case with Topaz Denoise 6): [3]. Also there are two scratches that should be edited out (I have done that in the denoised version): a yellow one above DeForest Kelley's amulet and a thin black one going down from the name of the Enterprise text (which cannot be a feature of the enterprise, since the features are not as sharp at this distance). --Rftblr (talk) 19:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2016 at 23:45:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose This is not sharp enough, nor are the colours bright, to be a 'head' FP and there are many better images in the Commons category gallery showing the full bird with all its amazing colours. Could be accepted as QI if tone/colours improved. Charles (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, while I agree the rest of the bird is very colourful and it is a shame this photo doesn't include them, where are the "better images"? I look at several and they are all small or poor quality. This seems quite sharp enough, but I'm not sure to support due to the loss of the colourful plumage. -- Colin (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, they are all in Category:Chrysolophus amherstiae (captive). None are that special but if there was a run off for FP I have to support one of them. This image just doesn't have the composition or technical quality to be FP and it doesn't illustrate the bird at all well. FP should be a high barrier to clear. Charles (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Charles: None of those photos is a QI or VI. Could you please point to one or two you like better than this one, so we can consider them by comparison? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In the end, I've decided that choosing to frame just the head of this very colourful bird is an odd choice. Many of the best bits are missing. -- Colin (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is really eyecatching, but the crop is far too tight to me, it cannot breath. It is really a shame, I'd like to support it with a better framing --Poco223:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2016 at 10:31:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Col de Ronc Sureghes Urtijëi.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Col de Ronc Sureghes Urtijëi.jpg
Support I am putting this under "Places", but this also fits under "Natural phenomena", namely the clouds and fog. This is simply another composition I love looking at. It has wonderful three-dimensionality, variety of light, a great overall shape of a near circle of trees surrounding the clearing and village below, and the nearby tree in the lower right corner makes it even better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Significant blown clouds. Areas of low contrast aren't appealing (whether caused by lens flare or mist). I wish the central region was better lit. -- Colin (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose I don't blame you for trying and it came out better than one might expect, but Colin is right about the blown areas. Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Have you still the RAW data? Try again as mentioned above and try to lighten up the grass area, that will be perfect. -- -donald- (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moroder, maybe I should have asked you before nominating this photo, but I really like it. However, you can see that the voting trend is not favoring a feature. If you can and would like to take the step -donald- requests above, please go ahead and offer a new version as an alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the contrary I'm most honoured for the nomination. I do not understand all the fuss with the overexposure since it is not present on the histogram or at least imho irrelevant. I have a RAW file but don't know how to process selected areas of a photo.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The histogram shows a spike very close to the far right which indicates the blown areas have been "recovered" slightly. But looking at the jpg, one can see large areas of close-to-white all with exactly the same RGB values. Even without such analysis, one can see harsh transition to white in the clouds, which isn't appealing. Blown is blown, even if the levels are adjusted to off-white. Perhaps Photoshop Lightroom would do a better job than Photoshop Elements. I don't think fixing the blown areas would help with the low-contrast issue. I don't find the scene/composition nearly as compelling or special as Ikan. -- Colin (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. I still like this photo, but I don't see any likelihood of enough people voting to feature it. Thanks for taking the time to evaluate and comment on this photo, everyone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2016 at 09:24:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Praia de Lariño. Carnota. Galiza LC10.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Praia de Lariño. Carnota. Galiza LC10.jpg
Support - I find this picture extremely restful, but it's also greatly helped by having a lot more than just water, sand and people. In particular, the hills in the middleground are beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but there is no wow for me in this picture and it's difficult to get the main idea of its author. The vast sandy area to the bottom, especially to the bottom left, seems to be disturbing and overexposed in some parts. Some minor objects in the background, such like the people, houses and trees, are out of focus. When staring at the sea for a while, I feel like it's unnaturally leaned toward the beach. In general, I don't think that the image was taken from the right angle.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Slight oppose A tricky image given what the photographer seems to have been trying to do, and it seems like they pushed the processing a little too far to do it (And besides, the description is off—I see a lot more people than just one woman in the scene). Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think there is a composition there somewhere that is great, but as it is, I find there to be a little too much unmotivated stuff towards the edges. Maybe going lower on those plants on the lower right might have worked, using them as the main foreground, and zooming in a bit to get rid of the houses on the very right and left in the background. — Julian H.✈ 15:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2016 at 06:14:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gardian and Camargue cattles, Saint-Gilles 12.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gardian and Camargue cattles, Saint-Gilles 12.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2016 at 19:19:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mario Draghi World Economic Forum 2013 crop.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mario Draghi World Economic Forum 2013 crop.jpg
Comment - I don't think you meant to oppose your own nomination (this isn't a joke nomination, right?), but it's not an attractive portrait. His jacket is dirty (dandruff?) and his face looks like someone who was drinking heavily and possibly crying the night before, given how his eyes look, in particular. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2016 at 02:26:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:E 003261 E Maoris in North Africa July 1941.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:E 003261 E Maoris in North Africa July 1941.jpg
Oppose Great expression on the face of the center person. Unfortunately, his face is less sharp than the ones around him (motion blur), which tends to divert the eye into other directions. Composition looks pretty "random" to me (simply centered on that one guy, everything else just taken as it came). The guy on the left is cut in an ugly manner, the one behind him looks as if he's just playing along without really being into it. Interesting snapshot, possibly a good VI candidate, but no FP for me. --El Grafo (talk) 13:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just want to say that your criticisms are very sound. If this were a photo without historical significance, I might well have opposed it on the basis of compositional issues. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks like the "kamate" haka of the AllBlacks rugby-union team. Very impressive document, I did not know that such a ceremony was used during the WWII, but it seems normal after all.--Jebulon (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2016 at 02:21:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:George Washington Carver c1910 - Restoration.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:George Washington Carver c1910 - Restoration.jpg/2
Oppose Yes, it's a little bit better now compared to the previous nomination. But it's still a weak portrait due to the dark background and focus in the chest – unfortunately, that's nothing you can change through retouching. --El Grafo (talk) 09:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@El Grafo, Kruusamägi, and Daniel Case: } Frankly, I'd be much more sympathetic to opposition if a single better photo of Carver could be pointed to. For practical purposes, this basically works out to saying Carver has too dark skin to ever have a formal photo (which will include a white shirt) top ever have an acceptable photo - and criteria that exclude an entire race of people - an entirely unintended effect, of course, but what such focus on a white shirt can only amount to. Of course this isn't anyone's intent. However, in the absence of a single photo where Carver isn't wearing a white shirt, I don't think the objections are valid. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: As I said in the previous nomination: It must be possible to choose a background that doesn't interfere with a dark skin tone and a white shirt. Make it medium grey and everything should be fine. Or make better use of lighting so that the face becomes a little bit lighter and make the background an even deeper black. It's really difficult to find examples here because we don't categorize people by skin color and wardrobe, but have a look at this and this. I think the difference in face-to-background contrast compared to this nomination is pretty strong in those two. Also, this image of Carver does not have that problem (but other ones …).
Imho, the question "is this the best picture we have of Mr. Carter?" belongs to COM:VIC. What matters here is "Is this an awesome formal black and white portrait of a dark-skinned person?" – and my opinion on that unfortunately is "No, not really". Hope this makes my vote at least a bit more coherent? Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure - the examples you gave are A. from 50 years later B. Of a much lighter-skinned black man and C. 30 years later. This is mainly about what criteria we should use for these old, irreplaceable images. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notable person don't make photo itself a masterpiece. This is still FP selection and not VI. There really isn't much more to say. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2016 at 23:25:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kano Hideyori - Maple Viewers - Google Art Project.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kano Hideyori - Maple Viewers - Google Art Project.jpg
Support Another Google Art Project huge reproduction, Japanese style this time. Even with 25% of its size, it would be FP worthy. Do not try to open it in your browser... -- Yann (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2016 at 10:17:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Роберт Вељановски.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Роберт Вељановски.jpg
Info Just to supply the additional details. Image was shot using Canon 7D mark II using Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 ART lens. The light was LED 3 lights above the subject, 2 lights in front of the subject. Using white transparent scrims the light was softened, but other than that I had no control over it. The lights were mounted on the ceilings as a way to light up the theatre. --Petrovskyz (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
tactical oppose Certainly a charming portrait with good lighting, pose and background – I totally agree with Daniel here. But at 100% (which is not that much of a zoom in this case), it's looking pretty weird (probably due to aggressive noise reduction). Actually, I think some of the recent restorations of B&W film scans look more "natural" than this at full size. I'm not a fan of overly critical pixel-peeping in general, but is this really among the best Commons has to offer? Per Commons:Image guidelines, “Given sufficient “wow factor” and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality”, so does the "wow" outweigh the technical shortcomings in this case? I'm not really sure myself, so my oppose is mainly to prevent early archiving and fertilize discussion. --El Grafo (talk) 10:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@El Grafo: I really cannot understand how pixel-peeping can be seen as a shortcoming in general. Some would say that it is always welcome, while some think it's just a waste of time. But it's a matter of choice in any case. The additional pixels as a result have evidently made the person's stature in the foreground look smoother and clearer, where its clearness gives it a sort of three-dimensional shape and seems to be more pronounced compared to the noisy background than it otherwise would be. Is it what you mean by describing it as "pretty weird"? Also, for whatever reason you refer to the image guidelines, it mentions that the "wow factor" should outweigh the technical quality in case it's not possible to reach quality nearly at the level of other FPs, but doesn't necessarily establish a rule set in stone that prevents future correction if the quality has been already decent.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly a good point but, in my humble opinion, not drastically different from the standard of other FPs. The impression of a wax figure, or one with a three-dimensional shape, probably comes as a result of the lightning effects over some parts of the body, especially the face, and the pronounced exposure of the stature in the foreground. Examples of FPs with similar effects include this, this, this, this, this and this. Anyway, thanks for raising this up.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what I mean. I'm pretty sure that in this case the mentioned effects are due to a combination of sharpening and overly aggressive noise reduction. Again, you need to zoom in to 100% be able to see it, but then it's quite obvious, as you can still see some remaining noise patterns (for example along his lips, along his right (our left) ear, in all of the deeper wrinkles …). This does not occur in any of the examples you mention. --El Grafo (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@El Grafo: I usually don't do this, but somehow I feel the need to. I accept critique, and you are right, the image lacks a bit of detail. Sharpening is within normal levels, and there is hardly any noise reduction. That "residue" you are mentioning is basically noise introduced from slight shadow recovery. As you probably know by now shadows gain more noise due to lower levels of signal there. But, on to the point. The image was shot in poor light actually, everyday LED reflectors which doesn't contain the full light spectrum. Due to the project requirements the image had to be cropped, to suit the info box well. However, I would like to ask you what is an image without any "technical shortcomings"? Is there really such an image? I am sure that in every single image created, there are technical shortcomings. Whether it would be in forms of noise, sharpness, focus, light, clipping, or whatever you might define as a technical part of the image creation. The way I judge a picture is whether the picture as a whole is good or not. If we get into details as you did here and with the same standards, we would probably need to reject 99.9% of the pictures submitted on this platform, and the remaining 0.1% would be questionable at best. --Petrovskyz (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Petrovskyz: Thanks for clearing this up and sorry for causing such a fuss. I actually agree with most of what you wrote. The over all picture is what matters ultimately, but image quality needs to be "OK" as well (while the definition of "OK" may vary for different settings/scenes/light conditions). --El Grafo (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@El Grafo: Just to be clear, in this case, for regular web use and/or regular sized prints, the image quality isn't OK by your standards? Because trust me, I've printed much worse pictures on pixel level and they look great in regular sized prints. --Petrovskyz (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Petrovskyz: No, it's probably totally OK for that. But at FPC, standards tend to be pretty high. However, how good is "good enough" for FPC depends on the type of image (e.g. an object photographed in a controlled studio environment vs. a similar object in a dimly-lit museum). If you read my first post again, you'll see that I'm not sure myself about how big of an issue this actually is. It just appeared to me that this might have been overlooked by previous reviewers, so I wanted to point it out for consideration. The actual oppose vote was just to prevent early promotion due to the "rule of the 5th day". I've struck it now, since I'm still not sure about how I feel here (and honestly, I lack experience regarding low light portrait photography). After all, there's no denying that this is a pretty awesome portrait! --El Grafo (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm changing my vote to oppose because although this is a good use of bokeh, El Grafo is right in his criticisms, and since my vote was based on the idea that this is a very good portrait, not a photograph that wowed me, I believe I should retract it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Though it is well composed, the technical quality leaves something to be desired. And: smells like canvassing on mk-wiki to support this nomination. --A.Savin14:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Savin: Can you please explain how this "smells like canvassing" and link to relevant pages that support your guess? The use of predictions in negative connotation without presenting any factual evidence to support a position are not welcome. Please reconsider the wording of your future comments. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are support votes by mk-users who otherwise do not participate on FPC. I don't believe in coincidence. --A.Savin13:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Savin: FPC is open for comments and votes to anyone who is willing to contribute to that process. If you find that FPC is open only for a special group of users, then you seem to have standards violating the spirit of our movement that anyone can contribute to anything.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FPC is open for everyone. But when it is only your nomination (out of 53) where a bias by support voters is obvious, then something definitely goes wrong with your nomination and it should be stopped perhaps. --A.Savin14:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2016 at 09:07:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Catedral de Petrópolis, Brasil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Catedral de Petrópolis, Brasil.jpg
Oppose Quite some way from the standard for FP church interiors. While stitching with a panoramic head isn't imo necessary (though does produce great results) there's no reason to not use multi-exposure HDR in this situation, just as one would a macro lens for butterflies or a studio lighting for a portrait. Here the image has been considerably underexposed (to retain the bright stained glass and lights) and then recovered in post which results in shadow noise. And even then, the stained glass isn't clear/sharp, which it would be much better with HDR. Also, I note the image is AdobeRGB so everyone viewing with a mobile browser will see the wrong colours. -- Colin (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: church was dark, very dark, exactly as shown in the picture. What you call noise, I think it could be corrected with a noise reduction on a wall that is basically smooth, you think? --The Photographer (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well in English it implies that you disagree that it is noise, when it quite plainly is, so is rather rude. I don't think using loads of noise reduction would salvage this as an FP - what detail's lost is lost. It is more noticeable in the smooth areas, just as it is with sky in landscapes. It's a decent enough capture for a single-exposure, but the standard for church photography at FP is pretty high as you know, and as Arion should know. I am currently struggling to produce a decent image from one of my single-frame bracketed-exposure cathedral photos -- the software isn't working for me and I know the results still won't be at FP level. So knowing how it should be done doesn't mean I can reliably deliver! We aren't all Diliff. -- Colin (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know and thanks for let me know, however, it's a flat wall without any details, the only thing that it lose is the noise and remember that each person interpret his way the FP standards and I very much appreciate your comments, it's something you should know :). BTW, my objetive is improve the picture and not get a FP, honestly I value only individual opinions (especially negative), not the prize. --The Photographer (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2016 at 08:22:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Michael and the Dragon backpiece. Black and White.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Michael and the Dragon backpiece. Black and White.jpg
*Moderate Support. I would have preferred no, or less, blurring of the man's arms and the sides of his back, which are also tattooed. However, it's an interesting subject, and the resolution at full-page size is adequate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC) - I'm changing my vote to Oppose. I would support featuring the photo Colin links below. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is quite posterised (if that is the right term for b&w) indicating it has been pushed too far. this photo is better and includes more of the tattoo. -- Colin (talk) 22:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2016 at 07:34:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Boerderij Arpisson (2327m.) boven Gimillan in Cogne Valley (Italië). Kalfje (Rund) bij de boerderij 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Boerderij Arpisson (2327m.) boven Gimillan in Cogne Valley (Italië). Kalfje (Rund) bij de boerderij 02.jpg
Support - I looked at this when it was featured in Quality Images. I don't remember liking it as much as I do now. Aside from my wanting a bit more space to the right of the rock, it's a very good composition. I don't love the unsharpness in the near left and especially the far right corners, but I'm willing to tolerate it. User:Rettinghaus, please specify what bad colors you're seeing, because others may not have noticed them (I haven't). Please note: I'm not saying you didn't see them, just that it would be great if you could tell us in a bit more detail what you saw. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2016 at 09:13:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016-02-23 15-51-41 paris.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016-02-23 15-51-41 paris.jpg
I think it's better to do that, actually. I'm going to respectfully Oppose both these photos. These tympana are wonderful, but I prefer the work of Dietmar Rabich in this instance, except for its lack of perspective correction, because its contrast puts the carvings into much sharper relief. In comparison, your photos make these tympana look bland to me. No offense, and much respect for the quality photos you took, but I don't think they're really feature-worthy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI but not FP. As Ikan notes, the lighting isn't special and I don't find the bottom crop to be ideal. (the image has no embedded colourspace and the filename is unhelpful). -- Colin (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they are very different and tell very different stories... And nominating the two as a set is a non sense : there are three existing portals, one is missing.--Jebulon (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2016 at 09:11:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016-02-23 15-53-48 paris.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016-02-23 15-53-48 paris.jpg
Oppose QI but not FP. Much as the other one, and not as sharp. (the image has no embedded colourspace and the filename is unhelpful). -- Colin (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they are very different and tell very different stories... And nominating the two as a set is a non sense : there are three existing portals, one is missing.--Jebulon (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2016 at 16:31:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Delleboersterheide – Catspoele Natuurgebied van It Fryske Gea. Libellenvlonder 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Delleboersterheide – Catspoele Natuurgebied van It Fryske Gea. Libellenvlonder 03.jpg
Info From this dragonfly platform are just admire many as 45 of 70 dragonfly species in the Netherlands observed. Location, Delleboersterheide – Catspoele Nature of It Fryske Gea (Netherlands). created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - You may be able to get some good dragonfly pictures from this platform, but I find this composition uninteresting and far from packing a big "Wow" - to me, this is just a QI. To specify a bit, the light is dull and there's nothing captivating to me about the forms or colors. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2016 at 12:20:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:J.M.W. Turner - Dolbadarn Castle - Study for Diploma Picture.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:J.M.W. Turner - Dolbadarn Castle - Study for Diploma Picture.jpg
Oppose I love Turner, but is this one of our best? No. Average resolution, and the painting is quite damaged. Yann (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2016 at 07:03:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Man with a full back Christian and Enlightenment tattoo. Black and White.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Man with a full back Christian and Enlightenment tattoo. Black and White.jpg
Oppose maybe I should just abstain or even better say nothing at all but this is so not my cup of tea... I just don't like it. To put it in more appropriate terms: it aesthetically displeases me very much. ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per my !vote on the other one. I'm not bothered by the crops of the arms since a) they're small and b) they help focus attention on the tattoo, the real subject. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I was ready to support until I saw that ... uhm, let's call it a "giant dimple" for the lack of a better word ... on his right shoulder. What looked like a great pose at first sight unfortunately leads to the head of the knight on the arm being "eaten up" by that hole. Now that I've seen it, I can't stop looking at that point, which is a shame because I really like the picture. --El Grafo (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2016 at 13:35:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:German sweets and liquorice confectionery Haribo-Color-Rado.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:German sweets and liquorice confectionery Haribo-Color-Rado.jpg
Oppose, lack of whites, too dark areas, and weird white balance. For me this picture would be better like >>> that. And we have some weird artefacts on the edges, maybe too much clarity, or oversharpening, I don't know. -- RTA16:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the idea, I'm not sure RTA's brightening would make this a featurable composition to me, but with all the variety of shapes and colors, I'd recommend for you to move them around deliberately, emulating the best abstract painters and collage artists, and you could also experiment with different kinds of lighting. This composition seems kind of random to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2016 at 00:45:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Agelaius phoeniceus (11697084116).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Agelaius phoeniceus (11697084116).jpg
Support - I like the bird and the light, and I actually find this bokeh pleasing to look at. But it will be noted that this photo is quite a lot smaller than most photos of members of the Animal Kingdom that get considered for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Pose was a good start, but per Jebulon and other opposers it's more than done in by the unsharpness, CA, maladjusted white balance, noise, and clipping on the wings. I would go further than Charles and decline it were it nominated for QI. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2016 at 08:00:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Medici lion by Flaminio Vacca.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Medici lion by Flaminio Vacca.jpg
Oppose QI only. See nothing here that raises it above a tourist snapshot. There's a person in the background next to the foot. Too much local-contrast as though the clarity slider has been pushed to the max. -- Colin (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2016 at 07:50:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Trevi fountain 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trevi fountain 2015.jpg
Oppose - I agree with the others. This is an incredibly commonly-photographed fountain, so the standard for a new Featured Photo of it should be very high. We do have one Featured Photo of it, too, this 2007 photo by User:Diliff. Look at the light he got. I'd recommend you try to take more photos of the fountain on another day. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2016 at 15:06:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Per Colin. The colors are lovely, but compositionally it's a mashup of clashing forms, sharpness and unsharpness, and some areas overexposed almost to the point of posterization. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info I don't see any posterization. The small overexposed spots come from sunlight reflection. Anyway, I uploaded a reworked version. --Hockei (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Area in focus is not really big, the angle / composition is not the best, either IMHO and the flower itself is not really outstanding. Sorry, not convinced. --Poco223:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2016 at 07:35:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:John Frederick Lewis The street and mosque al Ghouri in Cairo.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:John Frederick Lewis The street and mosque al Ghouri in Cairo.JPG
Comment - This should definitely be a Valued Image, as it's the only reproduction of the entire painting (as opposed to a detail) that I turned up in a Google image search on the French-language title. However, to consider voting to feature this photo on Commons, I would need some reassurance that the photo's fuzziness at full size is solely due to fuzziness in the painting, not to unsharp focus or noise in the photograph. But either way, this is definitely a VI of clear historical, cultural and educational significance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The uniqueness of an image is a criterion for Valued Image status on Commons. To become a Featured Picture, it must meet other criteria. Please read Commons:Image guidelines, and note the following: "Featured pictures candidates should meet all the following requirements, must have a 'wow factor' and may or may not have been created by a Commons user. Given sufficient 'wow factor' and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality." If you'd like to argue that this reproduction has a sufficient 'wow factor' to override the blurriness that you don't seem to be arguing is in the painting itself, go ahead, but I don't agree. I suggest that you nominate this photo at Commons:Valued image candidates, where it will almost definitely be successful. Meanwhile, I Oppose its candidacy for Featured Picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2016 at 01:18:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wine corks.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wine corks.JPG
Support - It's so rewarding to move my eye around this picture. To me, this is like a great abstract composition of many lines going in different directions. And I think it's a better composition than the heap of cans, partly because some surfaces of some cans are glary and none of the corks are. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just this side of oppose This is different, I love the idea but ... I'm put off by the effects of the flash, with some harsh shadows and blown areas. If whoever took it could figure out how to light it better, I'd support. Daniel Case (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2016 at 16:55:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cypress Grove Chevre - Humboldt Fog cheese.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cypress Grove Chevre - Humboldt Fog cheese.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2016 at 15:47:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2013.07.01-20-Wustrow-Neu Drosedow-Gelbe Lohbluete.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2013.07.01-20-Wustrow-Neu Drosedow-Gelbe Lohbluete.jpg
Oppose Direct, on-camera flash has not produced a good result. Too many reflected bright spots. Actual subject is hard to appreciate in 3D. Not clear what part of the image is in sharp focus. Suggest using softer side-light. -- Colin (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2016 at 09:14:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry, but I have to oppose: Needs a perspective correction, but this alone wouldn't help. Lots of chroma noise and CA. Windows blown. This is definitely below our church interior standard. --Code (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Code and at less than 6MP it is at a disadvantage in terms of detail, if if it were sharp enough. However, it is refreshing to see a picture taken from the side, rather than down the middle, which allows the paintings on the opposite wall to be clearly visible. -- Colin (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Sorry for impudence. --Karelj
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2016 at 16:37:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014.09.20.-8-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim--Gemeine Winterlibelle-Maennchen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014.09.20.-8-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim--Gemeine Winterlibelle-Maennchen.jpg
Oppose Not especially sharp or large. There are much better photos in the category that are larger, more detailed and sharper. Please review the category before nominating at FPC. (I mean both the category for the animal and the FPC category) -- Colin (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info The only species of Lestidae in featured pictures that have about the same size as mine is this one, but the picture is smaller than mine. The other specieses are up to one cm bigger. The rest is a matter of taste. --Hockei (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Even if this were the best photo of the species in question, that would make it a VI, not a FP. I agree with the others. It's not sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2016 at 15:54:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2015.08.07.-03-Anglersee Huettenfeld-Lampertheim--Seefrosch.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015.08.07.-03-Anglersee Huettenfeld-Lampertheim--Seefrosch.jpg
Oppose Bad lighting with the flash. Unexceptional composition. small size. There are better photos in the category. -- Colin (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNothing against the flash by itself, it is not forbidden to submit flash-photos in FPC, even if not in the current mood. But per Colin for the rest.--Jebulon (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Size is a valid reason, Hockei, as it relates to detail and the ability to usably print this photo, crop it or display on a high-resolution device. And there are basic rules of composition that can't be dismissed as just one person's taste. For wildlife photography it is desirable to have an uncluttered clear view of the subject, which is separated from the surrounds and no distracting elements. Here the flash has lit up weed such that the frog does not stand out and the weed is full of distracting highlights due to the on-camera flash, which also makes for a very 2D image. The nearby stem on the right is distracting. The other images you link are all better photos never mind size, and were promoted over five years ago and one was taken 10 years ago. Please don't use the argument that there are no other photos of this species on FP -- any one of us could claim such for most of the pictures here and it doesn't give a free pass. -- Colin (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The big blurry stalk that dominates the right side of the picture frame per se disqualifies this from consideration by me to be one of the best photos on the site, and the small blurry stick on the left side isn't helpful, either. All this is aside from anything else. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2016 at 21:36:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A chinstrap penguin (Pygoscelis antarcticus) on Deception Island in Antarctica.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A chinstrap penguin (Pygoscelis antarcticus) on Deception Island in Antarctica.jpg
Support -- Technically competent (not surprising considering who shot it), over 5 MP, and with essentially no compression. It's not a 'wow' image, but it's a excellent photo of one of these little guys. Reventtalk22:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm pretty wowed by this: It's a great portrait of the penguin as part of a really good composition that depicts a beautiful scene and contains exemplary bokeh, to boot. This is not a close case for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that the magic partially gone because one has the impression that the penguin is looking at the camera (habitat feeling goes down) but still, good qualiy, nice subject and background, FP to me. --Poco223:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2016 at 10:01:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aphrodite Pan Eros NAMA 3335 Athens Greece.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aphrodite Pan Eros NAMA 3335 Athens Greece.jpg
Support Nomination due to @Yann: 's comment above, I think he is right, but photographs inside of museums by non professional neither accreditate photographers are very difficult to take. Here, Aphrodite (again !) is experiencing a sexual assault by Pan. Eros is trying to help her. She defends herself (not very violently...) with her sandal. Found in Delos island in 1904. Marble, 1m32, traces of color painting, 2nd c.BCE, hellenistic era. The text on the pedestal indicates who was the owner of this sculpted group (Dyonisios, son of Zenon, grandson of Theodoros). Now on display in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens, Greece, inventory number 3335. Original background available in file history page -- Jebulon (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comment and interest. I think the WB of your comparison pictures are off, too blue and/or too green, with not enough "red", if I may say. That's probably why my candidate has been elected as VI in the category. About the black BG, It is just a matter of taste. Do you have any suggestion ?--Jebulon (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a great sculpture, very well photographed. Sure, the pitch black background is a little bracing, but I much prefer it to most bokeh backgrounds and I consider it a very minor point - which just shows once again that tastes and priorities differ. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate oppose The background is what it is. But ... the head and upper arm are just too grainy/noisy for me to support it. I appreciate the effort involved, and it deserves its VI status, but that's as far as it can go. Daniel Case (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2016 at 21:10:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chartres stained window complete - The life of Jesus - retouched final version MK 10.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chartres stained window complete - The life of Jesus - retouched final version MK 10.jpg
Info Cathedrale de Chartres. Stained glass window, the life of Jesus Christ - assembled from five single sheets, each 106 x 72 cm., Lithographer:Emile Beau, Drawing by Paul Durand. Chromolithography by Hangard-Maugè, Paris 1867. File size 121MB, jpg high quality (10/12). The ratio is 1:6, the original height of the window is more than 10 meter. For a simple examination, use this non-flash-Viewer!
Support No problem at all on my iMac 5k 27". It opens like butter. Gorgeous, stunning, staggering and amazing! An 800 years old Gothic stained glass window, I am prone to say the very best one worldwide. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The reduced-size photo looks great. I, too, am completely unable to open this photo, so I don't feel it's reasonable for me to vote on it. Could a large file non-flash zoom viewer (I think it's called?) be added to the file? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Martin Falbisoner said: Download it and open it with a good viewer (I recommend Irfan View if you don´t have Photoshop or Gimp, its free and works fast) --Hubertl07:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Be aware, Ikan Kekek, this here is the Featured picture "contest", we are supposed to upload the best possible quality. Downsizing the picture just because people don´t have the necessary technical environment sounds weird for me. In fact, everyone who works with good quality should have an external, at least Full HD, ideally calibrated monitor. How else will you assess pictures with high quality? Assessing by histogram? My notebook doesn´t have any problems with this size. Gimp needs 3.5GB Ram, Irfan View 1,2 GB. This should´nt be a problem if you download it and start viewing with your notebook. --Hubertl07:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that most viewers won't do that. Other huge files have provided a "non-flash zoom viewer". Why can't this one be provided with it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you want a non-flash-zoom viewer, why don´t you install Irfan view? It´s stable, simple to use and free of charge. And you can open almost any picture types! None of the viewers I use has flash technology! I don´t see your point! Please give us the specs of your notebook. (Ram/Prozessor/resolution) But again, IMO, a notebook for reviewing pictures is just a crutch. --Hubertl16:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have IrfanView. I don't understand why it's a problem to enable viewers to use a huge file zoom viewer on Commons, as has been done for example with huge files created by the Getty Museum and uploaded here. -- Ikan Kekek(talk) 17:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Terrific, and I'll Support this magnificent picture, but as a practical matter, I think that expecting all viewers to either view the thumbnail or download the photo onto their computer is not too reasonable, so I think it's a good practice to put a link to a viewer like that onto the filename's page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive and still manageable with preview on a modern macbook, so imho the large version should be featured. --DXR (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support We're not here to judge the inadequacies of the MediaWiki software + browser for viewing large images. Though I do recommend nominators include a link to the zoom viewers if the images are very large. -- Colin (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I disagree. I think that being user-friendly is relevant (or should be, at any rate - if this is a matter of policy that needs to be discussed, we should discuss it on the talk page). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will get some practice before in Vienna! With the new 17- or 24mm T/S. Coming soon! But close to vienna, we have the oldest original grisaille glass windows, they are probably older than those in Chartres, but younger than those in Bonlieu (Creuse), Obasine (Correze), St. Martin, Chablis or the abby of Pontigny. I´m waiting for permission! --Hubertl01:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2016 at 14:35:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lennusadam 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lennusadam 2015.jpg
Support - I find this photo interesting enough from a purely artistic point of view to support, to a large degree because of the shape of the docks. It's also of obvious encyclopedic and historical significance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. It almost looks like the land is the body of an animal or insect, and the docks its arms or pincers. INeverCry18:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted, visible red CAs, needs perspective correction. I wouldn't consider it a QI like this. The sharpness is good though for an aerial shot but the location is not wowing me either, --Poco223:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2016 at 12:45:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Log Pod Mangrtom und Rombon 10032015 0593.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Log Pod Mangrtom und Rombon 10032015 0593.jpg
Support - I really like this photo, with its wonderful diagonals and contrast of light and shade, and it's a beautiful scene on top of that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose -- nice overall composition, even though the mountain on the left is a very dominant dark shadow. But lacking color and clarity as a result of mid-day sun. — Julian H.✈ 14:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Nice scene and solid composition but too soft outside of the center, quality is just not convincing me, sorry. --Poco223:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2016 at 11:41:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Ceiling fresco in the nave of Maria Taferl Basilica (Lower Austria) by Antonio Beduzzi (1714-1718): Glorification of St. Joseph. All by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 11:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This version is fine with me, too. In view of of the discussion on the talk page, I will address the "wow" in this picture: I'm pretty wowed by the frescoes, and since this is a good photo of them, I think it deserves a feature. I obviously would agree that technical issues anyone has with this picture would be sound bases for opposing a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What bugs me in the current version are the two dark wedges at the end of the columns which appear in the lower corners. Cropping the bottom edge a bit tighter to remove the wedges would seal the deal for me. --Rftblr (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the subject very much but on the other side it is a bit soft and I have sometimes problems to distinguish between painted and real reliefs (as everything looks a bit overprocessed, rather like a painting) --Poco223:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2016 at 09:21:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Phalacrocorax fuscescens in flight 1 - SE Tasmania.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Phalacrocorax fuscescens in flight 1 - SE Tasmania.jpg
Support - Good bird, especially taking into account that it's in flight, and the bokeh is not the least bit bothersome to me (which is a compliment for bokeh). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Always a struggle to capture a bird in flight. Deficiencies, of course, but taking them into account this still easily clears the bar. Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2016 at 11:43:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I love these kinds of photos of tunnels, and this is quite a striking crypt, so you have my support, but if you can take another photo that satisfies the critics' objections, all the better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe not perfect from the quality point of view but overcompensated by a great composition and perspective --Poco223:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2016 at 11:33:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Микрокристаллы аскорбиновой кислоты.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Микрокристаллы аскорбиновой кислоты.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2016 at 13:51:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:75th Anniversary of biggest 'Blitz' raid on London.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:75th Anniversary of biggest 'Blitz' raid on London.jpg
Oppose For all the effort that went into staging the photo, they could have printed the "newspapers" on newsprint -- these look like they are fresh off the office laser printer. The major flaw in this arrangement is that both subjects have their eyes in shadow. Reflectors or additional lighting would have made all the difference. So this remains a snap of an event rather than a great photo. -- Colin (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yeah, I agree with the opposers. The original photo might be worth considering for historical reasons, though, if it isn't already featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2016 at 06:31:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bevroren landschap bij zonsopgang. It Súd De Fryske Marren 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bevroren landschap bij zonsopgang. It Súd De Fryske Marren 02.jpg
Support - I thought of nominating this picture myself. I found it a bit borderline, in that the grasses don't really form a line at full size, and the big strength of this photo to me is the angle between the "line" of grasses and the plane above the shore, and then the plane of the clouds. But there are actually more lines or rough lines, including the trees in the middle to right middleground and the left background, and the ice has both interesting forms and its own plane corresponding to the sky. And that's not to mention the contrast between the light in the sky and its softer reflection in the ice. The more I analyze this photo, the more I think it does deserve a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after dowloading and checking it, for me the photo needs to be rotated by 0.75 degrees counter-clockwise to straighten the horizon and making it work. --Rftblr (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice shot that conveys winter with minimal snow (sort of what we've had here in the eastern U.S., actually. Wish I had found a shot like this). Daniel Case (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support A magic moment, great lighting at the background with the first rays of sun, beautiful colors everywhere. The foreground is, on the other side, not so appealing. I think that a better result would have been to crop one third from the bottom --Poco223:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2016 at 20:03:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Torre de Collserola 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Torre de Collserola 2013.jpg
Support - Beautiful picture. I actually find that television tower to have an interesting shape, and its context in the image is certainly interesting to me, but in any case, my philosophy is that taking a really good photo of something that's otherwise ugly or boring deserves at least as much and arguably more respect than taking a really good photo of something that's conventionally beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Our FP towers are generally much higher resolution, detailed and sharp. This is only 5.7MP, and not sharp. The composition and lighting are merely functional rather than special so just a QI. -- Colin (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Amazing tower, but just an ordinary image. Sharpness and resolution are not very high. As well the composition is unflattering: the white clouds are crossing the white antenna/spire. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2016 at 20:04:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tübingen Altstadt April 2014.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tübingen Altstadt April 2014.JPG
Comment - There are a lot of things I like about this photo, including the clouds and variety of colors, but I find this photo a bit borderline for a feature because I'm not sure about the crops, especially the one on the left side that cuts off a building in the foreground. I'm leaning toward a "support" vote right now but will think about it for a while. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose We have thousands of photos of towns taken from an elevated viewpoint. This pretty view is unremarkable with unremarkable light. It isn't particularly sharp and the distant scenery is mostly a smudge. Felix, 3.75MP is grossly insufficient for FP landscape in 2016, without hugely compensating factors. Please compare our existing FPs which combine fantastic detail with good light and often panoramic views. -- Colin (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Colin. I like the way this was set up (although, not having been there, I defer to Robert when he implies better shots might be possible). But Colin is right about the technical failings (most noticeable at the sides) that derail this one. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that there is potential here, but the composition and sharpness are not outstanding. I am looking for some lines that my eyes would like to go through but there are none and the most interesting subject, the bell tower is centered. Sorry, not a FP to me. --Poco223:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The Quality is not at FP level, the light is relatively flat even though it's not far away from being good, the roof-to-everything-else ratio is a little high. — Julian H.✈ 15:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2016 at 05:40:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gornergrat in Wallis, Switzerland, 2012 August.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gornergrat in Wallis, Switzerland, 2012 August.jpg
Comment Good photo. The only pity is, that the Matterhorn is obscured by a cloud. Based on this, I am not sure if I should support it. --Rftblr (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Spectacular! There are quite a few outstanding photos that deserve featuring, but this is really at another level, among the creme de la creme. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2016 at 03:35:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:121006-N-RC246-185.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:121006-N-RC246-185.jpg
Mild Oppose - I like the motif, but I don't like the off-centeredness of the picture and feel that that makes it less than one of the best pictures on the site. Others who don't like symmetry as much as I do may disagree. The picture is certainly sharp, so no problem there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop/framing doesn't work. The viewpoint makes it look like the platform is rising up. For 4.65MP, is isn't that sharp, probably because 1/160s isn't really fast enough for moving things. -- Colin (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2016 at 06:28:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Deutschordenskirche Frankfurt 20150820.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Deutschordenskirche Frankfurt 20150820.jpg
Support - Essentially, per Daniel. This is a wonderfully restful picture, so I'm willing to tolerate the blurry right and left foreground, which disturb me at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2016 at 08:20:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Moderate Support, as most of the butterfly is very clear. I don't like the unfocused leaf in the near left corner - that's my main objection. I also would have preferred for the butterfly's antennae to be clear, but that may be too much to ask for. I don't love the black background, but I prefer it to blurry bokeh. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some people do that. Anyway, I think it's OK to judge things by an absolute standard and then decide how far short of that is acceptable to you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I really like it but I agree with Christian's comments about the disturbing overexposure over the body, sorry, --Poco223:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2016 at 04:35:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Keutschach Pyramidenkogel Aussichtsturm in Wolken 06032016 2835.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Keutschach Pyramidenkogel Aussichtsturm in Wolken 06032016 2835.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2016 at 20:59:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama Piazza San Marco and Venice on Easter 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama Piazza San Marco and Venice on Easter 2013.jpg
Support - This gets my vote because it's very striking. The light looks great - very dramatic - at full-page size. At full size, it's just a bit hazy in the middleground and beyond, but the great monuments in the foreground have pinpoint clarity. I think this picture is really best judged as a panorama, though, not a series of closeups. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little oversharpened perhaps but I defer to the photographer's judgement; it may well be better for this. Somehow the clouds and the angle put this just over the top for me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2016 at 18:57:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Seefeld in Tirol Austria from ESE on 2014-10-18.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Seefeld in Tirol Austria from ESE on 2014-10-18.png
Support No radiosity, no ray tracing, no computer visualization at all, just plain rendering by sun light and camera? :-) --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2016 at 20:41:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Ninth Karmapa, Wangchug Dorje (1555-1603) - Google Art Project.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Ninth Karmapa, Wangchug Dorje (1555-1603) - Google Art Project.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2016 at 20:59:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Águila real (Aquila chrysaetos), Arcos de la Frontera, Cádiz, España, 2015-12-08, DD 06.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Águila real (Aquila chrysaetos), Arcos de la Frontera, Cádiz, España, 2015-12-08, DD 06.JPG
Support - Most of the eagle is impressively clear, with only a bit of the right (viewer's left) edge "soft". Good enough for me. The composition is fine, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2016 at 06:41:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Crucero, Catedral de Sevilla, Sevilla, España, 2015-12-06, DD 94-96 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crucero, Catedral de Sevilla, Sevilla, España, 2015-12-06, DD 94-96 HDR.JPG
Question Can you please illuminate me? :) I don't see such obvious problems. The sharpness on the left is lower than in the middle, I agree, but I still believe that given the resolution of the file should be acceptable. Or do you mean something else? Poco209:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see the sharpness issues that others have mentioned. It's not just softer at the edges (expected for an wide angle lens), it actually looks like slight camera shake because even the centre looks unsharp. The question is whether it's a big enough problem or not. Yes, a high resolution camera is more susceptible to camera shake, but it also deserves greater attention to such things. Was it on a tripod or hand-held? Even if on a tripod, a 1/8 of a second is nearly the ideal exposure length to maximise the effect of mirror slap. Diliff (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
David: this picture is a HDR (I always state it in the title, along with the amount of frames). The exposure of the frames was 0.5s, 2s, 1/8s. I couldn't use a tripod there (far too crowded at that spot) but used the best tool I can think of (the floor). I also tried to keep everybody away from the camera to avoid vibrations, but who knows. In fact the longer-exposure frame was not at sharp as the others (what a surprise). I have removed it from the HDR and the result is IMHO overall better (trade-off was a bit of noise in the darker areas, but still acceptable, I believe). Poco218:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been to the cathedral (many years ago, before I was as interested in photographing them) and I know how busy it is. Obviously you know now that it probably won't work to use those kind of exposures on the floor without a tripod. It's strange that only the 2s exposure was the blurry one though, because in my experience, when the camera is stationary (either on a tripod or on the floor or a table or something), longer exposures often result in sharper images because the mirror slap only occurs at the start of the exposure. If the vibration from the slap takes 1/4 of a second to disappear, then the 1/4 second exposure will be 100% blurred. But a 2 second exposure will only be 12.5% blurred (the other 87.5% is 'sharp'). There will still be some evidence of the blur even in the 2 second exposure but the effect would much less. I assume the floor was stone, and there wouldn't be any vibration from people walking around. Anyway, thanks for the explanation, and yes I agree completely, a bit of noise is more acceptable than a bit of blur. The noise can be reduced in post-production, blur cannot. :-) Support now. Diliff (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, IIRC, you said it might have been sharper had I been able to put the camera on a tripod. Also, this ceiling is a lot higher. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharpness improved with the new version. I quite like a square crop, which preserves the sharpest portion while also being geometrically satisfying. -- Colin (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, I had being consdiring such a version when I processed this image. If you like I can include an alternative version. Poco222:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A bit late now, perhaps. Might be worth uploading anyway, as that aspect ratio is more useful on Wikipedia where wide images disrupt the text more. -- Colin (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much sharper. A little darker than the other one but up to you what you think is most accurate/pleasing for that. -- Colin (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is the better of the two. -- Colin (talk)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2016 at 20:04:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:KONRAD MÄGI 1922-1923 Itaalia maastik. Rooma.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:KONRAD MÄGI 1922-1923 Itaalia maastik. Rooma.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2016 at 15:21:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Antique illustration of a famous myth: the Sacrifice of Iphigenia. Iphigenia is carried to the sacrifice (centre) while the seer Calchas (on the right) watches on and Agamemnon (on the left) covers his head in sign of deploration (enjoy the painted drapé). In the sky, Artemis appears with a hind which will be substituted to the young girl. Fresco from the "House of the Tragic Poet" in Pompeii, 1st century of the current era, now on display in the National Archaeological Museum of Naples, Italy.-- Jebulon (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy for notes, please. I don't think there is anything real in these criticisms, which are good reasons for an "oppose", and not for a "neutral" vote...--Jebulon (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disagree. There is no CA, no distortion(nor the painting neither the frame are straight), the color balance is right, and it is not underexposed. Yes, the lateral light is not optimal, but the slight blue in right side seems acceptable to me comment by @Jebulon: who forgot sing sign --The Photographer (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2016 at 08:43:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:P S Krøyer 1899 - Sommeraften ved Skagens strand. Kunstneren og hans hustru.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:P S Krøyer 1899 - Sommeraften ved Skagens strand. Kunstneren og hans hustru.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2016 at 15:29:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rixö granitbrott 23.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rixö granitbrott 23.jpg
Oppose - I didn't notice the CA, but I agree about the composition. This subject is certainly an interesting one. Maybe there could be another composition featuring it that wows me more. But please nominate this composition for Valued Image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice capture, under ordinary circumstances, but this is Featured Picture Candidates, and that is far from one of the best photos on this site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2016 at 06:56:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sky seems a bit posterised. Strong CA round the tree on the right has been "fixed" but that's left a grey strip along one side of the silhouette. It's not that interesting a scene that this becomes a special sunset. -- Colin (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'd still like to hear from User:AntanO on why he thinks this photo should be featured, but I really don't find it one of the best photos on the site. I hope I'm using terms accurately, but to my eyes, it looks noisy in the foreground, especially on the right side, and posterized in the purple band near the house. I also find the lack of any differentiation between the house and its reflection a bit disturbing, and it's a sunset picture, which would have to be particularly outstanding for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2016 at 17:56:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2013.07.07.-5-Godendorfer See Godendorf-Gefleckte Smaragdlibelle-Maennchen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2013.07.07.-5-Godendorfer See Godendorf-Gefleckte Smaragdlibelle-Maennchen.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2016 at 20:17:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Around the Corner (1937) 24fps selection.webmCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Around the Corner (1937) 24fps selection.webm
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2016 at 14:37:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:São Paulo Museum of Sacred Art.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:São Paulo Museum of Sacred Art.jpg
Thanks for your notes, however, IMHO white color is not necessary a zone overexposed and top is not distorted because this perspective image is not centered. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a good scene and colours, but a bit too flawed for architecture FP. I think you weren't quite central, as shown by the central paving slabs being at an angle. Thus, when trying to get the overall scene symmetrical, it all ends up a bit wonky. I guess this is a stitched panorama with a cylindrical projection (e.g. General Panini aka Vedutismo, which keeps the perspective-diagonals straight). That would cause the horizontals in the facing wall to curve a bit and there isn't much one can do about that except use Rectilinear with a less wide composition (which would probably be less impressive). But the verticals should still be vertical and they are nearly all titled 1° anti-clockwise. Applying a 1° clockwise tilt fixes the verticals but the horizontal base of the facing wall then looks seriously wrong. Perhaps a horizontal-perspective correction would help but perhaps it is just unfixable if the camera wasn't central + perpendicular to the wall. You could try abandoning effort to keep it symmetrical and just try to ensure the verticals are vertical and the facing wall appears horizontal. The green wood underneath the roof edging is a bit noisy, and looks unnaturally light considering I would expect it to be in deep shadow -- have the shadows been lifted too much? Were you worried this building would run away when you shot it? :-) Because 1/3200s is a super fast shutter speed for architecture and the resulting 1600 ISO loses a lot of potential detail. -- Colin (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Simply take a selection box to give yourself a vertical or horizontal line and move it around next to the window frames or the corners of walls. Verticals should be vertical no matter what standard projection or whether you are perpendicular to the building. Horizontals will only be horizontal if perpendicular to the camera, which you should try to achieve for most architectural situations (if not, it is better to be at a strong angle rather than nearly horizontal). I don't know what software you are using? Hugin? It allows you to set vertical control points. Photoshop? It's isn't very configurable and I find only really suitable for landscape stitching and not precise enough for architecture. -- Colin (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was 42 RAW images stitched with PTGui (a day of process), then I tried to correct verticals with photoshop. I find it hard to correct something that I can not see. Please, could you help me? --The Photographer (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded (and reverted) a version of Je-str's image to show the lines that are vertical/horizontal/diagonal. If you try the same with your first version then you will see how much better corrected the second one is. But it isn't perfect. I'd expect the bases of the facing windows to bow in a curve because you've probably had to use a cylindrical projection. There's a bit of a curve to the diagonals, more so on the right hand side, which might be reduced/eliminated if the Vedutismo projection is used -- but that only works well if you are truly central. The verticals are fairly good in this version (whereas there was a 1° tilt before). You can see the distant high part of the building isn't quite straight. Errors like this are hard to fix since software can only correct horizontal-projection issues along a single plane -- so distant and nearer layers will not be fixed correctly. The only solution is to stand in the middle. I drew a vertical down the middle of the fountain and you can see it does not pass through the middle of the paving slabs or the facing wall. Setting some vertical control points in PtGui may help, and I usually use these. The trick, though, is to be absolutely sure the thing you are marking as "vertical" really is. In old buildings then some things aren't perfectly made, and columns and pillars often taper. It is definitely worth getting all the projection distortion issues sorted within PtGui rather than trying to patch later. In terms of processing time, did you save your 42 image as JPG or 8-bit tiff, because if you used 16-bit tiff then that will certainly take a long time, and the benefit may not be worth it. Since you've probably downsized the result, you could consider downsizing your 42 tiles a bit also, as that would cut down on processing time. Also make sure you crop the image in PtGui and perhaps set the final output size smaller in PtGui rather than downsizing later in Photoshop or Lightroom. Getting one's camera position near perfect is the sort of thing Diliff manages nearly all the time (but not always!) but the resulting errors from being off can make the difference between a QI and FP and aren't really fixable. -- Colin (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was a cylindrical projection, I underestand the problem and it was 16 bits NEF files (I don't know how downsize a RAW). I could try do it again if you tell me how I could downsize a RAW (maybe simply exporting a jpg downsized from lightroom?). Another problem is that I can't edit files in photoshop with a size of 2 GB or more. You can see another version downsized here --The Photographer (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which cylindrical projection did you use? Recommend you try Vedutismo where there are symmetrical diagonal perspective lines. Although PtGui can read raw files like NEF, it really isn't recommended, especially if you have access to a great raw converter like Photoshop ACR or Lightroom. I recommend importing your source images into Lightroom and applying the lens profile (which removes any barrel distortion, etc), and click on the "fix CA" checkbox on the Colour tab. Make sure all the images have the same colour temperature/tint (if not, then pick an average value and apply that to them all -- this is important). But don't apply any other changes to the files. Then select them all and export as either a high quality JPG or an 8-bit TIFF. Try that and see if it makes a big difference. If still really slow, then consider downsizing a little at export time. Or just getting PtGui to create a smaller file. Make sure the output from PtGui is 8-bit (since you aren't going to get more from an 8-bit input). If your source images have lots of clipping or are underexposed, then it may be more complicated, but if exposed well then using 8-bit inputs should be fine. -- Colin (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The images are not under or overexposed. I don't remember what cylindrical projection I used, some recomendation?. Let me wait for Beria, because I use linux on my pc and lightroom not work here. --The Photographer (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. Off sky color and posterization at right strongly suggest way too much highlight suppression was applied to bring out building detail (Now this could have been done with layer masking, but that still leaves the other issues behind). Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Je-str, did you ask permission before uploading your version? It isn't polite to alter someone else's image without asking, and especially during a FPC. However, it does improve on the distortion, though the rear bit of building that sticks up still looks a bit misshapen. Possibly overdone the darkening a little, and the sky now looks quite noisy. Is there a chance the image could be re-taken at low ISO and a more central position for the tripod? -- Colin (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2016 at 23:06:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:1.Magukbaforduló ikerszelvényesek 72dpi.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:1.Magukbaforduló ikerszelvényesek 72dpi.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2016 at 22:35:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Azogues Ecuador Igl San Francisco 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Azogues Ecuador Igl San Francisco 02.jpg
Oppose Just a QI. At only 4.8MP and not sharp (plus the vertical perspective issue) this is not close to being among our finest works. -- Colin (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral New version uploaded, verticals corrected on both sides, noise reduction... BUT I tend to agree with Colin. --Cayambe (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Oppose - I realize this is pretty punctilious criticism, but I feel it's a bit too unsharp for me, especially at the altar. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it over-"punctilious" to expect pixel-level sharpness for 4.8MP. Pixel-peeping a 48MP image, on the other hand... -- Colin (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Colin, at this Size this would need to be pin-sharp to be considered. I tried to salvage it with deblurring, but it does not give me the wow that I expect from this type of interior. --Rftblr (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2016 at 22:28:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Madeira 057.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Madeira 057.JPG
Oppose The way the stumpy branch on the left connects with the wall in the background interferes with an otherwise good composition. INeverCry04:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2016 at 08:42:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mirror writing2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mirror writing2.jpg
*Support - The file is smaller than usual for a Featured Picture candidate, but I don't see why it would need to be larger. Clear photo on an interesting and pretty subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC) - I'm changing my vote to Neutral because I find the criticisms below to be valid. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2016 at 07:51:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Moderate Oppose. Pretty good capture, but given that this is being nominated for a feature, it's just not that clear. The entire photo is pretty dark and not only the background but the man's face is noisy (if that's the right term for the kind of pixellated fuzziness that's visible at full size and still affects the photo's clarity at full-page size). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2016 at 07:00:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ontdooiende beijzelde bloemknop van Magnolia. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ontdooiende beijzelde bloemknop van Magnolia. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 02.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2016 at 16:10:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014.03.14.-3-Buchklingen--Busch-Windroeschen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014.03.14.-3-Buchklingen--Busch-Windroeschen.jpg
Comment Nothing is overexposed in this picture and it is not necessary that the sharpness have to reach from front to behind in featured pictures. This is my last answer to your writings. --Hockei (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry, but I find Colin's examples persuasive, even though I'd have to think carefully about whether to vote for them, either. It's understandable for you to disagree with his reasoning, but that doesn't make it unsound per se. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But you cannot give two votes in one nomination. One of them has to be cancelled. Regarding ping, no. I won't do that. --Hockei (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hockei, the original JPG had no detail in the highlights, which constituted most of the petal surface. I suggested that it was a mix of "Over-exposed / bad lighting / small DoF" or more likely a combination. There are lots of possible causes. What matters is the JPG was over-exposed and that's what you presented here. That your raw file retained the highlight detail is great, but not what was nominated. The latest version is probably a bit dark (both the flower and background) but I suppose you intended that just to emphasise the detail. Four people opposed your first version and we aren't all blind. -- Colin (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, often was said to me that a picture is too dark or underexposed. Make it brighter. More brither and more. I thought what is with the details? They get lost more and more. Anyway I made it brighter and it was good for the poeple. Now I made it bright from the beginning on. Suddenly it was bad again. Too bright/overexposed/no details. The next version is too dark again. This is a dilemma, isn't it? That confused me. How ever, I've made a new slightly changed version again. (Sorry for english mistakes) --Hockei (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hockei, I'm going to cross out my "Support" vote for now, because I feel like by not pinging people, you're not really trying to get majority support for your new version. If you decide to put in the effort, I'll cross out my "Oppose" vote and reinstate my "Support" vote. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek, please understand me right. It's just I don't want to annoy the people with pings. I think they'll see that theirselves and decide if they want to take a look more or not. --Hockei (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If people find it annoying to be pinged, then I understand. But so far, not everyone who previously voted has weighed in on the new version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2016 at 19:08:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de Santa María de Huerta, Santa María de Huerta Soria, España, 2015-12-28, DD 21-23 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de Santa María de Huerta, Santa María de Huerta Soria, España, 2015-12-28, DD 21-23 HDR.JPG
Support - This picture doesn't grab me the way some church interior pictures do, but I think it's certainly a nice enough and notable enough view to merit featuring. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2016 at 18:31:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paredão do Ibitipoca.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paredão do Ibitipoca.jpg
Oppose I cut myself on this when I opened it. And I don't mean that in a good way :-). Too much sharpening and clarity making for a very contrasty image with hard lighting that isn't so pleasing to look at. Sky noisy as a result. Technical aspects apart, I'm not sure what elevates this above QI. Also it should use sRGB colourspace rather than AdobeRGB for internet. -- Colin (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't mind the light in general, but the right side of the sky is indeed noisy and the grasses at the near right corner are blurry. Do you think you could edit the file somewhat to address these and the other criticisms Colin made above? The view is quite interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@EVDiam: I like this set very much, but there is a small technical problem: it was shot with a camera that has dust on its sensor, and the resulting dark spots are very much visible, and traceable to the camera as they are in the relative same position on the plates. I annotated the spots I noticed on the images, but there might be more. I think these should be remedied, by either retaking these after sensor cleaning, or if this is not possible, by editing these out. --Rftblr (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, and I do not know if you can do that, based on the state and accessibility of the plates: the last plate has its backside shining through. This might be preventable by laying it on a black sheet when taking the photo. --Rftblr (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Adam Cuerden: As far as the size is concerned: in these images I asked for permission and I uploaded them in high resolution. I don't think there are versions with higher resolution. However, in general, these images are not so easily replaceable, because of copyrights issues. see here.EVDiam (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2016 at 14:01:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I give this photo moderate support. In my opinion, it's good enough to be a good Featured Picture, but I'm interested to see what your views are. It's true that we can't see every single feather as vividly as in most of the pictures of birds we've been featuring lately, but is that really essential? This is a clear, very good portrait, overall, and the way it shows the bird's grip with its webbed feet is interesting and valuable. I also find the picture's composition simple and good, and it's all refreshingly clear and unblurry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for your evaluation. My take on it is that no part of the bird is blurry. It's a slightly soft focus, but that's not only acceptable to me but better to me than pictures with very shallow depth of field, in which a small part of the picture is very clear and the rest is a blur. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If this were sharp it would be FP. But it is very soft and just a bit above the minimum resolution. So I have to decline. -- Rftblr (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Does anyone like this enough to vote for a feature? If not, I'll just withdraw my nomination and nominate another photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2016 at 22:23:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Funifor Arabba Porta Vescovo 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Funifor Arabba Porta Vescovo 2.jpg
Comment - Responding to myself for now: I believe so. I think the car is further up, but otherwise, the picture is quite similar. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I Support featuring this photo. Some people may prefer it to the other one because the cable car is more clearly lit, but I predict that we'll get the same complaints about the shadow, and that it probably won't be featured. And as before, I like the contrast of the lighted area and the area in shadow, but nevertheless clearly visible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like both. No doubt for me. If someone don´t like the shadows, he has to wait until June. But there will be no or just a little snow on the mountains. --Hubertl11:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Shadow don't disturbing me much provided it is from the mountain at the top. For me there are just to many people on the slope. But I cannot decide if it is a reason to decline it. --Hockei (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is good but I am not convinced about composition and lighting and not moved by the subject itself Poco208:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2016 at 12:11:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Croatia Pula Temple of Roma and Augustus 2014-10-11 11-30-05.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Croatia Pula Temple of Roma and Augustus 2014-10-11 11-30-05.jpg
Comment - I'm not sure how I feel about this photo, which to me really is of people (most of them taking photographs) and a temple. If you have the stomach for waking up at dawn, you might get a picture without people directly in front of you or photographing you from the temple, and I'd like that better, but I really don't know how the light would look at that hour. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2016 at 09:29:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Universität Wien - Vestibül großer Festsaal ceiling view inside the dome-2201.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Universität Wien - Vestibül großer Festsaal ceiling view inside the dome-2201.jpg
Support after considering it a while (it looked a bit flat), I noticed that any white background made it look flat. Against a dark background it is FP. -- Rftblr (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2016 at 04:33:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Banquet hall of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna IMG 8781.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Banquet hall of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna IMG 8781.jpg
Oppose I am not sure what was your intention here Hubertl but the result is not convincing to me. The ceiling is maybe a nice work but this is the wrong perspective to depict it and the lighting (not your fault) on it uneven. On the other side the front of the picture is far too dark, a HDR would have been required to show some detail. Not one of our finest to me, sorry. Poco209:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don´t want to push it, but in fact, this is the original lightening situation in this room - there is no other luminaria except the reflection from the ceiling - when there is no event. Probably - I haven´t seen it - there are additional light beneath the existing in the upper height. --Hubertl11:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I think, you are very right with your complaints! Thanks for reviewing! But it makes me curious how I can manage the capturing of this motif with a different lens, one year later! --Hubertl13:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2016 at 21:06:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Thomisus onustus, Réserve naturelle régionale de Sainte Lucie 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thomisus onustus, Réserve naturelle régionale de Sainte Lucie 02.jpg
Weak Oppose. I find the composition a little strange-looking, with the placement of the lower flower's anthers making them look like sea anemones or something. I'm not really sure what you could have done about that. But perhaps the depth of field might be a little less shallow, too, so as to allow for the rest of the spider and the flower it's on to be clearer. This is really a picture of the flower and the spider, not just the spider. I do appreciate the clarity of most of the spider, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose With a subject this small you have to limit the subject: is it the spider or is it the flower? If it is the flower, it is nearly entirely out of focus. If it is the spider, it is an awkward composition and slightly inaccurate focus (as per Charles). -- Ram-Man19:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2016 at 21:13:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Niagara Falls USA Canada from Skylon Tower on 2002-05-28.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Niagara Falls USA Canada from Skylon Tower on 2002-05-28.png
Support So many memories for me ... I used to work just off the left side of the image, and I walked the paths and sidewalks on the right quite a few times, including once during a lunar eclipse when I had the place pretty much to myself. Oh yeah, great picture too . Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2016 at 07:48:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - Yes, this is yet another of Johann Jaritz' photos of Pörtschach. However, far from being a striking panorama of the lake, this is a very pure, almost abstract composition that could be (mis)taken at first as publicity for a cafe-bar, but is actually just a great composition that happens to make use of that cafe-bar. I find it very enjoyable to move my eye around the picture frame, feeling the forms of the objects and visible elements of the building, porch, fence and street, and also the degree to which the photo looks symmetrical and actually isn't and the subtle interplay of light and shade. I find that this photo's composition is best viewed at full-page size; at full size, the picture is clear but the composition gets lost entirely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The forms are just simple enough, and the colors strong enough, for this to work for me. Yes, the composition isn't perfect (I wouldn't miss that post at the bottom), but that's actually kind of charming. The only thing I'd want to be sure about is whether the sign is OK for a free image under Austrian FoP law ... I think it is, but it's not my specialty. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for your vote and comments. I actually like the post, which is one of the elements that shows the composition's lack of symmetry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality and composition overall, but after looking at it for a while I cannot find that special thing that would make this picture one of our finest, sorry. Poco208:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I appreciate that you gave it a fair shot. There doesn't seem to be too much interest in this picture, so it looks like a lot of people have sealed the fate of this nomination by abstaining, which is of course legitimate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2016 at 18:13:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support First, sorry for my so many cattle images nominations. Regarding the small DoF here, it was deliberate to accentuate the effect of the silhouettes of those black animals. And regarding the fact they are shadowed, I tried several times to move, however, and this must be a kind of instinct for these semi-wild animals, they move the same time as you and they are careful to do not have the sun in their eyes...but in the end it helps to emphasize their silhouettes and their imposing presence in the image. -- Christian Ferrer(talk)18:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Wilfredo, that background almost makes me dizzy. I prefer the pleasant background in the earlier cattle image that was withdrawn with 4 or 5 supports and no opposes. INeverCry05:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - DoF is really too shallow, in my opinion. The only things in focus are the grasses in the foreground, and maybe the nose of the one bull closest to the camera, the horns of 2-3 of them and arguably one of one of the bulls' hoofs; everything else including almost every part of the other cattle is more or less blurred. The effect is better at full-page size, but some of the cattle are still noticeably out of focus. What it amounts to is that my taste differs from yours on this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2016 at 08:33:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I like this. There's a kind of poetry to the subject that reminds me of Shelley's poem, Ozymandias, although that one takes place in a desert. The composition appeals to me, too, especially the visible waves. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suppose King was referring to the rule of third, and by that rule, the horizon should be at 1/3 rd from top or bottom. But it's just something, photographers use and not really a rule. As long as the photograph has a visual appeal it should not really matter. In this photograph horizon is not strictly at 50:50, but more perhaps at 55:45 or 60:40 or so -- Dey.sandip (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2016 at 07:29:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria in Via (Rome) - Ceiling.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria in Via (Rome) - Ceiling.jpg
Oppose That line or light ray at top right is a very visible flaw. This would be great without it, but it's the first thing I noticed when I looked at the image. INeverCry (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality overall good but I am not convinced by the lack of symmetry (look at the windows on the left) and the processing, it lacks contrast I think and it is overall too dark. The ray is not helping the composition, either. Poco208:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2016 at 12:17:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stade Français history - Restoration.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stade Français history - Restoration.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2016 at 15:57:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Adolphe Adam by Maurin.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Adolphe Adam by Maurin.jpg
Support - Very good resolution. There are a few spots that someone may want edited out, but to my mind, it's a very clean print, given its age. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2016 at 21:58:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fluorescence in calcite.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fluorescence in calcite.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2016 at 18:03:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Francisco, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 165-167 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Francisco, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 165-167 HDR.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2016 at 14:42:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama von Burg Windeck (Weinheim).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama von Burg Windeck (Weinheim).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2016 at 19:20:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Samuel Coleridge-Taylor.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Samuel Coleridge-Taylor.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2016 at 07:31:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Santi Andrea e Claudio dei Borgognoni (Rome) - Interior.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santi Andrea e Claudio dei Borgognoni (Rome) - Interior.jpg
Comment - I like the photo very much per se, but I'd like you to talk about the yellows in the photo and the degree of yellow, overall, because none of the other photos I've been looking at show nearly the level of yellow you get. Is your photo truer to the actual colors in the church, due to the long exposure you used? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It 'just been restored, and in any case gold was widely used in the churches of the center, such as precious stones for paintings (for example Michelangelo loved Lapis Lazuli) --LivioAndronico(talk)16:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am still pondering this image. As it is I cannot support it due to a technical reason: it suffers from noticeable pincushion distortion. --Rftblr (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, you did not fix it, you made it worse. Your photo suffers from Pincushion distortion not Barrell distortion. Look at the benches in the lower corners they tilt down. --Rftblr (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2016 at 08:24:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Treskavec 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Treskavec 01.jpg
Oppose - This is a pretty good achievement, but the sky is noisy and the background is quite fuzzy. The standard of the panorama photos we've been featuring is very high. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Ikan Kekek. However based on the camera that was used, it might actually be possible to achieve a high quality with careful processing. Note that the chosen f-stop of f/3.5 is not optimal. For such panoramas f-stops around f/8 will normally result in better quality. -- Rftblr (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are perspective (left part leaning in) and quality (halos in borders, see on the right) issues Poco209:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I second Robert's comment that this could have worked with different exposure settings. As it is we are left with the noise Ikan notes, the weird sky shadings at right, CA on the rock there, and insufficiently differentiated midtones throughout (the rocks all seem to be the same shade of gray). Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2016 at 00:44:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Ski Tour Canada Quebec city 10.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Ski Tour Canada Quebec city 10.JPG
Moderate Support - This is a quality photo and I like how you capture the moment and the movement of the skiers. This composition is growing on me, and you've given my eye enough to look around. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2016 at 23:31:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ara ambiguus at Paradise Village Resort.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ara ambiguus at Paradise Village Resort.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2016 at 21:06:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de Nuestra Señora de África, Ceuta, España, 2015-12-10, DD 75-77 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de Nuestra Señora de África, Ceuta, España, 2015-12-10, DD 75-77 HDR.JPG
Info The church of Santa María de África is a Roman Catholic church located in the city of Ceuta, a Spanish exclave on the north coast of Africa. The temple is dedicated to Santa María de África, the patron saint of the city. In 1421 Henry the Navigator sent to Ceuta an image of Our Lady of Africa that guided to the first temple built to honour her in the current location, but no remains have been found from the medieval age. The church is of Baroque style and the first evidence of its existence dates from 1676 when it is mentioned in building work and then again in 1697. The church undergoed a renovation during the first half of the 18th century resulting in its current appearance. Poco221:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Photographer: no estoy del todo seguro si he entendido tu comentario. ¿Estás sugiriendo que sea más generoso con el corte en la parte inferior (tengo algo de margen para hacerlo)? Poco200:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fíjate los incienciarios, se encuentran casi pegados a las laterales, ahora compara la parte superior en donde está la pintura sola con bastante espacio. --The Photographer (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2016 at 11:06:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Grand Cayman pygmy blue (Brephidium exilis thompsoni) 2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grand Cayman pygmy blue (Brephidium exilis thompsoni) 2.JPG
Info This is a rare sub-species of the world's smallest butterfly. The wings as shown in the image are only 1/2" (12mm) across, so you have to get pretty close. They settle about 6" (15cm) off the ground just to increase the challenge and always settle head down which is why the image has not been rotated. There are only a couple of known sites on Grand Cayman.
Support, based in part on the rarity and challenge of photographing the butterfly. This would seem to be an obvious Valued Image, but it's a good capture and would be fine on the front page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's rare, tiny, and the quality of the image along with the challenges involved just getting this shot negate the size issue which isn't that far off from meeting minimum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 02:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per George. Being rare and tiny does not overcome the problems for me. It is not necessary to have a FP of every species. -- Rftblr (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that your last sentence is a strong argument. I still think this picture is good enough to feature, but if I were more doubtful about that, I'd agree with your points 100%. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2016 at 16:45:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Braga March 2016-7a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Braga March 2016-7a.jpg
Oppose IMHO, Left and Right side look out of focus and distorted (maybe lack of DoF and lens border distortion), destructive noise reduction. I beg the use of tripod especially indoors, is a picture of great beauty. --The Photographer (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with The Photographer. I'm willing to tolerate a degree of softness at the margins in this kind of picture, but the left side in particular is just too unsharp. I'm not sure if there's a logical way to crop this photo. It's probably best to retake a photo of this ceiling if you have the chance to do so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
regretful Oppose as well – the idea is great but the rendering isn’t. The pipes should be sharp too, not just the fresco, and a good raw image would allow some tonemapping to brighten up the dark areas. Always carry a tripod on the slightest suspect there might be some indoor shot around the corner :-) --Kreuzschnabel06:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2016 at 02:27:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Mild Support. There is some noise in the sky, and I'm not convinced all of the land features are completely sharp, but this scene is indeed breathtaking and the composition is good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ikan, I've to agree that there was more noise in the sky than what I would have expected (and liked). I've applied some selective denosing there, please, let me know what you think about the new version Poco220:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that sounds great, let's create a project Poco in <any country of your choice> :) I've been to Brazil but it doesn't really count. I'll arrange something sooner or later. Poco216:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2016 at 04:19:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Poertschach Werzerpromenade 10 Woerther See Stockentenpaar 15032016 0943.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poertschach Werzerpromenade 10 Woerther See Stockentenpaar 15032016 0943.jpg
Neutral - This is a pretty picture, but it's so gray, and I find that the low light hinders the movement of my eye around the picture frame to some degree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks, Ikan, for your constructive comment. I moved some sliders of LR, I diminuished the dominant harsh gray mood and gave the image a warmer touch, more towards orange. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - The picture is greatly improved now (with the possible exception of the snow-capped mountains now being less distinguishable from the sky), but do you think the current version is truer to how the view actually looked? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like Hubertl I miss the wow, also for me the horizon is unfortunately placed, and the closer duck is too close to the edge of the photo. -- Rftblr (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose Lovely subtle tones, and I can see what you must have been thinking. But while it's definitely a QI, it's not special enough to me for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would have supported the more natural rendition. A picture should not have to be made unnatural in order to become a FP. -- Ram-Man21:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2016 at 12:43:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:BoschTheCrucifixionOfStJulia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:BoschTheCrucifixionOfStJulia.jpg
Info created by The Bosch Research and Conservation Project - nominated by Fæ. This is a historic painting nominated for the incredibly high technical standard photograph by the digitization team (53,671 × 47,584 pixels) as a part of a project commemorating the 500th year since Bosch's death. The Bosch Research and Conservation Project use innovative web viewers for the very high resolution images on their website, and created this photograph using a custom rig with an XY-movement camera holder and lazer measurement device so that the Hasselblad H4D-60-IR[5] could take a grid of macro photographs which then stitched together make a detailed "map" of the painting. The resolution itself adds high educational value, as Bosch is famous for his fine detail work, for example the top right of the work shows a sinking ship, bodies in the water, and a crowd of fishermen dragging a giant fish out of the sea, while on the top left there are night scenes of a house on fire and people being rescued using several ladders, details that are almost impossible to examine at conventional resolutions and best viewed using the ZoomViewer. This image replaced a derivative image and is an official research quality photograph/scan taken after recent restoration by the Bosch Research and Conservation Project. A scan at the same resolution of the painting using infra-red reflectography is uploaded here. -- Fæ (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2016 at 15:45:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:5 Sammlung Eybl Frankreich. Lucian Jonas (1880-1947). Grand Matineé de Bienfaisance (Große Wohltätigkeitsmatinée zugunsten der Witwen und Waisen). 1917. 120 x 80 cm. (Slg.Nr. 590).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:5 Sammlung Eybl Frankreich. Lucian Jonas (1880-1947). Grand Matineé de Bienfaisance (Große Wohltätigkeitsmatinée zugunsten der Witwen und Waisen). 1917. 120 x 80 cm. (Slg.Nr. 590).jpg
Info France. Lucian Jonas (1880-1947). Grand matinee de Bienfaisance (Large charity matinee in favor of widows and orphans). 120 x 80 cm 1917.. (Slg.Nr. 590) A family mourns at the grave. The kneeling woman to her husband, four children by her father. The eldest son, already in uniform, stands on its own. The mother, the next oldest son and the two small children form a graphical unit. The order of children age after also shows the sequence of engagement of the army. Only the girl right outside this fate will be spared.
Comment - I'm not sure why, but I can't see a bigger than full-page size display of this picture in either flash or non-flash form. Is anyone else having this problem? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2016 at 13:29:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - Perhaps if the picture is important to an article, it may be a better candidate for its EV as an FPC on en.Wikipedia. Atsme📞15:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2016 at 14:17:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Carousel, 6th of October City, Egypt.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carousel, 6th of October City, Egypt.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2016 at 16:47:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose per INeverCry. I disagree with Code on the DoF - I think it should have been a bit deeper, in order to get more of the picture in focus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest you made an unintentional choice; I simply disagree with it. And even to the extent this photo is "perfectly usable", that's not the standard for featuring a picture. That criterion is more relevant to a Valued Image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has more wow than the alternative. It's been so long since I've nominated here, I forgot about this trend against lower depth of field. (see this vs. this) -- Ram-Man11:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have an alternative? What's the alternative? Thanks for linking those two coneflower pictures. I agree with the ratings - the one in which the stem is clear appeals to me more. But it's all a matter of taste. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't bother. It's time consuming taking extra f/13 shots just for FPs. I was hoping things might have changed after so many years. But no. -- Ram-Man16:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking at your shots of locomotives and such. They're very interesting. Perhaps one of those might be good to nominate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2016 at 12:50:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral The bird only occupies a small space on the photo and seems not to be well focused, the contrast of light is very strong and has a lot of background noise. --The Photographer (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I, too, see no good compositional reason for all the empty space in this photo and will vote against the picture in this form. However, the bird itself looks good to me. If a good crop is done, I might support the result. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The crop is a better composition, and actually a very good one. Nice interplay between the color of the bird and the background. I do not think the BG should be further denoised. It will only lead to posterization. The photo seems a bit oversaturated though and the contrast and/or sharpness is set a bit too high IMO. The wow is there for me. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Josve05a, would it be legitimate for you to offer the cropped version as an alternative, or is the original photographer reachable to inquire about this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have not spoken with the photographer on Flickr about this yet unfortunatly, but the user is out there if you'd like to contact them. And as for "offering the cropped version as an alternative", sure thing ;) Josve05a (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since so far only the nominator has voted support for the original crop, the easiest thing would be for the nominator to withdraw this candidate (unless Josve05a thinks it still has a chance to get promoted), and then open up a new nomination with the crop instead. An alternative is possible in the same nomination, but it is difficult to setup correctly, closure needs to be done manually, and when you introduce an alternative, it usually does not get that much attention. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2016 at 15:26:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Donau City Vienna from Donauinsel on 2014-08-28.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Donau City Vienna from Donauinsel on 2014-08-28.png
Neutral I rarely vote on architectural/skyline panoramas and will continue that trend, but this one just seems uninspiring. It's clearly of high technical value, but it's not what I would call "picturesque". The cityscape is uninteresting, the sky is boring, the reflections are just OK, and the foreground doesn't add anything at best. -- Ram-Man16:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Uninteresting composition to me, though I like the curvy right side of the one tall skyscraper, and the smaller building with the curvy roof has some interest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice technical quality, exposure control, light, colours, and detail level. Good composition, but not sufficiently exceptional for me to support. Maybe a bit more of the uninteresting foreground could have been cropped. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you all for your constructive critique. I will try with a cropped version that removes the foreground. -- Rftblr (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2016 at 17:47:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vizcacha de la Sierra (Lagidium viscacia), Desierto de Siloli, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 30.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vizcacha de la Sierra (Lagidium viscacia), Desierto de Siloli, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 30.JPG
Support Cool, thank you, The Photographer! I was also amazed by this animal, that just saw once from the distance in a zoo. Poco217:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the animal, but there's a large amount of very unsharp background (and foreground) in the picture. I would suggest aggressively cropping the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, I can do that and offer an alternative if The Photographer asks me to do so. There is something though in your comment that puzzles me. What is the problem with unsharp background? Actually I believe that it would be a problem if the background would be sharp as it would make the subject difficult to stand out. Furthermore in this case the background is not really interesting, so you're not missing anything Poco222:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the background is not really interesting, why should so much of it be included? That's pretty much my point, and it's especially true if the background would in fact distract from the main subject. The Photographer finds that a sharp background would distract the viewer and I find this unsharp background distracting, so isn't the solution to crop as much of the background as possible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In background there are only commons metamorphic rocks from Siloli (Atacama) and a background of rocks focused only will distract the main subject (rabbit). Choose a natural environment bokeh to keep out of focus was an appropriate approach by Poco, IMHO --The Photographer (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I love the rabbit, but the background bugs me a bit too, especially the big shadowy rock formation just behind the rabbit. Pretty busy. INeverCry00:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Atsme, INeverCry, and Ikan Kekek: Ok, convinced now after all your comments. I've uploaded a new version. Please, check it and let me know what you think. Poco218:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC) PD: I also hope that The Photographer likes it better than the original one.[reply]
I like this a lot better, but because of a physical reaction I have to the particular type of blurring that's now on the upper left of the photo (it makes me kind of dizzy if I look too long), I will remain Neutral. However, I expect that others will support a feature, based on the quality of the picture of the viscacha and their feeling (which I'd share, absent this physical reaction) that the composition is acceptable or better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No support from me, sorry. But the DOF is not convincing. At least the nose and the eyes should be in focus but it isn't. The focus is anywhere at (or: by ?) the belly. Also there is lot of posterization. The crop on the left side (the blurred surrounding is very disturbing me) also is not enough. The strong sharpening (what I think it is) don't help. --Hockei (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
regretful Oppose Hard to oppose for technical reasons on such a nice idea and setting. But there are strong sharpening artifacts, esp. around the whiskers, leading to false colours and pixelation, and the entire head is motion blurred (even visible in preview). The background is generally nice but unfortunately just behind the animal’s head it’s getting distracting. If it is of some comfort, I really like the picture, but I still don’t think it’s among our very best. --Kreuzschnabel06:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I understand the technical factors, however, this rabbit was taken in a hostile natural environment, with enough complexity, however, that was not enough. This section should take into account certain circumstantial factors, the Atacama Desert is far from civilization and very difficult to go beyond zone. --The Photographer (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. This picture should haven been reviewed considering that it is an exotic place, dificult to reach (far more than Atacama), it is an authentic habitat, the animal is wild (and shy, they can and do run away) and a it is a rare species. As I've mentioned several times, if you want animal FPs, go to the zoo. Poco207:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we're still discussing this nomination, I feel like I should point out that I fairly recently nominated a photo by Charles Sharp of a jaguar yawning on the side of a river (the Rio Negro, I believe) in the Brazilian Pantanal that was unanimously supported. So though it's certainly true that the standard for approving nominations of animal pictures taken in the wild is quite demanding, it's quite untrue that it is impossible for pictures of wild animals in nature to be approved for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2016 at 19:37:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gent Gravensteen R01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gent Gravensteen R01.jpg
Oppose I suggest cutting the sky, remove dust spots, white trash in the lake, lift the shadow side of the bridge and remove the cable additionally correct vertical columns --The Photographer (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Thank you, Pine, for nominating this picture. I really appreciate your support. But, honestly, I don't think this is one of my better photographs and it's not FP worthy. I don't see dust spots, but there is some noise in the sky. Some other minor improvements could also be done indeed. But I cannot agree with the suggestion to remove the trash in the water and the cable: these objects are really existing and are part of the reality at that moment. I am not against photoshopping to improve the image quality, but it should be done with care and in a very reserved way. -- MJJR (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Such modifications are perfectly acceptable because It does not change the main subject, look at this image and compares the first version with the latest. Btw, I've added an example of dust spot. It is a photograph of excellent quality, this is just my humble opinion and I will change my vote if it is done. --The Photographer (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I support your fixing the dust spots, but I don't really notice them. Also, I respect your principles on realism and in any case don't see the compositional necessity of removing trash and the cables from the picture, but I do think this is an excellent picture, and I don't hesitate to support it as is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The building is amazing, no doubt about that. But the picture itself only detracts from the castle (wires, trash, shadows). I think to be a FP the photographer must add something to the subject. For a building that often means controlling the framing or lighting in a flattering way. It's a good photo, but not a FP. -- Ram-Man17:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mostly per Ram-Man. While the motive as such is interesting, this rendering is spoilt by many small factors, the worst being the distracting wires to the right. Besides, I expect a 12MP candidate to be crisp sharp. There’s too much loss of detail on the masonry. Colours leaning to the green side IMHO. There are much more fascinating images of this building on Commons, e.g. File:Gravensteen_widostraat.jpg, which offers a more balanced composition and interesting light. --Kreuzschnabel06:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose I like the composition and colors, and I don't mind the wire. I particularly like the way this emphasizes the lower support architecture. However, I agree with Kreuzschnabel that it should be in better focus. Daniel Case (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2016 at 21:36:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:1950s man with lobster Gloucester Massachusetts USA 5337041146.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:1950s man with lobster Gloucester Massachusetts USA 5337041146.jpg
Info Unidentified man with lobster in the 1950s in the industrial fishing town of Gloucester Massachusetts USA. Created by Glenn from West Virginia - uploaded by M2545 - nominated by M2545 -- M2545 (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - That photo has dirt and spots all over it and would need restoration; however, since this is an anonymous man, is the point just to show local color from a particular period? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lobster is certainly impressive, but probably more of a wow for those who got to eat it than the photo is. INeverCry00:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2016 at 12:41:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nancy Porte Here BW 2015-07-18 13-45-47.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nancy Porte Here BW 2015-07-18 13-45-47.jpg
Moderate Support - I basically agree with Uoaei1 that this is not an incredibly extraordinary photo, but it's a very good, very well-composed photo of a beautiful gate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as per Uoaei1, but I think the image could be noticeably improved by cropping to a wider format. I have put my crop suggestion into an annotation. -- Rftblr (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not my image, and therefore for Berthold Werner to decide if he would like to offer a cropped version. -- Rftblr (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looking at it I was wondering whether it is a street scene focusing on people and atmosphere or an architecture picture. I think the monument and lack of people in the foreground suggest the latter and for that I find that group of people in front of the gate pretty disturbing. Like Uoaei I miss something here (e.g. nice lighting with less tourists) Poco209:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support I can reconcile the architectural aspect with the street aspect. It is used by people on a daily basis, rather than being roped off at a distance, so people in the picture is natural and expected. Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2016 at 22:34:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Soy Wikipedista.webmCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Soy Wikipedista.webm
Oppose Ẃhy youtube version has a HD version of this video, I already asked it in the Wikimedia Argentina and Iberocop mail list, Why do a selfish promotional video and not upolad it to commons primarily?. --The Photographer (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2016 at 16:41:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de Santa María de Huerta, Santa María de Huerta Soria, España, 2015-12-28, DD 43-45 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de Santa María de Huerta, Santa María de Huerta Soria, España, 2015-12-28, DD 43-45 HDR.JPG
Neutral Some disturbing details prevent me for a support of this beautiful image. Lack of symmetry of the pavement of the ground, which should have been straight IMO. Unfortunate crop of the bench at left (in general, I think that a serious crop at left would help this composition). The strange white structure in foreground right. The crop of the top of the window at right. The distortion of the pillar in foreground. But again, the place is beautiful, the light excellent, and the mood very special.--Jebulon (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2016 at 05:06:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Trier Bildstock Feldstraße.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trier Bildstock Feldstraße.jpg
Support - Palauenc05 has been photographing a lot of wayside shrines, which I consider a great project. I think this particular wayside shrine is a great work of art, and this is one of Palauenc05's best photos. If we feature this photo, it seems like it would be the first FP under Category:Wayside shrines (all the search results for the category seem to be something other than wayside shrines, such as church interiors or exteriors) and Palauenc05's first FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Side lighting may help bring out the relieve, but also here causes problems in the top-right. Overall just a QI. -- Colin (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination - With another vote to oppose, it's obvious this nomination is going nowhere. Thanks for your votes and evaluations. I will keep the FPC consensus viewpoint on shadows in mind when nominating a photo on a similar motif in the future. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2016 at 04:52:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Charales.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Charales.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2016 at 19:24:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stormachtige wind boven Put van Nederhorst (gemeente De Fryske Marren).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stormachtige wind boven Put van Nederhorst (gemeente De Fryske Marren).jpg
Oppose The mud in the foreground and the brown water aren't very attractive. Overall I agree with The Photographer that there's no wow factor here. INeverCry20:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The thumbnail doesn't look that impressive, but at full-page size, I find this photo lovely. It has great light, variety of color and texture, and to my mind, the mud is an important part of that, but what I really love are the golden rushes, the sunny reflections in the water in the foreground, the cloudy sky and the line of green trees in the distance. As in the best of some of Famberhorst's other landscape pictures, this reminds me of classic Netherlandish landscape paintings of yesteryear. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for mood, colors, composition and... church. Netherlandish, no doubt. Remembers me flemish classical painters of th 17th-century.--Jebulon (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2016 at 22:39:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry, I don't oppose it in generally. Quite the contrary, I like it very much. But I wonder why you've it is made that bright (apart from the small overexposure that could be easily reduced). I have not noticed until now that the creater/uploader is not the nominator. --Hockei (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC) --Hockei (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2016 at 11:31:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014.08.09.-09-Oberkirch--Russischer Baer.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014.08.09.-09-Oberkirch--Russischer Baer.jpg
Oppose - The butterfly is nice, but I have trouble with the composition, overall, and the bokeh in the lower right corner particularly bothers me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice. I understand how difficult it is to get a flying insect to sit still long enough to capture a shot and to get close enough to show such detail. Atsme📞14:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2016 at 12:12:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Yes, the verticals are not perfectly rectilinear. I tried rotating the picture a little bit CCW but then the TV tower looked tilted. Strange effect, I don't fully understand it. This version seemed to be the most balanced to me. --Code (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure abou the HDR processing on this one. The highlights are reduced too much for my tastes. I haven't looked at the histogram but it doesn't look right to me. Diliff (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had to reduce the highlights this much to avoid clipping at the ceiling of the entrance area of the cathedral like it happened in this version. The dynamic range of the scene is higher than one would guess. --Code (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could try a soft radial filter over that doorway area, that had an extra highlight reduction, allowing for less reduction elsewhere? -- Colin (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are good arguments in favour of not attempting to recover all highlights, or being more selective in how you recover them (ie by using an adjustment brush rather than using global highlight adjustments). I think taking that approach would be more useful in keeping the scene looking more realistic. Just my opinion anyway. Diliff (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose - I don't like all the lines in the sky that look like 100 or so meteors. I'm surprised no-one's brought them up yet, but I cannot support this picture because of those. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. I'd need a tripod to do that effectively. I take your point but don't feel mollified, as I feel like all those streaks make this photo less than one of the best on the site. Perhaps I'll reconsider later, but I don't think you'll need my vote, either way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The effect is minimised by keeping overall exposure short (see 500-rule). Here, the multiple exposures exceed 47s and a 50mm lens is used on a full-frame camera. A single-exposure photo would not have required such a long duration, and most of our FPs don't demonstrate this (as far as I can see). I wonder what would happen if the longest exposure was removed from the set? Would the shadows become much noisier?. Would you have got away with opening the aperture another stop, since much of the image is relatively distant? Not that I suggest repeating the whole shot just to remove some little trails. -- Colin (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support possible but not necessarily desirable to delete all the stars or to repeat the shot under a cloudy sky. The main motive is presented excellently given the circumstances.--Milseburg (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose I'll oppose this for two reasons. 1) Tilt per Colin. Unless you have a very good reason always set your verticals in to center of the frame (eg zoom in, find a line that should be vertical, rotate until it is, and then correct perspective). 2) Tone mapping per Diliff. The image is just extremely flat. The bottom looks like someone accidentally dumped a can or two of yellow paint over it. As city dwelling humans we know, instinctively, what should be lighter and darker on the Dom yet it is almost the same luminosity top to bottom, just with different coloring. This also has the side effect pf turning the Na lamps ugly clunks of white blobs with 2-3-4x halos around them. I'm a firm believer that images with this much dynamic diff need to be exposed "correctly" and worked with layers/masks on the over/underexposed parts. Pretty much the only way to keep the right tonal balance. Having said this it's an otherwise excellent image but for reasons before can't support. KennyOMG (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with you regarding layering/masking, or as I said above, selective highlight recovery with an adjustment brush in Lightroom (similar result, different method). Diliff (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Code. I think it's a pity that the solution for the star trails is to remove all the stars from the sky. But that said, I'm perfectly happy to Support a feature for this version of the picture. It's quite beautiful and relaxing to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I agree. Code, perhaps what the image needs is more contrast in certain areas, like at the entrance of the cathedral. As KennyOMG said, it still looks flat although I'm looking at it from my (terrible) work monitor so perhaps I'm completely wrong. The new version is a slight improvement in contrast (and the desaturation seems an improvement too), but you didn't need to allow it to be so overexposed in the process I think. I know it's hard to guess what everyone is thinking, and maybe we haven't been very clear. :-) Diliff (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, you drive me crazy ;-) @Diliff: However, I could try to provide you the 32bit PSD file tonight if you'd like to help me... (although I know you've got better things to do at the moment - congrats by the way!) --Code (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to have a try with it, although yes I've been pretty busy recently. :-) I can't guarantee I'd be able to process it before it's too late for this nomination though. If you can provide the link (either by email or posting here), I'll do my best though. Diliff (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Diliff, Christian Ferrer, The Photographer, and Ikan Kekek: I've uploaded a new version. The stars are back again but not as trails and I think the HDR should be much better. Please tell me what you think before I ping everybody else. If you don't like the new version I'll revert it to the one before. --Code (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The colors seem more vivid to me, which I like, but a few of the stars are a bit traily. I see them only at full resolution, though. I'll leave the choice to you and anyone else who has a strong opinion. I'm OK with either version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't like it, sorry. When I said more contrast, I meant contrast in areas where (in the original image, not the edits) it looks a bit flat, like the entrance, rather than global contrast. The global contrast could be increased a little bit IMO, but not so much - now the light looks too harsh (and oversharpened?). I do like the way the entrance is processed in the latest version though - you finally got that right although I would still give the statues above a bit more contrast), but I think the rest of the image suffers now. ;-) Let me put it like this: I like the entrance arch of the latest version, the colour/saturation levels of this version, but the deep blue sky of the original (but not the oversaturation elsewhere). I'm not sure if you can create this Frankenstein of an image, but I think that's closest to what I was picturing in my mind's eye. I'd still make a few other minor changes here and there, but I don't want to micromanage your image - it's yours, after all, I'm just making suggestions. Diliff (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Diliff: I gave it another try, perhaps you can have a look at the last version. Maybe I just don't get what you mean. I made only a few changes compared to the last version when I pinged everybody so I don't think it will be necessary to bother everybody again. If I can't convince you with that last version, too then I think I'll have to live with it. I tried to upload the PSD file but it has more than 2GB. Maybe I can provide you a smaller 32bit TIFF file soon. --Code (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support +1 for sharpness and +1 for the deep blue sky. I don't agree with the removal of star trails, but that's just my taste. -- Thennicke (talk) 05:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think we might have been caught up in trying to make it perfect... ;-) It's still a great image, and think this version is the best compromise. Diliff (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, seriously? I've put so much work in this picture and still everybody finds another shortcoming. I'm beginning to regret having nominated it here... --Code (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Daniel's oppose is slightly harsh but I do agree that the lighting is harsh... it might have looked better 10-15 minutes earlier in the blue hour when it was more balanced between natural and artificial light. But I do think it's good enough as-is. Diliff (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2016 at 05:21:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - It's nice to see a Rockies photo from you. This is certainly a high-quality photo, and it has a kind of rugged assertiveness to it. I'd prefer if there were more sky, as the amount of space the mountainsides take up makes me feel a bit claustrophobic (ironic, I guess, because we're looking at the cold outdoors), but I'm still at least moderately supportive of featuring this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The dark woods in the left foreground leave the composition rather unbalanced. Also the processing of the sky (pulled highlights) has resulted in noticeable dark halos in the blue sky around the clouds. In sum: the wow is missing. -- Rftblr (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For some of the reasons already mentioned. Also: This needs more vertical. The left part of this picture doesn't really do much for it. -- Ram-Man21:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm OK with this. The WB and composition don't bother me. It looks like I'd expect such a scene to look based on my own experience. Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2016 at 18:14:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2013.08.02.-04-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim-Schachbrettfalter.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2013.08.02.-04-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim-Schachbrettfalter.jpg
Neutral It is difficult to perceive that this is a butterfly because I can't see what she is doing, maybe she is protecting the flower while eating?. I would like to see a composition where the flower and butterfly can show their splendor of beauty. However, it is a picture of excellent quality, I really like. --The Photographer (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support. This picture is pretty, has a nice composition, and I find the bokeh acceptable. I actually don't have any trouble perceiving the butterfly in this case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I support most high quality butterfly photos. I have many FPs of them myself. But this composition is just really awkward and strange and it does not work for me. -- Ram-Man16:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For me that is the interesting point to see how the butterfly was covering its blossom. It needn't be always the same position of butterflies to be a good picture IMO. But it's your decision. --Hockei (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Different butterfly, ahem, positions work for FP. It is just this one that doesn't work for me. But I wouldn't feel right opposing since there isn't anything wrong more than my preference. -- Ram-Man16:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking from singles not couples. And I mean the usual or known positions. This position here is just unusual. At least for me. I just wanted to say that this is what I like particularly in this picture. --Hockei (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2016 at 20:02:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:AT 119587 Jesuitenkirche Wien Innenansicht 9248.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:AT 119587 Jesuitenkirche Wien Innenansicht 9248.jpg
Unfortunately, The Photographer, this shown asymmetry is not in my competence, Mr. Pozzo is no longer accessible (he died 1709) to ask him why he has painted this dome such asymmetrical. In fact, there is one position in this church, were this perspective looks natural. Not easy to find, you see it from the entrance, the first impression of the church. It´s a so called Trompe-l'œil-fresco --Hubertl06:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My notes are not about painting, notes are about architecture and architecture can not be asymmetrical and my note from the center shows that the four corners of the columns are not aligned IMHO :) --The Photographer (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, but a building, which was erected in the 1620th and rebuild 70 years later - using the base of the older chapel - can´t and won´t be perfectly straight. Why was it necessary to renovate it in the late 19th century? Even in my appartment, which is just 100 years old, you won´t find a straight wall, even when the original floor plan say so. If you want something perfectly straight, try a pre-fabricated house construction - hoping, every part will fit perfectly with the other. In fact, it won´t. How much do you think does a building expands in summer and shrinks in winter - more in the south, less in the north parts - without any damages? If you make a diagonal measuring in such a church which is not a very big one compared to others, you will find a difference of one-half to one meter, maybe more. How come? I've just done a measurement in my private office room here, 4x5 m, the difference is 12cm. This only in one room, not over the entire apartment. All angles should have exactly 90°. Forget it! --Hubertl17:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2016 at 03:35:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Actitis hypoleucos - Laem Pak Bia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Actitis hypoleucos - Laem Pak Bia.jpg
*Moderate Support. Others may find the file too small. The sharpness is quite good though not to the standard of recent submissions in which you could easily count every visible feather. But it's clear enough for me; only the far foot is obviously fuzzy, and I like the simple, essentially non-bokeh background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although the photographer didn't submit the photo for nomination, nevertheless, I can't support a photographer that intentionally downsizes. -- Ram-Man03:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Supporting this is support a downsize malpractice to cover mistakes and this is a disadvantage for those users with lower MP cameras that make a big effort to publish their images in full resolution. --The Photographer (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If someone offers high-res versions of his photos only for money, it is his right to do so. But in my opinion, respective low-res versions shouldn't then be selected as the finest of Commons. Either — or... --A.Savin15:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is over 4 MP, more than sufficient for the genre. And are we sure this has been downsampled? Heavy cropping is often required for wildlife photos. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subdued colors work very well here. Yes, this is small but it's not ineligibly so. And the reasons for the downsizing are irrelevant to me ... if the picture works and the downsizing does not create technical flaws of its own, I don't have a problem. Daniel Case (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm less concerned about absolute MP than about the detail and quality of the image. This is noiseless, sharp, well-lit, and posed to give highest educational value (as a species-identification picture). Given the lens is 700mm (500mm + 1.4x teleconverter) and ISO 400, so won't be studio-sharp at 100%, whereas this is. If it was less than perfect at 4MP, I'd oppose, but I don't think we're missing anything. -- Colin (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2016 at 16:44:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bouro March 2016-1a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bouro March 2016-1a.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2016 at 20:19:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:DFC Sete v FNC Douai Coupe de la Ligue 2014 t144334.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:DFC Sete v FNC Douai Coupe de la Ligue 2014 t144334.jpg
Oppose IMHO, composition look a little random and confusing. Large photo area (aerial action) has a strong motion blur and maybe a better decision would have been a more ISO to get a fast shutter speed (perhaps more 600 ISO to get 1/1600), the arc of the goal is distracting and it could be cut (optional) --The Photographer (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I enjoy moving my eyes around this picture frame. To me, this is a good composition and a good action shot. I'm comfortable with supporting a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see anything here that separates this from any of many sports shots. The sharp areas actually draw the eye away from the center of the action. -- Ram-Man16:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At least the goal frame on the right ist very distracting from the spot of interest. Crop suggestion added. Generally, while it’s technically not a bad shot, it’s not that outstanding among all the other sport shots to be featured IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel06:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have no problems with the goal frame being visible on the right (it tells us what the man next to it is doing by slapping the ball away), but I do have a problem with so many of the droplets in the center not being in focus. OK, I wasn't there so I don't know what the conditions were like, but I'd still like to know why the photographer chose f/3.5 for this (and, on that subject, I do think that it would have been better to try to freeze more of the droplets and maybe the ball by notching the exposure down to 1/350th). Daniel Case (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2016 at 12:29:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support with my special personel view of monuments and statues, this image describes perfectly the function and the work in a reduced form. Therefore I like it. And it is technically a good shot too! --Hubertl20:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2016 at 07:26:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Haltern am See, Skulptur -Der gescheiterte Varus- -- 2016 -- 1409.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Haltern am See, Skulptur -Der gescheiterte Varus- -- 2016 -- 1409.jpg
Support - I don't love the photo at full resolution, but if that's what it took to get the composition I see at full-page size, I'll take it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2016 at 10:53:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Scoop at More London.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Scoop at More London.jpg
Support A good enhancement of the architectural work, with good dynamic movement. I think one of these days I will create a gallery for FP modern BW photography Christian Ferrer(talk)08:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2016 at 02:27:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Changyuraptor.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Changyuraptor.png
*Conditional Oppose - There are spots in this image that need to be removed. I don't really love the glary white background, either, but it's a good illustration ("It's a bird!" was my first thought) and of obvious educational value. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix the background--will make it transparent and take care of all spots, turning it into a PNG--when I get home tonight. And thanks everyone for the nomination and supports! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question I need some sources for such a reconstruction of a prehistorical (?) bird. Is this picture duely usable in an encyclopedical article ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A relatively similar illustration of Changyuraptor yangi accompanies the entry for Feather in the Encyclopædia Britannica. An article in Scientific American described this specific illustration as "an excellent reconstruction" (albeit in passing). A reconstruction by the same artist of another four-winged dromaeosaurid in the same clade, Microraptor gui, was published in Science. Other works by the same artist were comissioned by eminent institutions (Chicago Field Museum, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Shanghai Natural History Museum) or published in leading journals like Nature and Evolution. --Ori Livneh (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Ori Livneh: Thank you very much for this excellent and very documented answer. I find this very interesting. In my opinion, some of these elements should be mentioned in the file description page for a better understanding of non specialists.--Jebulon (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this PNG retouched by Ori Livneh or one that Ferahgo the Assassin links above? Because I suspect the latter but the file-description claims the former. I'm not really keen on the PNG with cut-out edges. Removing some of the stray dots is fine, but prefer something that looks hand-made even if it has rough edges. -- Colin (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2016 at 17:14:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Japanese white-eye in Sakai, Osaka, February 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Japanese white-eye in Sakai, Osaka, February 2016.jpg
Support Great composition and level of detail. Might work even better with the oof twig in the bottom right corner cloned out. --El Grafo (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2016 at 15:13:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spotted Trunkfish.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spotted Trunkfish.jpg
Info Spotted trunkfish (Lactophrys bicaudalis) - macro head shot underwater captured at 40 ft. depth, Bari Reef, Bonaire (BES Islands) - created, uploaded, nominated by Atsme -- Atsme📞15:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the fish, but there's the focus issue, and the color is a bit iffy (some pink/magenta reflecting off the surroundings). INeverCry00:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified that it's a macro shot (100mm Macro lens) underwater - no way to get depth of field and that much detail when you're so close you can see particles inside the fish's mouth. Atsme📞02:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For me the main issue is how much the fish blends in with the surroundings (color-wise), and that the color looks a bit flat overall. Its chin is pink for example, and its body has no vibrancy; it doesn't seem to stand out as much as I'd expect. Perhaps I'm looking for too much though. INeverCry17:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2016 at 04:40:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:William H. Crook photographed by Frances Benjamin Johnston.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:William H. Crook photographed by Frances Benjamin Johnston.jpg
Info An interesting restoration. Was worried it might be blown in the whites at first (check the original and you'll see why), but some testing found detail was there, thankfully. A bit of restoration later and quite a nice image came out of it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
Info created and uploaded by Яна Сычикова, nominated by Yann (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Yann (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry - the sky is completely blown and I honestly don't see any wow-factor here. --Code (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
Neutral I prefer this type of composition: File:Ascensor del Monte de San Pedro, La Coruña, España, 2015-09-25, DD 115.JPG. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment - I suppose I do, too, and I'd happily support that photo for FP if it's nominated, but a view from a hill that includes the elevator is an entirely different type of picture than a view of an outdoor elevator shaft up a rocky hillside with the elevator on top in the distance, so isn't that a bit like saying "I prefer goat curry to roast chicken"? Either dish can be a great one of its type, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
) Daniel Case (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination MartinPoulter (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
_-_Ceiling_of_the_sagresty.jpg)
_-_Dome_and_ceiling.jpg)
.jpg)
Question - Please explain what you guys are seeing that's wowing you. This is definitely a nice QI, but what makes it more than that to you? To be sure, the cattle are somewhat irregularly centered, which is nice, but I'm unsure I'm satisfied with the forms of the trees in the background. This picture doesn't scream "FP" to me, and I'm leaning to voting against it on that basis, but I'd be really interested to hear you out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Request @Daniel Case: Your vote overlapped with my upload of the cropped version. Maybe you should take a second look if it still works for you. Thanks --Hockei (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
--Hockei (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Done Poco2 11:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
INeverCry 05:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
_boven_Gimillan_in_Cogne_Valley_(Itali%C3%AB)._Kalfje_(Rund)_bij_de_boerderij_02.jpg)
.jpg)
_on_Deception_Island_in_Antarctica.jpg)
Strong support Particularly good composition. I find this really striking. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
.JPG)
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
,_Arcos_de_la_Frontera,_C%C3%A1diz,_Espa%C3%B1a,_2015-12-08,_DD_06.jpg)
Even non-English speakers ought to understand it and I find it's funny made. --Hockei (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The Divine Comedy Described in Six Plates, by Michelangelo Caetani, 1855 (FrontPage)
The Divine Comedy Described in Six Plates, by Michelangelo Caetani, 1855,The Ordering of Hell
The Divine Comedy Described in Six Plates, by Michelangelo Caetani, 1855,(Map of Hell)
The Divine Comedy Described in Six Plates, by Michelangelo Caetani, 1855 (Cross Section of Hell)
The Divine Comedy Described in Six Plates, by Michelangelo Caetani, 1855,(The Ordering of Purgatory)
The Divine Comedy Described in Six Plates, by Michelangelo Caetani, 1855,(The Ordering of Paradise)
Fixed Thanks for reviewing, The Photographer, I fixed it. --Hubertl 12:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
_-_Ceiling.jpg)
.jpg)
_-_Interior.jpg)
chromatic aberration (See note) and 
Underexposed --The Photographer (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
_2.JPG)
._Grand_Matine%C3%A9_de_Bienfaisance_(Gro%C3%9Fe_Wohlt%C3%A4tigkeitsmatin%C3%A9e_zugunsten_der_Witwen_und_Waisen)._1917._120_x_80_cm._(Slg.Nr._590).jpg)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
,_Desierto_de_Siloli,_Bolivia,_2016-02-03,_DD_30.JPG)
.jpg)
Overexposed --The Photographer (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
In fact, there is one position in this church, were this perspective looks natural. Not easy to find, you see it from the entrance, the first impression of the church. It´s a so called Trompe-l'œil-fresco --Hubertl 06:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling_of_the_sagresty.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dome_and_ceiling.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_boven_Gimillan_in_Cogne_Valley_(Italië)._Kalfje_(Rund)_bij_de_boerderij_02.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_on_Deception_Island_in_Antarctica.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Arcos_de_la_Frontera,_Cádiz,_España,_2015-12-08,_DD_06.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Interior.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_2.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
._Grand_Matineé_de_Bienfaisance_(Große_Wohltätigkeitsmatinée_zugunsten_der_Witwen_und_Waisen)._1917._120_x_80_cm._(Slg.Nr._590).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Desierto_de_Siloli,_Bolivia,_2016-02-03,_DD_30.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling_of_the_sagresty.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling_of_the_sagresty.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling_of_the_sagresty.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling_of_the_sagresty.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dome_and_ceiling.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Dome_and_ceiling.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Dome_and_ceiling.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dome_and_ceiling.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ak55-Busy_afternoon.jpg&oldid=180636039){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
![[3]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/106488912/The_Shuttle_Enterprise_-_GPN-2000-001363_DENOISE.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_boven_Gimillan_in_Cogne_Valley_(Itali%C3%AB)._Kalfje_(Rund)_bij_de_boerderij_02.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_boven_Gimillan_in_Cogne_Valley_(Itali%C3%AB)._Kalfje_(Rund)_bij_de_boerderij_02.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_on_Deception_Island_in_Antarctica.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_on_Deception_Island_in_Antarctica.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg,_fea){kind=link}
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg,_fea){kind=link}
,_Arcos_de_la_Frontera,_C%C3%A1diz,_Espa%C3%B1a,_2015-12-08,_DD_06.JPG){kind=link}
,_Arcos_de_la_Frontera,_C%C3%A1diz,_Espa%C3%B1a,_2015-12-08,_DD_06.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Arcos_de_la_Frontera,_C%C3%A1diz,_Espa%C3%B1a,_2015-12-08,_DD_06.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2016-03-09,_Ho-Chi-Minh_City,_Vietnam.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=190200324){kind=link}
![[4]](http://www.boredpanda.com/architecture-photography-church-ceilings-rome-florian-pagano/?image_id=Parrochia-Santa-Maria-in-Via__880.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Interior.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Interior.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Interior.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Interior.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_2.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2.JPG){kind=link}
_2.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_2.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
._Grand_Matine%C3%A9_de_Bienfaisance_(Gro%C3%9Fe_Wohlt%C3%A4tigkeitsmatin%C3%A9e_zugunsten_der_Witwen_und_Waisen)._1917._120_x_80_cm._(Slg.Nr._590).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
._Grand_Matine%C3%A9_de_Bienfaisance_(Gro%C3%9Fe_Wohlt%C3%A4tigkeitsmatin%C3%A9e_zugunsten_der_Witwen_und_Waisen)._1917._120_x_80_cm._(Slg.Nr._590).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Desierto_de_Siloli,_Bolivia,_2016-02-03,_DD_30.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Desierto_de_Siloli,_Bolivia,_2016-02-03,_DD_30.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,){kind=link}
.jpg,){kind=link}
