Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2017

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 11:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Iridescent clouds during snowfall
  • Thanks Code. Well what really happened in Sweden Friday night was that my cold got worse. Didn't think the White House would find out!! So sorry for causing this international incident... --cart-Talk 17:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was one of the reasons it was decline at first at QIC where I took it to CR. Looking at past discussions people are generally opposed to things cut at the border of an image when it could have been avoided. The weather that day was very chaotic, clouds moving very fast in the strong wind and it was pure luck that the sun was even in that picture since I was mostly focusing on the rays. I thought the sun was totally hidden behind the cloud, but it broke through just as I pressed the button. --cart-Talk 12:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 08:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena#Clouds
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 03:30:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Larnaca International Airport, Cyprus: departure area
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 08:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 21:27:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 08:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 18:45:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Narmada from Maheshwar fort.

* Oppose Too dark Ezarateesteban 18:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)  Neutral let´s wait Ezarateesteban 19:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 08:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2017 at 22:46:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of the Tara Cathedrals (left) and the the Tara salt flat in the Atacama Desert, northern Chile.
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 08:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Santa Maria Maddalena de' Pazzi (Florence) - Dome of Cappella Maggiore.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 17:28:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Santa Maria Maddalena de' Pazzi (Florence) - Dome of Cappella Maggiore
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 08:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings

LivioAndronico, I changed the category from Objects to Religious buildings interiors, I find that more appropriate. – LucasT 08:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 17:59:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Night view of Shimla, India
Actually, that's this. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's actually a conscious choice as I don't believe HDR should be about flattening out the tones, rather about pulling the highlights and pushing the shadows while trying to keep the original tonal balance of the picture. But that's just me. KennyOMG (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that overly aggressive HDR would not have helped here; I just think that the source material you worked with was too dark, and regardless of whether you tried to "fix" it in post or not, the lighting is still not featurable in my opinion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean, KoH, but I have long contended that magic hour pictures are not the only way to shoot night pictures and, depending on the scene, might not even be the best. I guess we agree to disagree on this point. :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 08:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 21:30:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
 Support The new version is fine. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, let's see if this is enough or if I botched the job. Remember to purge your cache. --cart-Talk 20:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment In the fileliste I see 4 pictures, wherein #2 and #3 have a more copper-like gold and a violet sky. By the color of the sky I would guess, that the brownish gold is more realistic. Is it possible to combine the original gold-color with the good No-CA work? --PtrQs (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Versions 3 & 4 are exactly (or should be) like ver 2, but with just two minor corrections on the CA of the statue. It is a curse that you always find something you've missed as soon as you upload a file. :-/ The first part of the CA removal was made in Lightroom with additional manual removal in Photoshop. It is possible that LR did something with the hue when it removed the CA. I'll see if I can put back the right hue. Files also "change" when you upload them since the different programs and browsers fiddle with the color. --cart-Talk 21:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed I've nudged the spectrum two steps back towards the original brow-gold as requested. I think this is as far as I want to mess with this. Someone else can take over or revert if necessary. --cart-Talk 22:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 08:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 06:34:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 13:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Highlight Towers Munich, February 2017 -01.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 09:02:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Highlight Towers in Munich is a twin tower office skyscraper complex
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 13:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture#Germany
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 11:27:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pena National Palace
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– LucasT 13:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:View to One World Trade Center.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 18:45:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

One World Trade Center
I contacted the photographer and offered to edit it from the RAW file, if these remain the only issues. – LucasT 19:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful  Oppose because of the lights. I get what the photographer intended, but the new WTC blends with the sky way too much to serve as the intended centerpiece. The wonderful contrast with the golden reflections unfortunately only serve to exaggerate the issue. KennyOMG (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sadly, I have to agree with KennyOMG. This wouldn't have been an issue if the pic wasn't so heavily saturated. I downloaded it and desaturated as much as 36% before it looked more normal and the tower contrasted very nicely with the sky, the pic also looked clearer. Taking a look at this user's photos most of them are the same way so maybe it's a setting on her camera. I would gladly support a desaturated and vertical-fixed version though. --cart-Talk 21:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I nominated this picture for QI (it passed), but I'm not sure about FP. cart, I'd like to see your edited version. Olga1969, is it OK with you if we have a chance to look at cart's edit of your photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we can wait until Lucas has got a response from Olga. As nominator he is now aware of this and may act on it when/if he reprocesses the file from RAW. I can put my version in my dropbox later if you want to check it out. --cart-Talk 22:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose this version because as Kenny points out correctly it was overcooked—it looks like it should be used in an ad (not that that's always a dealbreaker). I would be interested in cart's version. Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination For now I think it's tidier to close this and renominate later when the verticals, tilt, noise and oversaturation are fixed by someone, preferably working from the RAW file. – LucasT 16:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Forest Path.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 13:12:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stream in the National Park Galicica, Macedonia

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Aiguille-du-Midi-sundown.JPG

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 12:45:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aiguille du Midi (France, Chamonix) in summer after sundown, seen from the Mont Blanc refuge
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is way too small for FP. 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.

- Nice photo, but the absolute minimum size for FP (and QI) is 2 megapixels, and normally, photos anywhere near that small are never featured, nowadays, unless they are incredibly fantastic or historically important. Please read the "Guidelines for nominators" above and Commons:Image guidelines before you nominate another photo. Good choice, though, otherwise. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beijzelde vruchten van een Esdoorn (Acer). Locatie, Natuurterrein De Famberhorst.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 06:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Henk Fortuin, het Lage Licht foto5 2017-02-01 15.44.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 20:14:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Painting, Low Light Maassluis

File:20110421 Tbilisi Georgia Panoramic.jpg (delist)

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 18:51:52
Panoramic view of Tbilisi, Georgia.

 I withdraw my nomination I have learnt this is not enwp. :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dome Cappella Chigi, Santa Maria del Popolo (Rome).jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 09:55:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Western Wall of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem
Yes, I agree. Good eye. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– LucasT 08:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:42:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cimitero Monumentale in Mailand
  • It seems that way because it is. You could let me know if I'm missing something, but the way I see it, the only question is whether the result of that is good. You find that it isn't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose No wow per Lucas. I get the feeling the goal was the contrast between the old and new buildings balanced by the similar form of the old building and the Unicredit Tower (as well as one of the other buildings whose names I know but cannot remember and do not have enough time to look up right now). But there's too much going on to get it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: If you imagine the flower bed and empty driveway/whatever space at the bottom cropped out, along with some of the left (maybe I'll have to make it in a note), you get an image with a lot more harmonious vertical forms, and the similarity I noted is more evident. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. See what I mean? Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably less interesting, but yes, also simpler, and I do see what you mean. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– LucasT 08:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 16:06:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A view from the path between the Malga Mare Power Station and Lago Lungo in Stelvio National Park, Italy
I've started a discussion on Commons talk:Featured picture candidates about this issue. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 08:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 19:21:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Abbāsi House, a large traditional historical house located in Kashan, Iran.
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 08:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 15:02:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Common Flying Dragon, Draco volans (Museum specimen)
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 08:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 18:34:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gibraltar Barbary Macaques (Macaca sylvanus)
Oh, right, the slanted support structure barely visible is a telltale sign, lighter power lines don't require that. – LucasT 22:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 08:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 17:41:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pepe Lopez Peugeot 208 T16
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 08:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Beach of stones before Varese beach
 Request What is the standard for sky expected here? Ezarateesteban 14:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– LucasT 08:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:07:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

RPM gauge abstract
  • Ralf Roleček: Maybe it's not for everyone; it is experimental. The blur and distortion is for artistic and aesthetic effect, and I still think at the very least it is interesting to look at. I'm trying to explore something beyond what I've done before, and personally think I'm starting to get some interesting results. And though I respect your opinion, similar arguments ("it's only..." or "it's just a...") have been made for a long time against more abstract and conceptual art. Thanks. WClarke 22:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Support ok, why not? --Ralf Roleček 07:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is kind of the two places I've been stuck between: making it appear abstract enough to pass off a as abstract photography, while at the same time making sure it doesn't appear random or boring. Thanks. WClarke 15:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– LucasT 08:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:New glass doors and windows in storage.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2017 at 12:30:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

New glass doors and windows made by H Fönster in storage at Gåseberg, Lysekil Municipality, Sweden.
  •  Comment - It sure doesn't look close to pitch black. What is the light source? I'd be curious to see a raw photo that shows something closer to the view seen by your eyes in that space, if you have one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The light source is three small windows at the end of the hall, and the day was cloudy. I'll dig out some of the unprocessed pics later when I get home. --cart-Talk 13:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Ikan, why do you think it would deserve FP? I personally need more than this. More wow, more photographic qualities, a clear purpose of the image besides just showing something in the world, something anyone with a camera walking by would be able to capture when composing it a bit thoughtfully. This image, while I appreciate the focus stacking (but wouldn't have noticed on my own) and some leading lines composition, looks just like a regular QI which is too boring for FP status. The warehouse distracts from the windows as well. If the photo would emphasize something more, for example how the windows are held in place, then it would be another matter. If this would become FP, I would try to nominate a lot more of my own "normal" photos too. – LucasT 15:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the shapes and contrast of light and dark are interesting to look at. I admit I am not as sure about this composition as some others I've nominated, but I thought it would be worth seeing what the consensus opinion is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Moderate support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • After getting back home and not being as distracted as I was at work, I've had a think about this. I was very surprised by the nom since I have never thought of this as a possible FPC and at first I thought I had missed something. Still I have to be true to my own gut instinct and try to view this as any FPC, and therefore I'm moving my vote to  Oppose. If the contrast had been more dramatic and the sharpness better, it might have worked. But this photo was taken after I had dropped my camera and the mechanical shutter didn't work. The electronic shutter only goes up to 1 sek, so in order to get enough light in I had to crank up the ISO and go for a large aperture. Not the best combo for sharp photos. The crop at the sides is also a bit too tight. I don't think there is much need for any links to unprocessed/raw versions since they are just very dark versions of this. Btw, camera is now fixed. Thanks anyway. Feel free to vote any way you please on this, you may see something that I don't. We all have different tastes. --cart-Talk 18:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination - With the photographer opposing, I don't feel like it makes sense to continue this nomination. Thanks for your votes and comments. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Airborne by Christopher Klein, Munich, February 2017 -2.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 15:37:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Airborne" by Christopher Klein, an art installation representing a gas molecule
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Sculptures
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 23:04:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Flood under the Old Route 49 bridge crossing over the South Yuba River in Nevada City, California.
I am. Daniel Case (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
W.carter: Sure! Yann (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Please revert if you don't like it. --cart-Talk 10:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As has happened before at times, I can't tell the difference. Where was the CA? Anyway, this is a dramatic picture, so I'll join everyone in  Supporting it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see some of the "worst" places, compare the pile of large grey boulders on the right side, there was a lot of bright green fringes there. Second, look at the railing on the bridge, each upright post had a red line on one side and a green on the other. You could also check out the two men on the left side, they are no longer smeared by red and green shadows. CA is like your dust spots, once you see it you can't unsee it. ;) --cart-Talk 12:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 23:37:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Icicles on a granite cliff in Lysekil, Sweden
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena#Ice
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 21:30:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

True color image of Mars generated taken by the Rosetta spacecraft
I have no idea, the ESA caption doesn't mention it. It's about the right size to be Deimos, but Deimos is in a nearly perfect equatorial orbit, and due to this I can't think of a combination of angles that would make appearing where it does in the image plausible. My guess would be a bright star or planet in the background. It could also be a camera artifact I guess. A2soup (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because this image was taken in 2007. However, there are no FP or even QI or VI images of the entire planet with details. I would  Support featuring this until we have a better one, and probably even after that, as a historical image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ikan Kekek, I never commented on resolution, but on lighting and overal photographic qualities. I realise that we get what we get here and it certainly is a novelty subject, but I feel this is better suited as VI and comparing it with majority of the space FPs we have I just find it not exciting enough. Looking at the other replies below, there are "better" images of Mars out there. I'm fine with being the only opposer though. – LucasT 09:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lucas, you've stated before, if my memory isn't playing tricks with me, that you don't have much interest in astronomy. It looks like most of the rest of us do. And novelty is quite an important reason for a feature. It's way too soon to be jaded with sizable full-planet pictures of Mars! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my knowledge, under U.S. law, all government pictures that are not classified (or in the case of C.I.A. photos and the like, declassified) are freely usable by the public. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note that all those images are mosaic composites of low-altitude images taken by orbiters, as you can easily see by looking near the edges where the mapping of the images onto a globe breaks down. The level of detail is obviously very high, but the verisimilitude, as you might imagine, is lower. This is, to my knowledge, the highest quality image of the entire planet taken from the perspective depicted.
I would also add that the second image linked above, despite its wide dissemination, is actually highly misleading, as it maps images from a significantly less-than-global portion of the Martian surface onto a globe, distorting the size and location of the features depicted (primarily the Valles Marineris), as can easily be seen when referencing a global map of Mars or either of the other images linked above, which both show Valles Marineris in a true global mosaic. The imagery for that mosaic was obtained by the Viking 1 orbiter (the first US Mars orbiter), which orbited at a 39.5˚ inclination and was therefore unable to image the entire surface - it was the best they could do at the time. A2soup (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A2soup, thanks for the explanation. Nice to get all the ins and outs of these pictures sorted out. It also confirms that I should stay away from uploading space pics, since I don't know enough about it. :) But they are pretty and interesting! --cart-Talk 10:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 22:12:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pont-canal de l'Orb
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 18:59:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Râşnov Citadel, Romania
  • Thanks, Pudelek. It's definitely better. I'm deliberating about whether to weakly support a feature now or to remain neutral. I don't have any questions about whether it's a featurable composition and a very good picture, and you improved it noticeably. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 20:00:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of Sognefjord, Norway
@Bep: As you surely work with the RAW, could you try to fix this? Thanks in advance! --Basotxerri (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be really picky to spot th CA there, but since this is my first FP nomination, I will take a stab on removing it. --Bep (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the new version should be OK. --Bep (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Norway
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 09:28:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Allegory Treaty of the Pyrenees Louvre

✓ Done check now thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 13:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

LivioAndronico, please use a better fitting FP category next time. I changed the FP category from "Objects" to "Interiors", please tell if you have a reason for the Objects category. – LucasT 13:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 07:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Apartments of 1390 Market Street, San Francisco
  •  Oppose I see this as an unwarranted Peeping Tom intrusion into people's private property and surely must be against Wikipedia guidelines on privacy, especially since the address is given. We should not be promoting voyeur pictures. Charles (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO It's inevitable, with the time, cameras censors are larger and photographs became very detailed. At some point it will be possible to observe the whole interior of any building. --The Photographer 11:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course intrusions become easier, and with increased detail comes new responsibilities. Why should we encourage this type of intrusion. If this was your flat would you want a community like Commons promoting an image of who is in your flat, what they are doing and what goodies you might have waiting to be stolen? Not me. Charles (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Ambivalent While this is a good photo, I too get an uneasy feeling about this one. I have no problem with office buildings and I have supported a photo like this before (but commented that I felt like a perv peeping in on people's private life) where you could see people's living rooms and not many people, but this strikes me as having mostly the bedrooms facing this view and it is much, much more detailed and that feels like a step too far. If I'm at home relaxing in my bed, I would not want a photo of that as an FP. --cart-Talk 11:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's a valid point, and I'll think about it, but all but one person seems questionably recognizable unless you already know them, and the most recognizable person is on his porch at the lowest floor depicted. I don't like the "it's inevitable" argument, though. Is this an unwarranted and objectionable invasion of privacy? Let's have a discussion about that. I just might withdraw this nomination if there's enough objection or the arguments really convince me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination - To everyone who supported this photo, I'm sorry. I think the critics are right. If anyone wants to take over this nomination, feel free, but in that case, I think I must abstain, as I've concluded that my appreciation for this photograph as a work of art is a bit callous toward people with expectations of at least a greater degree of privacy within their own homes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominate this picture, however, I understand this point for pictures where "A private place is somewhere the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy"[1] , however, it's a very subjetive factor in this particular case --The Photographer 13:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for nominating this picture! I was a bit hesitant to upload it (even though it was taken two months ago) because of privacy concerns also, but my photography friends assured me it was okay. This was taken with a 50mm lens on full frame, and I think it should be fine. There is little reasonable expectation of privacy at a large window facing a busy city, especially when viewed by a lens whose field of view is similar to that of the human eye. But to focus on an individual one of these with a 300mm lens, or to crop the picture, however, may be a breach of privacy (though that sort of project has been attempted before, with great controversy: [2]). In any case, like Ikan, I was also drawn by the geometry of the somewhat brutalist building contrasting against the randomness of the windows, and indeed, I was inspired by Featured works by The Photographer. dllu (t,c) 17:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s in public view and you’re on public property, then you’re allowed to take a picture of it and upload it in commons because it's legal in your country. There are permutations. If you’re standing on a public sidewalk and you’re taking a picture with a 50-millimeter lens, and it’s a wide shot of the city street, that’s fine. If you now put on an 800-millimeter lens and take a picture through somebody’s window, you’ve now invaded their privacy and that could be a civil tort, however, it's only a subjective moral issue and not a legal rule. --The Photographer 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 50mm lens is considered a normal lens. It is a common adage to say that a normal lens has a similar field of view as the human eye (though in actuality the human eye's field of view is very wide but blurry outside of the fovea region). dllu (t,c) 04:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the buildings are fairly close. Here's a screenshot from Google Maps: [3]. Here's the approx field of view superimposed on Google maps: [4]. The two red lines are 40 degrees apart. The horizontal field of view of a 50mm lens is around 39 degrees, as per an online calculator [5]. There was a small amount of cropping in this photo. dllu (t,c) 12:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't know the rules or legislation of the area of the picture--Lmbuga (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Minor cyan CAs--Lmbuga (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment (poor English) Sorry, this photo is IMO one of the best photos I have seen lately. If there is something personal or personal in the photo, it is not the purpose of presenting it. The photo does not care (it does not focus) for presenting any details. The important thing is the global vision.

It can not be considered intrusive when names and surnames are not used. Who is there recognizable?

You do not see it, but we're talking about freedom of expression. We speak of the freedom of expression of journalists; Of the right to information.--Lmbuga (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment very nice picture. Tus hijos de cinco años pueden saber lo que hacen sus amigos y ganarles millones de dólares en la bolsa" Que cabrones soir todos!!!

I want to continue with the nomination of this photo. Now I'm the nominator. Thanks.--Lmbuga (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas, your addition seems incorrect to me. Shouldn't all the votes from when I was still nominating this photo count? I think everyone assumed they would. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek, I see what you mean. I edited my lengthy reply here and made a new FPC talk discussion about it, to clarify the rules for the future. – LucasT 16:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=8|oppose=1|neutral=1|featured=yes|category=Places/Architecture|sig=– [[User:Lucasbosch|Lucas]][[User_talk:Lucasbosch|<font color="black"><sup>T</sup></font>]] 08:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)}}

EoRdE6's vote was not in any of the two voting periods so I excluded him from the count, Lmbuga's vote was between active voting windows, I included the vote anyway.– LucasT 08:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the previous FPC-results-ready-to-review so that the FPCBot can act on the reviewed one– LucasT 08:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Egyptian Scribe - Louvre January 2017.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 19:45:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– LucasT 21:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 16:57:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Phalacrocorax carbo (Great cormorant)
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 21:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 13:48:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Runestone in Sweden
  • I just talked to some colleagues at the Swedish National Heritage Board that are runestone experts and they say that is possible that this is how runestones looked back in the day, there are runestones from Öland found with traces of this sort of coloring (however not on runestones of the stonetype in this particular stone). In 1991 this painting was done with red lead and white lead, colors available long before the vikings (your link is to a rock art picture which is thousands of years older) both to show how they may have looked like and to see if it would preserve the stone better from lichen. BUT, regardless of the accuracy of the painting of the stone, this is how the runestone looks like today and it is a notable object (with articles in 5 languages already) and I want to remind you that this is not a candidate for Valued Image for runestones in general. It clearly has value according to the Featured picture criteria just in documenting this object as such. Ainali (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for making the effort to talk to the Heritage Board. My comment was based on discussions I've had with the paint restoration expert at Gotland Museum regarding their rune stones (or rather picture stones) so it's scholar against scholar. I linked to that other image to show how paint/pigments using non-modern biding materials looked, that has not changed over time. As for VI, I was suggesting it could be a VI for this particular stone (and I really think it should be that too), not all of them. BUT, as you say, this is a photo of the stone today and I still think it is far from the artistic photo that is a requirement for FPs here with the wow factor and all. FPs on different language Wikipedia is another thing, where a photo is more judged on its strictly encyclopedic value. Perhaps you could ask ArildV to take a photo of the stone, he is a master of good lighting and would do this beautifully, I'm sure. --cart-Talk 08:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture stones are different things (and usually much older), so it's not really scholar aginst scholar, rather two scholars talking about separate phenomenon. Runestones : a colourful memory is recommended reading which supports that runestones were painted this way (but now we are really far off topic for the FP discussion, all this should be irrelevant for how votes are casted). Ainali (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per cart. From my own minimal experience with Swedish runestones, I recall them being sparsley painted compared to this, and for that they actually looked better on cloudy days ("Viking Disneyland" ... yup, that's about right). In fact it seems like this picture was punched up a bit much—it's not oversaturated, but it still seems like it's trying a bit too hard. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image has not been digitally manipulated but is scanned from an analogue photo. It is taken by Bengt A Lundberg in his service of the Swedish National Heritage Board with the purpose of documenting it so one should expect it to be a faithful representation and not an artistic rendering of reality. Ainali (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A scanned print ... OK, that explains it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– LucasT 21:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 00:29:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Prague, Czech Republic: Anděl metro station.
Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 07:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Campione del Garda houses with cliffs.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2017 at 19:41:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Residential buildings with cliffs in background
Charles, could you please elaborate? – LucasT 08:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The composition must be intended to be artistic as it doesn't show the street well and I'm afraid the concept doesn't appeal. I see nothing special. Sorry. I didn't check any technical details. 10:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Daniel Case, I hesitated to denoise it further, to not destroy more detail. But I agree, the levels lifting shows some noise, I hope for a better camera in the future to get more leeway with that. – LucasT 08:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, this isn't working for me, it just looks weird. I think for such a composition to be wow-y you need to have almost identical and very centered structures on either side of the mountain, like a colonnade, trees or something. With the houses not matching and not having the same perspective/part of the pic, the photo becomes unbalanced. Without seeing the end of the street, it also feels a bit like sitting in a deep well looking up, not a very pleasant experience. --cart-Talk 12:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination. Thanks for the comments. If I get there a second time I might try to do it differently. – LucasT 13:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 06:46:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hinckley Daysailor 42
 Comment Thank you, the photo is of a "Yacht Racing" in an annual NHYC Regatta.--Don (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, that's great. I've added the rest of the info and improved the categories on the file's page for you. Having all that info there is just as important as the picture itself for an FP. Hope I got it right. --cart-Talk 13:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 20:07:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dalmatian fetching a stick
Charles, I already adjusted the levels in the RAW file so that there is a small white area and a small black area and not any extensive clipping. Examining the jpg, there is detail on its head, right next to the white point. I feel bringing highlight detail out even more would look unnatural, similar to snow photos. – LucasT 07:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 15:43:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view over Heligoland from it´s highest point, the Pinneberg (61.3 m)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 14:29:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jake Kiley of "Strung Out" at Ruhrpott Rodeo festival 2013
No reflection, it's part of the stage construction. --Smial (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 19:50:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Mount Ararat and the Araratian plain seen early morning from near the city of Artashat in Armenia. On the center left can be seen the historic Khor Virap monastery. (stitched from two images)"
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 14:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Watford John of London punk band "Argy Bargy"
@Ikan Kekek and cart: That is part of the stage construction. Besides some basic corrections (WB, contrast, exposure, crop, perspective, dust spot removal, if necessary) I avoid any retouching, and I'm really not experienced to do so. I've taken slides for 30+ years, and I try to take digital images as authentic as possible, just like "enhanced" slides. --Smial (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Not liking a person seems to me like an improper basis for opposing a feature for a photo of him. What does everyone think about this? Should a vote on this basis be annulled, as not about the photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Ikan. Karelj, please provide an argument against this as a photograph, opposing for personal reasons or just hinting at them is not valid in my opinion. – LucasT 14:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The personal feeling about image is (in my opinion) the first point for image judgement. If I like it, I shall start to look on its technical quality and other criterion. If not, I will vote against. (I had simlar discussion about image File:John Meintz, punished during World War I - NARA - 283633 - restored.jpg), where I gave the same arguments. I believe, that we give our votes as human beings, not as robots looking for only technical parameters of image. In opposite case, the choise of featured pictures could be really done by some sophisticated Bot without peoples participation. --Karelj (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Karelj, I strongly agree that the personal feeling towards an image is important, but what you did is use your opinion about a person as the sole point of your critique of a photo of said person. In your logic even a phenomenal image of that person would need to be rejected. Isn't that hugely unfair against the photographer and backwards? We critique photographs at FPC, on technical and emotional merit, but please not people. – LucasT 17:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think, that it is better to say, that I do not like the object of image (no matter, if it is person, animal, thing, fish... anything). Just after first look at this photo I feel - this should not be a FP. I do not want, picture like that will be some day on homepage of Commons and I will not be ashamed as one of Commons authors.--Karelj (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 19:05:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
✓ Done. spot removed. Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– LucasT 21:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jardín Botánico Olarizu - Bellota de encina 01.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 19:47:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Holm oak acorn (Quercus Ilex) during hoar frost in the Botanical Garden of Olarizu. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Basque Country, Spain
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 21:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena#Ice
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2017 at 19:14:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Question - Why? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • because it adds another interesting visual aspect to the composition. Lines are generally an important factor here. The railing helps lead my eyes diagonally to the more central elements of the image, while the blurred part as such provides some depth, i.e. it hints at the actual threedimensionality of the two dimensional representation of reality that every photograph necessarily is... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 21:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2017 at 21:00:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Courtyard of the Agha Bozorg mosque, a historical mosque in Kashan, Iran.
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 21:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 02:18:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

On Feb. 22, 2017, NASA launched a Black Brant IX sub-orbital rocket from Alaska. The rocket carried research instruments to study Earth's aurora.
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 17:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Male Jackson's hornbill (Tockus jacksoni)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 17:33:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of Tbilisi, Georgia
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2017 at 08:19:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Naqsh-e Rustam
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2017 at 12:51:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Slush on window in three lights.
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena#Others
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 22:23:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of Balneario Alfonsina, La Perla, Mar del Plata, Argentina
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 18:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 22:32:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Red Dragonlets (EErythrodiplax fusca) in Botanical Garden of São Paulo, Brazil
it was a union technique of join 25 images to remove the noise. IMHO I can't get more size and quality because lens. I don't know why ask for more size if the camera can't give more and the fp requeriment size is only 2 mp. I am in process to buy a D7200, however, I can't understand where we are going asking for more and more size and forcing to the photographer community to get a quality imposible without a last line dslr machine. Thanks for your commet, I am open too to receive some recommendations and not only criticism to improve my quality. --The Photographer 01:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if I was harsh in my choice of words. There are quite a few 'how to' guides online for dragonflies, the most important of which is to know that they will return to the same perch so you can be ready with the right light, nice bokeh, appropriate camera settings and a good stance so you can use slowish shutter speed. I try to use a monopod, but tripod even better. Jee takes excellent images using flash, but I'm not keen. Charles (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need tell sorry, you are a especialized photographer in this area. My comment was more a general comment, also, It was a bit frustrating trying to get clear pictures yes, however it's not somethig personal with your comment. I respect your comment a lot, perhaps in the process of write my comment I did it wrong and look like a complaint comment, however, it is more a general size critique that many others have commented here, excessive fanaticism for super size images. --The Photographer 13:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Charles and his knowledge and experience in this kind of photography. Daniel Case (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I would like to know what Jee thinks about the focus issue with the tail. I think the exact species is not identified on page so that may be an issue too wrt FP status. Compare File:Red faced dragonlet (Erythrodiplax fusca) male.JPG for similar species. The insect seems rather over-saturated red, though that might be the correct lighting, it might also be a sign the image has been overcooked for saturation. Wrt the size, I don't think Charles was suggesting that there is an issue with getting FP from your 12MP camera, just that cropping does rapidly reduce file size and so good technique is required to get close-up photos of insects. [You've been here long enough to know that 2MP is a minimum necessary but not sufficient requirement -- being above 2MP is no guarantee of acceptance and in fact I'd be interested if we have much recent promotions below 5MP] Anyway, I disagree the image needs cropped, and the lovely smooth background is a feature of the photo. Not all our insect photos need to be close crops, and I think sometimes we neglect to find beauty outside of the obvious subject. I would be interested to know more about the technique mentioned about 25 frames. Was this taken on a tripod? Surely the branch and insect were moving. So how can one align 25 frames in that circumstance? -- Colin (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
discussion on identification
  • 1. We need to identify the species first. Posting at Dragonflies & Damselflies may helps. There are a lot of species in this genus. 2. It seems in backlit; thorax and tip of abdomen in shadows. 3. The red seems OK for me. 4. Both, tight framing and giving some room around the subject is the photographer's choice. This too works. Jee 11:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Colin and Jk, thanks for your review. The images was taken using tripod and I used your ISO removal technique joining each image in photoshop with 100/25 % of opacity for each layer. About the color I applied a bit color saturation and for your comment it was too strong. Finally, With respect to species identification, I did a personal investigation and it can be a Erythrodiplax fusca, however, I have not been able to contact an expert for this identification --The Photographer 11:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, likely a mature male E. fusca as you can see the remains of the blue pruinescence on the abdomen. I think your Photoshop technique (new to me!) is probably losing too much definition in the hairs Charles (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, the technique was talked about here (at least that's where it started) if you are interested. The loss of def on the hairs is probably more due to movement since the trick is used to reveal smaller objects. --cart-Talk 12:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This technique is the best noise reduction technique that I know, basically a miracle --The Photographer 13:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. I remember. My Canon 70D has a low light setting that does this in Camera, but I've never got it to work properly. I can't imagine many days in the field where you wouldn't get degradation of sharpness of odonata hairs. I'll nominate a traditional image for comparison. Charles (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Charles (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Benoît Guillon confirmed that this is Erythrodiplax fusca. Jee 12:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkadavoor: Thanks for help me in the identification procedure. BTW, @Colin: I rollbacked any vibrance/saturation to the original image (now it has the original colors without any change) and I added some sharpening in the abdomen @Charlesjsharp: . --The Photographer 13:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
discussion on Lucas' support vote
Charles, good to know I surprised you. People do react very differently to images. I expressed my real feelings when viewing the image, and these might be inconsistent with my other votes. It's fine by me if the image does not get featured because of all the reasons in the lengthy discussion above, I don't want to downplay those at all, but I wanted to share my view that I just enjoy the image as it is. – LucasT 13:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But we should be wary of a quirky support vote that might be seen as undermining the FP process. Naturally you can enjoy the image. Charles (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, in what way do you think my vote would undermine the FP process? I'm genuinely curious, I strive to be a better voter. I stated my reasons as well as you stated yours to oppose—in fact a support vote doesn't even require any comment to begin with. FP is about great images people enjoy looking at, and while your criticism is valid, I strongly feel that my support is as valid and far from undermining anything. – LucasT 13:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I was trying to explain was that for certain types of image - panoramas is another good example - there are many FPCs and standards are established and people vote accordingly. The same applies with wildlife. While a newcomer to FPC might vote on instinct, I think the FPC process relies on a regular voter respecting established FPC standards. For insect images like this it saves a lot of time if images are submitted to QI first. Charles (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Per Lucas. F*ck established standards and hooray for images that deliver emotion. FPC is about great images, not great pixels. Unlike QI, at FP we try to balance technical merit with artistic merit. Yes a boring insect photo would demand head-to-tail sharpness. This isn't a boring insect photo. -- Colin (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
discussion on Colin's support vote
  • I don't get bored by insect photos nor by boring photos; I'm capable of appreciating their other merits and supporting them. There is a place on Commons for unexciting photos that are of such high technical excellence that they are "among our finest". Not every photo has to be artistically outstanding, beautiful, or the subject emotionally moving. A key difference between QI and FP is that technical merit is not the only factor. For example, my own File:Elizabeth Tower 2014-09-21 205MP.jpg and File:The Shard from the Sky Garden 2015.jpg are artistically boring photos. Their unique high viewpoints combined with sharp detail in very high resolution makes them educationally highly valuable photos of two of the more important towers in London, and their technical standard lifts them to be among our finest. There is a role for "established standards" and "expert opinion" wrt the technical standards and aspects of our images. People familiar with genres of photography can highlight what is important and not important to get right technically. But anyone can have an opinion on whether an image is a great image. Please don't dismiss that as "newcomer's instinct". -- Colin (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question - Charles, don't you think we should make FPC hospitable to newcomers? Each person has only one vote. If a new participant votes differently from a bunch of regulars, their opinion won't carry the day, but it might be interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Absolutely. When I said "a newcomer to FPC might vote on instinct", I didn't imply that was wrong, but if he/she then found out that their vote was, say, the only one in favour, then the comments of others should inform subsequent votes. We all freely vote on images where we don't understand the technical challenges or quality benchmarks - a 360 deg panorama is one example. I loved one of a church interior some days ago, but had there been negative comments from people who do understand, I would have looked more closely next time. Charles (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colin is out of order as he was in writing "F*ck established standards". I posted that "we should be wary of a quirky support vote that might be seen as undermining the FP process." That referred to Lucas' vote and is neither patronising nor offensive. Charles (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lucas asked you why you felt his quirky vote was undermining the FP process. And you replied he was a beginner voting on instinct, ignorant of the established standards that he should learn to respect. That's patronising and offensive. And note that QI is not a training ground for FP and nor does The Photographer need lessons from you on what is appropriate to nominate at FP: he was nominating images at FP while you were still in short trousers. -- Colin (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your gratuitous rudeness is depressing. Your ability to read, however, may be excusable. I said "While a newcomer to FPC might vote on instinct, I think the FPC process relies on a regular voter respecting established FPC standards". Lucas is a regular voter. And, by the way, I'm rather concerned that you know when I stopped wearing short trousers. Charles (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, repeating your patronising remarks doesn't make them less so. For the benefit of non-English speakers, unfamiliar with the phrase, the "while you were still in short trousers" is a British idiom that refers to someone still being in infant school, with the implication that the other person has vastly greater experience. Charles started nominating at FP in 2014 whereas The Photographer began in 2007. So Charles' advice on using QI first is just more patronising, and depresses me that anyone would think the pixel peeping QI is a fundamental for FP. It is precisely that this is not QI that enables us to enjoy and celebrate an image -- QI is full of dull an unexciting photos. You are clearly beeing snooty towards both Lucas and The Photographer. Aparently us non-experts can "enjoy" a photo but are not allowed to support it lest our quirky opinions undermine the process. What rot. -- Colin (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– LucasT 18:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 19:09:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tuvan guitarist and throat singer Albert Kuvezin
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: three days without participation and three opposes, very noise also for FP Ezarateesteban 22:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ezarateesteban 12:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 16:46:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Praying Jew at Western Wall of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 14:08:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Immature male common blue damselfly (Enallagma cyathigerum)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata

File:Forested hills in Lysekil in fog - B&W.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 13:38:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Forested hills in Lysekil in fog
  • Let's not make this into a gender issue, shall we. I don't think my gender has anything to do with this and it should certainly not be taken into account when someone vote on my photos. There are some users who are more blunt/rude than others, I guess we have to live with that. --cart-Talk 08:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally valid point. I know, it's a bitch, you want the effect the fog provides but you don't want the fog effect, and making more NR will only lose detail. It's a no-win situation... --cart-Talk 17:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Sweden
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2017 at 22:14:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Front view of the Nike of Samothrace
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prise de la ville et de la citadelle de Gand en six jours - Hall of Mirrors (Palace of Versailles).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 22:56:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Prise de la ville et de la citadelle de Gand en six jours - Hall of Mirrors (Palace of Versailles)
  • Understood. I'll live with this photo for a while and see if I get any wow from it later. So far, parts of the painting seem undersaturated and a bit glary to me, and while that may indeed be how it looked, it's not wowing me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2017 at 11:56:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Interior courtyard of the Tabātabāei House, a historic house in Kashan, Iran.
Thanks.  Support now. – LucasT 19:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 17:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2017 at 07:38:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
discussion about other photos of the bird species
  • Higher resolution does not equal higher quality. And after over 3,200 edits on English Wikipedia and 18,000 contributions to Commons I do actually understand a little about how it works. Charles (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, To make it clear, I don't have a problem in using or not using an image photographed by me. As Colin mentioned, my intention was only to improve the article in my capacity, as I have previously explained the reason for replacing the current image. Deepugn (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, your comment "Higher resolution does not equal higher quality." is in response to the link to a 0.29MP image that this 5.5MP image replaced on Wikipedia. Are you seriously suggesting that this image is inferior to that one, which also has an artificial magenta background? If not, would you accept that Deepugn improved Wikipedia by taking and inserting a higher quality photo than Wikipedia was currently displaying? If you think there is a better image to illustrate the Wikipedia article already on Commons, would you please indicate which one that is, and then insert it in the article. You claim to know of a better image, which would take 10s to insert into the article, yet would rather spend that time arguing and boasting about your edit count? As for QI standard, I think this is a perfectly usable photo of the bird in habitat, so once again wonder if that forum has got its values/purpose rather confused. -- Colin (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I respond, @Colin: to your ill-judged rant. I was not arguing or boasting. I was replying to an specific accusation of ignorance. Deepugn did not improve Wikipedia. His image is nowhere near the best image on Commons: File:Red whiskerd bulbul David Raju.jpg, File:Red-whiskered Bulbul (Pycnonotus jocosus).jpg, File:Red-whiskered Bulbul at Porvorim.JPG, File:Red-whiskered Bulbul-web.jpg, even File:Birdpic.jpg are all better. You go ahead and choose your favourite. Charles (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, you don't answer the question because the answer is embarassing to you. Are you seriously suggestion that the previous image was superior to Deepugn's replacement? Please, answer this. I think then you will have to admit that Deepugn did improve Wikipedia. He took a better image and he improved the page with it. Now, you or anyone else may wish to spend time to find an even better image and insert that. And if you do (rather than criticising him here) then you are improving Wikipedia. But your comments here imply Deepung has done something wrong. He hasn't. He may not have been as thorough in locating the best possible image as you might wish, but this is a volunteer project and we all have a tendency to prefer our own works. As for your suggested better images, two do not show the red feathers at the bottom of the body, which I would consider a key feature, one has been oversharpened, with artefacts. And as for File:Birdpic.jpg ... you are having a joke are you not? Terrible composition, cropped tail, noisy compact-camera garbage quality. Wikipedia is about making one's own little contribution that makes it a step better. Face it: your original comments were "ill judged" and you should apologise to Deepung for making any suggestion he did not improve Wikipedia. And if you want to hold your head up as a reviewer, then you can retract your suggestion that File:Birdpic.jpg is better. -- Colin (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. File:Red-Whiskered Bulbul-1.jpg was better to illustrate the article than this FPC. I personally do prefer File:Birdpic.jpg to this FPC, however dreadful the camera used. As Ikan says below '"rguably more useful as a small thumbnail of a red-whiskered bulbul". Charles (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think you are just trolling now. Shame on you Charles. -- Colin (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, shame on you too Colin for questioning my integrity. Charles (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the position where the photo is used, the other photo might be superior. To be clear, it's far inferior to this one as a photo; however, it is arguably more useful as a small thumbnail of a red-whiskered bulbul. But that's something best discussed at w:Talk:Red-whiskered bulbul. Here, we are judging this photo as a photo, not a Wikipedia thumbnail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan The other photo has an artificial magenta background, which is never desirable, doesn't show the feet, nor the tail nor is the red patch at its bottom clearly visible. On Wikipedia, my thumbnail size is 300px, which is rendered on my high DPI screen using a 600px image, which that image (at 506px wide) is not large enough to do. High DPI screens are becoming more and more popular both on the desktop and mobile devices, so our old concept of "thumbnail" size is obsolete. I think that for many of our animal photos, there is too much concern on eliminating the background. There are times where that is a desirable style of photography, but also times where "animal in habitat" is absolutely appropriate and to be appreciated in its own different way. -- Colin (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree that "animal in habitat" is a very useful type of photo. When "thumbnail size" becomes obsolete, maybe the category of "Valued Images" should be eliminated. If not, it should certainly be drastically reimagined, because I've been judging photos at VIC almost solely on the basis of what is most useful at thumbnail size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at thumbnail size only works if there is only one image in the category. If the VI scope takes you to a gallery, you should always check the category as not all competing images will be in the gallery. Charles (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I look at all relevant images in the category. I guess that's the same as the gallery? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Too many distracting elements for viewer to easily focus on the bird. Daniel Case (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charles, why don't you think this is even close to QI? I think this would pass QIC unless it got into CR and too many people voted that the background was too distracting. The bird is clear, even where not fully sharp, from the tip of its crown to the tip of its tail. I don't feel impelled to vote for this as an FP, and I would say it is not an FP, but I only mildly  Oppose and don't really understand why you have such a very low opinion of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not completely in focus at full size, no. But on the other hand, the tail is a lot clearer than in many QI photos. I would have agreed if you had said it's not at FP level. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It is a very nice photo of the bird, but since we have so many highly skilled bird photographers here, the bar for an FP bird photo is rather high. This is not quite up to that level. However, instead of bickering about if this is a QI or not here, I've nominated it for QI and we'll see how that goes on that page instead. --cart-Talk 11:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– LucasT 17:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2017 at 18:23:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panel buildings in Bratislava
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2017 at 16:15:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Parliament of Canada
@The Photographer: I fixed a green tint, but I think it will be a problem to get natural colors due to artificial light. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Comparing this with other photos of the parliament at night, I seems yours is too yellow. Do you have any good arguments for this? It does look like wrong WB and/or oversaturated if you ask me. – LucasT 21:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucasbosch: I uploaded version with corrected WB. But as far as I can remember, the light bulbs near parliament had a warm yellowish tint. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2017 at 16:11:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Morocco, Essaouira
Daniel Case, I'm curious on your opinion about noise. Even the best cameras have inherent noise at base ISO, shadows contain even more and post processing noise reduction can degrade details. Lighting can be challenging and just requiring higher ISOs or raising shadows because of the limited dynamic range of the camera. I agree that FPs should have best possible quality, but there are technical and practical limits. Would you prefer noise free images with lost details over ones with visible noise? Just curious. – LucasT 18:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucasbosch: I know other people ding me about being too sensitive about this, but I'm not the only one. We have had similar pictures to this nominated here without as much noise, is all I'm saying. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - The noise bothers me, too, in one place in particular: The closer waves. To me, the noise smudges and distorts the details of the waves. I'd like to see what this photo looks like with some noise reduction in the water. I love how this photo completely teems with shore birds flying in the sky near and far, as opposed to the photos which on QI get demands to remove bird life from the air. I accept the motion blur from flight, but I'd like to see the waves more nearly as they actually looked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Makes me feel like I'm flying with the birds. I don't think pixel peeping is helpful for this kind of subject - if it was architecture or something I'd be more picky. -- Thennicke (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Thennicke --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't like the blurred bird flying away in the foreground. Charles (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, could you please make a note where it is? I can't find any significantly blurred bird. – LucasT 17:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can't? That explains the support vote. Now I'm really worried about your eyesight. Charles (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My eyesight is fine, I just assumed you meant a bird with much more motion blur. – LucasT 18:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ant-in-ixora-coccinea-flower-kottayam-kerala.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2017 at 18:18:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: three opposes and no participiation in 5 days – LucasT 20:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– LucasT 15:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2017 at 12:13:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Keri island, Estonia

* Oppose Sorry, try again, too unsharp (Do you process from RAW or is a jpg direct from camera)? --Ezarateesteban 13:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)  Neutral better but not FP by now Ezarateesteban 01:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Neutral per The Photographer and Ezarate. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant  Oppose per The Photographer. This is a very attractive photo at thumbnail size, and it still looks good despite some noticeable unsharpness at full size on my laptop, but it is really unsharp at full size. Yes, the size is quite large, but the fact that the stones start getting clearly unsharp so close to the bottom of the picture frame merely at full screen size on my laptop impels me to consider this photo not to be one of the best on the site. I would be very happy to reconsider if you can sharpen the photo without damaging anything. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, I gave it a try and did some slight sharpening, see the file history. I tried to revert it back to wait on approval by the uploader, but I wasn't able to ("The edit appears to have already been undone."). – LucasT 20:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! But I'm still reluctant to support. I will consider whether a "neutral" vote is warranted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ezarate, Daniel Case: I sharpened it selectively, please reevaluate your votes, thanks. – LucasT 23:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Ikan. In such situations where maximum DOF is wanted, you can do a focus stack by shooting a close and a far focused image (or some more in between) and blend them together later. – LucasT 20:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, I did some sharpening, but still would prefer to be done from RAW for better quality. So  Neutral for now. – LucasT 21:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I shoot this image only as jpg. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have your reasons for sticking with JPG, I would recommend to change to RAW if you haven't already. It's well worth the extra hassle. – LucasT 23:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment IMHO focus problem is not something that rebuild from RAW could fix. The problem was the select a insufficient deep of field in the image. My suggestion is to 1) make another picture with f/16 using a tripod (my first recomendation) or 2) without tripod, however, a combination of three images, one focusing the house, another focusing half the ground and the third focusing on the rocks that are in the foreground, then join this with Photoshop or Gimp using layers for each image. --The Photographer 11:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 4 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2017 at 11:48:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gandzasar monastery
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2017 at 03:46:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2017 at 04:37:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Oppose per others' objection to the picture quality. I think it's quite a bad idea to oppose pictures of bullfighting on moral grounds. Regardless of whether you support or oppose it, showing it for what it is has an intrinsic value. However, the same criteria of composition and quality that are relevant to all other photos are relevant to photos of bullfighting, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose simply because it's obvious even at thumbnail that this picture isn't even up to QI level. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think that some are missing the point... For pixel counters yes, a bad photo, but that is not the point here... This is interesting reading #REDIRECT[[6]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
discussion about technical quality vs. artistic merit / impact
  • Usually at FPC we care about technical quality, photographic quality and subject itself (my interpretation of course, but also based on the guidelines). The above comments mean that the voters think the subject or photographic quality (e.g. composition) does not stand out enough to overcome the flawed technical quality. We do have a few FPs with sub-QI quality. – LucasT 18:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, anyone can vote the way they want for whatever reason, I have no problem with that. Whatever the reason, support or oppose, is a subjective choice. All I am saying is that good photography is not technique dependent, and to make it so diminishes the possibility of photography as a language, as a form of expression. I know how it is around here, been around long enough, and I keep disagreeing with the short sighted form of evaluating photography as to what constitutes a featurable picture. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Music is a language, too, but if I run all my notes together when they should be separately audible, my execution detracts from the emotion I've put into my performance. And can you really say this photo has the same impact as the one Lucas nominated supported above? Not only is the matador blurred in this one, but you can't see anyone's face. I don't really get how you judge the quality of a photo. Solely on how it makes you feel? If so, expect others to feel differently. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, anyone can vote whichever way they want, but this image is not about pixels, or sharpeness, or being able to see the face... it is about the content. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you suggesting that only the image should be judged? Surely, you recognize that there are many different ways to shoot the same motif. So how do you judge different shots of a particular motif? And in this case, yes, not being able to see the faces is part of the content. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You shoot what you shoot when you shoot and how you shoot, and whatever comes out either works or not... There is no better example of this than Robert Capa´s work (and no, I do not compare to him). See this #REDIRECT[[7]] or this #REDIRECT[[8]]. The last image is one of the most reproduced images in the history of photography, yet around here it wouldn´t get a vote under the current practices. Good photography is not about pixels, sharpenes, etc., it is a combination of many elements and of course content and context. This nomination is not about strict image quality, is is about catching your eye (did it? It certainly generated quick agreement on the oppose side!) and hopefully to generate emotion. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember when Hustler Magazine came out with very graphic, picture perfect shots of female genitalia. They went way beyond normal practices. However, for as much detail that can be seen in Hustler´s pictures, they never climbed to the level of erotic art expressed even in Victoria´s Secrets catalogs... I think that a lot of people here are more Hustler inclined... lot of graphic, visible detail but no content. (and yes, even in Hustler style we could find erotism, but I think it is more smut than anything else, arousing, yes, erotic, no). --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can work youself up about the voting practices around here, and I can understand it, I really do. But in the end this is a place where people vote on photos to be put in a web gallery, not life and death. If you disagree with the measurements and priorities, then it would be best to not nominate and laugh at us for our narrow-mindedness. Fact is, many people count technical quality to be part of good photography, for good reasons. A blurred image just is less desireable than a sharp one, to most of us. If not, we all could stop bothering about shutter speed and focusing alltogether and just capture emotions. Sadly, this is not how most people choose to do it. – LucasT 20:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel we have better bullfight pictures that show the same things, like this for one. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ LucasT I really don´t care too much how people vote anymore, except that it could be discouraging to photographers that work in another level and detrimental to the goal of compiling good photographic material. Like the saying goes, if you pay with peanuts the only ones attracted will be monkeys. Like Trump said, maybe the voting is done by a fat man sitting on a couch somewhere in New Jersey! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get what your criteria for a good (or great) photo are. Did this photo catch my eye? Sure, for a moment. Your other photo had a much stronger effect on me, because I saw the poor victim's face. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Surprising support Interesting. I hear you, opposers, really I do! I still find the image captivating. It doesn't even pretent to be a perfectly sharp action photo - but to me it successfully evokes the gist of bullfighting, in a rather impressionist way of course. The fleeting drama, the brutatlity, the speed... Btw., I'd never oppose images on moral grounds. This would certainly undermine the power of photography in a way I can't condone. Morally. ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Martin, that's a really interesting way of looking at it! It doesn't really speak to me that way, but I can see where you're heading with this. If the effect was more pronopunced and looked more intentional, I could certainly see myself supporting it. Doesn't have to be as weird as this rodeo shot, but going a bit more towards that direction wouldn't hurt, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
part 2 of the discussion about technical quality vs. other photographic qualities
  • Point is you thought these two are FP worthy, others think they are not. It's up to you to consider whether the criticism has merit or not - apparently you're saying "lalala fp quality lalala unfair lalala", which is fine I guess, except it will not help you take better (bullfighting) pictures in the future. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct, I think them FP worthy, that´s why I nominated them... and I do question the way photographs are evaluated in general around here, always have, probably always will... Why? because I thinks it is flawed and limited. I think that after 45 years of doing photography I may have an insight or two... A lot of arguments used to demerit a lot of images here would be considered a joke in more serious photographic circles... My coments are meant to reflect, not to attack, but if the shoe fits.... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be really helpful if you could give us some guidelines you would have us use to judge photos, beyond whether they strike us when we look at them, which is a completely subjective criterion that you should expect people to differ on. However, if you are not capable of giving us such guidelines, that is your failing as a teacher. We don't have to agree with your guidelines, but so far, I haven't seen you give us any. Can you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best student learns despite having the worst teacher, and the worst student will not learn despite having the best teacher.... I believe that the best teacher many times is oneself... One must place oneself in a way that we can be aware of our strengths and shortcomings, and act accordingly. What I see is many people with new cameras thinking themselves photographers, and they are insofar as they can take pictures. But photography is much more than taking a picture; photography is about making photographs. This is a distinction that many people fail to acknowledge or see. I see a lot of people with fancy new cameras, armed with a computer and a photo editing program, the best, and think themselves experts. This is like the person who buys the best cooking utensils and think himself a chef, nothing further than the truth. As far as contributing here, I was the one that wrote the original criteria for evaluating photographs, and most of it still stands, although butchered a little, improved a little but that is ok, it is the nature of collaborative work. I taught photography for over 20 years, and believe me, I can spot a phony from afar... Now, so I do not tell you what is the truth, here is a little guideline from PPA (Professional Photographers of America) that are very helpful #REDIRECT[[9]]. I believe firmly on this project, but I also believe that the way business is conducted here discourages serious photographers from participating and thus limiting the possibilities of the project. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I need lectures about how to learn despite bad teaching. A bad teacher almost ruined my career before it started by teaching me a posture and technique that resulted in a severe injury to both arms when I had no idea how to play any differently, and a great teacher saved it. And I was a much-beloved college professor for a couple of decades and a writing tutor who helped many clients get jobs, grants, fellowships, internships, post-doc appointments, etc., etc. I promise to carefully read the guidelines you linked and think about them all, although your remarks like "I can spot a phony from afar" are not conducive to learning. I assure you, if you pretend to accuse me in the post above: I am no phony and have never made any claims to expertise in photography. I do my best to judge what I see based not on ability as a photographer, as I have merely dabbled a little in photography, but simply as a viewer whose father taught him a lot about how to understand paintings and whose brother is among other things a professional-level photographer who was exhibited at a major American museum many moons ago. I never pretend that I have the knowledge, skill or experience that you or any of the other regulars here have, and I have learned a lot about photography by spending time on this site. You have the right to think that this means that I'm presumptuous to vote at FPC, QIC or VIC and shouldn't pass judgment on any photo, and I think you know what my counter-argument would be: Assure me that no-one but flutists gets to have an opinion on my performance on the flute and no-one but jazz composers gets to judge the quality of my jazz tunes, and I'll make that deal with you. So thank you for the link, which I promise to read through and consider, but I wish you could have a more pleasant attitude despite your frustration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ikan Kekek I really was not referring to you at all! I apologize deeply for this unintentional consequence of my criticism of the practices here. On the contrary, I see your participations as the most objective and level headed around. I am truly sorry. I am expressing years of frustration because I actually care for this project and see what I believe are practices that discourage participation. I have discussed this site with good photographer friends and they will not go near it because of the very things I mention. Donating images is not a small issue to some photographers, and recognition in this case is the only pay (you know how the ego works), so to donate work and then be subjected to flawed evaluation methodology is not a good thing to some. On another hand, I am well aware that there is a slight possibility that I am a jerk and that may turn people off, but I have to speak my mind even if that does not win me any friends. Best regards and please accept my apologies. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS Ikan Kekek You hit it on the nail when you say how to understand paintings... It is the same with photography, you have to understand it, but understanding requires study, insight, cultural capital. I live inside a photography community and we many times discuss how the "new" photographers operate on a vacum with regards to photography itself, passing over the basic elements of technique, equipment understanding, history, tendencies, context, relevance, etc., and feel that because they have a fancy camera and are good with photoshop and are able to create different looking images that are the result of digital manipulation (and not the result of visualization) then they are hip and good and can dismiss the depth of the medium. I hear the newbies scoff at the usefullness of discipline and knowledge because you can always photoshop a bad picture. And believe me, in my view you are not the discouranging type, I really don´t have a problem with your evaluations, mine or others either way they go. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of what you say is similar to complaints my father had about art schools where they don't teach the basics of drawing from the nude, perspective or traditional composition at all, feeling that since the art that sells is whatever conceptual bullshit is fashionable, it's a waste of time to ground them in the knowledge of every great thing that preceded them, starting from the cave paintings and going through the art of the various ancient civilizations (e.g., Egyptian, Assyrian, Cycladic, Classic Greek, Roman), etc. In an age with no consensus standards on even what is and is not art, taste and knowledge are sometimes considered to be counterproductive or at best a luxury we don't have the time for. I see similar things in music, but for the performer who's not in the field of auto-tuned auto-everything fakery, there remain high standards of technical achievement, at least. OK, end rant. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the problem is that even putting aside technical qualities, moral objctions, etc, it still is, forgive me for being blunt, a boring picture to look at. Even worse is you said nothing to the contrary besides that you think it's not and if anyone else thinks otherwise... Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you're a much better PHOTOGRAPHER (in the best possible terms said here) than I am, or probably ever will be. That's fine, I came to terms with shooting a lot and hoping for dumb luck happening style of taking pictures. If anything the oft felt "I just missed the shot of my life!" feeling is a good indication that I don't have the eye to see what's important (in photographic terms) either because I miss it and only realize later and/or because I'm completely wrong about it. Anyhow. This doesn't make this specific picture automatically a superstar, or even an FP because you shot it or you think it is. It's possible you're wrong and unless you're willing to admit that we're not discussing anything. To address a few points made in earlier/subsequent posts:
- Saying that the Falling Soldier would not pass FP today is a strawman two (three) times over. First off we're talking about a picture shot almost a 100 years ago. We can't judge it in vacuum, saying "if it was done today". Even since 10 years ago taking pictures has changed so much, both in terms of aesthetics (some to the better, more to the worse) and in technical aspects. I'm 100% certain if I were to upload and nom an HP5 shot it would be voted down because "noisy", without any further consideration; I agree with you on that. However it would be my duty to both use film grain in a meaningful way in the world of the sleek digital and to make people take a note about gran vs noise. The other issue here is that present day we're oversaturated with death in all forms. We've seen people getting shot, stabbed, ran over, blown to pieces by artillery, thrown of roofs, beheaded, limbs pulled out, tortured in various ways etc. In motion and on still as well. Disregarding the 100 years history of the image and strictly saying "it was shot today and nominated to FP" I'm not sure I'd vote support, if I wanted to be honest. Simply because we have seen so many other forms of death that it's "nothing special" - and writing this last sentence down made me utterly sad. However, it was and still is a pinnacle achievement in photography, in it's own time. We can't look at it any other way, because it's a piece of highly regarded photographic history.
- I'll somewhat agree with your assessment of the judging of image worthiness here, in the past I was really puzzled by some images not passing because of some minute detail not being absolutely perfect, others promoted that have maybe one merit: a correct exposure and focus. There also seems to be a general unwillingness to go against the tide, take this as you may. Recently I have and probably will continue to take mostly contrarian positions on images for this very reason.
- 12 quick replies for the 12 points. 1: boring as I've said before. I get triggered seeing a bullfighting ring just as well, nothing special here. 2: not there as many have pointed it out and you kind-of-admitted. 3: Now I've not been to any bullfights so can't comment on the atmosphere, but having seen some from start to finish in video form I'm fairly confident in saying that this is just a random moment without any special qualities. 4: can't comment, don't see any positives or negatives in that regard. 5: It's ok, and in fact thinking about it the matador is probably in the best possible position. 6: the lack of sharpness is not offset by any other quality. 7: Ok I guess. 8: I and some others have pointed it out that this is missing for us, ie the image is not working i this regard. 9: drab but what can one do with the stupidity of nature, eh? Would not be an oppose factor. 10: there is no story told here. None. 11: don't think it's applicable? 12: see points 1 and 10.
Should you find (some of) the above offensive I'm sorry, but that's what your image evokes in me and that's why I voted oppose. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While we all may differ on assessing individual images, Tomas is most certainly right about the rather sad state of photography as an artistic and academic discipline on Commons. FPC in particular appears to me, more often than not, as a frozen bubble of rigid formalism. This doesn't always have to be bad. One result, at least, is the assiduous production of a vast quantity of technically perfect images that are truly among the best out there and depict great spots in a phantastic way. As for myself, I also benefit from that, more than just occasionally. I'm really fond of taking straightforward architecture and landscape images, many of which are well received here. That's great! On the one side. On the other I dare not present my more unconventional pictures and thus keep them well hidden on my computer. I guess I'm not the only one. It's a relief to notice that rather young regulars like cart are successfully trying to break the ice, more and more. So I don't think that great pictures like Colin's Bluebells would face the same fate again. But there's still a long way to go until FPC gets noticed by the British Journal of Photography ;-). --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting discussion. I think this would have got off to a better start if Tomas had given his rationale for why this is among our finest images of such events. The shutter speed of 1/125 is too low to capture moving people and animals and is also past the point where image stabilisation is necessary at that focal length (equivalent to 216mm in full frame and IS only improves one's chance of success, it doesn't guarantee it). So either that speed was a technical mistake or a deliberate choice. Motion blur to capture the engergy of a scene is a valid choice but we all know it is hit-and-miss. The result is also often not universally appreciated even among non-pixel-peepers. Arguing once the oppose votes have arrived tends to make everyone defensive and perhaps some of that could have been avoided with up-front information about the photographic merits being presented. I know it didn't save my Bluebell photo but the image did get a lot of support too, which I don't think it would have got if I hadn't explained it first.
We are used to seeing technically sharp documentary photography because that meets the requirement for an awful lot of educational images. It is also more straightforward to judge. I agree there is too much opposition when an image is presented that is outside of that narrow field of photography, and too much obsession with microscopic details only visible when magnified. I would like to see more styles of photography that convey emotion better, and think such images can have great educational value. It is our loss that we don't encourage them enough. -- Colin (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colin touches on something that I have encountered again an again in my professional life. If you want a wider audience to accept your more innovative and artistic work, you also have to prove that you are capable of doing the very "normal" work in an excellent way. This is very irrational, but that is how people function. If you just produce artistic and challenging photos, you are just a weirdo and maybe you don't know how to take good pictures. But if you also do regular work in a perfect way, people are more prone to actually stop and think when they see something new and not dismiss it outright. I always try to mix up my more innovative photos with more conventional photography just to remind folks that I can do that too if I chose to. --cart-Talk 10:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cart, true that a good reputation can incline one's reviewers (customers) towards a favourable examination of your more challenging images. When the challenging image is worthy then such bias can be helpful. But that's not always the case. I recall an art nude studio photo nominated here where the focus was some distance in front of the subjects and there appeared no valid artistic reason; only technical error. The photographer (not a user on Commons) was apparently well known, had his work in galleries, etc, and the nominator felt reputation was the reason why we should overlook this error, or question whether it was an error at all. Contemporary art photography has its share of technically incompetent frauds, and even the best have off-days. (I'm not suggesting anyone here is). Anyway, my main request is that if nominators don't express up-front what they find praiseworthy about their image, particularly difficult ones, then don't be surprised if others find it hard to recognise your brilliance. -- Colin (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given my votes on Tomascastelazo's nominations this may come as a surprise to some, but I actually agree with a lot of what has been written in this section, especially Martin's comment. It seems we are obsessed with technical details that may not really matter anywhere but in our little corner of the world. That's basically what drew me away from QI a while ago: Pictures seemed to be judged mostly at pixel level and candidates were rejected because of tiny bits of purple fringing while others were given the badge despite being taken under the worst possible light conditions (I'm exaggerating of course). Short digression: About that time I also realized that the reason most of my own images totally suck was (is) not primarily because of my gear or my ability to handle it. It was because I was shooting "for Commons" and thus creating (hopefully) useful but uninspired images. Over the last year or so, I've been trying to break out of all those habits and focus on the image itself rather than how it might be useful. I force myself to slow down and think before I press the shutter (being limited to 36 frames on a roll of film surely helps). My images still suck, but I think I'm on the right track. Sorry, back to topic: I very much enjoy people like cart or WClarke mixing up FPC by trying something new ("new" from Commons POV, of course). They might be more controversial and more difficult to judge, but reviewing them is a heck of a lot more fun than the umpteenth church ceiling for me. Please keep them coming! --El Grafo (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC) I'd like to try something like that myself some time, but I fear a picture of a forgotten chair looking at a frozen pond taken on really grainy black-and white 135 film might get a record breaking amount of opposes here ;-)[reply]
  • El Grafo (first of all, thanks), bring on the grainy chairs! :) I'd love to at least see such a photo. Worst case scenario is that you get showered with 'opposes', so what. Like my Gandmother used to say: "It's not a human life that ends" (she could be rather straightforward and blunt, dear Granny...) Even if you don't get it approved, it might drive home yet another tiny eye-opener and pave way for some other innovative photos. How can things be altered if no one dares to try. ;) --cart-Talk 16:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+2. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2017 at 21:00:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of some of the Cantalloc aqueducts located near the city of Nasca, Peru.
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2017 at 06:05:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2017 at 01:41:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Crown of the Andes
Agreed. The black provides a good contrast, while I find this shade of gray somewhat depressing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A very good shot of the crown. Resplendent light and shiny metal surfaces don't go well together, you only end up with blown areas and reflections. Better to be able to see all the fantastic details on the crown. The grey background also helps to contrast the finer details. High EV. BUT I would like to have the description given above on the file's page instead of just here. This page will be gone from sight in a week or so while the file page will be there for a long, long time. (Why does so many users spend a lot of time on detailed descriptions here and write a bare minimum on the file page?) --cart-Talk 10:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Jewellery
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2017 at 12:14:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cappuchin Bridge over Selška Sora in Škofja Loka, Slovenia.
 Comment I added some noise reduction in the image, please, let me know what do you think --The Photographer 13:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed too all the dust spots in the same time and I'm sorry maybe my version was creating a conflict with your version. --The Photographer 14:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I compared the two and I couldn't find any spots in your version that I cleaned. Seems we both got them all ;) – LucasT 14:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted myself, I think that your version look better. I am sorry for the conflict --The Photographer 15:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2017 at 12:05:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View on a bastion of the castle in Kyrenia, Cyprus
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2017 at 09:55:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Great Pelister Lake, Macedonia
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2017 at 08:19:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bitola and Pelagonia seen from the Pelister National Park
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Entzia - Espino albar 01.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2017 at 19:37:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hawthorn (Crataegus) in the Entzia mountain range, over a sea of fog in the back. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Basque Country, Spain
Selbymay, please explain "not featureable" – LucasT 17:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Straight and simple, not able to be featured. I only see an B&W aestheticization of a simple view. --Selbymay (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think a plain "not featurable" isn't the right expression. It would be "not featurable" if the requirement weren't met (e.g. minimum size). If this one gets enough votes, it will be featured. Perhaps it won't but maybe it will be. But I accept that you want to say that you don't think that it isn't good enough. Maybe it isn't, let's see. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Ikan Kekek Glad that I made you react. I don't mind if this picture gets FP label, and it would obviously. But, to quote the guidelines, "beautiful does not always mean valuable", and I don't find much of encyclopedic value in this aestheticization which reminds me so many "beautiful" and decorative images. --Selbymay (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I'm trying to follow your argumentation but sorry, I absolutely can't get it. Why shouldn't be there any encyclopedic value? Because it's nice? Because it's B&W? If you want to, you can question any picture nominated here. Ice crystals on a Window? Who would need this? An award-winning residential complex at night? Why not at daylight? Mountains at sunset? Absolutely useless! Well in this case, the picture shows at least a landscape of a certain area, a meteorological effect, a classified species of a plant. And who knows, it's possible that it'll be used by next psychiatrist article... We cannot know how it's going to be used and this refers to almost any picture here. B&W is an artistic choice but it also helps to concentrate on the image in another manner, it helps to distinguish contrast in a better way. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selbymay, this is not Wikipedia, nor is this Commons:Valued image candidates. The photos that are featured are supposed to be among the best on the site. They do not have to be "valuable" for Wikipedia. If their value is simply in looking at them, they succeed as art photography and should have their turns on the front page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation I made is from the FP guidelines. And if this has no relation with Wikipedia, which front page are you talking about ? --Selbymay (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The front page of Commons, a Wikimedia project that is not Wikipedia and not an encyclopedia. Yes, "beautiful does not always mean valuable" is in the FP guidelines, but "encyclopedic" is nowhere to be found in those guidelines. Look at the context:
   almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
   night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
   beautiful does not always mean valuable.
Nothing about "encyclopedic value" there. Instead, the conclusion is drawn by citing sunsets and night shots, which are very common motifs. And they absolutely can be featured and are featured, but must be special in some way, in the opinion of FPC voters. Do you really think Commons is purely an arm of Wikipedia? I'm an admin at Wikivoyage, and we use Commons thumbnails extensively and are not encyclopedic but a travel guide. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Spain
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2017 at 00:43:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sunset at Kaiser mountains above Ellmau, Tyrol, Austria.
  • Someone else can address the rest of your objections if they like ("tilting" strikes me as an odd objection to a photo of a hilly area, but maybe there's something I missed), but knowing the solar light spectrum as we all do, why do you think the colors are "unnatural"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like I'm on an oppose run tonight. I get that the rays are from the sun and are not supposed to be horizontal, however 3–4 degrees cw looks more natural to me (especially the trees on the far right). Can't be sure though, maybe I'm wrong about it. However the colors _do_ look unnatural to me, specifically the yellow. Even with the saturation dialed down to −30 or so it still doesn't feel right. I've seen some weirdo sunsets but never canary-yellow. Again, might be my mistake, and if you can point me to other examples of it I'll happily change to Neutral since that's my biggest gripe with this one. -- KennyOMG (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm of course fine with oppose votes but I think KennyOMG is wrong regarding tilt and unsharpness. There is no tilt IMO (how would you see it, there are no verticals in the picture?) and the sharpness is rather excellent (it's the sharpest lens I own and the settings were just right for this situation). Saturation and wow may be a matter of taste, of course. --Code (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've said, Code, the trees on the right look more natural with a few degrees cw. However there's also a somewhat objective way of judging (not 100% but shows medium to large tilts): reduce the colorspace to 8 bits with no dither and you'll see how the different colors start to band. The yellow should be horizontal on the left, curving slightly downwards towards the right as you get closer to the sun. As for unsharp, I was referring to the bottom part of the image - but thinking about it I'll retract that, since most digital sensors have trouble resolving dark greens to begin with. Instead I'd like to point out auras around some hills (but not all). -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2017 at 15:19:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Facade of Museum Brandhorst
Confirmed results:
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 01:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture#Germany
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2017 at 18:26:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
discussion on featuring photos showing death / torture
  • I agree. I'm opposed to bullfighting, too. But both involve people killing animals, and the best way to fight against bullfighting is to publicize images with pathos like this one, which touch people in their hearts more than prose descriptions of the victim's suffering can. In terms of slaughtering, anyone who eats meat but can't bear to witness a slaughter ought to become a vegetarian, so in that case, too, I think that it's important for people to see what we're doing to animals. That's the analogy to me, not that slaughtering and bullfighting are the same, which they are not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is such a strawman, Ikan, twice over. Slaughterhouses are not run for the enjoyment of seeing animals getting tortured and killed. And the vegetarian stuff, please. As for your moral grounds argument, you personally got bullied into withdrawing the SF windows pic because of.. "privacy issues"? What is that if not a moral argument? Obviously nothing illegal was done, otherwise the pic wouldn't be on Commons, so please explain to me how the morality of personal privacy compares against the morality regarding animal cruelty? Many thanks in advance. -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't "bullied" into doing anything. I simply thought about things and made a decision. If you think that making an analogy between showing what happens at slaughterhouses and showing what happens at bullfights is too much of a stretch, analogizing that to people's rights to privacy is truly irrelevant. I don't see how you can feature a photo that you believe violates people's rights to privacy as a way of dramatizing the right of privacy for people to think about it. However, showing the brutalization of a bull in the ring can indeed have the effect of generating or strengthening opposition to bullfighting, and if you don't see how, nothing I post here could get you to see it. Similarly, seeing images of animals being slaughtered can have an effect on viewers. For the record, I am not a vegetarian, but I do believe that anyone who cannot bear to witness a slaughter - which I have witnessed, repeatedly, when I was living in rural Malaysia - should be a vegetarian. I do not like to see images of bullfighting, but I don't think I or other viewers should be spared them, and since I've already stated my position on the "sport" above, I don't need to repeat it here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misunderstood my argument in a different way, too. I don't condemn all moral arguments against showing or featuring photographs. However, I consider this one misguided, for the reasons I've stated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said I was against slaughterhouse pictures. Certainly not based on moral grounds. I also don't agree that anyone unable to witness a slaughter should be vegetarian simply because we could equally well (even better) argue if you can't catch game you should become a vegetarian. Equally nonsensical. Anyway, on the moral questions to me it boils down to this: a really big percentage of the population agrees that bullfighting is nothing short of barbaric, they need no convincing or reminders. To me featuring a picture also means that it has some kind of significance - and, again, according to my own reasoning, there are subjects that need no glorification because the societal consensus already existing. Similarly I would never vote support in a girl getting circumcised, on an ISIS execution (not even if there's a very compelling and personal sotry that comes with it). None of these need to be elevated now to any kind of significance, while we're living in in a world where these are everyday occurences. But that's just me. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your point of view and thank you for explaining it, but I think the very fact that bullfighting still exists and is legal in some countries is a pretty strong countervailing fact, showing that pressure needs to be increased to ban it. Also, it's OK if you disagree with my point on meat-eating, but my point of view is, if you are unable to emotionally tolerate witnessing a slaughter, you should become a vegetarian, because eating meat means that animal lives have to be taken for you and therefore, the animal had to be slaughtered for you to be able to eat its meat even though the slaughter happened out of your sight and hearing. It's to me an unfortunate part of urban and suburban living that people can have the luxury of thinking that meat comes in supermarket packages, not from an animal that was alive and killed for you. Making that equivalent to an argument about whether you are physically able and skilled enough to catch game is irrelevant to my moral argument, and I think that you need to understand the basis for someone else's argument in order to sincerely disagree with it. But I do get your analogy with female genital mutilation and IS murders. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also understood your point perfectly, Ikan Kekek, just skipped a few steps in my reply. That's my failure. Let me just quickly go back to your argument that someone not being able to witness a slaughter should become a vegetarian. If we were to grade "meat awareness" I can think of 4 different categories along your line of thought: 1. Someone who knows meat = animals but can't accept slaughter for what it is. 2. Someone who can accept but not witness a slaughter in order to get meat. 3. Someone who can witness a slaughter but won't be able to kill an animal themselves. 4. Someone willing to kill animals for their meat. You posit that 2) should become vegetarian, because [reasons]. My question here is why not 4? Why should you be a meat eater if you can't bring yourself to push a button, shoot a gun, cut a neck, cut off a head, stomp or do anything else to get your protein? What makes witnessing a slaughter so special compared to getting the meat yourself? At the same time 1) is where I think the line to vegetarianism should (and actually do) lie. If you can't accept that animals killed for your food, don't eat them, regardless whether you could do it yourself or could watch it or not. I don't think it gets any simpler than that.
At the same time, my counter argument was about that if you think emotional inability disqualifies someone from eating meat why shouldn't physical disability do the same? In a situation where you have 2 people, one who can physically catch an animal for food but is unable to kill it, and another one who's unable to catch anything but has absolutely no issues killing anything and dismantling the carcass, you say 1) should become a vegetarian but 2) is fine in the ranks of the meat eaters. Pushing it even further 1) might even be willing to kill the animal, just literally not able to handle blood/insides while 2) can be someone who refuses to kill anything but has no problem seeing all the gore. According to you the latter is still more entitled to eat meat than the one who catches and kills it.
In short my issue was that you made up some arbitrary categories along the lines that supported your argument about said categories. -- KennyOMG (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Well argued. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 01:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2017 at 08:59:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Support I do love the motion in the sky (remarkable if only a 1/10s exposure) mirroring the motion in the water and the wave crashing. I agree with Code it is a rather dull though, and would benefit from perhaps a half stop raised exposure, some more contrast, a little clarity and vibrance too. I played a little with the JPG in ACR and the result is a lot happier. But Arild, you should be aware that it is illegal to shoot the sea and piers round the UK without using a 10-stop ND filter (of course, I agree with Cart that this is better). -- Colin (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment As an aside, while we are all (ping Tomascastelazo, Martin, etc), discussing arty photos, this image reminds me of the Landscape Photographer of the Year winner Starling Vortex which includes the West Pier. Plenty blurred action there! -- Colin (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thank you all for votes and interesting comments!--ArildV (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ezarateesteban 21:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2017 at 19:48:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hindu statues in the Sri Krishnan Temple. Rochor, Central Region, Singapore.
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2017 at 21:01:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Edita Malovčić at the Austrian Film Awards 2017
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panthera uncia - Zoo Karlsruhe 02.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2017 at 21:52:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Snow Leopard at Karlsruhe Zoo
Daniel Case, in my view the wow factor does not have to be so closely related to the background separation than you make it sound it is. The picture could provide plenty of wow for someone exactly because at first sight, the leopard was not well visible, and it takes a bit longer to see it. Whereas wildlife with smooth background blur is desireable, it is the more common kind of photograph. Would you oppose a photograph showing an animal perfectly hidden in plain sight, demonstrating the camouflage the best possible way, solely on lack of subject separation, just on principle? While it doesn't have to be this photo, I believe photos demonstrating camouflage should be given a fair chance for FP. (Maybe we already have some featured, I didn't check) – LucasT 18:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucasbosch: This is just why it doesn't work for me. Others are free to disagree and support. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(I continued my inquiry of Daniel Case on his talk page) – LucasT 07:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2017 at 22:43:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bridge at night in South Carolina
  • I like the art talk, but I think the removing the rest of the support would be a problem because then the section with the diagonal girders going up to the tower would be cropped very close. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the suggested crop here but ended up reverting it since I agree with Ikan in that the suspension cables were too close to the edge of the frame. Frankly, if I were to shoot it again, I'd probably frame it a bit differently. My "excuse" here is that the mosquitoes were absolutely appalling down by the water, so I was rather hasty with my composition and made a mad dash back to the car after a couple exposures. That said, this is one of the only spots where you can get such a view of the bridge, and it's on private property, so I probably won't be reshooting for quite a while... –Juliancolton | Talk 18:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A very good "excuse", we like you to survive. ;) --cart-Talk 19:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2017 at 16:41:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Female olive baboon (Papio anubis) carrying juvenile
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 06:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Strategic Air Command B-47 Stratojets - 020903-o-9999r-001.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2017 at 15:30:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

B-47 Strategic Bombers
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
  •  Info Strategic Air Command B-47 Stratojet bombers. The world's first swept-wing bomber. Created by US Air Force - uploaded by Upload Bot - nominated by KennyOMG -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Superb quality, asthetically pleasing, and the placid scenery minutes after a shower contrast very well with the cold war craze emanated form the photo. I know some will say it's burnt out but please consider that this picture was 1) shot on film with much greater exposure latitude than what digital can handle most of the time and 2) was scanned in 2006 (or earlier) when the technical capabilities were not the same as they are today. I'm absolutely certain the negative has all the highlight info in the clouds. -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Well, we're judging the digital version and not the negative. But there's no problem with clipping highlights in general. It's just that clipping typically occurs very abruptly on digital sensors due to their linear response to light, and that often leads to sharp and ugly-looking borders between clipped and non-clipped areas. One of the few advantages negative film still has today is that the response to light is not linear and the transition from pure black (on the negative) to areas with less density is often much smoother (some examples here). This one looks perfectly fine for me. And there hasn't really been much innovation in terms of dedicated film scanners since the mid-2000s [10] – actually many manufacturers stopped making film scanners around that time, so chances are this is about as good as it gets (no info on the scanner model in the meta data, but at least they used 3 progressive scan runs). Oh, and of course it's an awesome picture. --El Grafo (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 06:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2017 at 16:57:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This is a amazing photo show the beautiful Batu Pahat building and you can know the town is a historical town through this AMAZING picture.
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Very far from FP level. Not even QI. Yann (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 19:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2017 at 09:28:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

National Park Galičica seen from the peak Krstec, Macedonia.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 19:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2017 at 21:14:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Laughing dromedaries in the desert outside Abu Dhabi, UAE
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 19:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2017 at 09:20:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rocky formation in Lake Ohrid near the village of Trpejca, Macedonia
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 19:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2017 at 19:01:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Carrier Strike Group in Atlantic

 I withdraw my nomination -- KennyOMG (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 19:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2017 at 09:40:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

NASA's Orion Spacecraft Parachutes Tested at U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground
Ikan Kekek , I removed the banding, but I couldn't find the dust spot after I was done with it. – LucasT 16:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 18:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration

File:Episkopi 01-2017 img12 Kourion.jpg, withdrawn

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2017 at 03:17:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ancient town of Kourion near Limassol, Cyprus. Early Christian Basilica.
  •  prosaic comment - If anyone knows what subcategory would be best for this photo, please edit the generic "Places" category. I thought of "architecture", but these are ruins, and I don't know what category those go into. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the photographer, you have the right to withdraw a nomination of one of your photos, if you so choose. I don't agree with the opposers, so I don't feel like withdrawing, especially with 10 supporting votes. But you can. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination

After some consideration, I have decided to withdraw this nomination as the photographer, and I am now going to nominate File:Episkopi 01-2017 img11 Kourion.jpg instead. On the one hand, both photos are similar so that only one of them should be promoted, but on the other hand, these are two different shots and I cannot suggest the other one as an alternative in the same nom; which means that a new nomination is the correct way. It may be a matter of taste, but I really prefer the other picture, mainly because of the composition, and perhaps the sunset mood is a little bit more intensive there (photo was taken three minutes earlier). Thanks Ikan and all others who commented here. --A.Savin 00:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 01:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2017 at 19:10:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Flamenco performance in Palacio Andaluz, Seville, Spain.
  • I feel a little bad about this, but I find the counterexample and arguments of the opposing voters persuasive, and I'm also finding that rolled-up thing in the background distracting, so I'm changing my vote to  Neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome, btw, nice expression! --The Photographer 20:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's also the reason why I enjoy it, you can almost feel that passion and pride Poco2 20:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The guy "hugging" her from behind is unfortunate, as is the silver microphone stand sticking into her right arm, and the green tint on her clothes is not great as well. Her dark green dress is preventing the separation from the cluttered background, which also has some shadows that further distract from the main subject. The overal image looks underexposed (could be a fair representation of the venue, of course, but still I would have brightened it up to reveal more detail in the dress, and it just feels like it should be brighter because of stage lights). As leg action is important in Flamenco, it would have been better to include more at the bottom. As it is, it is a very centered and IMO too high framing. I struggle to regard this as one of the best pictures we have, sorry. – LucasT 21:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Her face looks much too red. White balance, color saturation, or something else? Yann (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I remember this series well from QIC and even then I didn't think they were that great. He expression and pose is very much flamenco, but the light is not the best, the background is very busy and the crop is too high. Flamenco is just as much about the legs and feet of the dancer, so it would have been great if there had been less space above her head and more of her legs showing. Sorry. --cart-Talk 22:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Yann's comment and other opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per others I'm afraid. -- Colin (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Will have a look into it tonight and see how I can improve it Poco2 11:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've uploaded a ✓ new version, Yann, do colors look now better to you?
Lucas: the new version is a bit brighter, but I don't think that it depicts the scene necessarily in a more realistic way the way I observe it. Regarding background and colors I can only say that it was an stage, with limelights and a lot of other musicians and generally it was quite dark and I tried to take pictures when the lights were powered on, otherwise it would be very noisy. Do you find this other shot better?
cart, to me flamenco is a very passionate dance and I enjoy the face expression of the dancer. It is of course a lot of work with legs and hands, too, but that was not the purpose of this shot. What do you think about this one? Poco2 19:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The colors look better now. All the different shots from this performance have elements that taken together would be great, but I don't think that one of the lone photos is quite there. For me a really good flamenco pic would be something like this. That photo has the intense concentrated expression, the pose, movement and it is full-figure with a less messy background. Sorry. --cart-Talk 19:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with cart. While the other photos might be better, I think they still would have a hard time becoming FP because of the background, at least for me. – LucasT 19:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2017 at 22:02:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Apollo's Chariot in Palazzo Barberini by Giuseppe Bartolomeo Chiari
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2017 at 21:59:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

St Gregory the Great by José de Ribera
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2017 at 14:55:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Oppose Nice place, how I envy you that escape to a better climate. However, this photo is not working for me. If you are going to have a rock as center piece, all of it needs to be sharp, now some focus fall on the gravel in front of it (maybe a two-pic focus stacking could have helped). The background is also unbalanced. The high cut cliff to the right and the people there is too much. I think it would have been better to turn the camera more to the left and get only sea and the far off cliffs as backdrop or more to the right and had just the great white cliff. Also, I'm all for authenticity, but a little analogue editing (such as turning the stone) could have left us without the center of focus being something that looks like bird droppings... --cart-Talk 15:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per cart, who covers what's wrong with this image which could otherwise be featurable so thoroughly there is no need to add to it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Cart. lNeverCry 04:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 04:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 16:43:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Graft union on vines in Lysekil
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Vitaceae
  •  Info A vineyard is probably not the first thing that comes to mind when you think of a small, cold, boring, northern town in Sweden. However, the owners of a restaurant by an allotment area has created just that, to everyone's delight. The very low and sharp winter sun lit up all the knobs from grafting and pruning on the vines in a spectacular way. I'm also looking forward to some more photos there in spring and summer when the real action starts in the vinyard. -- cart-Talk 16:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- cart-Talk 16:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I read your nomination text and file description, and I couldn't figure out what the photo is supposed to be about. Then I followed the link on the file description and went back to the photo to search for the graft union (to be fair, that word was new to me). Well, I found it in the photo, I think, but my point is the photo is not very clear in showing what the subject is. My first reaction was that it looks like a random shot of dry twigs, something I catch myself producing too often. The subject separation from the dry grass behind is also not great, the shadows too, and there are some elements out of focus that I would have welcomed to see sharp, like the steel rod there, just because they are so prominent and nearby that it looks weird to have them slightly blurred. Generally, parts of the surface go in and out of focus so that visually, I'm never quite sure what to look at, my eyes struggle to find a resting point anywhere. – LucasT 17:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination Since the good people at QIC also have some trouble with this photo, it is only fair that I withdraw it here too. I may try again with one of the other "knots", we'll see. Thanks! :) --cart-Talk 22:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 05:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peace lily - 2.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2017 at 19:06:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The flower of a Peace Lily
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 04:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2017 at 19:28:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Taxidermy of a Eunectes murinus 's skin on display at the Museum of Veterinary Anatomy FMVZ USP.
Hi @Ikan Kekek: , there is no possibility of indicating this image to the QI, because the author is not a Commons user. The spots on the black background are particle air and environment, but I believe this can be improved by users. -- Lucas.Belo (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right about QI. I'm not feeling impelled to vote for a feature for this picture. I probably would if the dust was digitally cleaned, but maybe I'm being unreasonable. In any case, I won't vote against a feature, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 04:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2017 at 22:31:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Denmark
  •  Info This picture is from the thatched summer houses located at the most western point of Denmark; Blåvandshuk. The burned down house in the foreground was hit by lightning on Nov 19, 2016 and rapidly burned down due to its thatched roof. I am intrigued by the contrast between the ruin and intact houses partially hidden in sand dunes in the background, which are all very expensive (300000-70000$ market price) Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Slaunger (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The neighbors are all thinking about switching to shingles or tiles... lNeverCry 01:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment how about a entry at Wikinews about this event? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 01:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose No wow for me. I guess if the burnt house stood out more starkly than it does, I might have supported. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose A great documentary photo, but it has no artistic line or element that makes me go 'wow'. Such old/new or in this case burned down/still standing comparative photos are always hard to get right. There are so many unfortunate but interesting features that a burned building provides for a photo. Perhaps a pic lining up and focusing on the chimneys (burned and not) or something would have worked better, or even a solitary photo of the burned house in that sea of grass. Sorry. --cart-Talk 14:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the review, cart. You nail it pretty well in your review and i understand what you mean. I am standing on top of a dune such that I have an elevated vantage point and the ruin can better be seen. But I agree the composition and alignment is not striking, and I can't move the dunes. The February light on the day did not give much to work with either. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 05:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2017 at 10:36:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cormorants in Lake Prespa, near the village of Oteševo, Macedonia

Alt version

[edit]

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 05:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grumazi - Mariovo.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2017 at 11:20:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rocky terrain near the village of Grumazi, Mariovo, Macedonia
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 05:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2017 at 11:18:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
@Colin: you very likely right, thanks you, it's done. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2017 at 21:10:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2017 at 22:20:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hann glacier at Johan Petersens Fjord, South East Greenland
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2017 at 22:30:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mountain laurel illuminated by dappled, early-morning light in a New York forest
Beer, actually . Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Colin, interesting suggestion. I tried the 16:9 crop and set it so the row of flowers near the top would still be in the frame, but I wonder if I should have included more of the bottom instead. Thoughts? –Juliancolton | Talk 22:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that cropping off the cut flower is an improvement. However, losing the bottom also is less good imo. The original bottom crop had natural framing with the vegetation and led in from the bottom left corner. So if you're not bothered about a precise 16:9 then I suggest keeping your top crop but restore the bottom. However, an alternative of a 16:9 with just the top removed, focuses the eye more on the stump imo. I'm not sure about making too many edits to the original since many people have already voted. You could offer an alt and ping people. -- Colin (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case the 16:9 version is definitely not an improvement IMO, however much Colin likes the pics to fill his screen. You killed the mood of the scene, this feels suffocating and totally airless. We lost the deep shadows surrounding the stump and the flowers that made up the contrast of the photo. If this is the final version, I'm pulling my support. The only way this could have worked as a Colin-sized 16:9 pic was if more space had been added to the sides of the photo, but I guess that is out of the question. Not every photo looks good in standardized proportions, most of the time it's better to let the motif decide the crop instead of trying to cramp something inside some pre-fab format. --cart-Talk 23:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree, honestly... I wasn't thrilled with the new crop, but I like to try everything once. Colin, I can still suggest an alt 16:9-ish crop if you think it's an improvement, but I think I'll leave the original intact for reasons both you and Cart mentioned. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cart, just to be clear, the crop I suggested was not the one made, and I agree that was inferior. I wanted to keep the deep shadows at the stump. Wrt the flowers, well the cut-off one at the top centre keeps drawing my eye (all the lines lead up to it). And also, wrt "cramp something inside some pre-fab format", the original image was 3:2 exactly, so was simply the pre-fab ratio that the camera chose, rather than one arranged round the motif. I try various crops, and sometimes find a standard one works, and so is easier to communicate. And a screen filling image is pleasing, if it has no other flaws. Whether the 16:9 was "totally airless", or (in my suggested crop) "concentrating just on the stump", are all options/opinions we can consider, though one gets influenced by what one sees first, and what one knows has been removed. IMO, this image would be improved by taking a very thin cut to the top, to remove the cut-off flower, and that would be a non-standard proportion arranged round the motif! I was actually influenced to try 16:9 by Julian's comment that a dark background helps -- the framing of a picture can make quite a difference to how it appears, and our electronic photo frames only come in one size these days. -- Colin (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family : Ericaceae
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2017 at 03:29:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

I am not sure about the crop, commons has few photos of this plane as only a few are left. LMK if you think a alt with a different crop would work better before rejecting the photo. Thanks

 Comment User:Lucasbosch The "Clutter" is what we call a "Hanger". You see them on most airports. It is used to store the other parts for the airplane. If you review the [Category:Lockheed Super Constellation] you will see that ALL of the photos of this plane are close to a decade old, and quite poor in quality. You have nice studio photos, this is not a photo that can be taken in a studio. Moving the sun & a airplane that has not moved in 6 years to get a shot without the "Hanger" was I am afraid not a option without an extra 50k for the crew to move it and a FAA permit... --Don (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don, I am not comparing this in my mind with studio photos, I realise the differences. The hanger in the background just is visually interfering with the plane, so the brain needs to work out what is plane and what isn't. I imagine you wanted to show this side of the plane together with some context (=hanger), but it just didn't work out well enough for a FP in my view. – LucasT 16:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lucas, the FP section is not about WOW, it is about quality when subjected to a comparison of similar photos, on Commons and I think sometimes this gets away from people. Over the last 2 offerings your comments have been similar in tone so I would like to offer this: no airplane of this nature would ever not have a hanger of service personal attached to it, this photo tells a complete story. The fact that only a handful of Super Constellations are left makes this in terms of it's technical features, when compared to the other photos of a on Commons worthy of consideration for FP, "what is the photos value to the project(?) considering weight, composition and technical aspects as well as difficulty of acquisition, all the others are on display in a museum or rotting in rust piles. This with the fact that I took it with my phone, as noted above should also be considered (imho) as, over the 7 years I have contributed the "pre req" for FP equipment showing that anyone could "in theory" take a photo with a regular phone that could become a FP, that was one of the original aspects of this section. My 2 cents for what it is worth.. Cheers and thank you for your wonderful contributions! --Don (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don, there is QI for purely technically good photos, there is VI for rare and unique photos and there is FP for the best of the best, where good photography is at display, be it taken with a smartphone or vintage camera. The wow factor is a small part, and it can be achieved by many factors. I appreciate that your photo is realistic in that it shows the hanger with the plane, but as I explained above the visual separation is not enough. Separation is an aspect of good photography in my and many other's opinion and I find your photo just not visually appealing because of it. In theory it would be possible to have the hanger and the plane both in the frame and have them not being mushed into eachother. The fact that it was taken with a smartphone is something I don't consider at all as FP is about the photograph itself. – LucasT 18:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2017 at 14:45:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nicosia, Cyprus: view from Shacolas Tower at Ledra Street (see also image notes)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2017 at 23:49:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sink and taps in the men's locker room
  • Haha, Colin. Since we are only two females on the premises as opposed to about 40 men (now why does that strike me as familiar...) our little closet-sized restroom only has a small normal sink sort of like this. Not so many interesting shapes there. ;) --cart-Talk 17:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reevaluated the photo and it seems you were aligning more on the faucets themselves, which have offsets each, and not on the bases, which resulted in a shifted camera position. As my alignment suggestion might look slightly worse in the end, I strike my oppose. – LucasT 08:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lucas. This object has none of the heat-sink-like perfection you are used to shooting. ;) It is old and wonky, none of the taps are straight or in their original positions and the sink is battered and askew. The locker room has been subjected to hundreds of tired welders and ironworkers since the 1930s so it was really a nightmare to find some camera position that rendered some sort of symmetry. I had to choose the lesser of at least twelve evils. You can probably see this in some of the other photos from the same series. Speaking of awkward camera positions, check out this snap for how I got the camera centered for the lockers! (result yet to be uploaded) :) --cart-Talk 11:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Others
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2017 at 19:42:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •  Info all by El Grafo -- El Grafo (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info OK, @W.carter, Martin Falbisoner, and Ikan Kekek: you called for it, so let's have some fun with this. This is the kind of picture I like to take just for myself and I had no intention of uploading it at Commons until … well, I'm just gonna blame it on those three mentioned before ;-) Somebody liked the view of that place well enough to drag a chair out into the shrubs, so I figured it might be worth a shot. So what do you all think (and please be blunt and honest)?
  •  Info Before you all ask: Yes, I know it is quite grainy, and there are multiple reasons for that. First, it was taken on HP5+, which is a fast film with a classic (i.e. non-T-grain) emulsion and thus pretty grainy by default. Second, it was shot in common 35mm film format (a.k.a. "Full Frame"), which due to it's relatively small size has much more apparent grain than the Medium- or Large Format film studio portraits we all have grown to enjoy here. Third, it was snowing like crazy at that moment and it's difficult to determine what's grain and what's a snow flake in the distance :-p.
  •  Support -- El Grafo (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Support I'll support this for the pleasantry that it presents, even though this level of grain is not normal on a non-pushed HP5 shot. -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)  Neutral After reading Lucas' comment about the grain obscuring the snowfall I have to go neutral on this. -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment @KennyOMG: For what it's worth, this one is indeed much grainier than any other shot from that roll, so even though I don't know what kind of soup the lab cooked it in, I'm pretty sure they're not to blame for this. I'm still pretty new to film, so any ideas on what might have caused this are very welcome: while I actually consider the grain a feature rather than a bug for this image, I'd like to find out if this is something I can influence. Maybe it was under-exposed a bit and my scanner quasi-pushed it? --El Grafo (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure there are people around here who know much more about film than I do but yes, generally it pops out like this when you push the film either during development or scanning/printing. Normally it blends in fairly pleasantly with the rest of the image. Was looking for a full size scan but apparently don't have any with me right now. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually found one shot on HP5+ and uploaded, File:LHR_T5_early_morning.jpg. It's almost double the regular frame (24x65mm) and a softer scan but no work whatsoever besides that. The grain is apparent in medium greys but not in the whites like your the snow in your pic. Another thought is maybe you shot on expired film? -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure it was fresh film, but comparing the camera settings of this shot with others from that day, it looks like it might be under-exposed by about one stop. I tend to under-expose a bit on digital to save the highlights – a habit that's counter-productive on film, where you should be more concerned about the shadows … --El Grafo (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak support This is not bad at all! The graininess goes very well with the snowy dreamy landscape and the abandoned feel of the scene. The 'weak' in the support is only because of the vignetting (any chance of getting rid of that?) and it would have been better not to have the 7-9 twigs down left in front of the chair. A bit of analogue editing (such as holding those back with a foot) would have been better. If this is an example of what you do when we are not looking, I'd be happy to see more. :) This is artistic. --cart-Talk 20:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - I like it, but I'm not sure how I would have voted if you hadn't given some background about the photo above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't find the composition sufficiently interesting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Though some would disagree, I've come to believe, generally speaking, that there are two purposes of photography: photography for "technical purposes" and photography for art and aesthetics. Both are vital to one another, and usually, to some extent, the two cross with each other. Any accomplished photographer to some degree knows the technical side of photography, and most other people that own a camera probably strive to better learn it, though far less photographers consciously know or think about the "art side" of photography, and an even smaller minority of those people can actually work well with photography while treating it as art. Of course every good photographer thinks about their work, and can easily recognize a good image from a bad image or good composition versus bad composition, though less seem to think about stylistic choices to achieve effect, or simply just trying to break from the monotonous. I've only gotten into photography in the last couple of years, and don't remember a time when analog was considered superior to digital, though I've picked up the fact that when photographers shoot with actual film, they tend to think more about their image. I have an older Pentax film SLR that I've never used, and now after seeing this image on here, I too might order some film and try to give it a shot.
The photograph is very nice, and though there is grain, it doesn't feel that anything is lost, almost to the point where I don't even want to zoom in, I just like looking at it as a whole. Everything seems to work together, and the chair by itself is interesting in the natural scenery; reminds me (maybe because of the stenciled letters on the chair) of photos from World War II or the Vietnam War because of the film and grain, making it feel distant or far away. WClarke 00:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support OK, my turn. Much has been said above already, so just a few inconherent thoughts. Every single "technical issue" here (as conventionally defined by our off-the-shelf voting patterns) is a major feature - not a bug. The picture wouldn't work for me, were it not for the heavy grain, vignetting, the spots and bruises of the film's surface. It conveys a feeling of wabi-sabi - although Bavaria's far from Nippon and Zen doesn't really accept the snugness of chairs. Bluntly speaking, a technically perfect image of a not so interesting chair in bad weather would be interesting maybe, but not much more. Another approach: When viewed at full screen, the picture appears almost a bit pointilistic - and thus pictorialist - which makes it a bold and determined atttempt at art. It could have been made around 1900. Only the contemporary chair doesn't fit at all, a striking punchline. Chapeau! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak oppose The scene with the chair is lovely and has storytelling potential, but the grain is more of detriment than a feature in my view, because it obscures whether there was actual snowfall at the time or not (there was, but it's made less visible). Better visible snowfall would have been a clear plus for the photo, and I can't personally substitute all that heavy film grain for snow. I never shot film, was too young for it, so I have no emotional connection, so these are my feelings with that. The grain doesn't add anything good to the image for me personally and as KennyOMG wrote it looks obsessively grainy and the photo might have been pushed too far in the processing per his comments. FP are the best of the best and I struggle to place this photo in this league. While I don't want to give too much importance to technical quality, in my view there is a point where technical flaws stand between the viewer and the scene itself, and I feel this has reached that point for me. – LucasT 08:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support "I don't even want to zoom in, I just like looking at it as a whole." (WClarke). I often take the sort of picture where I want you to zoom in all the way to 100% and explore it in minute detail. Other times, if you look at the photos at 100%, you're completely missing the point. -- Colin (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Too much going on in the background for me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per King of Hearts and others. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I still shoot film sometimes and love a bit of natural grain, but as others have noted, the grain is excessive here - beyond what I would consider an aesthetically pleasing amount. I won't pretend to know whether it was introduced during developing or scanning or digital processing, but it does detract from the image. I'm undecided on how I feel about the image as a whole, but I don't think it's fair to characterize concerns about technical quality as mere forest-for-the-trees pixel peeping in this case. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Good to see that you're still shooting film. I've also recently taken some photos on 35mm HP5 film ([11], [12]) but the results were far from being as grainy as yours. I suppose there went anything wrong with the development. However, graininess is not really a thing for me as I like film grain a lot but I don't think that the photograph has sufficient wow for being FP. --Code (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Detail of pergola in vinyard.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 11:55:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Detail of pergola in vinyard

File:Photoelasticity - Clear CD case centre.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2017 at 21:11:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Photoelasticity of a clear CD case
  • To get this much magnification (the image is about 35mm across), the case is only a few cm from the front of my 30mm macro lens. The depth of field is less than 1mm and the feature is a few mm deep. -- Colin (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:PIA21465 - North Polar Layers.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2017 at 11:19:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sedimentary water ice layers in Mars' north polar region.
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ezarateesteban 13:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2017 at 00:40:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A north view of Charles Bridge from Mánesův most, Prague
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 07:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2017 at 11:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Crepuscular ray of light in the north dome room of the Jameh Mosque of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
Nice to see your spanish well written!. Sometime i leet spanish message to Poco because I know that his mother language is spanish, however, it could result impolite for the non spanish. --The Photographer 00:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Photographer, you can thank Google for that, as I don't speak a word. I refer to the recent conversation on Talk FPC. Why is it impolite for you to use your native language? One of us has to translate, and why should it be you? -- Colin (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience google translator work better translating from some languate to english and not the opposite. Also, communication process could be easier using English only. I love my mother language because there are several words that otherwise i could not explain, however, I think that maybe English should be used because it's the universal language in Wikimedia commons (It's not like Wikipedia where the local language is used). In addition, people from English-speaking countries rarely learn/translate other languages (The same apply to french). Maybe using both languages could work, however, it would create visual noise --The Photographer 12:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2017 at 07:45:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Zollverein Coal Mine Industrial Complex, Essen, Germany, escalator to former coal washing plant.
  • I guess, Charles, you're referring to the building in the background. Normally I'd agree. In this case, however, I beg to differ. The viewer is looking up, consequently lines are converging. A perpendicular angle might be possible, I guess, at least theoretically. But I'm not sure a perspective like that would really help the composition here. It may appear a bit unnatural then. When stepping on an escalator, people tend to look up (or down, coming from the opposite direction). Especially when keenly observing someone standing on the far end. And as this image is generally playing a bit with a couple of rather extreme contrasts, powerful colors, unusual shapes, and striking lines, the "distorted" background doesn't matter much, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Entzia - Hayas Txumarregi 01.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2017 at 17:52:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Beeches (Fagus sylvatica) on a rock near the summit of Txumarregi in the Entzia mountain range. Álava, Basque Country, Spain
 Comment Hi cart, as I always do, I really appreciate your opinion, so I've tried to put a series of radial unsharpness filters around the "face" but technically the result doesn't convince me and it doesn't convince me either from the "ethical photographer's" point of view. IMO this would be too much modification of reality so please forgive that I won't upload a new version. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2017 at 13:30:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Disabled girl selling matches
  • I've been compared to many things, but never to an art work!! Charles ([[User talk:Charlesjsharp|talk
  • You are correct, some of the signature is missing. I missed that. The museum cropped the photo. I found an other, smaller picture that shows the frame, which confirms it. It has a lower resolution though. (753x1200p) Should I withdraw the nomination ? --oSeveno (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest withdrawing it. You're not going to get an FP for an incomplete version of a painting. It's too bad though - this is a great painting. She has just the same look I used to have when I was working, especially on busy Monday mornings. lNeverCry 04:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2017 at 22:07:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Small red damselflies (Ceriagrion tenellum) mating, the female is form typica
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 00:36:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ancient town of Kourion near Limassol, Cyprus. Early Christian Basilica. Taken at sunset.
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2017 at 22:21:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of one of the domes of the Kushak located in the center of Fin Garden, city of Kashan, Iran.
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2017 at 16:18:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Beautiful, Picturesque, Colourful
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 04:21:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cocos Monastery, Romania
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 11:52:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tuy International Bridge
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Superfície - bordo trifólio.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2017 at 04:19:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mathematical surface which the boundaries are the trefoil knot.

Colin did you open the file page? This is a part of digitalisation project, we are filming, photographing, and with the help of community, improving mathematical articles around this objects. Some pieces we are render in a computer, some pieces we are taking files that able print objects in a 3D printer. My paper is to photograph, as the best I can, this is part of the agreement. And I darkened it deliberately as a result of complains on other similar objects evaluated here, saying that the reflex derail the attention of the object, that is why this it is so dark. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 01:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you darkened it too much. Why show a full reflection if not for it to add something? I think it is so dark here that much of the frame is taken up by something you can barely see. If you take a square crop, say, then you have a little reflection (which I'd still lighten compared to this) that indicates the object is on a reflective surface but doesn't take up so much dominance in the frame. My comment about computer rendering is that by taking a photo stack to achieve front-to-back sharpness, you end up with something closer to a computer render than a photo. It isn't actually sharp front-to-back, and the lighting isn't great imo, so I think you've not succeeded in demonstrating "photography" wrt models. If there was demonstrable relatively shallow depth of focus, and clever lighting, then you could achieve something that is more like photography. And if you added something natural, like a fabric, wood, fur, skin, sky, water, etc, then you might get some nice contrast between a pure mathematical model and an impure world. It's your project, of course, but computer images are often boring because the are too simply rendered, so why emulate that in a photo when you can do better? -- Colin (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2017 at 06:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Answer: This cyclamen is in the same forest path but in a very different place. The leaves have a different design, are smaller in stature and many masaler present. The plant is also older than the previous one.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: the leaves have different designs and colors. The size of the blade is also different. The Cyclamen hederifolium seedlings are often selected on those differences. These pictures show how Fascinating nature can be.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Elburgo - Bosque y campo 01.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 19:50:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Recently planted field in front of Portuguese oak woodland, near Elburgo. Álava, Basque Country, Spain
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2017 at 22:45:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Culture of Morocco
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2017 at 08:40:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lion in Kenya
  • Charles, I think you need to check why your signature is not displaying your name. This is not the first time it dissapears. Or at least add you name manually to the timestamp if you see that it is missing. --cart-Talk 12:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 11:18:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Swiss Air Force/Patrouille Suisse Northrop F-5E Tiger II display team at ILA Berlin Air Show 2016.
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Air transport

File:Distribution board and wall in workshop.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 20:47:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Distribution board and wall in workshop
  • Because my camera is not as good as yours. ;) The light conditions were very bad and I wanted to sort of document the whole wall in the way you do with a work of art, with each part as sharp as possible. The only way for me to do that was to divide the wall into nine sections for my focus point, plus two more for the different levels on the fuse boxes. I know my camera's limitations and I have to be innovative to compensate for them. --cart-Talk 10:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support You see things in the world similarly to how I see things. WClarke 20:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry for spoiling the party but sadly it doesn't work for me. The switchbox is too small in the frame to fully appreciate the details you are talking about and the empty wall is just too boring for me. Not saying that I need explosions there, but as it is I can't appreciate it enough for FP. If everything would be a bit older and/or worn then maybe, showcasing more human influence over time. The flat light doesn't help the atmosphere, yes this is normal at the place, but photographically it's a detriment for me. A well aligned photograph of an industrial wall which I can't get enough enjoyment out of. – LucasT 20:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 22:17:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Brown-eared bulbul at Tennōji Park in Osaka, March 2017.
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2017 at 02:07:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Thanks for clarifying the birds behavior do us non-bird-savvy. Although, I would agree that this bird is "in action" much the same way as a sniper is, waiting on a hill, drawing a bead on his target, even if he is motionless. --cart-Talk 11:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The definition is superior to the en:wp FP Charles links (one needs to downsample 70% to get the birds to be the same size based on beak length, and the other image has had too much NR which has considerably reduced the detail especially in the head). I think the fact that the bird is hunting compensates for the stick. -- Colin (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support For me the intensity of the pic transcends the mere 'identify species' part. This is like a Hiroshige wood print capturing a moment (or several) before the strike. --cart-Talk 11:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question - Am I the only one who thinks that stick sticking up is fine? I think it makes the form more interesting (for example, by complementing the branch that is slanting the other way), and it doesn't block view of the bird in any important way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 20:21:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Hunedoara Castle (Vajdahunyadi vár), Romania
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 02:51:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • No, not that. That's fine. Look at the paper at full size, and you'll see dark spots on it, below her hand. Maybe I'm being too nitpicky, as your photo is at quite a high magnification. I'll think about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daniel Case there is a little story... I was photograping the bracelets made by a friend of mine, stricktly catalog-type images for her web page and my daughter walked in... we started talking about displaying the bracelets on a model and doing some experimenting with the few resources we had at hand, and trying to manage the scale issue, the visual elements and so on, and this is one of the images that came out. More important, however, are the problems that this type of photography poses with regards to scale, ambience, etc. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:PIA11178 - The Contrasting Colors of Crater Dunes and Gullies.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 21:28:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gullies in Galle crater, Mars.
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 17:13:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Žadvainiai Lake, Šiauliai district, Lithuania
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2017 at 11:38:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Southern Argentina and Chile.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 19:07:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Envisat image, dominated by southern Argentina
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Камени гробници на необичните карпи на Маркови Кули.JPG

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 13:44:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stone tombs and a rock in the shape of lizard, Marko's Towers, Prilep, Macedonia
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Панорама на Гари 1.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 00:42:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of the village of Gari, Macedonia
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:DIG14022 017.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 16:26:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/DIG14022_017.jpg
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rusting chairs.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 05:01:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Трамвај на Таксим.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 13:33:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Istiklal Avenue, Istanbul, Turkey
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Juskaiciai II.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 17:14:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Surroundings of the village Juškaičiai II, Šiauliai district, Lithuania
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Lower resolution than 2 million pixels. --Laitche (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grabkapelle auf dem Württemberg Stuttgart Rotenberg 2015 03.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 18:46:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Württemberg Mausoleum in the Rotenberg part of Untertürkheim in Rotenberg, Stuttgart, Germany.
  • Apparently each of the 3 frames was 84 degrees wide, not the full panorama. I'm not sure how much overlap there was between those frames, but a rule of thumb in my opinion is to avoid rectilinear images with more than 120 degree horizontal field of view. dllu (t,c) 00:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 120 degrees is equivalent to a 12mm lens on full frame, which is about as wide as you get for rectilinear lenses and pretty extreme. The EXIF data says 130 degrees for the FOV but if that comes from Hugin, then it doesn't take into account any cropping. It is architectural features such as circular or cylindrical objects, and people, where the eye gets most upset by the distortion. The solution is only to get further back from the subject, if that is possible. -- Colin (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak support I like super-wide rectilinear stuff. But I would personally crop more closely to the building - cut out the tree on the right and the sign on the left. Sharpness at the sides is not the best, and this would reduce that problem. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination Thank you for the reviews. I do see the problem with too much distortion at the edges here. Getting further away is not easy as it's located on a hill, but I'll definitely try since the location is not too far away from where I live. — Julian H.✈ 12:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kosciuszko Main Range from Charlotte Pass 1.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2017 at 12:35:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •  Info The Kosciuszko Main Range and Snowy River as seen from Charlotte Pass lookout, NSW Australia.
  •  Info all by me -- Thennicke (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose On first look I wanted to oppose, then thought about it and was actually writing about why I support it. Something felt off, still, so after taking a good look at it again I noticed that indeed the foreground is sunlit. This is a problem because the contrast for the whole image just doesn't work. One would rightfully expect the sun lit leaves to be much brighter, the grass to be more saturated, and the whole scene to have more life in it in general. However! If this is indeed a faithful representation of how it looked in reality and not an "artistic choice" (ie ps work) I'm prepared to retract my oppose and even change it to support. If the look is indeed a choice then sorry, I don't like it. -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a cloudy day, so no direct sunlight was involved - what you may be perceiving is that the vegetation actually changes in the distance to a darker shade, with mosses and bog. This is as faithful to reality as I could make it, I assure - I am not a fan of overprocessed images. -- Thennicke (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look in the foreground. The people walking and the tree next to them have a semi-definied shadow, but the branches closer to the camera cast a clearly defined, dark shadow on other branches. The overall effect looks like someone pulled the highlights down a lot, which pushes it to surreal category in my head. Otherwise I like both the comp and the atmosphere of the upper part of the image. In any case (unfortunately) I think it won't matter much whether I strike this oppose or not. :\ -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess, as an Australian, where it is almost always sunny, this kind of light is actually special to me (and emblematic of our rare alpine ecosystems), but I understand your perspective -- Thennicke (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand yours, too. When I visited London during the summer in 2010, when my girlfriend and I were hanging out with a Londoner, he specially picked a sunny table for us to sit at, whereas in New York, we always seek out shade. It's all a matter of perspective. But I'd love to see this view during a sunset or sunrise. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Japanese Municipal São Paulo Market, Brazil.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 16:50:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Japanese Municipal São Paulo Market, Brazil.jpg
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flatirons Sunrise.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 22:53:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Flatirons winter sunrise
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 14:05:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Elisabeth Niggemann
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2017 at 16:49:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Famiglia Mancini, São Paulo, Brazil
I rollbacked the noise reduction, let me know if it is more sharpen for you :) --The Photographer 17:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much more uniform now. Before, there were places that were noisy and/or unsharp. Now, it's all noisy. :-) It's quite an interesting photo, though. I'll live with it and see how I react to it later. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Charles and Ikan Kekek --The Photographer 18:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This camera is actually amazing, however, maybe this picture is not the better example (this picture was taken in low light conditions and without tripod). I was walking over the street and I saw that beautiful shoot in a restaurant. There are some things I still can not understand in the camera, however, I'm slowly learning. The camera is considerably lighter and its small appearance hides a great power. I must confess that I feel like an 8 year old boy receiving a gift --The Photographer 11:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose too noisy, and the focus seems to be wrong, in the back wall, not in the middle, or in fountain, the framing is not good, the lack of the bottom of the fountain creates a weirdness, and you could go to 1/18 s hand-held with this lens... The method to sharping was not good, highly increased the noise in a very noisy picture. There is CR in the mirror, and other artifacts in almost all lamps. And in the edges have distortions referent to the 18mm lens. Most of it you can improve.
And this is a opinion, I would prefer a restaurant in service, crowd, with people, movement, especially a cantina.
Keep shooting. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 00:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice idea!, let me print 40 pages of forms to ask permission for each people in the restaurant --The Photographer 13:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just like you request for the homeless? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Colin, thanks for your noise critique. I asked permission to take a photograph, however, it was not allowed to use a tripod. I had only one opportunity to make this photo before the people arrived. BTW, I applied more NR, please, let me know what do you think. --The Photographer 13:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Generally the new version is a good balance between the original and the noisier one. For example, the striped shirt of the man in the mirror is better defined than the first version. However, the map seems to have lost some detail compared to other versions. It's not a big deal, but I know you like to get it right. -- Colin (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent critique, let me see how improve it this weekend. I love your critiques (support or oppose) because you not only show me the problem, you are trying to explain me how fix it. Thanks a lot. --The Photographer 19:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: I rollbacked to the first version adding the bottom (recomendation by Charlesjsharp) and sharpening (recomendation by Ikan Kekek) --The Photographer 16:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - I think this is probably the best version, overall, but there are some disconcertingly smudgy areas on the fountain, and while the composition is definitely interesting, I'm not totally convinced by it. Therefore, I'm glad you took this photo, but I will remain neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Iceland - 2017-02-22 - Gullfoss - 3684.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 23:38:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Waterfalls of Gullfoss under the snow in Iceland
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 21:23:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Laguna Colorada, Bolivia.
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2017 at 21:14:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A pair of mute swans (Cygnus olor22) and six cygnets
Striking support per concerns detailed below. When am I gonna learn to just wait for Colin to vote first? lNeverCry 04:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
after reading Colin's comments, I agree that the greyscale conversion is too far from reality for me as well, so I strike the support. – LucasT 21:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have added the retouched picture template to the file page. Didn't think it was needed for the editing I'd done. Colin is (understandably) mistaken as to the editing process. The original version I uploaded had brown feathers as a result of poor editing. As everyone knows, adult swans don't have brown feathers. I caused the grey by too aggressive reduction of blown highlights! Charles (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The requirements are that "extensive manipulations" "should be clearly described " using the template parameter. It isn't sufficient just to mark the image as "retouched". How am I "mistaken" when you say you did a "BW conversion of the background". Your explanation of the near global desaturation of the scene (including the birds but excluding the orange) due to "too aggressive reduction of blown highlights" isn't credible, and contradicted by your comment below. There are natural real-world midtone greens and browns that have vanished. The green pond water has miraculously turned into black ink. The cynets have lost their natural colour, and adult swans may be generally white but their head and neck are often dirty coloured (see also this and this). The head and neck of an adult swan is a warm white, whereas these look like they've been washed in Persil. I have never in my life seen greyscale swans. This is not the sort of honest photography we require at FPC. -- Colin (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak oppose It has all the proper elements of a good photo, but yet the wow of it eludes me. There is a lack of spark in the photo and the black water looks more like mottled asphalt than a mysterious tern with white fluffy stuff. Perhaps it is the result of the partial BW conversion. Sorry. --cart-Talk 14:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left in the mottled water as I felt that was a key part of the picture. It wasn't affected by the BW conversion of the background which purely eliminated the green sheen on the water which I didn't like. It is of course supposed to represent family harmony, so 'spark' isn't likely! Charles (talk)
  • Really? What I did was I took the best of the "shades" from both the BW and the color version (since I didn't have the RAW), converted it (except for the beaks) to B&W. Then, as with all B&W conversions, you need much more "contrast", but not in the conventional sliding the lever thing, rather I upped all the highlights even more and darkened the shadows plus added extra light on some grey areas. Working with it I was thinking that I wanted the photo to look like the swans were floating free in a black starry sky. (Artsy bullshit, I know, but it sort of works.) Ok, I'll upload it over your version (scary!) but you can always revert. --cart-Talk 17:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For sure. Think of it as a public service. 19:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose As cart mentioned above, by BW conversion the shiny look of the feathers is gone. In color they look brown, but shimmering, whereas in BW the lack of color creates a dull grey. Maybe is is poosible to augment the brown part of the color spectrum (channel?) in the conversion a bit to preserve the nice shiny look? On the other side I feel some lack of balance, as the vertical center lies not on the 'family' but between the swans and their weaker mirrored pictures. This effect is stronger in the full screen view. --PtrQs (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 19:35:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dome of Cappella Paolina in Santa Maria Maggiore (Roma)
  • The WB,contrast and saturation are perfect. Geocode and the descripiption is the same of all my other FP however, I do not consider you an objective person as you know.Plus you are so offensive and naive that you think there isn't work behind? Only a camera on a tripod (on the floor probably put you) and that's it? But please be serious. So this discussion is useless as your comment,in my opinion. --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • LivioAndronico, you've been on good behavior (from what I've seen) since your return. Don't backslide and remember what happened before. Is this photo geocoded? Is there an Italian-language description? I see you didn't address those things. And the question of who painted the frescoes is one I've given up asking you but previously wanted to know. I'm tending to find Code's sober expression of opinion more persuasive than your hot dismissal of him. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ikan Kekek: say:"Just placing one's camera on the floor and uploading the result to Commons is just not enough for FP in my opinion." it is definitely a nice way of saying something, but treated as a child, especially after more than 100 FP. If for you it is a way of making nice, then I apologize, but I do not consider this, you can ask the saturation, artist, etc., but they are all things that one can "fix". --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Livioandronico2013: I'm sorry if I was wrong regarding the efforts you have to make to create such photos. I'm honestly curious: What else do you do to make such photos of ceilings? I really want to know as I'm always willing to improve my own skills. Concerning WB and saturation I still believe that they are far from being perfect. I know this church very well and that's not what it looks like. But well, maybe you're trying an artistic approach, then it might just be a matter of taste. --Code (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Code: What a question is that? .... Then what do you do more than point a camera on any object? The same is that these kind of photos and that is: perspective, cuts, contrast, saturation, etc. Then if you believe that the saturation etc are not to your taste is ok, but it is not respectful to others, or are more ignorant of you? Also write "Just placing one's camera on the floor and uploading the result to Commons is just not enough for FP in my opinion." is a compliment in germany i think --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hovewer ✓ Done Ikan Kekek --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 19:33:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

La Fornarina by Raffaello
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2017 at 22:27:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lighthouse beside the Montazah garden in Alexandria

Note:I withdraw the nomination. Thanks--Alaa :)..! 00:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 22:10:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Raven rattle", a rattle used by the Tlingit people of indigenous people from Cascadia. This image is provided by the Bowers Museum.
@Colin: That is all valid criticism. Before you brought it up none of it crossed my mind. In response to your "What's the purpose" question: As an infrequent but repeat user of the Commons grading systems I often do not know which process to use. I came here to get some validation back to the museum that the Wikimedia community had some critique of their submission and also to get some approval of the image in case I distributed it around multiple articles. Overall, I am looking for some image grading to justify more-than-typical reuse of images, and am ambivalent about what form that should take. If an image is suggested to be integrated across languages, and in Wikidata, and elsewhere, then it seems right to me to submit it for grading somewhere. If anyone ever wanted to have talks about reforming the grading process then I might talk about that, because I would not have minded grading process that could have had any of a number of outcomes like "FP", "QI", "suitable for broad circulation in other wiki projects", etc. Right now it is still fairly novel for museums to make media donations, but as this trend steps up, I would like for there to be clearer guidance about what Wikipedians can do to mediate between museums and the Commons community. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no unitary grading system. VIC, QIC and FPC have different criteria. Also, QIs have to be photographed by Commons members, whereas VIs and FPs don't have to. Check the Commons category, but this would seem to be a good VI candidate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit puzzled what you were expecting from FP. It's a perfectly reasonable picture, albeit with quite a lot of room left round the subject, and could be used in articles related to the subject. That's not really what we are judging here. While we aim (albeit imperfectly) to determine professional standards of technical quality in an image, we're also looking for something extra that takes it to be among our finest images. We need to be wowed, either by an amazing subject captured well or a mundane subject captured extraordinarily, or by amazing light, or a great moment, etc etc. One could set up a table with an infinite sheet of grey card, some soft boxes and a DSLR and snap away taking perfectly competent photos all day. They could be very useful documents of the collection of the museum and perfectly usable images, but what is special about them? Also, this photo is five years old, so you are not really getting feedback about what sort of photos they should take -- the photographer who took this has probably moved on long ago. Personally, I wish QI was merely a judge of a "professional quality; useful image" and didn't care about the image origins or some of the pixel-peeping that goes on. We lack that kind of grade and it seems to me the most useful one for our re-users because they could eliminate the poor quality images that one would need to be desperate to use. Btw, "suitable for broad circulation in other wiki projects" is unlikely to be a grading criteria. Commons is about more than WMF projects or the concerns of a MediaWiki user interface. I see the Bowers museum has a mission to "enrich lives through the world's finest arts and cultures" and "celebrate world cultures through their arts". If they believe that extends beyond the visitors to their museum, then sharing their collection with the world using freely licensed photos is one way. While Commons doesn't provide a great UI for viewing a collection, it does make it easy to share those images and permit their reuse elsewhere. Surely they should be mainly concerned with taking and offering the best photos they can, rather than worry about the opinions of half a dozen amateurs or their use on Wikimedia projects? Any professional photographer of artefacts will likely give better advice than anyone here can. -- Colin (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 10:24:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eurofighter Typhoon EF2000 (reg. 30+68) of the German Air Force (Deutsche Luftwaffe, Taktisches Luftwaffengeschwader 74) at ILA Berlin Air Show 2016.
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Air transport

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 08:36:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 11:39:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Floribeth Mora Diaz during the Canonization of Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 15:13:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Two wrestlers on horseback perform during the National Horse Games near Peak Lenin.
 Comment - I have a full sequence, but this is the original crop of this image. I could upload others and propose it as a set, maybe. -Theklan (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that depends on what else would be in the series, but I don't think I would vote to feature this picture, due to the tight crop and the other horse overlapping this one's nose. Others may differ, but I find that quite distracting. But then again, this is a very interesting subject with a beautiful background of snow-capped peaks, so I don't want to oppose, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have this others in Flickr: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. There are some other sports, but I want to make different nominations for best of each kind. If you think one of them is better, I could upload it, cancel this nomination, and start over again. -Theklan (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of them seem like FPs to me, but others may have a different opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Ikan; frankly I think this vertical orientation isn't the best framing and a lot of the mountains could be cropped out. (Although I must say this is an interesting take on riding bareback !) Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Megazostrodon sp. Natural History Museum - London.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 14:33:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Reconstruction of a Megazostrodon sp in the Natural History Museum, London. Megazostrodon is widely accepted as being one of the first mammals, appearing in the fossil record approximately 200 million years ago
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 08:31:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Private Diwan (Court building) of Shah Safi I of Persia
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 21:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sunlight and shadows on white cotton curtain
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 12:53:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Female in Carnival of Russafa, Valencia
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 10:24:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eurofighter Typhoon EF2000 (reg. 30+68) of the German Air Force (Deutsche Luftwaffe, Taktisches Luftwaffengeschwader 74) at ILA Berlin Air Show 2016.
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 18:32:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

GNV ATLAS (ship, 1990)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photoelasticity - TDK Head Cleaner, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 15:07:39 (UTC)

  • TDK Head Cleaner - Black background Polarising filter cancels out direct light from polarised light source
    TDK Head Cleaner - Black background
    Polarising filter cancels out direct light from polarised light source
  • TDK Head Cleaner - White background Polarising filter aligned with direct light from polarised light source
    TDK Head Cleaner - White background
    Polarising filter aligned with direct light from polarised light source
  •  Info Going further back in time than Compact Disc, here is a TDK Head Cleaner. The clear plastic is birefringent and demonstrates internal stress as coloured patterns (photoelasticity) when photographed using cross polarisation. In first photo, the polarising filter on the lens is at right-angles to the polarised light from the LCD monitor behind the cassette. This cancels out all the direct light, producing a black background. In second photo, the monitor was rotated 90°, aligning the polarised light with the filter. This lets through all the direct light, producing a white background. The colours are stronger in the first photo but also switched about (e.g., green and magenta). You can see a Juxtapose of the two images here. For reference, the cassette under normal light is shown in this photo. The pair of images demonstrate how rotation by 90° affects the interaction of polarised light with a polarised filter. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Colin (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support What a trip! Reality is overrated. --cart-Talk 15:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support out of pure interest, mostly, and also respect for the great focus on the subjects (the one on the left being cooler to me than the other). I'm still not quite sure I understand what you did, though. Did you produce some kind of spectroscopy? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More details on the setup/physics
  • Ikan, this is just the effect polarised light has on some clear plastic objects. You can see this effect yourself if you hold some clear plastic object in front of a white area on your computer monitor. I'm looking at my ruler right now and it sparkles. --cart-Talk 15:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)No high-tech equipment required. The physics is a bit beyond me, though I've linked to the relevant articles on WP. I've got an LCD monitor in the background, showing a white page and with the brightness turned up. The room is dark, so there is no other source of light, just what shines through the clear plastic. The LCD monitor has a linear polarisation filter in it, as part of how the display works. On my camera I also have a polarising filter. Modern polarisers for SLR cameras have a linear polarising filter on the outside layer of the glass and a quarter-wave plate on the inside that converts it to circular polarised light. This extra step is necessary as the optics of exposure meters and phase-detect autofocus systems do not work well if the light is linear polarised. For the purpose here, that extra layer isn't relevant, as it is the interaction of two linear polarising filters that matters. If they are aligned, then it lets through light and you see the white LCD. If one is rotated 90° then it lets through none of the light and you see black. The clear plastic interferes with polarised light, changing its polarity in a way that is wavelength (colour) dependent. Apparently the stress in the plastic affects this so photoelasticity is used in industry to examine the stress on a model (even if one does not intend to make the final product in clear hard plastic). This effect can be seen with one's own eyes -- there's no magic going on with the camera or in Photoshop. I haven't enhanced the saturation at all. As an aside, the quarter-wave plate on a circular polarising filter means that if you position it back-to-front, then it has no effect. -- Colin (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While Cart is right that one can see some effect with clear hard plastic held in front of one's LCD monitor, it is quite faint. One has to hold the object at just the right angle (which presumably is related to how light becomes polarised when striking a reflective surface at an angle). If I hold the cassette tape squarely in front of the monitor, I see no special colours at all. But if I twist it at an angle then colours start to appear like a weaker version of the white photo above. You need another linear polariser to get cross polarisation that demonstrates the full effect like with the black photo. If I hold the cassette tape up to the white overcast sky, then there are no colours, no matter what angle I turn it. -- Colin (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that full explanation, I just gave the CliffsNotes. ;) --cart-Talk 16:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, thanks for the practical explanation. I don't have a background in physics, so that Wikipedia article is Greek to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan I did physics for one year at university, and I found the WP articles tough going. I'm afraid much of the WP maths/physics articles are written for other mathematicians and physicists to read, and they resist all attempts to make them understandable by lay readers. One just has to glean what little one can. Btw, this effect only works with some clear hard plastics, but not others such as polythene. I think it is due to the way the carbon chains align and the injection-molding process used to manufature the product. -- Colin (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 21:58:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nikon D5500 with Nikkor AF-S DX 18-70 mm f/3.5-4.5 lens
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2017 at 13:07:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Caravan in Sahara
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Lorenzo Lotto - Madonna and Child with Two Donors - 77.PA.110 - J. Paul Getty Museum.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2017 at 20:17:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

painting by Lorenzo Lotto
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 13:42:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ruined armenian church inside Lori Berd (Lori Fortress), a 11th-century fortress located in the Lori Province, Armenia.
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 20:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

McClure Tunnel west
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2017 at 12:13:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2017 at 14:10:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Svartifoss, Iceland
I have so far tried this with Chrome and Edge. Instead of crashing, those browsers display a long series of symbols, among which the author's metadata is interspersed. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 18:48:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Trouts in the fishpond
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 20:27:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wood pigeons (Columba palumbus) in Oxfordshire
  •  Comment - I've been trying to figure out why I'm not yet feeling impelled to vote to feature this picture. I think it's because there's so much bokeh above the pigeons in the picture frame. I think that if you cropped out a bit more than half of it, I'd like the photo better and vote for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2017 at 22:55:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 18:02:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eliza is a contortionist from Germany
If I may, I think Livio was saying that he was joking, not that you were a joke. In Italian, "Carter, era un scherzo"; no "it" is necessary for meaning in Italian, but I think he left out a crucial comma by mistake. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So this is how international conflicts are started. ;) Italian has never been my strong side... --cart-Talk 18:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
more than anything else is a "european" conflict carter. --LivioAndronico (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ aridone @Code: @Yann: @Daniel Case: I think is fine now --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 19:47:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Famagusta, Northern Cyprus. Lala Mustafa Pasha Mosque / formerly St. Nicholas Cathedral
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Superfície - Bordo Trifolio Não Orientável.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 08:11:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mathematical non-orientable surface which the boundaries are the trefoil knot, object is part of the Matemateca (IME/USP) collection.
The Photographer trying to annoying me
  •  Comment I'm not expert in this area, however, I can read in the description that the first one is a Mathematical surface which the boundaries are the trefoil knot and the seccond one is Mathematical non-orientable surface. Maybe there are hundreds of mathematical representations of a trefoil knot and basically this kind of representation not change too much in form and color. BTW, could be nice see more description about this representation like how was it done (computer generated, for example). --The Photographer 11:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a photo, and no, there is this two. And you don't need to be a expert to compare and see how great the difference is... and why you complaining about that? We may have hundreds of sea shells, churches, mountains ... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 16:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Joalpe:
English: The image description comment that the "object is part of the Matemateca", please, could you tell us who is the author (not the image but the object). Thanks
Português: O comentário da descrição da imagem fala que o "objeto é parte da Matemateca", por favor, você poderia nos dizer quem é o autor (não a imagem, mas sim do objeto). Muito obrigado
--The Photographer 19:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This a mathematical object, so the form is not suitable for copyright, and the author attribution is not necessary.
I know that you are in this hunt for my head, just because I don't pet you, however you should calm down, you starting to shame yourself lying, inventing rules, and ignoring well know copyright bases...
So take a break and be content that you stop this candidature using the previous flaws pointed in the last round by Colin, even using a fallacious suggesting that the object was the same, the photo was computer made, as Colin pointed that was bad, live this moment of happiness and go find better things to do. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 07:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support ... and church interiors. Well captured and it belongs to be together with the previous nomination – feel free to make a group nomination next time for similar photos where there aren't many of the same kind. – LucasT 16:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm editing a huge volume of pieces, and this ones they stood out, that's why I didn't put together, I just edited it, and the other 2 weeks ago. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 00:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charlesjsharp ??
This is not the same object, you just vote in favour of one church? One painting? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 23:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I gave my opinion. So far, I did not oppose. So how many similar images, with the same artistic concept, but with slight differences and different colours, do you think should be promoted? 50? 100? 1000? 09:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Around 80.... The difference is not subtle, similar names don't make them equal... Panthera tigris, Panthera leo... And from 20 with the same quality I selected only 2... And how many Mathematical objects do we have in this quality? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Case, Fixed. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Грчка црква, Прилеп. (алт.).jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2017 at 20:25:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of the Transfiguration, Prilep, Macedonia
  • Thanks for the explanation. That could work for me if the church had been sharper and there wasn't such a pronounced blue shift; what caused that? Anyway, let's see what other people think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:View across Botany Bay from Inscription Point.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 21:28:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View across Botany Bay from Inscription Point
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 05:34:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Night view of Landsort
  •  Question - So this photo is not busy enough for you? :-) There doesn't seem to be much interest. But the voting period lasts 8 more days, so I will wait a bit longer before considering a withdrawal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I don't really understand the lack of interest, pro or con, in this image. Do you all just find it too subtle to interest you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, it's just such a routine seascape that wearily checks all the boxes: ultrawide lens, blue hour, rocky foreground, smooth water, horizon right in the middle. It's been done so many times before. The soft light and wispy clouds are nice, so I don't feel strongly enough to oppose, but I'd really want to see something a little more unique. There's so much potential in this scene, with the low moon and interesting rock formations, that in context the nominated image seems to lack the all-important wow factor. FWIW, I'd gladly support File:Landsort August 2016 14.jpg, another photo in the series that is much more compelling IMO. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 02:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 18:45:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tyrrhenische Mauereidechse / Podarcis tiliguerta
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kafka1906.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2017 at 22:47:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Frank Kafka

* Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Check now --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support to remove FPX. Not too bad for the time, and nice pose. Yann (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Any chance of getting rid of that ugly mark left by a paper clip (up right)? --cart-Talk 12:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose LivioAndronico, where on earth did you get this POS from? The quality is dreadful. It looks like it has been upscaled and sharpened. This file is a classic example of where Commons does a poor job with artworks. There are at least two different copies of this photograph, of varying quality and size, and they all have different sources. Yet nobody updates the "source" in the description. Can we have some honesty about where we pinch our photos? -- Colin (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really need specifics? It was horribly out of focus, with weird artifacts. But surely, you saw that yourself. But it looks like it's now 494 × 794 pixels and should be FPXed again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain to me where I asked you specific? Why do you invent things? Above is a photo of 1906, you know you do better? I do not believe. Be polite I just tried to help out in any case not answer questions that nobody made to you ... specific ... who gave it to you asked ... boh .... --LivioAndronico (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2017 -- 9273.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2017 at 17:25:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tree trunks in the game reserve in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 02:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, Park (Weseler Straße) -- 2017 -- 9197.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2017 at 17:05:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Narcissus in the park (at the Weseler Straße) in Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 02:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2017 at 07:25:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Crucifixion
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 02:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2017 at 07:14:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Angel's Chapel at Seckau Abbey
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 02:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2017 at 09:26:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Landscape in the Zletovo-Probištip Region of Macedonia with the villages of Zarapinci (left), Puzderci (right) and Kukovo (in the background)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 02:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2017 at 09:07:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Prilep seen from Marko's Towers
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 02:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2017 at 03:24:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This photo was taken while hiking in the mountains from the carpark at the Malga Mare power station to Lago Lungo (2,553m).
  • I really like the stones. I wouldn't object to a crop of the bottom if Agnes wants to do it. I'd hesitate to support a crop from the top, as I want to see some of the shape of the hills. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone has their own opinion, but I think part of the point of this picture is that you see a lot of bright sunlight without the sun in the picture to mess up the dynamic range. If the picture extended higher, I get the sense the sun would be in the picture very quickly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The composition doesn't reach the level of other landscape FPs. Yes, we don't want bright sunlight messing up the DR, but that could have been done without cropping trees. And I'm more concerned about the bottom crop, which appears chaotic, in my opinion. It's a great capture of course (I like the light), but I don't think it's the best of the best. -- Thennicke (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your signature excluded your name - Charles, I assume? Agnes, if you feel like doing some kind of crop that might satisfy the objections in this thread, please go ahead. If you prefer, you or I could just withdraw. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 02:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2017 at 21:33:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Head of the bust of Manuel Belgrano, Tandil, Argentina

Alternative version

[edit]

Another framing --Ezarateesteban 22:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC):[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 02:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2017 at 19:38:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

O'Brien's Castle, Inisheer, Ireland
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 02:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Osnabrück - Zoo - Suricata Suricatta 04.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2017 at 16:27:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Meerkat (Suricata Suricatta) at Osnabrück Zoo. Lower Saxony, Germany
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 02:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/March_2017&oldid=262759850"