Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2016 at 20:41:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bicyclist crossing De Hogesluis Amsterdam 2016-09-15-6775.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bicyclist crossing De Hogesluis Amsterdam 2016-09-15-6775.jpg
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the time spend on reviewing my nomination. I acknowledge the crticism about especially sharpness/blurryness of the bicylist. And Daniel Case, in fact it did not pass QI :-). -- Slaunger (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2016 at 10:34:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo October 2016-4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo October 2016-4.jpg
Support Yes, all sunsets are nice, but this is for me outstanding! Very good colors, light and mood. But of course a matter of taste, sunset FPC normally meet some opposition, like this 2008 FPC also from Alvesgaspar. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. If it weren't for the dead weight of the dark cloud in the upper right, I might have seriously considered whether to support, as I like the rest of the shapes, although I don't know if I would have supported, in the end. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a good photo of a nice three-toned (blue, grey, gold) sunset but not that extraordinary in my eyes. It looks a bit messy and has no wow-factor for me. Sorry. --cart-Talk11:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2016 at 00:06:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Пуздерци.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Пуздерци.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2016 at 00:45:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Epolet2.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Epolet2.png
Comment - If it's important, you can rename this file. We plan to add epaulettes through gadget "Add a note". Thank you for your attention! --Niklitov (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per The Photographer. There is no rule that says you have to use Photoshop; there is certainly software that could be used to create an .SVG version. It's easier to translate, for one thing. Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice drawings, but I miss explanations. Russian Empire ? Since which emperor or empress ? Ivan IV ? Is the set of epaulettes complete ? I don't think so. I don't understand the n° series "medical". Many questions. This looks a bit messy for me, even if I'm admirative with the visual result. But I feel doubt regarding the value...--Jebulon (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your qestion! 1) Russian Empire. 2) Classification not later than 1855. Examples after 1904 (for the Cavalry after 1908). A full set should contain 13 samples (Subaltern-officers, staff-officers and generals' + the lower ranks of cavalry). Metal skirt? (bezel?, neck?) only for military medical officials, and from 1894 to 1906 for the Navy engineer-mechanics. Doctors, consisting the civil service, for example, the police had no epaulets. —Niklitov (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Спасибо за вопросы. 2) Классификация не позднее 1855 года. Примеры после 1904 года (по кавалерии после 1908 года). Полный набор должен содержать 13 образцов (обер офицерский, штаб-офицерский и генеральский + нижние чины в кавалерии). Металлический ободок (шейка) только для военно-медицинских чинов и с 1894 по 1906 год для инженер-механиков флота. Врачи, состоящие на государственной гражданской службе, например, в полиции, эполет не имели. —Niklitov (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's probably simplest to withdraw this nomination and then nominate the version with the complete set of 13 epaulets separately. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank all for the remarks and votes positives or not. We plan nominate the version with the complete set of 13 epaulets. —Niklitov (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2016 at 11:52:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Júlio Prestes Station in São Paulo, Brazil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Júlio Prestes Station in São Paulo, Brazil.jpg
Comment - The sky could be denoised a bit more, and there are also some dust spots you didn't fix, for example on either side of the flag, to the right of the top floor of the tower below the clock and at least four to the extreme right of and a bit higher than the clock. The focus on the building is a bit soft, maybe because of the pollution haze that you've mentioned (if I remember correctly) is always in the air in Sao Paulo. I won't pass judgment on the photo now because I'd like to see the results of whatever revisions you may make. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent review. This picture was taken using tripod, I can't underestand why the focus is soft (maybe the pollution problem). I will fix each of your nice recomendations, thanks ! --The Photographer16:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is good, it is framed well. I trust the dust spots will be fixed, so I will disregard this for a moment. I think it is sufficiently sharp. Exposure control is good. However, it does not wow me at all, I am afraid. To be frank I find the composition boring. The cropped statue on the LHS does not help.Sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, I uploaded another version trying fix the problems commented by you. Slaunger and Ikan Kekek. Please, let me know what do you think and Slaunger, I underestand, you don't need change your vote --The Photographer21:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking with Beria the best point of view to show the complete structure as possible, however, there is a tree that has grown disproportionately and I preferred cut. Perhaps in the future go back and look elsewhere, this time without a tripod. --The Photographer10:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a QI for sure but it holds no wow or me at all. It is also a bit "heavy" on the left side so it seems to be leaning/tilted to that side much more than it actually does (some of the vertical lines are leaning that way) and this is unfortunately underlined by the parked taxi car (with the almost rude licence plate...^^), plus there are traces of CA in several places on the building. Sorry. cart-Talk09:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. And clear perspective distortion: See left vertical lines of the picture. The streetlight of the right is not an adequate reference--Lmbuga (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 18:20:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:30th Street Station Philadelphia July 2016 002.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:30th Street Station Philadelphia July 2016 002.jpg
Info With the US presidential election coming up, here's something timely: 30th Street Station specially lit up during the DNC in Philadelphia. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 18:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I too support either version. I noticed the building at first and IMHO think that it provides a unique balance of framing. --WPPilot (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 23:34:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fort Pierce Inlet Fort Pierce Florida photo D Ramey Logan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fort Pierce Inlet Fort Pierce Florida photo D Ramey Logan.jpg
It is probably some different kind of marine vegetation that thrives in that sheltered part of the inlet, or humus from the trees (mangroves??) next to it. cart-Talk11:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 22:33:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:North Laguna Aerial photo by D Ramey Logan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:North Laguna Aerial photo by D Ramey Logan.jpg
It seems there's no change in the amount of CA. If you don't mind, I've uploaded a corrected version over your original image. By the way, for uncontroversial changes, you typically upload over the original image instead of presenting the corrected version as an alt. Alts are usually for crops, significant exposure/color changes, etc. where someone might prefer the original. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not really seeing the difference between the original version and the corrected version. Where should I look for the difference? I think I've just gotten used to this photo, and what I see is that quite reasonably, the closer portions are more in focus and naturally, as the distance becomes greater, there is more blurring. I like the cliffs and I like the colors in the water. I'm guessing the dark color may be from kelp forests - is that right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- Ikan that is what you are seeing, yes. The water is unseasonably warm this year and, if you compare this to my photos of this area in years past you will see the color change, thanks to our friend El Nino. This makes the water clear and the kelp is growing fast as its now a big problem for us when we race, kelp on the keel is slow. --WPPilot (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2016 at 21:40:56
Info Although the second photo has lower nominal resolution, it is clearly sharper than the first when compared at the same size. The second photo also preserves the shadows better, which are lost in the first. Additionally, the first photo is cropped a bit too tight on the left. (Original nomination)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 09:20:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien 2016 Antikensammlung römische Büsten a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien 2016 Antikensammlung römische Büsten a.jpg
Support An interesting take on what could have been just another row of busts where it is hard to get everything sharp anyway. Could also be a nice vignette for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women; a sharp woman up front. ;) Wouldn't mind if that single visible spotlight was cloned out though. --cart-Talk11:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but this composition doesn't work with me. Focused part is almost on the border and it's not crisp sharp (even slightly noisy). --Ivar (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2016 at 16:21:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Clarion Hotel Post 2015 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Clarion Hotel Post 2015 01.jpg
Info Former central post office building in the centre of Gothenburg, Sweden. Today, Clarion Hotel Post. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There's a lot going on in this picture, yet at full-page size, it feels peaceful to me. At full size, there are some blown out lights and not everything is sharp, but I think it's a very good picture, overall. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport. Better now, but it looks like you simply desaturated the CA in-place, leaving some grey edges and still some minor CA remaining on the right. Have you considered using the built-in CA correction tools in Lens Correction? --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ArildV How did you solve this ? This is problem shot, two CAs on corners, leaning to outside is problem to solve with normal software. What i would do, cut picture on half, correct both pieces seperately in software, and stitch then back. Software, as i think, is just re-moving color into one direction. But i think its maybe a bit better then before. --Mile (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mile I used the adjustment brush (defringe) in Lightroom. King of Hearts I have already used the the built-in CA correction tools in Lens Correction. I not sure if I can improve it further. I know that the the photo is not perfect from a technical point of view. Regards --ArildV (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this is very strange, I've never seen Photoshop or Lightroom's CA auto-removal be so ineffective. Usually for me it works like magic and the only thing that might be left is some purple fringing (never green) on areas with bright highlights, which defringe takes care of (although if I feel it robs the image of saturation too much, I'll go in and manually do it). Does Lightroom 4 have the lens profile of the lens you're using? --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 16:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@ArildV: the purple areas are a kind of purple fringe. With lighroom (in the french version), just below the CA box you should have something like "delete the fringe" (french: supprimer la frange) with an eyedropper tool, with this tool you click on one purple area, and all other areas in the same fringe/color in all the image are replaced with only one click. I tried with your image, and this work well, if you don't manage to do it, I can upload a corrected version. Christian Ferrer(talk)07:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 18:49:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:St. Michael ob Rauchenödt Flügelaltar 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:St. Michael ob Rauchenödt Flügelaltar 01.jpg
Info Winged altar in late gothic style at the filial church St. Michael ob Rauchenödt, Upper Austria. Anonymous master, around 1517. All by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry to oppose - I like the motif a lot, but I feel like more of this is in shadow or half light than optimal, and the figures on the top could be more focused. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 20:53:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stadtansicht-Saarburg-Leukbach-2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stadtansicht-Saarburg-Leukbach-2016.jpg
ModerateSupport. This kind of mood is very characteristic of your photos. The composition is a little bit busy for my tastes, but only slightly. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 18:24:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brockhampton Estate - gatehouse and manor house.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brockhampton Estate - gatehouse and manor house.jpg
WeakOppose. A very nice scene, but our technical standards for photos taken in broad daylight with no mitigating circumstances have become better than this (a slightly unsharp 7.5 MP image). --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH. It's a beautiful, peaceful scene, but it should be sharper for FP, in my opinion. I'm also a little unsure about the way the top and right crops cut into trees. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not just more pixels, but compositionally better. Even when comparing apples to apples, the white house on the far left is sharper. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Yes, it's better, but for me, it's missing something for FP, which might be additional sharpness, a bit more light or something else. I won't and don't want to stand in the way of a consensus to feature, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2016 at 04:55:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:MK 30955-71 Kloster Eberbach Dachstuhl.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:MK 30955-71 Kloster Eberbach Dachstuhl.jpg
Support I very much like this panorama as it shows a completely different motif in a very interesting way. The quality is very high as well and it's a WLM 2016 winner in Germany. -- Code (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting view, this is a great subject for a 360° panorama. The infamous "Canon banding" in the shadows is unfortunate but the overall quality is still excellent. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: After some years of experience with Canon sensors I have to admit that the shadow highlighting is indeed an issue. If I'd start again from the scratch with digital photography maybe I'd choose Sony or Nikon instead of Canon. However, Canon's lenses are rather excellent IMO. --Code (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the old adage was "Nikon makes better lenses, Canon makes better bodies," but since 2010 it's pretty much been the reverse. Nikon still has no standard zoom that can take advantage of the D800E sensor as well as the 24-70 II can take advantage of the 5DS R sensor (the 24-70 I was worse than Nikon's), its venerable 14-24 has been beaten at its own game by the 11-24, and Canon of course has a larger selection of telephotos. Nikon's one advantage is its huge catalog of manual-focus lenses which cost less than $200 apiece and are still sharper than a modern zoom. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sorry, I would prefer a centered view. Technically it is perfect, no doubt, but otherwise the subject gives no wow to me. -- -donald- (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@-donald-: I get your point and (as you an see here or there) I usually prefer centered compositions in panoramas. But in this case I tried some centered view points and noticed that this leads to a strange alignement of the frame structure, which (a) would make the image a bit boring and (b) emphasis every asymmetry the building has. And since this timber frame structure is some hundred years old, it is far from being straight. Therefore I decided that an off-center view-point would be the better solution in this case. // Martin K. (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2016 at 01:04:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Question - I like the poster, but how did you conclude that the flecks of dark coloration to the left of his ear and the right of his hand were intentional and not dirt? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The flecks are also visible under the text "My wife" and none of it spills over into adjacent areas. With three such deliberate placings I think it's safe to assume they are part of the artwork. cart-Talk10:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2016 at 13:53:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vineyard snail on a stem.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vineyard snail on a stem.jpg
Info as the source image is in high technical quality, I allowed myself to crop it a little (while attempting to maintain the composition) and play with highlights and sharpness. Didn't want to retouch it too much in order not to hurt it. Bharel (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can understand the shell not being all in focus, but even where it is the edges are sort of soft and, more to the point, there is a visible dark halo around it. Daniel Case (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2016 at 09:43:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mosaic of the Arctic.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mosaic of the Arctic.jpg
Info Satellite-based view of the Arctic on September 2, 2012, the record lowest minimum ever observed in the satellite record occurred on September 16, 2012, when sea ice plummeted to 3.41 million square kilometers (1.32 million square miles). This image shows the area two weeks earlier.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2016 at 15:37:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2016 at 08:00:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Spiral stairs seen from bottom to top (Nebotičnik building). Since bottom colors arent interesting and due to strong contrast this went into BW shot and in Fibonacci rule (rule of thirds). -- Mile (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Since "Featured pictures/Black and white" is so special i wish we could put "BW" category also into own category what is presenting - Places/Interiors for this. So double category for BW shots...or not.
Support, and as an aside, I'm noticing that I think I am much more tolerant of areas of softness in a black & white photo than in a color photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like the way it plays tricks with your eyes, the optical illusion where it looks like a big nested dial sticking out from something. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2016 at 15:13:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Панорама водоспаду Шипіт.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Панорама водоспаду Шипіт.jpg
Support - The picture at full screen and full size looks much better than the thumbnail. There's some hazy light in the background in the center, but since that was what was needed to get the rest of the photo, I'll gladly take it. I love the strong sense of motion in the representation of the water. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Undoubtedly a great photo and technically at a very high level. The only point I am uncertain about: The colours. Especially the extreme red/brown saturation seem a bit artificial to me - probably added via filters (NIK etc.) in post. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would seriously like to support as how beautiful it is. But per Tuxyso. I am worried about the white balance and if there has been a loss of color details from the og scene, especially on the leaves. --Ximonic (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sorry, I just find this a bit oversaturated and kitschy, but since many people here seem to like it, I won't let my personal taste stand in the way of a promotion. cart-Talk11:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2016 at 04:15:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Boston skyline from Cambridge November 2015 panorama 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Boston skyline from Cambridge November 2015 panorama 1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2016 at 02:10:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Buddha statue 11102016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Buddha statue 11102016.jpg
Oppose This would otherwise make a great blue hour shot but the weather just didn't cooperate, causing the scene to be hazy and the sky to be grey. There are also slightly blown highlights on the base of the statue. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH. A fog picture of this but in brilliant light could be an exceptional picture, if such conditions ever exist in Hyderabad. I think the idea of contrasting the gray and foggy rest of the picture with the striking purple of the statue is a very good one, but to me, the grayness is just too pervasive and ends up dominating the mood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2016 at 08:10:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2016 at 23:15:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:CDs da Rádio Senado (30495786451).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:CDs da Rádio Senado (30495786451).jpg
Oppose - Very good compositional idea, but also quite strong color noise. I don't think this is very close to FP level, nor QI level. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2016 at 07:35:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Salão da Caatinga 04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Salão da Caatinga 04.jpg
Support - I agree with INC about the unsharp blue guy, but I like the woman in red, and the scenery has almost unbelievable colors and amazing shapes! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting location but the image has too much contrast/sharpening and the harsh lighting isn't handled well. -- Colin (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In a place like this, it is often good to include a person so that the viewer can get a size reference but the lighting in this photo in relation to the people is not good at all. And the blue guy does stand out in a bad way. It also has too much bad post production. cart-Talk09:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2016 at 20:58:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Night view of the World Clock (Urania-Weltzeituhr), Alexanderplatz, Berlin, Germany. The 10 metres (33 ft)-high clock shows the time in 148 cities worldwide and was inaugurated in 1969. The clock has become one of the symbols of Berlin and is a popular meeting point for the people in the capital. Poco220:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mile: I've applied some selective denoising/sharpening. Sharpness doesn't really look bad to me though given the picture resolution and lighting conditions. The note was a sligh glare, I also removed it. Poco210:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support though would have preferred a longer exposure (using an ND filter if necessary) - right now it's halfway between sharp and completely fluid. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2016 at 09:56:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fishing huts at Holländaröd.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fishing huts at Holländaröd.jpg
I was anticipating that question. :) The sort of "main objects" in the picture are the two very wonky and tilted huts next to the cropped one, but in order to see how askew they are you need some kind of reference, cropping the pic immediately after them only made it look like the pic needed some perspective adjustment. The cropped hut/shed is about 3-4 times larger than the rest of the huts so having all of it in the photo would have resulted in that dominating the pic. You can see a larger part of that hut (or rather small house) in this photo. The old shed you see on Google Street View has been replaced with this new larger one. So I opted for having a portion of it, about the size of the other huts, in the photo as reference and "anchor" on the right side. cart-Talk12:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make it clear, other than stitching five photos together to get maximum sharpness on all the huts (focus stacking), denoising the sky and toning down the white parts a bit, there has been no post-processing at all done to the photo. If it appears "sharpened" that came straight out of the camera and there is unfortunately nothing I can do about it. If there are other folks who would like a bit more gravel road and less sky, that can be arranged though since this is cropped from a wider panorama. cart-Talk18:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...ooops, forgot to support it myself. It's a different "view" than I originally saw but it has grown on me since it is more complete. Score another one for this fab community. :) cart-Talk18:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2016 at 11:45:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pogled kon Prespansko Ezero od Baba planina.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pogled kon Prespansko Ezero od Baba planina.jpg
Comment - Beautiful, but the grass isn't nearly as interesting as the rest, so I would suggest cropping out 1/2 to 2/3 of the foreground. I wonder whether other people will agree with this idea. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it would be better to do this crop, but since no-one else agrees, and despite the objections of the two opposing voters so far, I Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep, I agree with Ermell, it adds to the "prairie-effect", not often seen in combination with blue mountains. Nice and unusual with three kind of vastness (sky, mountains, prairie). Geotag pretty please. cart-Talk13:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WeakOppose. Nice colors and layers of foreground, background, and sky, but not enough wow that I can forgive the unsharpness in the lower left corner of an 8 MP image (and the image is actually a little soft throughout the frame). --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2016 at 09:03:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Polar bear after unlucky hunt for a seal.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polar bear after unlucky hunt for a seal.jpg
Agree with Martin. The actual exposure may well have been suitable to retain highlights in the snow, but it think it would look better a bit brighter. The EXIF claims this is near midday in Summer so I would assume it was bright. -- Colin (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek, Martin Falbisoner, Colin: Done. Dangerous work, though. You will have noticed that the guy stood to the south of me at midday. I had to brighten his flanks already quite a bit beforehand since they were in the shade. Brightening even more is now at the border of overprocessing. Normally I love contre-jour due to its magic effects (with a good lens), here it was unintended though. Thanks for your comments anyway; and thanks, Ikan, for nominating it: I really am pleased that you enjoy my photos! --AWeith (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and I still like the photo. I just noticed a dust spot, though. You'll find it if you look in the furthest area of water toward the top of the picture frame, somewhat behind the bear's behind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice catch, but I think the shadow side of the ice bear has been brightened too much due to a not so optimal light direction on the ice bear. There is visible chroma noise in the fur. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Slaunger: I know and I am really annoyed about it. I thought the corrections I made were optimal; however, according to your critics I changed the settings again to still annoyingly low detail (its the shade in a contre-jour!) but less chroma noise. Hope you prefer that. --AWeith (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SupportAWeith: Thanks for the improvement! Changed my vote. Anyway, I see a very clear support so no reason for me to stubbornly delay a fast promotion. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely memeable. A little noisy but I think that's a necessary tradeoff given the conditions and the settings they seem to have required. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great capture of a day in a polar bear's life that overcome some technical shortcomings. (It also echoes my mood this morning; dead tired after travelling and no coffee yet.) --cart-Talk11:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info you certainly all know about the problems of contre-jour shots: extreme contrast, little if no detail in the shadows. In this case I couldn't help it, the 2.5m bastard wouldn't walk behind me and be angry. Now, I tried my best to leave the bear's body with sufficient detail, as little noise as possible and the attempt, not to overprocess anything. I could show you the original RAW, it is an eye-opener for what software can do ...--AWeith (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2016 at 13:42:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lapita image.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lapita image.png
Support -- This is an architectural mockup of a hotel at a theme park in Dubai. I am not aware of any other architectural mockups being in Commons. I can only presume that this image is representative of its genre just because I know it was produced in the context of Dubai's well regarded luxury industry. The image is striking to me for its content. I think it meets Commons technical criteria. I came to know about this image from an OTRS request and got confirmation from their general legal counsel about their ownership of copyright. Blue Rasberry (talk)13:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's nice to see you here again, Bluerasberry. This mockup is really cool, and I'll support it once a surprising little dust spot is dealt with. It's directly above the left side of the building or part of a building that's at an angle with the rightmost building. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek The spot was a flaw in the image. However, the image as I presented it was the one used to establish the theme park. I am not sure if that makes this image "historically significant" or if it is better to correct obvious mistakes in official media. If I had the editing skills I would have removed the spot, just because I think that makes for a better archived image. Thanks PetarM for making the call to correct the flaws. Blue Rasberry (talk)15:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well this is something new. :) Just a question, since this is just a mockup and not a photo of an actual place, should this not be listed as a candidate for 'Non-photographic media' perhaps sub-section '/Computer-generated' instead of '/Places/Architecture'? cart-Talk20:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not have photo editing skills for a quick response. There are two requests - spot removal and cropping of a border. If others have other requests then share, and I will make arrangements to improve the picture and share again. Blue Rasberry (talk)02:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As I have a background in computer graphics, I am happy to see such an image here. However, I have to say that this is not state of the art in computer graphics, as it shows several issues like missing reflections in the pool, and missing/incorrect cast shadows. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be state of the art in technology but I think by virtue of this being used by a major construction company for an extravagant luxury resort, it apparently is the sort of image which top contemporary professionals in Dubai will accept. I am not sure how expectations in computer graphics vary by year and origin of production. Can you make a guess about the year in which pool reflections and shadows been a thing? I have never seen anything like this and cannot comment on its quality or the extent to which it is representative of an art field. Was art like this produced 10 years ago? Will art 10 years from now look like this? Blue Rasberry (talk)15:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support purely for its accomplishment as a CG architectural rendering. If it were a photo I would consider the nearly-blown sunset sky a deal-breaker. But, since it isn't, since it's what the creator chose, I'm OK with it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2016 at 22:54:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:RUS-2016-SPB-Monument to Nicholas I of Russia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:RUS-2016-SPB-Monument to Nicholas I of Russia.jpg
Mild Support - This photo really looks best to me at full screen, not full size. A lot of its appeal for me is in the cloud formations, which can no longer be seen at full magnification as I can no longer see the whole. The left crop bugs me a little because it bisects a car, but I think the photo is good enough, overall, for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good although I'm somewhat surprised that some noise (doesn't really bother me) is already visible at only ISO 400. --Code (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2016 at 04:44:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vliegden (Pinus sylvestris) tussen bloeiende heide. Locatie, Schaopedobbe (Schapenpoel) 04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vliegden (Pinus sylvestris) tussen bloeiende heide. Locatie, Schaopedobbe (Schapenpoel) 04.jpg
Support - To my mind, this is a really good portrait of the tree, with the flowers as colorful supporting cast. In this context, I don't mind the unsharpness or motion blur of the flowers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Famberhorst I think red channel for all picture, just put down and look when pic will feel OK. I mentioned clouds where this is seen mostly, since they should be white. --Mile (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but I have to agree with other opposers. And post-processing has gone too far - details are washed out (especially on the foreground). --Ivar (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2016 at 11:24:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Not trying to overemphasize it: cropping of the plus/minus empty very left would make it one of the most appreciable "pond shots with mirror image" I have ever seen. Autumn blues ...--AWeith (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2016 at 17:44:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Metro de São Paulo, Luz Station, Brazil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Metro de São Paulo, Luz Station, Brazil.jpg
Oppose The scene has potential, but the focus seems to be on the junction box (or whatever it is) at the bottom left and the train is well out of the narrow DoF for f/3.2. That plus the high ISO means there is more of an impression of a train than any detail. -- Colin (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Colin: , please could you try give me a configuration recomendation for this shoot, without tripod in a absolutly darked area and the main subject in movement. --The Photographer20:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support not per others, I like it. The picture reflects the specific atmosphere of an underground railway track taking into account the difficult light situation..--Christof46 (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The focus point seems indeed to be a bit too close, but the idea has potential. The setting reminds me of my own on one of my images, where I wanted to have enough speed for to have the flying birds not to be blurred. Christian Ferrer(talk)06:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I've gone back and forth with this, but I just want to say that I hope you didn't endanger yourself by taking this picture! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not as dangerous as you think, but you must be aware that the other train is not coming, if the other train coming you should walk quickly to a hole in the wall. --The Photographer12:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2016 at 13:04:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de Jvari, Miskheta, Georgia, 2016-09-29, DD 08-10 HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de Jvari, Miskheta, Georgia, 2016-09-29, DD 08-10 HDR.jpg
Oppose Not as good as some of your other ceilings. The stone isn't as interesting as a subject; it seems a bit brighter than I would assume (but could be wrong); the cross isn't quite perpendicular to the camera. -- Colin (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, I've reduced the exposure, your guess was right, it was too bright overall. I've also improved symmetry with a new crop (cropped a bit from the left side) and the cross should stand better now Poco220:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2016 at 18:01:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Prachtig nieuw blad van Cyclamen hederifolium tussen herfstbladeren van bomen 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Prachtig nieuw blad van Cyclamen hederifolium tussen herfstbladeren van bomen 02.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2016 at 21:54:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hypogée 17.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hypogée 17.jpg
Question - My tendency would be to simply give a supporting vote to this photo. I like the composition, the view and the context. But first, I thought I'd throw out a question to everyone: What other photos you might compare this to, and how you would appraise them in comparison to one another? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overall I think it is too dark, and it would be better for the passage to lead to something interesting instead of blue sky. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- --WPPilot (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC) I too am sorry to say that even a minor flash that was defused would make this really crisp, and well defined something its just not. Cool subject, if you have access to it please try again and use some lighting to highlight details.[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2016 at 23:58:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I'm sorry to be a party pooper, but there seem to be some pretty disturbing JPEG artifacts throughout. The most disturbing area for me is around the title text, but all the text seems to suffer from it. Storkk (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(the artifacts are in the original, so I'm not suggesting your processing caused them, but they detract enough from the end result that it's not an FP for me) Storkk (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2016 at 10:03:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Canal de Sète juste avant crépuscule 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Canal de Sète juste avant crépuscule 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2016 at 11:02:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Krönung Mariä Leonhard von Brixen Vahrn Pfarrkirche St Georg.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Krönung Mariä Leonhard von Brixen Vahrn Pfarrkirche St Georg.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2016 at 11:01:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Puerto marítimo de Tuy, España.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Puerto marítimo de Tuy, España.jpg
Info The union of three elements as the international bridge, the castle of Valença, and the seaport of Tuy, a border connected by the river Minho.--Harpagornis (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This photo has been growing on me, but it would be great if you could decrease the noise. Both the sky and water are grainy, which makes me think this is probably not a FP yet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2016 at 07:29:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kostol sv. Vavrinca, Zliechov.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kostol sv. Vavrinca, Zliechov.jpg
Oppose Great moment with wonderful low hanging clouds in the morning sun. But the noise is not acceptable for me. I wonder why it is because the picture is taken with ISO100. --Hockei (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe. But the fog is not everywhere in the same intensity as far I can see. But the noise is evenly distributed. How ever, I'm sure it's better developable. --Hockei (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, not all of it is fog, some of it seems to be smoke comming from the chimmenies and that's why it is uneven. Smoke doesn't behave the same way fog does in regards to letting in light and other things vital for a photo. cart-Talk15:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. I was thinking if the white balance is ok though. Also the noise is quite visible. I'm still leaning towards FP for all the rest of the qualities. --Ximonic (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2016 at 23:52:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bee in Loto in Botanical Garden of São Paulo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bee in Loto in Botanical Garden of São Paulo.jpg
Comment - I couldn't decide between the two versions, so that's why I didn't vote on this alternate version. I can't speak for why others didn't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2016 at 04:29:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fortaleza de Bam, Irán, 2016-09-23, DD 04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fortaleza de Bam, Irán, 2016-09-23, DD 04.jpg
Support - Great work. Bam is a mystical kind of place, the silence, the seclusion the calmness all combine to provide a truly unique character to this picture. --Gnosis (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport. Lighting is not fantastic, but nice balanced composition leading the viewer towards the center. Maybe it could use a little less sky. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tempered support I love the forms and the light, but I am ambivalent about the sky above (i.e., whether to suggest a crop). On the one hand it's a whole lot of empty space. On the other, the blue in the section that the me that wrote that previous sentence would like to crop out is a nice cool color that perfectly balances the warmth below. Daniel Case (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2016 at 23:38:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2016 at 10:39:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ronald and Nancy Reagan NASA 1982.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ronald and Nancy Reagan NASA 1982.jpg
Oppose I'm not impressed. Perhaps you need to be American? This small image is soft, dirty and they are much in shadow / harsh light. They are two of the most professionally photographed people on the planet. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: What I like about it is that the 1st Lady seems genuinely interested/awed by the ship, and Pres. Reagan looks to be making an off-the-cuff remark. You get so much staging and choreographing with what presidents and first ladies do that's it's a bit of a surprise sometimes to see spontaneous behavior. But you and the other opposers are right that the technical/visual excellence needed for FP just isn't here. lNeverCry02:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too high contrast between light and shadow, needs to have small scratches restored. Not a sufficently good composition. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A moment from a bygone era, unfortunately so is the quality of the photo. Perhaps if someone did a bit of gentle restoration of it. --cart-Talk11:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice improvement, W.carter! It adds value! But, well, it does not change my mind about the basic mertis of the photograph when it comes to light and composition. (I am not even sure you want us to vote again?) -- Slaunger (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Slaunger Naw, I didn't think as far as voting. ;) I've restored so many of my own photos of the same format from this era, so I just did this one to see what it would look like. This is not my nom, but if someone finds it useful, be my guest. :) --cart-Talk19:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question What tool are you using for NR?, I can see severals problems with this tecnique. You should apply differents methods for noise reduction in hight ISO, negative film "noise" and jpg artifacts --The Photographer19:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I used different methods for different areas since I wanted to disrupt the original as little as possible. First a couple of thousand dabs with the clone brush at 400% to fill in the white cracks and spots, color and contrast correction, then a very mild normal Elements noise reduction and some individual small blur touches with the brush at 200% and finally isolated the sky and made an additional Elements NR. I'm sure you have some fantastic program and gadgets to do this job better, I'm just an amateur restorer having fun. :) --cart-Talk19:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is marginally better, especially in the sky. Both versions are problematic in a number of ways. I support this photo for historical reasons, but everyone's criticisms of the technical and some compositional problems in the photo are accurate and also largely apply to this restoration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
cart you saved one more, 8×8 cm photo. Theese old shots are pleasure to see. But i still cant support as FP, since composition, light arent well here. So its more valuable - Reagan adoring Space Shuttle or something similar. You also put some work for this, well done in any case. --Mile (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2016 at 10:20:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I don't find this picture confusing at all. It's a picture of the power of water and water as an abstract composition. And to me, it works very well as a composition to move my eye around at full-page size. Full size in this case is too much of a closeup to really make sense of, but that's what was necessary to get the composition we can see at full-page size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For a picture like this to work, there need to be a better range of the greyscale present, a bit of contrast (I guess many of the nuances got lost when it was converted to B&W), a sense of deapth and motion. Plain frothing white-looking liquid on black gives me no sense of wow. cart-Talk20:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2016 at 10:03:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Siberian Stonechat-6077.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Siberian Stonechat-6077.jpg
Oppose Nice shoot, however, 95 % of this picture is a background, noise (maybe too hight ISO 400), and I can't see soo much details in the bird. I'm sorry --The Photographer13:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose far too much noise due to harsh cropping. According to the description it is not a threatened species, so it should be possible to shoot a more close-up photo. --AWeith (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2016 at 17:51:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:V-22 Osprey at Hurlburt Field.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:V-22 Osprey at Hurlburt Field.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: composition: the propellers cut off. - Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Oppose the cut me don't disturbe but i see too little of the helicopter, the most is black. General the Crop of airplanes or helicopters is a problem, i think, its no important to see all parts, to me its more important to see the "body". sorry for my bad english, ih hope, it's understandable.--Ralf Roleček20:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2016 at 08:06:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment - Very good picture. However, the sky is a bit noisy. The front crop also bothered me at first, but I'm OK with it now. The left crop, cutting off part of a cross, is marginally problematic. I'd like to see this picture after you denoise it slightly, and in that case, I'd probably support it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks. I also don't like this jet trail, but when I cloned it out, photo geted imbalance of the sky as for me - top left has clouds, top right clear sky. Maybe it is my subjectively view, but I prefer to stay as it is. --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2016 at 13:47:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:NN Spit from Kanavinsky Bridge 08-2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:NN Spit from Kanavinsky Bridge 08-2016.jpg
WeakSupport. The "wow" factor is borderline for me. The composition is not especially remarkable, but good colors and the clouds put it just slightly over the top for me. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The clouds are for me (one of) the main feature(s), I wonder if a small increase of the luminosity (and of the highlights) would not improve a bit the image. Christian Ferrer(talk)06:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2016 at 21:01:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Palacio de Golestán, Teherán, Irán, 2016-09-17, DD 37-39 HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palacio de Golestán, Teherán, Irán, 2016-09-17, DD 37-39 HDR.jpg
Info Ceiling of the central room of the building of Windcatchers (Emarat e Badgir), built during the reign of Fath-Ali Shah Qajar and part of the Golestan Palace, the former royal Qajar complex in Iran's capital city, Tehran. The UNESCO World Heritage Site belongs to a group of royal buildings that were once enclosed within the mud-thatched walls of Tehran's arg ("citadel") and is one of the oldest of the historic monuments in the city. All by me, Poco221:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2016 at 09:02:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Ach, so sweet. Hasn't been that busy yet, the little one. Full of pollen but no nectar at the trousers yet, tsk, tsk, tsk. --AWeith (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I might want the picture to extend a little further down. I respect KoH's criticisms, but the bee and flower are too beautiful for me to want to do anything but support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2016 at 06:06:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pachliopta pandiyana-Kadavoor-2016-10-18-001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pachliopta pandiyana-Kadavoor-2016-10-18-001.jpg
InfoPachliopta pandiyana, Malabar rose, is a swallowtail butterfly endemic to the wet jungles of South India. Here it gives me a chance by making a short perch while wandering through the shades. (Most of the time, it flies high and is difficult to capture.) C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- Jee06:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2016 at 15:09:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20150425 Oberhausen Impericon Festival - Andreas Dörner of Caliban 0077.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20150425 Oberhausen Impericon Festival - Andreas Dörner of Caliban 0077.jpg
WeakSupport. Not the sharpest but reasonable for low-light action. To me the area in the bottom right (indicated by The Photographer) is sufficiently dark that it blends into the background and is not distracting. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharpness resp. focus not absolutely perfect, but catched great moment, good colours, lighting, exposition, outstanding composition. --Smial (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ordinarily I'd suggest cropping in tighter. But here the large expanses of background actually help to contain the noted distraction, which would probably spoil the image if it took up more space within it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2016 at 15:52:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eleftherios Venizelos 1917.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eleftherios Venizelos 1917.jpg/2
Support Portrait of one of the greatest modern greek statemen Eleftherios Venizelos (Ελευθέριος Βενιζέλος) in 1917. He was president of the hellenic parliament at that time, and played a major role in the european policy between the two World Wars, as Prime minister of Greece. His name was given to the Athens International Airport. Renominated after withdrawn and brightness corrections. It is a very detailed portrait by Agence Rol (open it at full size !), even with the fly button... Picture restored by me. Original available as first upload, as I usually do. -- Jebulon (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2016 at 16:33:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kittywakes at Fjortende Julibreen, Krossfjord, Svalbard.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kittywakes at Fjortende Julibreen, Krossfjord, Svalbard.jpg
Info created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith. Only one word to this composition: A long focus (329mm) easily produces a very limited DoF. The birds were on an ice floe far in front of the glacier and I was about 20m away from them. I could have let the glacier melt into a very smooth Bokeh (f6.5 to 8) or still have it with residual structuring in the backgraund, unsharp (f16 to 22). I decided to select the latter. Please judge whether it was the right decision. -- AWeith (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also, your decision not to turn the glacier into a smooth bokeh was definitely the right one, in my opinion, and much appreciated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear King of, I tried my best, went back and increased the brightness. However, cranking it up, the background loses drama substantially. As a consequence I had to increase contrast, too, which led to an impression of overprocessing and too much chromatic noise on the grey feathers. Speaking of histograms, I see the values just in the right range here. Plus it was an overcast day. My apologies, but in this case I would like not to follow your valued criticism. --AWeith (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Need a better post, and you are seeing the histogram in a wrong way, this should be dislocated to right, as most of the scene is "white", and now it's grey, right in the middle. It lacks of black and white points (tip about it), just fixing it would be a away better photo. Having a tough scenario don't make a picture good. I admire your work, but you can improve this one. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m13:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, with all due respect, I disagree in a number of points: i) The scene is certainly not white as ice is almost never white on a misty day. It assumes all shades of bluish and greenish up to a number of greys; and this is the beauty of misty days in the arctic. ii)According to the histogram there is neither black nor white, agreed. However, the RAW histogram shows that all curves are plus minus bell-shaped with a rather narrow base, telling us that contrast had been low in the original scenery. Different exposures or camera settings did not change anything by the way. The scene is as it is, misty and low contrast but that’s its beauty. If you crank up the blacks and whites (I am using LR for ages and are very familiar with it) you'll get a totally artificial image with loads of posterization and loss of information, let alone increase in noise etc. Well, I think this is not the featured histogram but rather the featured pictures section, so I’ll refrain from exaggerating. iii) Tough scenarios don’t make pictures good but they are challenging to present them in the photo as they are. This is why my nomination here is meant to lack pitch blacks and glistening whites; it was a very quiet , misty day (with kittywakes as quiet as I never heard them before). It would be sad if you couldn’t follow my arguments but the advisor in the movie also said: There may be exceptions. Everybody here knows by now that I love exceptions if they lead to attractive results. Thank you again for your considerations, anyway. --AWeith (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You really trying to convince me that the left one:[6] is what you saw at 12:00 on summer, and it's better?
"white", not white, two different things.
"loads of posterization and loss of information" I used the jpeg, and even with that, not happen any of those cases, you just need to control the tool.
It's dark, and you could raise by one stop the exposure, and mood do not change. One more thing, magenta, now look the picture...
1) Have you ever been to the fjords of Svalbard and experienced the light there? Guess you didn't.
2) Are you really trying to convince us the right image that you worked out is improving the situation? Well, I am not as it is not what I saw.
3) Yes, its dark, if you wish, and I am not willing to raise the brightness, as it does not reflect the situation. I have many more photos of such scenery and I will keep presenting them in the light that I remember having seen.
4) Your argument to raise brightness by one step does not lead to the "blacks" and "whites" that you claimed initially. Your arguments are inconsistent here. So please let the other evaluators judge the image as it stands and put our discussion to rest. Thank you for this lively discussion. --AWeith (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"So please let the other evaluators judge the image as it stands and put our discussion to rest." = "Shut up, I F don't care!"
And: "Your argument to raise brightness by one step does not lead to the "blacks" and "whites" that you claimed initially."
As you are being rude, I will be nice as you: You know punctuation? Are two main arguments separated by one "." The first one is that you are not able to understand the histogram in the scene, and the second one is that it lacks b&w points; two different things related, but different.
I gave a alternative to keep the mood as you wish, low contrast, but brighter. Attack the problem of being dark, but not the white and blacks, as this change the contrast, the mood, as you wish.
And relax, this image will pass by politics and by "it's tough", "not a every day picture", your ego will be intact. However, we can see down below that you made the same mistake before, having two too dark images as FPC, and do not admit your fault... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m07:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The EV mentioned here is probably Exposure Value. There is constant confusion here between photographers who speak of things like "2EV-ed" or "minus0.7EV-ed" and encyclopedians who speak of Educational Value. cart-Talk20:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And in fact there are two (related) meanings in photography: I can shoot a scene which is 15 EV at +1 EV, at f/8, 1/250s, ISO 100 (which is the correct settings to expose a grey card at 14 EV). --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAlchemist-hp: I did the brightening after King of's request. It represents a very slight increase in brightness and contrast, and concomittant drastic reductions of noise - both luminance and chroma. I am not convinced by it and am positively surprised that Mile prefers it. Anyway, as there were already quite a few positive votes, I did not want to change anything. However, if you advise me to switch to the brightened version we could do that. Do I have to "ping" everybody now?--AWeith (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, because AWeith wrote above that the scene didn't look this bright, and also because I just don't think it looks as good. Brightening calls excessive attention to the degree of unsharpness in the focus of the birds, whereas the lower light makes that gentler and easier for me to accept. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know that AWeith sometimes is kind enough to offer us alt versions of his pics according to nagging from the community, for our viewing pleasure. But for an FP, I prefer the original version, not only because AWeith sais that that is the way it looked, but because the original feels more genuine ice-and-snow-up-north-pic to me. The light is soft and moody, almost mystical, unlike the brightened happy more printer-friendly version. cart-Talk20:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2016 at 23:57:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Barajas September 2016-5.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Barajas September 2016-5.jpg
weak Barajas is one of the prettiest airports out there but I'm yet to see a picture that has the same magic. It's crazy, but might be the most beautiful and, at the same time, least photogeinc places ever constructed. KennyOMG (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This took a while to grow on me as I thought it was too dark initially, but now it looks really impressive at both thumbnail and full-res. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2016 at 13:00:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Catedral de Sioni, Tiflis, Georgia, 2016-09-29, DD 100-102 HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Catedral de Sioni, Tiflis, Georgia, 2016-09-29, DD 100-102 HDR.jpg
Info Crepuscular rays below the ceiling of the Sioni Cathedral, a Georgian Orthodox cathedral in Tbilisi, capital of Georgia. The cathedral is situated in historic Sionis Kucha (Sioni Street) in downtown Tbilisi. It was initially built in the 6th and 7th centuries. Since then, it has been destroyed by foreign invaders and reconstructed several times. The current church is based on a 13th-century version with some changes from the 17th to 19th centuries. The Sioni Cathedral was the main Georgian Orthodox Cathedral and the seat of Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia until the Holy Trinity Cathedral was consecrated in 2004. Note: there is already one FP of this location covering the other half of the church. All by me, Poco213:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What would happen if you tried to increase the focus in this picture? Could the sharpness be upped without damaging the picture in some way? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2016 at 05:52:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Marumba-Aralam-2016-10-30-001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marumba-Aralam-2016-10-30-001.jpg
Comment - I'm interested to know how big the caterpillar is, and if you remember its length, you could include that in the description for additional educational value. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2016 at 16:39:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A320neo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A320neo.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2016 at 04:25:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Newark October 2016 panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Newark October 2016 panorama.jpg
Support A last reminder of New Jersey's old low gas tax at the extreme right. So now you've done Newark, New York, Hoboken, Boston, and Philly. Where are you going next? Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That afternoon everyone in NYC was talking about and posting pictures of the rapidly approaching storm: totally sunny one minute and pouring the next. Looks like it got to Newark a few hours early; sunny + storm clouds is one of my favorite weather conditions. Did you see the storm? --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Outstanding work! It's a lot of fun to explore that photo, looking at the buildings and the reflections. I'm trying to figure out where you took this photo from. Were you positioned on some rocks near that river (I think it's a river). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, there's a walkway with waterfront access. I had to stick a tripod leg through the railing onto the rocks in order to get rid of the railing from my shots, though. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that camping site is mentioned in any travel guide, looks more like one of those impromptu camps that homeless persons set up in and around a city. We got them here too. cart-Talk09:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I decided it was more important to avoid the f/11 or f/16 diffraction across the entire frame than worry about a single corner. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Am I the only editor who finds opposes from this editor, in a little-known language, deliberately inconsiderate? The editor used the identical phrase in opposing one of my images Charles (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2016 at 21:53:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Inden Germany RWE-Tagebau-Inden-01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Inden Germany RWE-Tagebau-Inden-01.jpg
Support What a great scene from one of Germany's most forlorn countrysides. Congrats! If you could only - hate to say that - increase contrast and dynamic range of the background a wee bit. --AWeith (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's expected for people making opposing votes to give a reason for it. It's fine for you to give the reason in Vietnamese, as people who don't read Vietnamese can get a rough idea of what you meant by using Google Translate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rất khó để phân biệt các thành phần thuộc bức hình.
Question Pardon me, do I get this right: You cannot distinguish the excavator from the soils? The black excavator is camouflaged in the background? It would be interesting to hear, what exactly is the problem in your opinion. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really like this photo, with all the different-colored strata and interesting machines, but please consider making it less hazy, if that's not unrealistic in terms of what you saw. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I applied a little bit dehaze. However, when I was standing at the open cast mines crater rim, I alredy noticed that the different colours were more pastel-colours and looked quite soft. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A bit hazy for me, and I think the colors are not contributing to the image in terms of hue but rather in their luminosity alone, so I think it would work very well if you converted to B&W and with some careful postprocessing to bring out the contrast. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the colors of the dirt and the horizontal layering, but I would've preferred a tighter crop at bottom and more room at top to prevent some trees and buildings from getting cut off as they are in the middle. INeverCry (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good study of the patchwork pastels. I wonder what it might look like after rain, if you get a chance, please try to shoot it then too. cart-Talk10:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remarkable resolution and detail. Interesting and educating composition (as it shows the huge size of these excavators). The only tiny negative point that I could find is the haze, --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me, although perhaps the foreground excavator should be dehazed a little bit? It looks a bit bluish to me. dllu(t,c)21:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2016 at 14:57:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lerche 4007 scissors.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lerche 4007 scissors.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2016 at 15:16:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2016 at 01:11:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Reflections of Newport Beach by D Ramey Logan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reflections of Newport Beach by D Ramey Logan.jpg
Comment Very creative but this looks really weird. I think postprocessing that is too "artsy" is frowned upon here; could you turn it right side up like normal? --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scenery is quite nice, but there is too much in shadow and the house is blown out. In cases where the reflection is significantly darker than the main subject I would use a graduated ND filter to balance it out (and if I didn't have one I'd expose for the highlights and add a fake grad ND in Photoshop). --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support upside-down version; Oppose right side up version. I didn't really notice the blown-out shutters with the upside-down version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is nice except for the blown windows and the nom is confusing. You might be used to seeing the world differently during rolls and loops, but I am not. ;) Sorry. cart-Talk10:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With three up and three down, I am going to pull this and reshoot it. Its only around the corner and easy to redo. His Royal Highness ♦ had a great suggestion that gives me a reason to use my Cine filters on the DSLR :) Thanks for the comments. --WPPilot (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2016 at 17:39:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Landscape of vineyards, Castelnau-de-Guers cf01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Landscape of vineyards, Castelnau-de-Guers cf01.jpg
WeakSupport. Nice clouds and composition; only wish there were a bit more sunlight. But that's the challenge of shooting in rapidly changing conditions on a mostly cloudy day. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 17:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for several reasons. i) I think it is funny but the high Megapixel cameras produce more noise in the shade than 20 MP range cameras. This is the case here, too. ii) The scenery is not much of a wow! for me. If the grapes are the main topic, their presence falls short. If it is the countryside in general, it has no spectacular attribute. Sorry. --AWeith (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Like Ikan, I like the landscape and I can see why you took the picture. But unlike him I do not think the light and clouds work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2016 at 17:31:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith. As a sad notice: Sometimes the global climate change becomes clear with cruel ostentation. This polar bear – representative for an increasing number of animals – did not make it in time to the dense drift ice and the pack ice north of the Svalbard archipelago. This is simply because the ice around the islands melts much earlier than ever before. The bear needs to stay on the islands and near the shores and hardly finds any food. – I have stayed away from the intimidated animal at a respectful distance; this is why the crop is not particularly big. -- AWeith (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically not a great picture, but in this case I'm willing to overlook that. This is the first pic we have to illustrate one of the aspects of global warming. A quick online search also showed that while there are polar bear pics by the thousands, there are only a handful of pics of bears in this condition. The rarity of such a photo on an important issue, makes it featurable IMO. --cart-Talk21:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You have strong opinions about things, which is good as long as they're not ad hominem, but how do you explain this guideline above:
Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.
And how do you explain this, at Commons:Image guidelines? Given sufficient "wow factor" and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality.
My feeling is that you are completely free to say that educational value is not a sufficient reason to feature photo x, y or z, but saying that educational value is irrelevant is a bridge too far. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek you need to ping me to I know that you talked to me... I'm not entering over and over again to check my comments...
Well, "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph."
I already made this statement "A difficult picture don't make it a FP". And... difficult? Difficult image of a polar bear [7][8]...
another thing see the difference ? [9] away more impactful, just being a better processed picture.
And I'm not saying that is bad, I just saying that he is neglecting knowledge about post production needed in this case. It's a dull and dark picture, that could be corrected, do not try to convince me that is a "style" a "mood".
"to fall short on technical quality" it do not fall short, it falls on purpose, it almost did not passed in QI, and you advocate to pass, and are doing the same here.
He made a drama, a soup opera maneuver to get more attention "oh!! They are so mean to me. I do not deserve this nomination!! Even when a magazine wants my art", and you (plural) catalyse the speech, come on, this about the picture, and after all this talk it's stills bad, and he didn't fix it using this pity speech.
With the same raw file, I would bring a FP, this one, not a QI. VI for the illustration, horrible technically.
Obs:I did not asked for it, was you all vote in a political matter, not see the picture. Would be more waste of time...
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, would you mind explaining what you mean by "you all vote in a political matter, not see the picture"? Why do you think it's OK to make these kinds of ad hominem remarks? I think that's in bad faith. I don't deny that the examples you give are good, but really, "it falls on purpose"? And really, now, this? "With the same raw file, I would bring a FP, this one, not a QI." User:AWeith is a pretty new user here, as you can see from his contributions. I greatly appreciate his work because it's great and because he takes photos of amazing scenes. I don't know him personally and have no "political" axe to grind either for or against him, but just judge each picture individually. What are you suggesting is taking place? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, you would have to spell out who you think is voting which way for what political reasons, and what led you to that conclusion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is one of the rare times a neutral !vote of mine is not of the "oppose as is, but could work if fixed" variety. Here I just can't decide. I think the image would be stronger if cropped in much closer to the bear, since you can't fully appreciate its condition without leaning into it a bit and blowing it up (whereupon it becomes truly horrifying and would be a slam-dunk "strong support" from me).
But ... at the same time I can see that this is a pretty small image as is, and cropping like that would probably put it well below the minimum for FP (although it would make a great VI). I just ... don't ... know. Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has been nominated for VI. When I see a small, not too technically perfect pic, I ask myself: Does the pic have the "Buzz Aldrin's bootprint factor?" Meaning, does it symbolize something more than what is just in the picture, is the pic relevant to some significant historical event or change, is this the first look of what is to come, can it be relevant as an eye-opener, etc. I think this has that "factor". cart-Talk17:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Educational and dreadful image about the effects of global warming, but I don't think this has enough quality for FP. --Gnosis (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. I concede this photo is of mediocre technical quality and I admit I was concerned from the beginning whether this would be a valid FP nomination. However, as I have apparently advanced to a kind of arctic expert here, I could not withhold it, because it most clearly reveals the major threat that this beloved planet is exposed to. I just wanted to make this clear to you in the frame of FP and I am grateful to cart who has nominated it for VI (where it may be more than appropriate). --- As a final comment: In the recent issue of „Science“ researchers Notz and Stroeve report that the „Observed Arctic sea-ice loss directly follows anthropogenic CO2 emission“. They discovered that one single flight from Frankfurt, Germany to San Francisco causes the melting of 5 square meters of arctic ice. Per passenger. This frightens me. – In this context: I would be glad to keep presenting you photos of a dying region of this earth. I’m not pathetic, I am concerned. --AWeith (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC) "withdraw" is stiked, and I renominate it for FP. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionIkan Kekek: Is there a difference between Alchemist-hp using the current procedure to proceed in the nomination process and renewing it by himself after this has passed the deadline? I myself will not support the nomination but as I said - and I think it is correct - anyone can re-nominate the image as it is public domain. The only difference I can see is that reviving this process now benefits from the positive votes made so far. But I guess these judgements will be reiterated in an entirely new process. Logically it makes no difference to me. Are there any rules I don't know of? Please advise as I haven't been into this situation yet. --AWeith (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See above, under "Featured picture candidate policy/General rules": Rule No. 6 is "Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time." That literally would mean that you could withdraw again ad infinitum, so in practice, anyone has to have your consent, or at least lack of insistence on withdrawing, in order to take over this nomination or renominate this photo in the future. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: please let me make clear that the link above to the extremely interesting Science Magazine article is still working; however, most of you may not have a VPN to get access to the full article. I think I do not infringe any rights if I offered access to a PDF copy for anyone here who is interested. Please advise if I am doing something stupid here.--AWeith (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear Ikan Kekek, dear Alchemist-hp, dear all, I am very grateful that you lend your support to this image and I am glad to notice that there are people out here that recognize the deeper message of the starving bear. My decision was a two-edged sword. Leaving it in would have meant to betray myself as I am not fully convinced by the technical quality. Taking it out meant that the message – which I deem of utmost importance – might get lost. Now that cart has nominated it for VI and it has good chances to become a VI, the message will last. The image has obviously been used to illustrate several articles already. So my goal is reached; the award as an FP would have been extremely nice, but I would like to contribute keeping the standards of FP at the highest possible level. My apologies to all of you who are disappointed; I hope I made my point clear to you. It was not meant to offend anybody. The image is public domain, so if you feel to nominate it for FP yourself, please feel free to do so. Cheers, --AWeith (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No, actually it is the right of the photographer to withdraw anyone's nomination of his/her photo. In any case, I fully understand and respect your reasoning on this and don't feel the least bit offended at all. Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've heard far more ridiculous reviews. Many users here are not experts in some areas so they just get carried away by the "wow" of the photos. The most important part of this section is the criticism valid or not, please do not feel you offended, just ignore and move on. --The Photographer12:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
plain Support, in memoriam Lonesome George, Toughie and countless other species and individuals killed by Mankind. Gentle bear, please feed yourself on those assholes named "neokons" or other "economic supremacists" negating a sad truth of anthropogenic climate changes. // NPOV vote reasoning: uttermost highness of educational value, no obvious technical flaws. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm watching this nomination for a long while. Great EV; but quality is below considering other FPs of this animal. I think we can feature this now and consider a "delist and replace" when we get a better quality photo. I wish to give value for the author's word "I have stayed away from the intimidated animal at a respectful distance; this is why the crop is not particularly big." In wildlife photography more important is to keep us alive than to get a shot. (I hope this nomination is still active. If AWeith decides to "withdraw" it again, we have to respect it as author's wish over our interests.) Jee07:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was the bear's safety that was considered here. If AWeith had gone any closer he might have stressed and frightened it. Since it obviously didn't have much strength left, using it's resources to flee and run or swim away might have been too much for it. cart-Talk09:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. I've little experience with carnivorans as I always prefer to play with small insects. :) Jee09:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My only experience is with the fauna of the north and even the big ones prefer to run if they see a human, they are only dangerous if you surprise them or corner them. That's why there is a tradition of singing or whistling when you are out picking berries or mushrooms in the forests here. If the bears/wolves/moose/lynx/whatever hear you coming from far away, they will leave you alone. Only the wild boars are a bit unpredictable. The spriders and bugs on the other hand will never leave you alone... ;) cart-Talk12:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hell, yeah, that's a great example of human ignorance. Of course, both species were acting according to their own instincts, the silverback investigating a trouble and being curious, the humans screaming in fear. But had the onlookers only had some more knowledge about the behaviour of our primate cousins, then this outcome wouldn't surely have occurred. Silverbacks of Gorilla gorilla are really sociable and responsible towards their family clan (as long as they do not have any kind of psychologic defect, but such a sick animal wouldn't be held together with females), and furthermore, human toddlers still have enough animalistic instinctive traits as for making themselves understood by any great ape (every adult of those four species should understand distress and curiosity of a child). I guess that in such a situation, the best any passerby could do is pleading for getting the child or object back: opening the hands, looking towards the ape, but not directly in the eyes, and not screaming, as human screams are of the same kind of sounds as used by chimpanzees, gorillas or orangutans to communicate the proximity of a predator. The aituation seemed to be really similar to any shooting of unarmed suspects by police officers... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read that gorilla would never attack gorilla mom holding a baby. But when you see Hollywood, and their Congo movie ⇔ problem. --Mile (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2016 at 07:16:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kefermarkt Kirche Flügelaltar 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kefermarkt Kirche Flügelaltar 01.jpg
Support However, you could have avoided the diffraction softness if you'd used something between f/5.6 and f/8 instead of f/11. --Code (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2016 at 10:29:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Thank you for showing us this beautiful animal, but before the photo can be reviewed as an FPC it needs to be renamed with a more meaningful name, the description and the categories also need to be improved. Take a look at some other photos of tigers, such as this one and you see how it can be done. cart-Talk11:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the "More" tab at the top of the file's page, then on "Move", fill in the form with an appropriate name and someone will move it for you. It's your nomination so you should have the honor of naming it properly. :) The description still needs some work too. cart-Talk13:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really don't want to be contemptuous but this is yet another tiger for me. The animal is not in a particularly attractive pose--AWeith (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The filename change went through. I still think that it should be specified what the Tadoba Andhari Tiger Project is. Is this a wild tiger or a tiger being cared for in some manner by people? I'm not sure I feel the animal is focused enough to support a feature, though. It seems like only part of its face (maybe only its nose) is fully in focus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cat is beautiful but unfortunately it is not very sharp, the light is not attractive and the pose of the tiger is not very exiting. In short no wow, sorry. cart-Talk20:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per cart. This is a good example of how sometimes it's not enough to just do everything you're supposed to do: the tiger's paw is forward and the photographer situated himself well. But any chance of an FP to me is undone by including so much wasted space off in the picture, especially with all that unsharpness and off-looking color. Cropping in might have been the only sensible thing to do (and even so, I wonder from the light why this had to be shot at ISO 320. Clearly the sun was out ... could 200 have worked? Or is this some issues with Canons I'm unaware of? Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TBH, I don't understand the oppose here. This is not a zoo, and the colors seem OK for a morning shot in March, when all the grass is dry and yellow. Yann (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Ultimately, I agree with Charles. And I also think that this tigress, who has been habituated to humans, can be photographed better than this, even if it would take a lot of effort. Compare this picture of a jaguar by Charles. Isn't that a much better picture, and of a completely wild animal whose picture had to be taken from a boat in the distance? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2016 at 05:48:39
Info Unsharp even at preview size. Previous nom failed due to lack of quorum, as regularly happened before delisting noms were allowed in the regular section to encourage greater participation. (Original nomination)
Delist I'm sorry for this image, but this one doesn't meet FP standards anymore. As Hendric said above, time changes and technology progresses. This very fast progressing of technology is like an ocean in high tide. You have to swim and swim to keep up, otherwise, you will be flooded. --★Poké9507:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We should ping User:Tillea for kind of comments, or to improve scaning if possible. Also would like to say (Alchemist-hp) that this is full frame film camera, and Fuji Velvio was very good film, much more than our Kodaks we were buying. Suppose a lot was lost while scanning, old photo, older scanner, if negative is still awailable a lot can come out now. --Mile (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think so. It was good for that time and it got Featured. Why now we "delist" it, for what? Doping? Maybe we should "delist" old champions, because their results are very poor as for nowadays? --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not up to our standards of what a Featured Picture is. It's perfectly logical, though I guess you don't think anything should ever be delisted, and so be it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2016 at 00:46:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:NC8407 Ford 4-AT Tri-Motor MD1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:NC8407 Ford 4-AT Tri-Motor MD1.jpg
Will do. They're easily taken care of if needed. I looked at them when I was editing the image and decided to leave them in, but I gave it a little thought myself. Acroterion (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've decided to support this picture for a feature. The only thing that was holding up my vote before was the black spots, but since they've been explained, I think that asking for them all to be cloned out is asking for a laborious exercise in dishonesty. It's not like cloning out a stray Coke can that happened to be on the ground at a particular time in a particular place; this is apparently a product of flying. So yeah, they could be cleaned up, but I've decided I'm OK with them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on that this evening when I have a little time to manually de-fringe. The 17-40 lens is prone to that in the corners at 17mm, thanks for spotting. Acroterion (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute vintage aircraft. Apparently not more than 18 Ford Trimotors exist today. Consider adding this photo to the Wikipedia article. dllu(t,c)21:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2016 at 23:26:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Types of epaulette of the Russian Empire (1855).pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Types of epaulette of the Russian Empire (1855).png
You got this tangled up in the old nom since you didn't read the instruction all the way. :) At Commons:Featured picture candidates#Adding a new nomination (just above the box) it sais: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2. You didn't add the "/2" after the name and got the old nom instead. I think you need to call on the help of a friendly admin to sort this out since pages might need to be moved or deleted. cart-Talk10:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2016 at 06:29:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2009R4294 - Кам'янець-Подільський.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2009R4294 - Кам'янець-Подільський.jpg
Oppose Noisy as King notes; also overexposed. The lack of any metadata doesn't help in any determination of whether this was unavoidable or not. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Also, I think a narrower crop on the left side would help, but the modern buildings on the upper right spoil the scene, too, so maybe a narrower crop on that side would help, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2016 at 12:19:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:46-206-0009 Kuty St Mykhail Church RB.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:46-206-0009 Kuty St Mykhail Church RB.jpg
Oppose It is a nice church and nice weather but not sure it reaches FP level. The left crop isn't ideal and the image appears slightly rotated anticlockwise. -- Colin (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Colin about the left crop. I'd suggest cropping out the sign, even though that means you'll unfortunately have to crop out more of the nice tree. I'd leave the trunk and everything to its right and then some - probably a crop just to the left of the next fencepost in to the right would be good. I think your other crops are good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Technically good. But I prefer verticat photo for this church with sky without clouds or needs some clouds as for horizontal photo, thus 'weak' support. --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2016 at 08:49:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Devils Slide military bunker by D Ramey Logan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Devils Slide military bunker by D Ramey Logan.jpg
Shot full frame, adjusted for CA on the lens profile using the raw file. This place is spooky, it is a old sub hunter gunnery tower just south of San Francisco on the coast that protected the bay from the Japanese in WW II
Comment - I agree with Martin, though what I notice more is that I want more focus. Definitely an interesting motif, though, and I'd like to see more photos of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info - I have a number of original raw files, from this shoot. I thought the person gave it a size perspective but was concerned that it was a tad too dark... Is it worth removing her and adjusting the light or should I just upload another without the girl??? This pis is a crop, from a FX full frame photo. I will review my archives to get a close up that has better focus and no "person" on the pic, I just need the time to look.... --WPPilot (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2016 at 07:37:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sprinkenhof (Hamburg-Altstadt).Innenhof.1.29135.ajb.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sprinkenhof (Hamburg-Altstadt).Innenhof.1.29135.ajb.jpg
Neutral It's not a alt version, it's only for explain why I'm voting neutral. This sample is not well done and it's only for educational purpose and it's only MHO --The Photographer16:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An explanation of your vote linking to the above image would be enough, but displaying an image the same way an alt would be displayed is inappropriate. lNeverCry23:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You present an alt and then proceed to say it's not an alt, it just looks like one. I'm just concerned it could confuse voting. People may think they can vote for your version. I've voiced my concern though, and that's enough for me. I'm not gonna dial 911 on you as you suggest. We've got more than enough rules. lNeverCry06:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2016 at 16:11:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fort Byzantin de Younga 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fort Byzantin de Younga 03.jpg
Oppose - It's definitely better, but my feeling is that this photo could be a FP, but the sharpness would have to be a lot closer to perfect and perhaps the lighting would need to be more special, too. I definitely like the photo, though, and encourage you to take more pictures of this view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. If you can brighten this up a bit, I would suggest nominating it at COM:VIC, as this is most likely the best shot from this orientation. There are no VIs in this category as of yet. lNeverCry01:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose Great composition and I'm not bothered by the lighting. But Ikan is right that it's just a little too unsharp at the corners. It's almost there, and definitely a QI for me, but not all the way. Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2016 at 15:33:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Temple aux six colonnes 04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Temple aux six colonnes 04.jpg
Oppose The view is quite nice, but the lighting makes the picture seem very flat. Moreover, the saturation has been increased too much. dllu(t,c)21:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2016 at 08:01:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment - I agree with Wladyslaw. Is it possible to denoise this photo? The crop is not a deal-breaker for me, because this composition is really beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its hard to capture everyone. Anyway Wladyslaw, cart, Ikan Kekek denoise done on both pictures, went for 0,5 px Gauss, i still like to keep some details. Someone would put downsizing, upper is 15,92 MPx, while this is 13.8 MPx - out of 16 MPx. Maybe i will end at 6/6 supports, would be perfect. --Mile (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See now what is your problem, that green tint is removing a bit of red channel all over, it was not that kind of red, despite maybe looking fine. --Mile (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info When i am not sure. This one is more to "thirds rule", but is missing railing. I am not sure which is good... will wait for some opinions. Ikan Kekek if i put more denoise i might loose details. I did already put some. However its fisheye lens, they are less tolarable to such stuff than good zooms. I am more on problem with cut - as Wladyslaw mentiones... Beware its handheld, ISO 1250, tripod couldnt go here. I even step up for some stairs not to be on shot. --Mile (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin I did it on 400%, with soft round...and you dont like it. Looking is good and dont think its perfect rounded in real (i might upload original if..). You dont like Heaviside function, not my cutting. I will figure out something. --Mile (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The cut out is less obvious now. But you've changed the colour balance towards green, which isn't nice, and I didn't see any problems with noise before but now it is quite blurred. I suggest people compare the two to see the loss of detail. -- Colin (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin Sorry what ? It same denoising, i just started from original and put back same denoise for 0.5 px. What are you seeing is maybe your imagination. You might hurt your eyes with 200-300 % pixel-peeping. Sure, show people where is that problem, and to me too. --Mile (talk) 06:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also info from EXIF for both Tint:8, and you probably didnt interpret File history well: gently designed edges of "Heaviside step" staircase-black background + denoise ... +denoise was compared to original shot, people wanted a bit of denoising. So i did. I forgive you Colin. --Mile (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2016 at 05:40:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Roc du Mayne, Haut-Languedoc, Rosis cf01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Roc du Mayne, Haut-Languedoc, Rosis cf01.jpg
Oppose I've tried to warm to this, but it just isn't doing anything for me. It just seems a bit too random and busy to me. -- Colin (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2016 at 19:42:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I like the colors and subdued tones of this image. Only the center and bottom left flowers are 100% pixel-level in-focus, so I would have considered expanding the DOF just a hair. On the other hand the other two flowers are only very slightly unsharp, so good enough for me. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 21:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Ferrer, could you explain why you withdraw this nom as it has not much oppose so far. One who opposed already blocked and another is "per that user" though both votes are valid. Anything more that disturbed you? I think the supporters deserve a better explanation. (Now I saw you withdraw another nom too. It looks like an overreaction to me.) Jee03:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkadavoor: 1/ I don't see why the opinion of a blocked user should be wrong on that precise question. And I don't see why "per that user" should be accepted only when the comment is positive. 2/ I always wanted (and asked) a hardening of the promotion rules, this never happened, but I apply regarding my nomination a kind of rules "too much of oppose and I withdraw...and that despite the number of supports". If you look in the archives you will see, since one or even since two year I withdrawed almost all my nomination that had several oppose votes, I already sometimes withdraw with a ration of 8support 1oppose, because I was thinking the oppose was justified. Sorry for the persons who have give a support, my will is not about to frustrate them, but to have a high standard of FPs. If I count all the nominations in the way to be promoted that I have withdraw, I could have more than 120 FPs, but I don't see any interest to that, if the FPs are "easy" to have. The very good photos have never "3 oppose votes" 3/ regarding the other nomination, two oppose votes made the first day by 2 very experimented users is a far two much big opposition for my "standard". If it is an overreaction, then I overreact since now more than 2 years. I give more power to the "oppose vote", this is my choice. Christian Ferrer(talk)05:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I respect your intention to maintain a higher standard at least for your nominations. But remember that most reviewers in COM:FPC are not subject experts. So, many times their reviews (including me when I review a different subject where I've little experience) had serious flaws and there is not much meaning in too much arguments with them. At the end, our attempt is to provide a good supply of best images in various subjects for re-use; in and out of Wikimedia projects. Just my opinion. Jee07:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: I think this shows a lack of respect for voters. I've supported several of your nominations, only to have you withdraw them suddenly even though they were passing and had plenty of support. I'll skip your nominations from now on. I don't have the time to waste supporting images that may be withdrawn on a whim. lNeverCry10:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2016 at 23:16:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Egon Rusina Ghialar Istitut Ladin Micura de Rü 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Egon Rusina Ghialar Istitut Ladin Micura de Rü 2016.jpg
Good shot, but you have to cut bottom to start with diagonals, but in that case might be too narrow shot. I would try just one part - triangle in the corner, with similar compoisition and good diagonals. --Mile (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too asymmetrical to achieve the minimalist look; the amount of negative space on the bottom is much greater than that at the top, and a greater fraction of the 7th rectangle is visible on the left than on the right (and it appears that you are slightly left of center). --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 20:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support So it's an exhibit of paintings? Wow ... I thought it was some unused section of a subway station. Which might have been the point. Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2016 at 12:28:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Two rare species together - Schrenck’s bumblebee is opening moor-king lousewort flower (only strong insects can do that). All by Ivar (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose I think you've cropped too close on the right and the aspect ratio of the uncropped previous version is more pleasing.Support I would support the previous version. -- Colin (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2016 at 12:06:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gallinula galeata in Botanical Garden of São Paulo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gallinula galeata in Botanical Garden of São Paulo.jpg
Oppose Sorry, no more that a very good QI for me. Perhaps if it had been a square or upright composition where the whole reflection of the bird had been visible. cart-Talk10:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2016 at 12:07:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gateway to the Springs of Jardim Botânico de São Paulo 04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gateway to the Springs of Jardim Botânico de São Paulo 04.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2016 at 09:09:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2016 at 10:45:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rifling of a cannon (M75; 90mm; y.1891; Austro-Hungarian; exposed in Ljubljana, Slovenia).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rifling of a cannon (M75; 90mm; y.1891; Austro-Hungarian; exposed in Ljubljana, Slovenia).jpg
Info Rifling of a cannon (M75; 90mm; y.1891; Austro-Hungarian; exposed in Ljubljana, Slovenia). Macro stacked; 43 shots. -- Mile (talk) 10:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite a job! You should mention how it's done and the number of frames in the file's description. There is some chromatic noise in the upper right corner, it would be better if that was fixed. cart-Talk12:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
cart its strange job. It so dark, peaking doesnt work, so you move and move manually, without knowing exact distance, hence some mistakes are still visible. Muzzle was covered with my cap, not to let sun to go inside in beggining, so just backlight. Its written if you open it, at Source: 43 shots. Might remove, show me with note. --Mile (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! The description of how the photo was taken usually goes under "Description", "Source" is just about who made it. That's why I didn't find it. I've fixed that. Also added a note for the slight purple noise for you. You can probably just remove the color there to get rid of it. cart-Talk14:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek you saw something similar in 007 movies. But its not Walther PPK, this is 90mm cannon. I did want to make from gun also, if that could be possible, just to find some gun. --Mile (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2016 at 20:04:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Belmond Hotel das Cataratas.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Belmond Hotel das Cataratas.jpg
Oppose This is a fantastic scene but unfortunately the quality of a cell phone camera just isn't up to par. The whites of the waterfall are all blown out and corners are unsharp. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 21:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blown out white, unsharp. CelRalf Rolečekl phones are not Cameras. --~
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2016 at 16:45:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hazelnut (male flower), overlay of 7 channel autofluorescence microscopy (30458886372).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hazelnut (male flower), overlay of 7 channel autofluorescence microscopy (30458886372).jpg
Support It's a pleasing composition and very high resolution. I would however, appreciate knowing a bit more of what I'm looking at, perhaps with some image notes. Perhaps if Zeiss can't help with this, then some folk on a wikiproject can annotate it for us. It would make any FPC much richer. An idea of scale would also help. -- Colin (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2016 at 17:07:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose The composition of this isn't so good. It's very small (2.3MP). The description doesn't mean anything to a lay reader, so this just ends up being an abstract of coloured blobs and streaks. And if I search Google Images for "Indian Muntjac fibroblast cells" I see many similar photos with weird colours. So don't think this is remarkable enough. Btw, there are two other similar images here and here and I prefer the latter. -- Colin (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2016 at 19:04:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Zedelnig mountain (2330m) und alpine pasture Jamnigalm in the Tauern Valley near Mallnitz, High Tauern National Park, Carinthia. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've decided this is a FP, and what ultimately made the difference for me was the rock outcroppings in the near middleground. Those are special as an addition to an already beautiful landscape. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2016 at 17:17:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mouse Kidney (23725924684).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mouse Kidney (23725924684).jpg
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --cart-Talk18:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2016 at 17:29:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Peter Tatchell - Red Wall - 8by10 - 2016-10-15.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Peter Tatchell - Red Wall - 8by10 - 2016-10-15.jpg
Oppose IMHO, It's a nice portrait, however, background color and texture are distracting (maybe a bucket could be better), composition is too closeup. Btw I preffer this version.
It wasn't easy for me to decide which of the three photos I uploaded was best. I think there are good qualities in each, in their own ways. In terms of "closeup", there is no room in the original framing to expand the crop to the left. It was a narrow balcony and a thin strip of wall to use as background. -- Colin (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Please sign your post. I prefer this version and find this restrained bokeh background much less distracting than that loud bokeh background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I actually agree here. I think his face is "too much in forward", which is result of too tight crop, i think some pixel on each side would help. Compo, colors are fine. --Mile (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Add some 80 px on right side, 20 px on left, leave bottom, above: cut, so his eyes would be on 2/3 and you get rid of some hairs. --Mile (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tried out Slaunger's crop, and Cart's and Mile's. I think Slaunger's pushes the balance too far to the left, doesn't leave enough space on the left (which his body faces) and a little too much room above. But I couldn't decide last night. I'm becoming less sure that adding more space round him is buying much -- it isn't like we see more of a pretty dress or fancy costume, just a black shirt and red wall. Perhaps there are simply many possible crops (tighter still, or wider) and no clear winner. Keep posting your suggestions if you like, and I'll think again tonight. -- Colin (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the alternative crops, in a dropbox link send in a mail by Colin, where Colin also proposes a square crop. Well, none are IMO clearly better than the nomination (very much a matter of taste), and actually I do not particularly fancy my own proposed crop when I see the result (the nomination is fine as is), as is a square crop. I would propose not to nominate an alternative at this time, but stick with the original crop. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe Photographer, Diliff, you are both welcome to create a separate nomination for the other portrait, which I would support. I shall update this nomination with a suitable crop tonight, taking into account suggestions + my own preferences. -- Colin 13:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me the wall is an excellent background that does not detract from a well-done portrait. I like the irony of it being red when he is now a member of the Green Party, having left Labour a decade ago. But IIRC London has a lot more red-painted brick walls than green ones. Daniel Case (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2016 at 17:56:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --cart-Talk18:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2016 at 23:34:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:View of San Francisco at night from Bernal Heights 2016 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:View of San Francisco at night from Bernal Heights 2016 03.jpg
Question - I'm not really inclined to compare right now (though I may do so tomorrow). But noise can be one element in whether I find a photo sufficiently wowing or not. So instead, I'm interested to know: what would happen if you tried to de-noise the photo a little? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Because, to elaborate a bit further, I don't think FP is really about what's normal, but about what's the best it can be. Is this the best it can be, or could it be improved? If it can be improved, it should be improved, right? I think so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - My feeling is that your edits definitely improved the picture, but whereas there was a lot of noise before, now I see banding in the sky. However, I just can't ignore how beautiful the picture is at full-page size, and so even for that alone it probably merits a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The banding is just because, with standard 8 bit per channel colour, there are only 255 shades of blue. Of course, noise gets rid of this effect but I've removed all the noise. You can either have slight noise, or subtle banding. With my recently calibrated sRGB monitors, the banding is almost imperceptible anyway. dllu(t,c)21:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2016 at 10:37:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Loreleyblick Maria Ruh (2).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loreleyblick Maria Ruh (2).jpg
Support I camp with Wohnwagen since small. For me is interesting where Austrians and Germans like to camp, near every kind of water etc... despite no-swiming. Interesting shot. --Mile (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks to all. On the basis of the mentioned criticism I've improved the image: less green, a bit more light, sky-lines removed. --Milseburg (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2016 at 18:04:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose What dose mean of Pictures ? Describing something about it? Look no visible holes! Narrow space. I do not see clearly the gulf. Light poor distribution.--Morning (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that this was one of the most interesting and best composition on that WLM, but as an FP I find all the garbage and the busses buses surrounding the monument very off-putting, sorry. cart-Talk15:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2016 at 17:49:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Feskekôrka September 2016 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Feskekôrka September 2016 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2016 at 07:28:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Back Bay Newport Beach CA by D Ramey Logan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Back Bay Newport Beach CA by D Ramey Logan.jpg
This photo was taken with a Inspire 1 Professional Drone using a MFT camera. I have done NO post processing on it whatsoever, so hit me up if you have any suggestions. Cheers, Don...
Comment The horizon isn't level. Try a 0.5° anticlockwise rotation. Did you get raw file or just a JPG? If the latter then there are limited postprocessing adjustments you can do anyway. The sky is bright but there's a smooth transition, which would probably posterise if you tried fiddling with it in JPG. If there's a raw file, then I'd be interested to see what else could be extracted (send me an email if you like). -- Colin (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2016 at 06:21:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo. Uitzicht op Monte Cevedale 04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo. Uitzicht op Monte Cevedale 04.jpg
Neutral. This is a very impressive view, and I'm almost compelled to support based on the cloud alone. But the composition simply doesn't do any wonders here; it is hard to get a sense of the foreground, which I feel can use more room on both the top and the bottom. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now I see why you chose that crop; it helps emphasize the mountain and clouds in the middle. But the first version simply went too far. I've suggested an alternative crop; could you take a look and see if you agree with my suggestion? -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2016 at 09:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info This composite shows a female giant kingfisher (the largest kingfisher species in Africa) smashing a tilapia against a post to break its spine so it can swallow it. We saw it do this three times with the same fish. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great images and educational value. However, please specify in your file description what is happening in what order (left to right or right to left), for maximum instructional value. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
enthusiastic support The bird in the middle is not exactly in focus but this doesn't lower the overall quality too much. --AWeith (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An excellent series, no complaints about the photos themselves. However, they would be far more useful as individual images, which can be arranged in this way if desired (see w:Dynamic range#Photography), but the added advantage is that they can be used individually, arranged vertically, etc. in ways that you can't with the fixed sequence here. Could you please add the original images as a set below? -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeCharles couldnt this go into .gif or maybe movie ? But some picture more would help to understand the situation. When doing so, i think same size of frames are also needed. Here are suppose 3 different. --Mile (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took more images, but they don't show anything else interesting. I guess someone could combine them into a .gif, but I don't do that. I don't think you can nominate three separate images as a series for FP can you? That's why I did the composite. Charles (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think it's essential that it be an either/or. Instead, you could point to the individual photos as "other versions". I also still think it's important to state in your file description what is happening in each frame, and whether to read it from left to right or right to left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Now we have three options: 1. Feature the composite picture mentioning other views in "other versions" (as nominated) 2. Feature a set of four photos as King of Hearts voted 3. Feature File:Giant kingfisher (Megaceryle maxima) female 4.jpg mentioning other views in "other versions" as Mile suggested. If Charles only want to nominate the composite picture now, I think we need to strike-off KoH's votes and people should not vote for other options here. Jee03:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I striked my o vote, but wont support as 4 in case, it is better than before. But i think i would support just 4th shot, despite beeing small. --Mile (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2016 at 06:13:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Sandkrugbrücke (a bridge in Berlin-Moabit) during sunset. The light trail under the bridge is a ship passing by during the exposure. I like this picture mainly because of the colours and the crossing light trails of moving traffic both on the street and on the water. The only real flaw I see is the little unsharpness of the foremost pole of the fence but that's not completely avoidable and I don't believe that it's really distracting. I'm curious about you thoughts. All by me. -- Code (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2016 at 09:12:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Skaftafell panoramic.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Skaftafell panoramic.png
Comment There seem to be some serious stiching errors on the ice floes just in front of the glacier. Can that be mended? Otherwise it is a good photo of this scenery in difficult light conditions. --AWeith (talk) 10:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's indeed better, thank you, I'm afraid the clouds are a bit too disturbing for me, and that's not fixable IMO, the camera did not registered any details for the burned areas. I, personaly, usualy try to expose well the sky, and then I fix the shadows in the landscape. Regards, Christian Ferrer(talk)05:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the black ice and the metallic reflection of the lake. The blown parts of the clouds are still there but they don't disturb me that much. --AWeith (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The blown-out clouds at the top don't bother me because that's the sun, and some amount of white is inevitable, but see if you can fix the blown-out lower-hanging clouds. The sky on the far left is oddly cyan; did you use a polarizing filter or take the individual frames with slightly different exposure settings? -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into the cloud. The colour of the sky is just a result from the stitching I think, the exposure might have been different between pictures indeed. Triton (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I'm changing my vote, because as much as I love the long view of the glacier, I would like to see this view without such a distracting area of blown cloud. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2016 at 12:17:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Snäckan (The Shell) by Lenny Clarhäll at Göteborgsoperan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Snäckan (The Shell) by Lenny Clarhäll at Göteborgsoperan.jpg
Info Steel sculpture The Shell, an artistic rendition of all the seashells found in the area, by Lenny Clarhäll at Gothenburg Opera in Lilla Bommen district, Gothenburg. I was lucky with this shot since the area is very busy with lots of people out walking. I caught is just between one tourist group leaving and another one coming. :) Also a good time of year for this, since the color of the trees match the sculpture and the marina to the right is not packed with boats. All by me, -- cart-Talk12:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2016 at 09:45:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Агат.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Агат.jpg
Oppose - Sorry to start off with an oppose vote, but as an almost life-long lover of agates, I find this neither an extraordinary specimen nor very sharply photographed. A Google Image search for "agate" produces all kinds of amazing multicolored stones. We seem to have an oddly poor selection of photos of agates on Commons, at least in terms of the few QIs that came up, but I'm a bit surprised you think of this as an FP. We'll see what other people think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it's one of the best on Commons. If you want to draw that conclusion from its being one of a few QIs of agates, you can do so, but I don't think that just because a photo is a QI in a category with poor coverage on Commons, that makes it a viable FP candidate. Moreover, there could easily be other sites with CC-licensed agate photos that are better than the QIs currently on Commons, and the existence of those is also relevant at FPC, isn't it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a rather ordinary agate. The background has quite a lot of noise, possibly due to compression artefacts. Although the image is a decent size, it isn't that sharp, so less detailed than some of our smaller photos. There aren't many QI of agates but a browse through the category shows some much nicer specimens -- though the category is a PITA as someone has split it into lots of tiny sub categories with about three images each. I think the point about the Google image search is that it shows the potential images we should have for such a highly photogenic subject. Being "among the finest" is influenced by "other photos of agates", "other photos of minerals" and "other studio photos of objects" and "our general standard of photography at FP". While I think having similar/better photos in the category counts against a photo being FP, not having similar/better photos in that specific category is not a free ride to FP either. It if the specimen, the photography and the JPG aren't that great, then I still oppose. Perhaps someone will be encouraged to take a great photo. -- Colin (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a note to Ikan's comment on the fantastic colors found at a Google search, many of those agates have artificial coloring since agate is very easy to dye. This specimen at least shows the most common real color of the stone. --cart-Talk10:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2016 at 09:18:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Традиционална куќа во Мало Илино 49.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Традиционална куќа во Мало Илино 49.jpg
Support There is sad story behind a "village from Macedonia". Sometime, 20-30 years ago, they were healty, population went to thousand+, today, they are empty, some have population of 1 (one). It resemble the story of Migrant mother. --Mile (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2016 at 08:40:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:مسجد نصیرالملک در شیراز.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:مسجد نصیرالملک در شیراز.jpg
Mild Oppose verging on neutral - This is certainly a good picture, but I think this needs a bit of perspective correction, and it's also just a bit unsharp in places. I think thesetwo by Diego are higher quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Having said that, this picture offers a different view than either those or the one current FP of this mosque, so if a couple of small changes (perspective correction and sufficient sharpening) are done, I would be happy to reconsider my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2016 at 17:41:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:4th Special Operations Squadron - AC-130U - 2008.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:4th Special Operations Squadron - AC-130U - 2008.jpg
Neutral I can give a pass to the amount of noise in this image because of its unique perspective. But the posterization and false color is simply too distracting for me. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a dramatic image but the quality is just too poor. At thumbnail it is ok but even at modest preview sizes one can see the posterization, false colours and grain -- this image had been post processed too far. And by PaintShopPro of all things. It appears to have been upscaled (thus emphasising the grainy dots) as the D200 only has 3872 pixels width an this is 4200. Wish we had access to the raw file. -- Colin (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2016 at 18:50:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Arc de triomphe du carrousel in Paris France.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Arc de triomphe du carrousel in Paris France.jpg
It is just one of the arcs de triomphe in Paris. This is not the Arc de Triomphe de l'Etoile (place Charles de Gaulle) the most famous, but the Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel in the Jardin des Tuileries, close to the Louvre, but in the same perspective. Welcome to Paris !--Jebulon (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2016 at 16:16:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
WeakOppose. Noise is too high for me. Nice job on the selective NR on the background, but there's too much noise on the flower itself and any more NR would impair the already marginally sharp main subject. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2016 at 11:44:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:CasadeCampo1-Tandil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:CasadeCampo1-Tandil.jpg
Oppose It may be an illusion, but it seems to be off-axis, rotated about 0.7° clockwise. Other than that, there seems to be an overall lack of sharpness, there is disturbing chromatic abberation and I don't see much wow in the scene. Storkk (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. If you want to focus in on the typical cottage, you might consider taking a dead-on picture of it, framed by trees, without the big foreground of dirt. I'm not sure you could get a FP out of it that way, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If only there were more buildings and maybe some abandoned cars or rusted equipment of some kind to really get the atmosphere. lNeverCry08:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: all these opposes over four days; it's not going to get anywhere near the support it needs to overcome this
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2016 at 19:12:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Insufficient wow. If it's a photo of the parachutist, he's too small. If it's a general landscape, the scene is not sufficiently interesting. If it's a minimalist composition, it's not sufficiently simple. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's not a bad photo but never underestimate the power of kneeling to get a low horizon for a more dramatic action shot. It would have produced something like this . --cart-Talk10:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2016 at 23:59:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Duck in Botanical Garden of São Paulo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Duck in Botanical Garden of São Paulo.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2016 at 23:03:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:View of San Francisco at night from Bernal Heights 2016 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:View of San Francisco at night from Bernal Heights 2016 02.jpg
Oppose The bright lights make everything behind the highway hazy, unfortunately. I think this view would work better during early blue hour than late blue hour (I'm assuming you live on the East Coast and forgot to change your time zone?). 38 minutes past sunset is really late so close to the winter solstice, so I would probably do something closer to 20 minutes. This would allow the ambient light to have some chance of competing with the extremely bright lights of the sports field, i.e. the haze is still there but in photography everything is relative so a shorter exposure will reduce the absolute amount of haze that reaches your sensor. Also, the sky is a bit noisy and it would probably be better if the airplane trails were removed. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the feedback. I took another photo 7 minutes earlier but unfortunately strong winds caused the tripod to vibrate a bit. You are right that much better lighting is achieved 20 minutes earlier, but the lighting changes so quickly that I can only take one or two photos during that time. This particular lens is also prone to lens flares, so I might use a different lens next time. By the way, I disagree that airplane trails should be removed. It wouldn't be an honest depiction of the scene. dllu(t,c)00:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2016 at 13:54:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Топлички манастир.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Топлички манастир.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2016 at 04:25:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Small Pratincole-4812.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Small Pratincole-4812.jpg
Oppose If the bokeh was all that pleasant cloudy white and blue, I'd support this, but that band of green is just too heavy for me. lNeverCry04:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2016 at 06:46:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016R2611 - Київ.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016R2611 - Київ.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: A large part of the foreground is out of focus. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2016 at 03:51:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - I love the scene, too, but because it's shot in dull light and not very sharp, I don't think its an FP. I do think it's a very good photo, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because FPC shouldn't be about the very best photos, right? As Kreutzschnabel so correctly stated (and I wish he were still here to be a counterpoint to people who perhaps don't think FPC is about the very best photos), not every good to very good photo is properly an FP. I haven't criticized you for voting for too many nominees, so lay off of me when I demur for a clearly stated reason, eh? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have these but I still think this could be in the collection with the number of turtles, the reflection and the moment captured when one of them emerges from the water, like a single-shot of one of those montages. cart-Talk10:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2016 at 01:32:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mid-Hudson Bridge night NY1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mid-Hudson Bridge night NY1.jpg
Oppose Sorry, too dark for me, would have been better earlier during the blue hour. The foreground unsharpness caused by the f/4 also doesn't help. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I mostly agree with the others, but I love the reflections and think this beautiful composition should be possible as an FP. Perhaps you could try a longer exposure? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I have brighter versions, but the illuminated towers of the bridge is typically blown out in those. Thanks for the comments, I'll go back and see if earlier exposures have a reasonable combination of bridge and sky. It was slightly breezy, so I was using f4 and fairly short exposures to keep the water from getting muddled. Acroterion (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2016 at 08:39:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Norderney, Nordsee am Oststrand -- 2016 -- 5167 (bw) - 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Norderney, Nordsee am Oststrand -- 2016 -- 5167 (bw) - 2.jpg
Comment - This is a very good photo, but there a quite a few dust spots. Do I understand correctly that this was a 20-second exposure? The clouds moved so far in 20 seconds? Anyway, it's really captivating. Fix the dust spots, and then I will vote to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is where the magic happens. :) Also a very good example of how different B&W photography is from today's normal snapping. To do really good B&W pics you almost need to see the scene in B&W as early as in the viewfinder. cart-Talk12:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the idea very much, but there are some points that in sum keep me from supporting. B&W totally makes sense here, and I like how it was processed, but is there any chance you can get rid of those haloes around the poles while keeping the rest as it is? Somehow I feel that a slightly wider view with more space at the left would have worked a bit better. As for the clouds, I think I would've preferred them either crispy sharp or or milky soft – as they are now it looks like they are racing at 200 km/h, which kind of disturbs the otherwise calm scene. But all in all, I like it too much to oppose, so I guess I'll just stay Neutral. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find this much more striking than the color version, which to me is comparatively bland. I do see the halos El Grafo refers to, but they don't disturb my enjoyment of the photo. There might be 2 dust spots remaining, but it's hard to tell because they could be parts of clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support though some of the bottom could be cropped; a rule of thirds on the horizon rather than on the shoreline would look better here. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 20:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see why the photographer wanted to try this, but it didn't work for me. The longitudinal staticity of the posts unfortunately doesn't create the hoped-for dynamic with the latitudinal motion of the clouds. In either version. Daniel Case (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have to admit, I like this composition better. I'm not completely convinced originality should be a criterion here, as this is not a copy of that photo but to me, more in the nature of a variation on a theme. But you are right to point us to that article, and it's up to each person to decide for themselves on the question of originality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think originality is absolutely necessary for an FP, but an FP should at least be outstanding and be better than most other pictures with the same motif. Currently, this photo doesn't stand out from the crowd of hundreds of other similar photos. Many of XRay's other photos are way better than this one, too. dllu(t,c)21:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I've ultimately decided your argument is correct. That composition is better. I don't care so much about the aspect of originality. I've seen other variations on this theme by XRay and would consider each nomination according to the quality of its composition. If any are as good as or better than the "original", I would vote to feature them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2016 at 13:16:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Haslach an der Mühl - Textiles Zentrum Haslach - 26 - Garnrollen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Haslach an der Mühl - Textiles Zentrum Haslach - 26 - Garnrollen.jpg
Comment - Yes, I am seeing some of that. User:Haeferl, would you like to edit the photo to address these observations? (Entschuldingung dass ich weiss nicht wie mann kann "halos" usw. auf Deutsch sagen.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your vote and your review, Daniel, but "a little too sharpened" cannot be, because the picture is not at all sharpened. May be, some fibrous yarns in combination with the lights make this effect. I don't know, what to do, Ikan, I made only perspective correction. Nice greetings, --Häferl (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are some sharpening artifacts, yes, but not more than in many (or most) other FP and not really disturbing in 100% view. --smial10:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2016 at 18:56:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sparta Illinois USA Pyrite-disc-00.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sparta Illinois USA Pyrite-disc-00.jpg
Info Pyrite Disc (140 mm x 110 mm x 7 mm, 246 gr), also called "Miners Dollar" from a coal mine in Sparta, Illinois. Created as focus stacking of 33 pictures.
I don't think that the name is choosen upon smuggling it out of the colliery in a lunch box. I rather presume that the name origines from the round form and the golden shine. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With 32 single photos, the backdrop rendered after stacking to an awful background. I rather decided to get rid of it. I produced another version with artificial background, but for FP I didn't wanted to offer photoshoppped backgrounds. However, I respect your opinion. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2016 at 23:56:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chicago September 2016-23.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chicago September 2016-23.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2016 at 06:22:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2009R5063 - Кам'янець-Подільський.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2009R5063 - Кам'янець-Подільський.jpg
Oppose - This composition doesn't work for me. It feels very claustrophobic in almost the entire lower half. I don't know what the scene would look like with a wider-angle view, but that might be an option to explore. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others; I am in particular put off by the discordant forms, but there's also the noisy sky, the light that may or may not be golden hour and the minimal EXIF data that makes it hard to tell what went into making this. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2016 at 06:18:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Puerta de Brandenburgo, Berlín, Alemania, 2016-04-21, DD 49-51 HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Puerta de Brandenburgo, Berlín, Alemania, 2016-04-21, DD 49-51 HDR.jpg
InfoQuadriga of the Brandenburg Gate, Berlin, Germany. The gate was commissioned by King Frederick William II of Prussia as a sign of peace and built between 1788 to 1791. It suffered considerable damage in World War II and during the post-war Partition of Germany, the gate was isolated and inaccessible immediately next to the Berlin Wall. The area around the gate was featured most prominently in the media coverage of the tearing down of the wall in 1989, and the subsequent German reunification in 1990. The gate was restored from 2000 to 2002 to its current appearance. After the 1806 Prussian defeat at the Battle of Jena-Auerstedt, Napoleon was the first to use the Brandenburg Gate for a triumphal procession and took its Quadriga to Paris. After Napoleon's defeat in 1814 and the Prussian occupation of Paris the Quadriga was restored to Berlin and redesigned as a Prussian triumphal arch. All by me, Poco206:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question What happaned here. Do you have mirror lock-up ? Or tripod moved ? Some strange mistakes, not sure you made them. See note. --Mile (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the problem was due to the lens with which I have had more and more problems. It isn't tight as it should and that is specially visible with long exposure images. When I tilt the lens down then it slides without resistance to the highest mm. I will send it to the Canon shop Poco223:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see, problem was, but i was afraid you would use brush and clone tool to remove it, its now not so good, i think i would still put back original. Last image from Germany also didnt had so lucky corrections... i know this solving would be a problem. Poc send lens to refurbish etc... --Mile (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mile: "i was afraid you would use brush and clone tool to remove it", yes, I did. How would you have reworked it otherwise? the issue is within the brightest frame of the HDR, which I do need. I have just uploaded a new version with a rework of all edited areas and a noise reduction of the sky. For me it looks more than acceptable --Poco222:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Poc: I dont know how would i edit this, since i didnt have problem like this. So i think better to leave it as it is. I know stuff you mentioned, friend has it on Nikon DSLR, i was shocked i thought i would loose my lens...its simply all fell down when moved vertical. I was wondering, since dynamic range is probably big at your camera, was HDR necessary ? --Mile (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Morning can you please add a note where you see such a lack of sharpness to oppose? Regarding the highlights, of course that there are some, that is perfectly normal as there are limelights up there, but there is definitely no lost of detail due to burnt areas. Please, consider also that this image has 43 MPx, much more resolution than most of the candidates here and expecting the same sharpness at full size of a 15 MPx and a 43 MPx it isn't really fair. Poco218:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2016 at 13:23:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Skanska high-rise at Lilla Bommen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Skanska high-rise at Lilla Bommen.jpg
Info The Lilla Bommen building complex is one of the newer iconic buildings in Gothenburg created by Ralph Erskine. In line with local humor tradition it has so many nicknames that its original name is all but forgotten. It is now known as the Skanska High-rise, Lipstick, Lego House, Outlook, Water Level (the Swedish translation is a lewd a double-entendre), etc. All by -- cart-Talk13:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2016 at 13:39:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Evening mood on the docks by Göta Älv.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Evening mood on the docks by Göta Älv.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2016 at 13:23:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Charaxes psaphon-Aralam-2016-10-29-002.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Charaxes psaphon-Aralam-2016-10-29-002.jpg
We do have to spend too much time lying on the ground, don't we. Do you think we can train these creatures to perch at our eye level!! Charles (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can wish contrast; but camouflage is they prefer as a lower member in food chain. They have striking colors on upper-side to keep the predators away while on flight and a tawny color on underside to merge with the place they perch. Jee03:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2016 at 11:06:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dance of Death (replica of 15th century fresco; National Gallery of Slovenia).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dance of Death (replica of 15th century fresco; National Gallery of Slovenia).jpg
InfoDance of Death replica of 15th century fresco; made by friend of mine. Its made by 6-8 shots, made with perspective projection, as it should be. There is also some writing made in Glagolic scrypt - also part of original. Expo of Slovenian National Gallery. -- Mile (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not surprisingly, I find the original, which can be seen here (small picture, though) much greater artistically than this replica. However, this is a great photo per se, and I understand the importance of the replica itself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2016 at 12:05:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dawn on the harbour of Sète cf01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dawn on the harbour of Sète cf01.jpg
Support Excellent. The sensor quality of the D810 is incredible. My Canon would never perform that good in the darker areas. --Code (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2016 at 10:59:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dome of the Prophet (Temple Mount, 2008).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dome of the Prophet (Temple Mount, 2008).jpg
Comment While I'm flattered by the nomination, it's not one that I would have made. It's a high EV structure, and every subsequent trip there has been some kind of obstruction preventing a clean shot, but I have to agree with Alvesgaspar above.--Godot13 (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice litte dome and worthy of the QI and VI, but it's not an FP for me. The light is good but a bit uninteresting, there is some residual CA, half a coil of black cables (or something) could have been cloned out and I could do without the 3/4 man in the background. Sorry, no wow. cart-Talk10:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2016 at 14:49:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pelargonium grandiflorum (white).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pelargonium grandiflorum (white).jpg
Oppose Possibly not stacked enough, as I see some soft parts. I wish it wasn't cropped at top and rather tightly cropped overall. Did you stack with focus change or with a macro rail? Sometimes the focus-breathing on a lens give problems arranging the correct crop. I don't find the lighting particularly good. I do like the effect of the water droplets magnifying the texture of the flower -- that would be something worth studying at macro. -- Colin (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I made some mistake at Saving file... this isnt appropriate version. Will try to get what i intend to. --Mile (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2016 at 15:58:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2016 at 13:14:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Damselfly emergence-Aralam-2016-10-29-001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Damselfly emergence-Aralam-2016-10-29-001.jpg
Support - Great capture! A remark about the file description, though: The first sentence, referring to climbing out of the water, doesn't seem relevant to this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The nymph has its entire life in water and has to come out and climb on something. Usually it will be a plant growing inside or on the bank. Here it is on the bank and all the mud we can see on the exuviae proves it struggled a lot to reach here. Jee02:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGreat capture, indeed. This a somewhat rare moment, the one just after the imago (fully developed damselfly) has extracted itself from the exuvia, being still attached to it. --Cayambe (talk) 09:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again Jee, I find the flash reflections are not helpful. Surely direct flash is not needed for this type of daytime static image. Charles (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure; flash has some issues. But I think it is better to use it until we have an excellent camera which has a high ISO performance. Otherwise we are loosing simple moments. Jee17:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2016 at 17:01:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eastern great egret (Close-up of the head area) at Tennōji Park in Osaka, November 2016 - 1410.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eastern great egret (Close-up of the head area) at Tennōji Park in Osaka, November 2016 - 1410.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2016 at 17:02:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de Geghard, Armenia, 2016-10-02, DD 65-74 PAN.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de Geghard, Armenia, 2016-10-02, DD 65-74 PAN.jpg
Alvesgaspar, I haven't seen "many artifacts" in the sky but have denoised it just in case. About the frame, and giving also an answer to Mile, my intention here was to provide a wide view of the location of the monastery (the UNESCO site is not just the monastery but the whole location) showing also the cross embedded in the rock on the right. I've uploaded several pictures from this subject from the same location, therefore cropping those almost 100 MPx to result in pictures that are already existing (see here, here or here) does not really provide added value. --Poco223:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2016 at 13:19:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Пејзаж во Злетовско-пробиштипско 4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Пејзаж во Злетовско-пробиштипско 4.jpg
Comment - I think that your picture, though not at an FP technical level, has a better composition, because of the alternating layers of trees, grass, the river and bridge, more trees, mountains and clouds. This is a good picture, but yours, if technically better, could be an FP, in my opinion. This one is heading that way, but I said my piece about it upthread. So if you don't mind my asking: Why, really, do you think this is an FP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Thanks for the praise ... yes, while I'm proud of that picture I don't think it's FP-level either. But ... I like the texture created by the raking light here, something I wish I could have gotten in that image as well. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2016 at 02:25:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Estação Paulista, Av. Consolação, São Paulo, Brazil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Estação Paulista, Av. Consolação, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg
Oppose There's a clear blurred patch between frames on the right hand side (and to some extent on the left). I see you've tried to fix it with the latest version, but the strip of tiles on the right is just fake and clearly so (there's no perspective, and some extra metal poles have appeared). It's a pain when you have a duff frame in a stitched photo but very difficult to see how it can be rescued here. Also, the latest version is even more contrast/vibrant than before such that details on the clothes are lost. There's overall too much contrast -- while this can be hard to spot on artificially-coloured walls, it is really obvious on the people -- they don't look great with that much Clarity! -- Colin (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sudden appearance of blurred frames around that door on the left wall cannot, to me, be explained as an inevitable compromise of the conditions under which the images were taken. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2016 at 21:40:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment I did not have any information about the nomination of that old photo of mine. Of course, this is even in lack of everything, what a quality image should have. The image was made in JPEG and with a lens, that doesn`t have the requirement or claim for making sharp pictures. Sorry for that. The image should not be there at all. Please, Joobo withdraw this nomination. Thank you! --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2016 at 12:56:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chicago September 2016-37.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chicago September 2016-37.jpg
Support Very nice, I'm mostly amazed by how distorted the reflection is. This is something you normally see in old buildings with imperfect windowpanes, not in modern office buildings. --cart-Talk19:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2016 at 05:33:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:GER-2016-Frankfurt-Bridge 01 (Ignatz-Bubis-Brücke).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:GER-2016-Frankfurt-Bridge 01 (Ignatz-Bubis-Brücke).jpg
WeakSupport. Nice clouds and composition, though I'd prefer more resolution than 30 not particularly sharp megapixels for a shot like this. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIkan Kekek, just for the interest, what level of sharpness do you actually expect? OK, when compared to all that "à la Diliff" panos stitched from 80 single shots and in the end downscaled from 300 to 100 mpix or so, this one is of course by far not as crisp; but for a usual single photo this one is perfectly sharp, isn't it? I for myself cannot shoot any sharper photos, either; and this one was taken with a Canon 5DS and a zoom lens — as we all (hopefully) know, there is not a single one zoom lens out there with an optical performance of more than twenty-something effective megapixels... --A.Savin14:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I guess the short answer is "more sharpness than this", although I might judge things differently depending on the light, etc. The longer answer may be that since the standard for FPs is supposed to be that they are among the very best photos on the site, then since a bunch of fantastic panoramas stitched together from multiple individual pictures has raised the bar, that makes it very difficult - and in my opinion, properly should make it very difficult - for a single-shot panorama of this large a cityscape to measure up to the current standard. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - By the way, just a bit further on this meta-discussion: A somewhat comparable thing has happened with photos of paintings. Where a photographer's very good photo of a painting is in competition with a huge, extremely high-quality and detailed photo by a museum like the Getty in L.A. or Google Images, there usually isn't any comparison, meaning that possible FPs of paintings taken by Commons members are very limited in possible scope now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2016 at 11:20:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:MLG Columbus CSGO Major cup.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:MLG Columbus CSGO Major cup.jpg
Oppose Nice striking colors, unfortunately the composition is a bit unbalanced, parts of the cup are not totally sharp and there is some CA (green, the purple/red has the advantage of blending in with the lights). Sorry. --cart-Talk11:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As cart points out, parts of the cup are unsharp. Also, I find the background distracting, because the cup overlaps the lights. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2016 at 14:33:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fountain of the Seas, Paris 16 August 2014.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fountain of the Seas, Paris 16 August 2014.jpg
Comment Sorry guys, I'm a bit away from Commons now. That photo was taken very quickly during a scouting for another day and was only meant to check how the projection works for the composition. I never went back for the "real" one, but recently processed it while cleaning my drive and I found the result good enough to be posted on Flickr. I do have the bottom on other RAW material, but the lighting had changed then and it's really streched (see for yourself). There are also lots of stitching errors, so I wouldn't recommend featuring it as it is. Will try again at spring if I think about it. - Benh (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the positive feedback. Hopefully will be back in a few months with a Fountain of the seas take 2 (I will step back a little so it souldn't be as distorted). - Benh (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2016 at 04:59:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:High Court of Australia, ACT - perspective controlled 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:High Court of Australia, ACT - perspective controlled 3.jpg
Info Now that winter's over I'm back to photographing Canberra's architecture. This is a 3-image panorama of the High Court of Australia. I tried a few different angles and compositions but I like this one best.
I'll have to strike my comment about the sharpness; I judged this while travelling with a laptop according to my usual standards for my large monitor, and looking back on it the sharpness is actually adequate (not perfect in the corners but not disqualifying), so apologies for that. However, it just doesn't wow me so I'll maintain a weak oppose. Maybe some clouds or shooting closer to sunset would help. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks to me as if it was upscaled. Given subject an light I'd expected a much sharper picture. The subject is FP-worthy anyways. --Code (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the feedback guys;
This is not upscaled. The original images have heights of 5494 pixels (21MP camera) but due to overlapping on the stitch the output is very slightly larger.
As for sharpness, I was using one of the sharpest 24mm primes you can buy at F/8 on a FF camera, so this is as good as it gets. Considering that this is a 35MP image, I think it is well up to modern FP standards. This image was taken with a similarly-sharp lens and is smaller in dimension (26MP), yet no problems there (exact same processing too). Perhaps the smooth surfaces (cement, glass) of this building create the appearance of a lack of sharpness? (And yes, a lot of people downscale and apply lots of sharpening algorithms, which biases peoples' perceptions of "sharp". I prefer to avoid that type of information loss.)
As for wow, that's obviously subjective, but this composition is the most well-balanced one I could find at the location. Thanks again for the comments -- Thennicke (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My main issue really isn't with sharpness. I would just say that the National Carillon is a more compelling subject. I'll think about changing my vote, but whatever it is that might make me feel wowed by a view of this building, I'm not feeling it. Sorry, I know that's a frustrating comment for a photographer to read. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a problem Ikan. My intention is to photograph the important government buildings while I'm living here, but some are admittedly ugly! Then again, this could be seen as a good example of brutalist architecture, where the ugliness/blandness is part of the aesthetic? [10] (It doesn't help that the native vegetation here is so bland) Whether that fits in with FPC's "wow" criteria is open for debate I suppose. Thanks for the comment -- Thennicke (talk) 07:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I passed few times to see sharpness problems, but couldnt find anything. But its summer there, wont be sharp like in winter, but this one has no issues. --Mile (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2016 at 22:57:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schwarzenfels, a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schwarzenfels, a.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2016 at 08:06:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Clay Pots-BW-IMG 7303.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Clay Pots-BW-IMG 7303.jpg
Comment - I don't think color is superior (nor necessarily inferior) to black & white in this instance, but I also like this composition much better than the one you linked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2016 at 16:07:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eastern great egret landing at Tennōji Park in Osaka, November 2016 - 066.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eastern great egret landing at Tennōji Park in Osaka, November 2016 - 066.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2016 at 23:51:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:General Grant National Memorial New York November 2016 003.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:General Grant National Memorial New York November 2016 003.jpg
Oppose This seems to be a good shot of the building as a main object but the technical quality of the rest of the image is poor, because: 1) there are large unsharp areas at the trees on the both sides, 2) there is a ghost effect of the waving white flag that is even visible without seeing the image at full size and 3) the overexposed areas on the both sides are just too distracting. The issues are too evident that they even make it difficult to focus on the building. I don't want to spoil the party but we have much better images depicting similar themes.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it's not possible to avoid the unsharpness caused by the wind and would tolerate it in limited amount (as in the images you're pointing out) but the trees cover more than a half of the total image (after making a vertical division). You may try to crop both sides but that will most likely move the building too close to the frame and the image will be left without sufficient detail (in fact, the problem is the lack of quality detail). I'd prefer it being shot in daylight.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That one seems better and more vivid to me compared to the nominated one. Some tree branches are unsharp, especially at the top left, but one can better focus on the main object without being distracted by the other details.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2016 at 02:56:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Hi, I have made a new version with less noise, please check. I still prefer a 16:9 ratio for this photo, as the balance between sky and water is actually OK (I moved it towards the water a very little bit) --A.Savin13:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2016 at 08:23:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Passion of Jesus (sculpture "Crucifixion of Jesus" observing "Virgin Mary cradling the dead body of Jesus").jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Passion of Jesus (sculpture "Crucifixion of Jesus" observing "Virgin Mary cradling the dead body of Jesus").jpg
Info Crucifixion of Jesus observing Pieta. I would say perfect composition, well combined sculptures, which tell some story called Passion of Jesus. First sculpture is called Pieta. Sorrow of Mary is nowhere depicted like here, even on "famous" Michelangelo. For sure best Pieta we have by now. Salzburger school, expo of Slovenian National Gallery. --Mile (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree that this is a great pieta, and while I wasn't sure when I was looking at the thumbnail that I'd like the lighting, when I looked at larger sizes, I found that the shadows on her face add pathos to the depiction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent presentation by giving emphasize to the expression of Mary, keeping Jesus unfocused to explain why. Jee06:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2016 at 06:06:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo. Waterstromen over het bergplateau 07.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo. Waterstromen over het bergplateau 07.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2016 at 20:02:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Palmse manor house at summer.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palmse manor house at summer.jpg
Support - I'll be interested to see what others say, but gut feeling: This is a peaceful, simple, pretty composition that benefits from near-symmetry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Peaceful and lovely. The horse carriage in front of the building, instead of the usual ugly cars littering the scenery, is also a nice touch. --cart-Talk09:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2016 at 01:09:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A USAF F-16 pilot breaking right on final approach over northern Las Vegas.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A USAF F-16 pilot breaking right on final approach over northern Las Vegas.jpg
I'm sorry I don't know. I thought it might have just been a bit of a reflection from the Desert below but I admit it's just a guess. Reguyla (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ill colors, lots of CA, burnt highlights. Not too bad regarding the circumstances, but also not very good. --smial13:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2016 at 21:33:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Components and structure of epaulette.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Components and structure of epaulette.png
Dear The Photographer and Daniel Case! The author may work qualitatively in the PhotoShop program. SVG format is not very good, for example. I think, 3D and shadow is not possible to draw beautifully with a vector (SVG). We will try to accommodate your remark in the future work with the other authors. Best Regards, —Niklitov (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2016 at 11:53:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:In the Park at night, Salvaterra de Miño.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:In the Park at night, Salvaterra de Miño.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2016 at 07:03:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info View of Khor Virap, an Armenian monastery and one of the most visited pilgrimage sites in Armenia located in the Ararat plain with the Mount Ararat in the background. Khor Virap's notability as a monastery and pilgrimage site is due to the fact that Gregory the Illuminator, religious leader who converted Armenia from paganism to Christianity in 301, becoming the first nation to adopt Christianity as its official religion, was initially imprisoned here for 14 years by King Tiridates III of Armenia. A chapel was initially built in 642 by Nerses III the Builder as a mark of veneration to Saint Gregory. Over the centuries, it was repeatedly rebuilt and the current appearance dates from 1662. All by me, Poco207:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2016 at 16:33:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Godorf Cologne Rhineland-Refinery-Cooling-Towers-during-demolition-02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Godorf Cologne Rhineland-Refinery-Cooling-Towers-during-demolition-02.jpg
Info An instructive photo about old and new technology of natural draft cooling towers. The photo was taken during the demolition of the 55 y/o cooling towers of the Shell Refinery in Godorf, Köln, Germany. The skeleton of the dismantled left tower can be compared to the still cladded construction of the right tower. The new cooling towers - designed as four low-rise cooling devices - perform with the same cooling capacity the high-rise towers offered before.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2016 at 13:35:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - Good picture, but partly because of the crops, not an outstanding composition to me. It could be sharper, too, but that wouldn't make the difference in my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2016 at 22:44:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
WeakSupport. Very interesting subject. The motion blur at the bottom caused by the 1/30s exposure is just a bit distracting though. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2016 at 01:44:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rubi Alianças. R. São Bento.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rubi Alianças. R. São Bento.jpg
Yes It was almost 2 hours to take this picture. This building is a important place in São Paulo downtown, this formerly was a house of a watchmaker and sale of esoteric books, later his sons sold this building in pieces to a corporation, today is a commerce center, and of course what makes this photo special, like all the others, is something merely subjective. Thanks for your question --The Photographer02:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your answer. The reason I asked, in part, was because a lot of this picture, especially in the upper parts of the building, is quite grainy. Is there anything you can do to substantially mitigate this? (The light is also hazy, but as you've explained repeatedly, there's not much you can do about that in São Paulo.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The best practice should be take a hdr picture, however, 6 hours to take a picture in this place is crazy. Let me see what I can do with photoshop to reduce grainy (It's not a clarity effect or whatever) --The Photographer02:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I greatly appreciate the effort you put into this. Unfortunately, I still don't really think this is an FP, so I regret that I will vote to Oppose, in the end. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Still too many stitching errors, including a big one in the top right. The top of the building is clearly showing the stretch effects of vertical perspective correction, with all the pixel-level defects in the sensor noise and lens aberrations being magnified several times. I recommend you ensure such CA is fully fixed, and to reduce sharpening (either lower the sharpening level or apply a mask) before saving your frames that will end up being stitched. Then the defects will not be so magnified. Also, when you have an image like this where there is stretching then it is fair to downsize in order that the overall image is sharp -- Diliff downsizes most of his stitches and there isn't much point in someone downloading 96MP only to see a soft and noisy image. I think also per Ikan that this isn't the most "wow" of subjects nor lighting. I think you will continue to be frustrated until you get a proper pano head, and I'm sure FP would help crowdfund one! You'll then spend less time Photoshopping out the stitching errors. -- Colin (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you using the nodal ninja, or other panoramic head to do that?
PhotoShop is not great one doing this, even Hugin is better, other not paid software is microsoft ice, that works better than the PS CS6, and it's easier than Hugin.
And if you are using a tripod, why 1/125s and ISO 320? Did you underexposed and bring the highlights in post? Because ISO 320 is not that high, why so grainy?
Notice that the bottom is a lot better than the top. Whenever you do perspective correction, you inevitably upsample the top and downsample the bottom. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton I used a high ISO and a fast shutter speed to improve the camera vibration caused maybe by the Sao Paulo metro. The grains are due to the shadown compensation performed with Lightroom and I agree with you, Photoshop does not do a good job. BTW, I haven't a nodal ninja, however, using some Colin suggestions I started a crowdfund to get one. --The Photographer16:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Although I know how difficult and time-consuming it is to stitch a large panorama of a building (having done so myself), this picture's technical quality isn't up to par with our other FPs of similar stitches. There's a lot of color artifacts and some lens flare for the top edge of the building. The sharpness across different frames is not consistent and the lighting is rather boring. Sorry! -- dllu(t,c)09:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2016 at 23:08:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Table iceberg west of Sjuøyane, Arctic ocean.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Table iceberg west of Sjuøyane, Arctic ocean.jpg
Support - I support a feature both for beauty and interest. Here's the file description: Table icebergs are very rare in the Arctic as they calve from shelf ice, which is rarely found in the north. They are normally a typical form of icebergs in the Antarctic. This one has an estimated height of 10-12m and a size of half a soccer field. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish there was a ship or something nearby to give the sense of scale, and perhaps some water at bottom could be cropped, but I like the overall visual appeal. lNeverCry01:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the fact that AWeith gives estimates of the size in the file description is really sufficient, though I can understand the desire for a visual basis for comparison. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a Comment regarding scaling before the voting period ends: honestly, it is really difficult to get an object or something in the vicinity in these latitudes to assist scaling. Mind you, we're beyond 80°North. I did not want to crop the waves away as I thought that they woul at least give some faint impression of the size. None of my fellow voyagers volunteered to step on the iceberg and we had no polar bear around this time. The shot was made from the uppermost viewpoint of our expedition vessel, this was the only way to obtain a view of the surface of this little giant. The shot was really lucky, I must admit. So, thank you Ikan Kekek for nominating it!
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2016 at 07:33:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chlorotabanus crepuscularis, Green horse fly, Duck, NC 2016-01-07-14.51 (23927025329).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chlorotabanus crepuscularis, Green horse fly, Duck, NC 2016-01-07-14.51 (23927025329).jpg
Support - I know that several FPC regulars are on record as preferring photos of happy, living insects, but I find the level of detail in this photo extraordinary. I saw it in COM:Valued Images and didn't submit it to COM:QIC first before bringing it here, so I hope there's no glaring technical flaw that escaped my notice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think you should consider this photo pretty much as is, because I don't think the Flickr user who took the photo is going to come here and add more to the side of it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fossils, yes. Then they say please add Geolocation. You know, geolocation, what was Earth like in Creda, Jurasic era or Trias...etc. Ok, leave that out. I am wondering something different since the beggining. I saw they use a Stackshot Sled, i am not sure that is perfect idea, you move your camera, shouldnt be moved just lens ring to focus ?! Ikan, Cart,... ? --Mile (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stacking methods is not my area of expertese, sorry, but there are several ways of moving the focus over an object. They may vary with the camera used. Btw, I wouldn't call this a fossil. --cart-Talk15:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek I will be absent here. Two majors: tight crop and black background isnt suitable for yellow subject. Otherwise still nice work at least to see side macro. --Mile (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, too much talk. I'm sorry, but I Oppose this. It's a good photo of a bad specimen, clearly taken with only the scientific properties of the photo in mind. There are much better ways to focus stack a dead fly, even the most basic sites of stacking macro have more interesting and artistic photos. This poor critter looks mangled, like it had an encounter with a windshield, from what I can see it has lost half a leg. It holds no wow for me. cart-Talk19:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It might be a rare fly. From the file description: "A beautiful pale white and green horse fly from North Carolina, Chlorotabanus crepuscular, a drinker of blood that comes out only at dawn and dusk, this is a southern species I had not seen before". I also find the eye pretty amazing. I take your points, except that I don't really know the intricacies of stacking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks, Rhododendrites. The usual procedure is to post the new version and ping everyone who's already voted, or otherwise, you could offer it as an alternative. But people won't vote based on a link. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2016 at 17:56:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de Haghpat, Armenia, 2016-09-30, DD 05.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de Haghpat, Armenia, 2016-09-30, DD 05.jpg
No, this vote is merely by chance. Another proof that you're biased: great photos of a user get no vote, average get an oppose. You can surely vote as you want but it is hard to believe that you are doing it fairly. I don't think that this is an "average" shot (it wouldn't be on FPC, otherwise). The quality is top, the lighting is good, the composition simple and very pleasant and the subject itself is IMHO amazing. Poco207:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
see this, something similar? When I see something that already owned, why should I need to support it?
I see as average, I have the right to see this as average. Not a spectacular sky, not interesting foreground, the main subject seems to be just a small tower, nothing in the architecture that wows me, the lines makes our eyes go to the roof of "modern" house in the background, we do not have layers, tridimensionality is barely not existent...
So I don't care who brings the photo, if it's good, it's good, period, if not, should not be FP, simply as that. Actually, should not be good, should me remarkable, this is FPC, when I see this: File:Seljalandsfoss, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-16, DD 201-203 HDR.JPG, I know who took, the first time that I opened, I remember details of it. It is remarkable, that should happen with all FP, don't have this punch, QI.
The Seljalandsfoss picture is a different league. I agree that that picture is far over the FP bar. For that we have the POTY contest and it ended pretty good there.
You have surely your good right to just the picture as you perceive it, but when the vote comes right away after a conflict surges, the motivation and perception is strongly biased. You rarely participate in FPC (I just checked, last time you voted (opposed) in a FPC of mine was back in January) and come here just after the POTD issue raised. It is hard for me extremely hard to assume good faith. Actually I think that it should be a policy that prevents a user from participating in votings affecting directly another user with an open conflict. That would be healthy, as we see this behaviour again and again. Poco210:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not a {{O}} machine gun, but you can track as Cart did, and you will see a lot of recent oppositions, quite equal, you know why you receive attention? Just because it was the third picture. The Praposhchik deputy shoulder straps, I didn't get, the Cassius blue (Leptotes cassius theonus) underside, is neutral for me, and them came yours, them Agnolo Gadi Washington October 2016-1, I have to use software to evaluate this one, the Rubi Alianças. R. São Bento is a {{O}}, but I don't need to say that, so I comment to the volunteer bring better photos next time. See that yours are in the middle of my contributions? I normally evaluate the ones at the top, and that's it. And sometimes I avoid the fatigue, a lot of your pictures have votes independent of the quality, just by our name... we know that. So my interference will be just a waste of my time. And I linked here to you see that my vote was in the middle of the other contributions.
You know why I'm responding to you? Because I really appreciate your work, see this [11] I made the post. I don't have anything against to you, but you are not perfect, and you have some attitudes that I entirely disagree. This one of accusing me of doing a bias evaluation is one of those, or worst, "revenge vote" . I'm very able to separate this things, and you are not trying to see it...
Yann closed the conversation there, as Yann really likes me, and he don't separate things, but the suggestion is there, next time, try to talk to me, and all this could be avoid. Okay? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m11:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tech part of the pic is excellent, as always, and the composition is good but the lighting is a bit uninteresting and the sky is bland, so I'm sorry but it holds no 'wow' for me. --cart-Talk14:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2016 at 03:24:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pelican Hill and South CDM by D Ramey Logan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pelican Hill and South CDM by D Ramey Logan.jpg
Support Nice veiw. A little blurry/double(?) in the top part, could have been cropped out but the cliff sticking out into the sea completes the pic in a nice way so it can stay. --cart-Talk11:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
InfoUoaei1 I am traveling at 110 MPH, 1500 feet off the ground here, and flying the plane too, aerial photography is tough. Subject is the location, Pelican Hill is a famous golf course and CDM, is Corona Del Mar, Newport Beach California. This is the South tip of the area... The picture is taken with a full FX system and for a photo taken while traveling at 100 mph+ it is no more blurry (IMHO) then some of your pics with the DX 7100 that have made FP, in the past... (Note: the crisp shadows on the golfer's below me) just my 2 cents...--WPPilot (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly it is not lawful as this area is the Departure zone, for the local airport and Drones are not legal in this area as well due to airspace restrictions... --WPPilot (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It may be how it actually looked, but the colors just seem unnatural to me, like what you get when you overdo it with highlight suppression. Plus the unsharpness and composition issues noted in other !votes. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this picture and I think the colors are fine. Check out the aqua swimming pools and the drought painted grass in the foreground. "Painted grass?" you say... Yes all over California golf courses are treating their grass with a coloring agent to provide the "green look" during this multi-year drought. Being in southern California, as is obvious from the scrub vegetation (with parking lots) between the coast road and the ocean... you can see the fake green of the golf courses so obviously. And that fuzz at the top is more likely salt haze from the ocean spray channeled between the two headlands in a light onshore breeze than actual blur... because I don't see any blur on any of the other three sides and if it were going to blur from the lens, it would go all the way around, and if it were blur from the plane, more than just the top geographic feature would be impacted. So I also see that slight fuzziness at the top, and I see the unnatural green grass, but because it's obvious why it's unnatural that doesn't affect my perception of the image. I had a friend visit California one time who is from England and his comment was he now understands the odd colors in video games because that's just "California colours". BTW, I had the same reaction when I saw the Indian Ocean from western Australia the first time, the blue was just unnatural... but there it was obviously quite natural in the ocean right there. Every place has "its colors". Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid the upper third of the picture is too blurred for FP. There's a double image effect. Not sure if that is caused by photographing through glass or vibration. Perhaps 1/250s is not fast enough or the VR did not do it's job. -- Colin (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
InfoColin I did not shoot this through glass, btw. It is a shot right out my open window. The combination of aperture and shutter speed in aerial photography differs from that of stationary photography for a number of reasons. The camera is moving at 120 MPH, so the time the sensors read and the shutter drops can cause that effect up top, but I think its just remaining ground fog that is in that area every morning this time of year. I could have used a higher f-number to correspondingly darken the image that falls on the image sensor, you can still achieve optimal exposure if you slow shutter speed in proportion, and while traveling at 120 MPH one would think that the slower shutter speed would capture the movement of the airplane and thus create a blur on the entire photo. That area in the distance has closed once the sensor was triggered, the objects in the near field are crisp as the distance the plane has moved in the time it took the shutter to release is greater in terms of % then that of the area under the plane changed relative to the distance from that hill at the top. I did shoot these in a bracketed mode and have others but I felt that this one is the best due in part to the vibrance of the "painted lawn" that shows such contrast to the other natural colors in the area's around it.. --WPPilot (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2016 at 10:35:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support The robustness of the bee is complemented very nicely by the way that, normally very delicate flower, manages to look sturdy in this pic. --cart-Talk14:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2016 at 16:03:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I don't love the dark left (viewer's right) shoulder (maybe it wouldn't have been inappropriate for you to brighten it up more?), but that's not really important for the picture, which is a good portrait of a very important figure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2016 at 16:32:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I think I'd prefer more space on the right side, but this photo has a nice vertical balance, and I love the clear, ripply water and water plants. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support May be better with a clear decision: 2 thirds or 1 third sky. I would prefer less sky. May be better with square or landscape format. --XRaytalk09:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2016 at 19:44:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Брегалница кај Равна Река.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Брегалница кај Равна Река.jpg
Mild Support - I've thought about this photo a lot. The composition is truly beautiful. My only hesitation is that the water is so cloudy. I wonder what would have happened if you had used a shorter exposure - perhaps not enough light could have entered the camera, so maybe this tradeoff was truly the best you could do under the circumstances. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, I think the colours are better on the other one, and the river still shows motion whereas this one is too blurred. Also, this isn't the same photo (cropped or processed differently, say) but another of the same scene taken on another day. -- Colin (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2016 at 09:57:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Palace of Fine Arts San Francisco November 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palace of Fine Arts San Francisco November 2016.jpg
Support You can still put some pixle above, obviously is a bit "very yellow". Sharpness and noise are perfect and i havent saw mistakes like on other 40-50 MPx. Good. --Mile (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My photo has vastly superior resolution and sharpness. Anyway, they are taken from different vantage points, so why not feature both? dllu(t,c)10:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Before I judge this photo, please remove the dust spots. There's one above the right side of the dome, a couple above the middle square (?) above the columns, another two above the left-hand square. Maybe if you look hard, you'll find more. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I see several flaws: First, there are too many pure-black areas. The dynamic range isn't handled very well. Then there is too much space at the bottom and the top crop is too tight. Third, as noted above, the white balance seems too warm to me. You can still make this FP IMO but there's still some work to do. --Code (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you quite sure that your monitor is properly calibrated? I just (re)checked the histogram, as well as viewing the picture on my calibrated monitor. The shadow detail is perfectly preserved and there are extremely few places that are crushed to pure black. Moreover, on my calibrated monitors, the white balance looks fine to me and is consistent with other pictures of this subject. dllu(t,c)18:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, maybe the shadows aren't pure black but they are still too dark for my taste. What me bothers most is the composition, there's just not enough space at the top. --Code (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport. Red channel is slightly blown but I know how hard it is to keep it in check since the palace lights demand a white balance that would make the sky and shadows ridiculously blue, so we can only let the palace go yellow. A big difference between our photos is that you shot it at dusk while I shot it at dawn, so the east-facing elements illuminated only by indirect light (such as the trees) are not black in mine. I generally shy away from shooting blue hour into the sun because of this effect; I had not intended to nominate File:Lower Manhattan from Brooklyn May 2015 panorama.jpg for FP and wanted to go back at sunrise to redo it, but someone jumped the gun and nominated it anyways. Overall, though, the dark areas are not too distracting and this is a high-quality image. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks everyone for the reviews, I will retake this sometime in the future if I can wake up at dawn. dllu(t,c)05:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Featured picture candidates/File:Palace of Fine Arts San Francisco November 2016 alt.jpg
Info Alternative version with equirectangular projection, bluer white balance, more sky, raised shadows, recovered highlights, removed spots, and reduced noise. dllu(t,c)09:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, the only real answer to "did it really look like this" is to look at the raw file from the camera (assumed to be nearly linear). Anything else would be subjective, where there is no right or wrong. dllu(t,c)10:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks everyone for the reviews, I will retake this sometime in the future if I can wake up at dawn. dllu(t,c)05:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2016 at 02:53:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paróquia São Luiz Gonzaga, Avenida Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paróquia São Luiz Gonzaga, Avenida Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg
Oppose - It's not really clear to me what's special about this particular crucifix, and I see the banding, too, so while awaiting the argument for this picture, I will vote to oppose a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The world is full of such statues. This one isn't well lit -- I particularly don't like the shadow on the wall. I think statue photos need to be as carefully lit as portrait photos, though I appreciate one doesn't often have control. The edges of the wall on the left and right sides are distracting. -- Colin (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As implied by other !votes here, the large egg-yolk posterization right behind Christ's head is an FP dealbreaker. A pity, as the lighting made it a photo worth taking. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2016 at 13:10:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Klagenfurt Kreuzbergl 20161101.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Klagenfurt Kreuzbergl 20161101.jpg
Oppose Looks like a wonderful forest to take a stroll in and it must have felt magical being there, unfortunately that does not translate to the photo. Most of the pic in not sharp enough, the branches against the sky are burned out and the light is rather uninteresting. Some other light might have brought out the zig-zag of that pathway better and that could have been the wow that is lacking here. Sorry. cart-Talk16:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - On the whole, I agree with cart. The photo looks good at full-page size, but when you blow it up to full size, it isn't so pleasant to look at, and this kind of photo should be very peaceful and pleasant to look at at any size, I think. Maybe try again closer to sunset. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart, who once again almost uncannily anticipated exactly what I would say, maybe not the exact words but the content definitely. Definitely a QI but, given the amount of autumn pictures that become available to us every year around this time, not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2016 at 16:27:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Float balls.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Float balls.jpg
Oppose Now this looks like something I would have shot, but the light is not working with the floats and their surface is rather uninteresting due to that. Sorry, no wow. --cart-Talk18:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2016 at 16:25:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Црква „Св. Јован Богослов“ - Чифлик.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Црква „Св. Јован Богослов“ - Чифлик.jpg
Comment - There's been debate at COM:QIC about whether these, as non-photographic images, should be at least 2 MP. I think that on FPC, we pretty much ignore minimum sizes if an image is truly outstanding. But where we've ignored minimum sizes, I don't think they've been this small, and the question in this case is whether a larger size would make the details more visible. For my part, I'd love to be able to zoom in and look more closely at the stitches. These certainly are useful as VIs, but whether they merit FP designation is a question that gives me some pause. What do you all think about this question? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2016 at 08:14:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Museum photography.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Museum photography.jpg
Info Photography in a museum. Placed in Photography and the law and Flash (photography). Nothing much to describe here, other up to your imagination. Interesting stuff, now we have museums which are: "no camera", "no selfie stick","selfie friendly" and majority "no flash". And the latest is here. National Gallery of Slovenia. My shot. --Mile (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The pic does indeed illustrate (not tell) a story, especially with the info given above, but without that info it is hard to understand the context of the photo. A really good photo should tell more than a thousand words, this is sort of the other way around: you need a lot of words to describe what is going on in the photo. Sorry. --cart-Talk15:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@cart: My wish for Wikimedia Commons; each person should put on page how old is he/she. Just to know, might be problem for 30-40 year old man trying to explain something to some teenager. Right side: statue → museum... left: woman → smartphone → shooting a pic. Next, allowed or not... so read again in the begining where is used and where this has some relevation. --Mile (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "... but without that info it is hard to understand the context of the photo" young or not, why did you think you have to understand the photo. I hope FPC wont become shoting of building on high-noon with 40-50 MPx. Its much more. But i can now show you many FPC photos where you wont understand the context. So those should not be FPC in your case ? I even dont think my shot is so much "out of context". --Mile (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Short version: No, not an FP. The pic itself has no wow-factor for me and as an illustration it is unclear (I understand it very well but a good pic should be easy to understand by all), but hopefully other users (older than me ) may see things differently. Oh btw, I'd love to see what other photos I "wont understand the context" of, please post links of them on my talk page. cart-Talk17:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea but it's too unsharp; it's only 5 MP and still no part of the statue is completely crisp, with the nearer parts being noticeably out of focus. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 21:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart; I have often said myself that you shouldn't have to explain a picture to get a support !vote. Seems like more a featured idea for a picture than a featured picture. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulon well, see, we learn from here also, so i dont expect same level of Art Literacy from Britons than French/Italian. Returning information to me, to understand people better. Cars, food and Fish&Chips. --Mile (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2016 at 08:44:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Blejsko jezero (Lake Bled in autumn).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blejsko jezero (Lake Bled in autumn).jpg
CommentColin, perfect composition, seen Lake Bled, Castle and the church behind. Since its panoramic mode, and not close up, you can see lake also. The other shot which i have is close-up. I might put it, maybe, because its not so interesting like this. This one is FPC. --Mile (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I disagree. I think it shows a classic flaw of using a wide-angle lens -- one's subject becomes tiny in the frame. A quick Google Image search brings up pages of better compositions and arrangements. The bottom third adds nothing and the water would add more value if perfectly smooth. -- Colin (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it seems like a nice area but the subject is way too small and unsharp. I can understand that you wanted to include the reflection of that cloud but that faint reflection is costing a lot of uninteresting water. It would have worked if the water was still and smooth and the sky was more interesting. --cart-Talk18:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Central third would work as a panoramic, but it would have to have been shot that way ... this is too small to crop down to it and have a good-quality image left over. Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2016 at 10:03:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Стара куќа во Двориште.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Стара куќа во Двориште.jpg
Oppose Interesting house, unfortunately the photo is very grainy, there are CAs and some strange halos in many places and as Jebulon said, it is too tightly cropped, sorry. cart-Talk18:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2016 at 02:50:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:F-35A Lightning II aircraft receive fuel from a KC-10 Extender (28126647113).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:F-35A Lightning II aircraft receive fuel from a KC-10 Extender (28126647113).jpg
Oppose Noisy, the separation between planes are not clear, the photo is very flat, and the lack of contrast make this planes very hard to distinguish, weird artefact (note), the photo is unbalance. Not a FP by far. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m05:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Aside from the tech shortcomings, with the flag in the front cockpit it looks staged like "Hey, let's line up and smile for the photographer, oh and put a flag up front too." Please, withdraw one of these nominations so we can vote for the good one. :) (For renominations see this conversation.) --cart-Talk10:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2016 at 18:01:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:An F-22 Raptor conducts an aerial refueling mission 140807-F-IG195-010 (14729414099).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:An F-22 Raptor conducts an aerial refueling mission 140807-F-IG195-010 (14729414099).jpg
Neutral This is the kind of pic that is supposed to be wow-y, but fueling a plan in mid-air is such a common activity nowadays that the mere act is about as exiting as watching someone fill up their car at a gas station. A photo of this needs some more artistic component. Here the plane seems jammed in between the fuel funnel and the edge of whatever it is down left (something very disturbing for the pic). Also all the fluffy clouds make the pic too busy, it would have been better if it'd been over a void sea with the sun at some cool angle. I won't oppose since other folks may find this very cool and FP-worthy. cart-Talk18:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment" ...fueling a plan in mid-air is such a common activity nowadays that the mere act is about as exiting as watching someone fill up their car at a gas station." Be careful what you say here; as you should well know, people will see things like that as a challenge and take you up on trying to make an FP out of them. Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly hope you are right. Any trick to get really good and exiting pics here is allowed. Besides we already have a cool gas station. Technically that is the same sort and brand as I get my gas from, but 'my' station never looked that good. ;) cart-Talk21:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I hadn't really noticed that thing down in the bottom left until you mentioned it. I would guess that is the edge of the window the person was looking through when they took the picture. Reguyla (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you are probably right that it is a window frame, but when fueling like this the planes have to fly really steady for a while so if you are not the pilot, you should have plenty of time to get a good angle for your shot and such a blooper could have been avoided. The other plane-pic was more challenging since that plane was banking hard and flying away, making that pic awesome. cart-Talk21:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination - With every nomination I learn a little more about the process. It's pretty unlikely this will pass though at this point so I withdraw this nomination. Reguyla (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2016 at 16:14:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I think I've become somewhat spoiled by the quality of your bee-and-flower photos. To say that this is not one of your best compositions, overall, is not really a good reason for me not to support a photo with such beautiful detail work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2016 at 11:22:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cloudscape Over the Philippine Sea.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cloudscape Over the Philippine Sea.jpg
Info Flying over the Philippine Sea, an astronaut looked toward the horizon from the International Space Station and shot this photograph of three-dimensional clouds, the thin blue envelope of the atmosphere, and the blackness of space. The late afternoon sunlight brightens a broad swath of the sea surface on the right side of the image. In the distance, a wide layer of clouds mostly obscures the northern Philippine islands (top right).
Looking toward the Sun to capture an image is a special technique used by astronauts to accentuate the three dimensions of landscapes and cloudscapes through the use of shadows. Two large thunderclouds rise next to one another (lower right).
Support I was going to oppose because I didn't see anything that distinguished it from all the other pictures we have of the Earth from space, but then I took a closer look and spent a little time being charmed by all those nimbus clouds welling up at the rear of the sunglinted area (And I still think it would be a stronger picture cropped down to that part). Daniel Case (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It took me a while to decide how to judge this photo, because it's not a conventional composition. But that's part of the reason it should be featured: Photos from the Space Station are not and cannot be a common genre at this time. And the documentation helps the viewer find what's so interesting about the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2016 at 09:00:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama vom Prinzenkopfturm.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama vom Prinzenkopfturm.jpg
Support Wasn't sure about this one until I looked at that meander on the map. So this is not the Rhine but the Moselle ... any vineyards in this image that wouldn't immediately be obvious? Daniel Case (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2016 at 16:39:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anemone-coronaria-2016-Zachi-Evenor.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anemone-coronaria-2016-Zachi-Evenor.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: I'm afraid that at 1.7MP it is just too small for FP. Although it has been cropped, there is still a black border round the frame. The overall composition, with surrounding grass, isn't outstanding. -- Colin (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2016 at 10:25:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aghori.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aghori.JPG
Oppose - I'm sorry, but this file is too small for FPC. 2 MP is the absolute minimum, although 6 MP is preferred, outside of extenuating circumstances. This is well under 2 MP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2016 at 18:21:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Super moon over Medina of Tunis.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Super moon over Medina of Tunis.jpg
Oppose A very lovely capture but it's just too unsharp. The buildings in the background look like they came from a Picasso painting. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above comments. Yann (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2016 at 06:49:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2015I8126 - Луцьк.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015I8126 - Луцьк.jpg
Oppose - I sort of like the contrast of light and dark, but the picture is also a bit noisy, and the building in the near right seems to be leaning down to the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above comments. Yann (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2016 at 16:47:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Beijing China Hall-of-Prayer-for-Good-Harvests-01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beijing China Hall-of-Prayer-for-Good-Harvests-01.jpg
Info The Hall of Prayer for Good Harvests is the largest building in the imperial complex of religious buildings within the Temple of Heaven in Beijing, China
I intentionally cut the stairs. If I added more bottom, you surely would admit that this version looks better. This image is focussing to the hall and avoids the crowds of people which you can see on all other versions of this building. Anyway, thanks for commenting. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO bottom is important and it's understandable and acceptable see peoples there. Next time you could have two version. Thanks for your feedback --The Photographer13:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support After looking at other photos in the category, I believe that any composition that tries to include more on the bottom will include the entire stairway, which is more than half the height of the tower. So this is a valid composition if you want to focus on the tower itself. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Minimal support for the detail on the building. Having shot this building myself, I appreciate the challenges of shooting it and trying to frame it the right way (And I agree with The Photographer that tourists there are natural and should be expected).
However, I wish the sky hadn't been so washed out, especially since (as my image and the other ones I took there that day show) it is often very smoggy these days, so a vibrant blue sky is something we should aspire to in a featured image of this iconic building. Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Daniel. His photo has some more detail due to higher resolution but the light is better on this one to show off the gilt and the building is much cleaner, whereas Daniel's is very dusty and the sky not so nice. -- Colin (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2016 at 01:09:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Veterans day.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Veterans day.jpg
Comment - OK, now that I realize what I'm looking at, and sorry again for not paying enough attention before, I am still bothered by the color noise and would like to know whether that is a product of digitization and also whether it couldn't be fixed digitally. This is obviously an important picture, but I've seen better pictures than that from (and indeed in) the 1980s, including enlarged ones. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've stricken my oppose, as I hadn't paid attention to the year the photograph was taken and it escaped me that he was a World War I veteran. My bad on that. However, I would strongly request you to consider whether your conduct in supporting almost everything (I feel like you vote to support something like 80% of nominees) and then using inappropriate language like "more nitpicking" and ad hominem attacks when I make opposing arguments that end up carrying the day, such as in this case, is unbecoming of an admin. Or better yet, quit it. Thank you. And if you don't quit it, I will eventually start a case against you for holding a grudge and sniping, instead of simply arguing your case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I've decided to reinstate my opposition. I think there has to be a way to digitally remove the color noise. I don't volunteer to devote my time to doing so, but I don't think this photo should be featured in this condition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2016 at 18:12:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Holy Kinship Washington October 2016-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Holy Kinship Washington October 2016-1.jpg
Comment Uncalibrated color space means rework into sRGB. AF-C, maybe AF-S would be better. I would support if wall would be off, but it helped you at noise. --Mile (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is photographed ok but I really dislike the grey cardboard that is too close and claustrophobic. I'm not seeing more than a QI here. Also no colourspace. -- Colin (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2016 at 07:05:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:RUS-2016-Aerial-SPB-Peter and Paul Fortress 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:RUS-2016-Aerial-SPB-Peter and Paul Fortress 02.jpg
Comment - I had the same thought as Charles, and that's one of the things that's making me hesitant to support a feature for this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2016 at 19:58:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016.07.16.-09-Kiellinie Kiel--Silbermoewe-Jungvogel.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016.07.16.-09-Kiellinie Kiel--Silbermoewe-Jungvogel.jpg
Oppose Sorry, but this top-down angle in not flattering for the bird. These guys are everywhere so even a totally untrained bird snapper like me has managed to catch one at a more distinct angle (although I was more focusing on the bollard). Also the sharpness around the eye-area is not what you'd expect from a FP. cart-Talk23:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SKas: These are not "Alternatives", the nom is for all the pics as a set. Even if you have said that you prefer one, your vote as it is written now, will be counted as a vote for the set of all four pictures. Do you want to change this? cart-Talk11:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The nomination is a set (when you open this to edit you can see that it's named "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Boston skyline from East Boston"). The Wiki-software stacked the photos in the nom so that they appeared as a single one. I've added extra lines between the pics so that it becomes less confusing. If King of Hearts don't agree with this way of displaying the set, please revert it. --cart-Talk11:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2016 at 12:49:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Agnolo Gadi Washington October 2016-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Agnolo Gadi Washington October 2016-1.jpg
Support - Seems like a pretty good reproduction of a very good work by an important Florentine Gothic painter. The painting provides enough of the "wow", in my opinion (not a breathless wow for me, since I've seen lots of such paintings, but appreciation, at any rate), that simply providing a good reproduction of it is sufficient. If the light was a little dull in the museum and the walls were gray, that's a drawback, but it does nothing to my voting other than to make my support moderate, rather than strong. Unless there's a reasonable way to add wow to the photo; maybe someone has some ideas. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport. I am against distortions of reality, but I understand that a global brightening would probably make the subject too bright. In this case the wall is not important so I'm OK with it. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2016 at 22:10:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Telecommunications mast at sunset.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Telecommunications mast at sunset.jpg
Really, I couldn't see it on my monitor? (there was almost no post-processing done) Did you look at the large version, I know that the wiki-software sometimes adds a bit of banding to pics in the smaller pre-vis. Anyway, I've made the usual 'debanding' fixes, hopefully this is better. cart-Talk16:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think is OK now, banding probably wont come from FZ1000, so i though curve was redone. Fine now. And yes, i think there were some issues with calibrating monitor, i checked mine few days ago, many dont do that. Last one was on Pocos shot 1-2 ago. --Mile (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing this out. I checked the unprocessed file on another monitor and there does indeed seem to be some banding directly from the camera. I've never seen that before. Will keep it in mind! cart-Talk18:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - I feel a little like a stinker for opposing this, because it's a very pretty sunset picture, but I don't feel like it's so outstanding as a sunset to merit a feature, given how common pretty sunsets are. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2016 at 16:18:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Winter in 'It Wikelslân. Locatie, De Alde Feanen in Friesland 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Winter in 'It Wikelslân. Locatie, De Alde Feanen in Friesland 01.jpg
Comment - Just a comment without any vote at this point: There's a lot I like about this photo, including the light, colors and really beautiful layering by distance, but I don't understand the right crop, which is currently feeling arbitrary to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation crop: in the foreground with frost-covered grass path which bends to the right disappears in the water-rich peat swamp area. Left one of the peat bog holes where once recovered from. Sincerely, --Famberhorst (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)PS: I hope that the translation comes across well.[reply]
Support Not knife-sharp everywhere, but when you can almost hear the frozen grass crunch as you walk there, who cares. :) I think the right tree frames the pic rather nicely, "shielding" the pathway. --cart-Talk19:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2016 at 21:20:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cassius blue (Leptotes cassius theonus) underside.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cassius blue (Leptotes cassius theonus) underside.JPG
WeakOppose. A bit small and not completely sharp. I'd forgive the level of sharpness for a 10 MP image, or forgive the 3 MP resolution if it's 100% sharp, but not both at the same time. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2016 at 09:37:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Grey wagtail at Tennōji Park in Osaka, November 2016 - 890.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grey wagtail at Tennōji Park in Osaka, November 2016 - 890.jpg
Support Very nice, the bird looks alert as if it would spread it's wings and fly away any second and it has the space to do so. --cart-Talk12:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The landscape orientation makes the bird's fragility stand out more (I admit I would have expected myself to have argued for the crop as well). Noisy, but forgivably so. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2016 at 05:35:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:South Laguna rock pools 2015 by D Ramey Logan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:South Laguna rock pools 2015 by D Ramey Logan.jpg
Oppose I think the lighting is in the wrong direction, causing most of the visible parts of the houses to be in shadow. Also the edges are unsharp; I wouldn't hesitate to use ISO 250 to allow an f/8 aperture. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2016 at 13:37:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Les Baux-de-Provence cf03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Les Baux-de-Provence cf03.jpg
Mild Oppose. I don't get it; I seem to be the only one who's not overwhelmed by this photo. It's a nice photo, sure, but I don't find it exceptional enough to feature. The view through the gate is not outstanding and some parts of the picture aren't that sharp. I'm not suggesting that Christian should disrespect all the Support voters by withdrawing this nomination because one person mildly opposes a feature, but I don't really understand the high level of support for featuring it, and I have tried. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2016 at 17:26:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Festos Palace 5416.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Festos Palace 5416.jpg
Comment Wow! Great symmetrical ship architecture, almost Star Trek, and as soon as you have removed the purple CA at the top of the pic I will support it. It is also a bit dark, any chance of you doing something about that? --cart-Talk18:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficiently sharp. Even at 3000px (6 MP), it's not perfectly crisp, with visible noise on the white tiles and edges that are not quite defined at the top. The wow factor is adequate for me to support if the quality were good enough, but insufficient to override the quality problems that put it just slightly below my bar. Sorry. (And I echo cart's comments about it being too dark.) -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 22:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The wow is sufficient for me to support it now (even if there is still some very faint purple residue on the uppermost bars/pipes/overhang but I expect you'll remove that too in time). cart-Talk22:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2016 at 20:28:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose It's missing something, in my opinion. Perhaps it's the fact that, for whatever reason, the sun has failed to light up the clouds in a beautiful display of colors, so I think there are better sunsets out there. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 22:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice to see the first reviews - controversial reviews. It's like me and my decision. First I'd put the image to my nomination candidates list, then I removed it, then I checked it again and I've nominated the image. I like it, I like the motion of the short time long exposure (1/8 s), the water in the foreground and the sky. --XRaytalk09:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea nicely done—images like this always, for some reason, make me hear Coldplay's "Clocks" mentally, and so as I'm typing this, I have put it on to enhance the mood—but I agree with King and cart that it doesn't quite make it to FP. Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2016 at 22:36:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Turbo chinensis 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Turbo chinensis 01.JPG
Support I just realized the nomination of this shell, thanks Ikan. Yes, the whitish spots are actually on the shell, no highight suppression was done. In this case I only marginally corrected the brighness of the file. All shells are photographed with artificial light (four lamps from four directions) and the exposure is adjusted to the lightning, which is not difficult at a studio shot. --Llez (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2016 at 12:57:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kazan River port area 08-2016 img3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kazan River port area 08-2016 img3.jpg
Support It is a busy but also quite eye-catching composition and interesting for me to scrutinize. Lovely light and colors, and I like the reflection interrupted by the floating dock in the middle of the frame. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2016 at 07:06:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Poertschach Edelweiss-Bad Woerther See mit Fischer 13112016 5388.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poertschach Edelweiss-Bad Woerther See mit Fischer 13112016 5388.jpg
Support - I think this is a wonderful picture, with different layers of foreground, middleground and background. I love the texture of the snow-capped peaks. It was a gray day, but I think the subtle gradations plus the colors of the reeds in the foreground and the fall foliage in the middleground and near background are enough color. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much grey, featureless sky. On a cloudy day, either the clouds need to be interesting, or the sky should be omitted altogether. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 18:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info I like the composition, light and atmosphere in this photo of a female bicyclist crossing one of the many bridges over canals in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. For comparison, we already have a B&W FP of the same basic topic in Amsterdam, and we have a few other examples of FPs of urban cycling from Ljubljana in Slovenia and Hue in Vietnam. Created, uploaded & nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Abstain as creator -- Slaunger (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Support Vote from a cycler.Panning seen. I will try once, just need some ND filter. --Mile (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Not a very unusual picture. At least the lady and the bike should be sharp. The layout is good.--Ermell (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
lNeverCry 02:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the time spend on reviewing my nomination. I acknowledge the crticism about especially sharpness/blurryness of the bicylist. And Daniel Case, in fact it did not pass QI :-). -- Slaunger (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
.png)
Comment - If it's important, you can rename this file. We plan to add epaulettes through gadget "Add a note". Thank you for your attention! --Niklitov (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Done. Translated to English. Upload new versions file. —Niklitov (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Neutral Could be svg --The Photographer 12:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Delist and replace : we can upload new version files with 13 samples, right? —Niklitov (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Question Why is the lower left area is dark while the rest is lighter? Seems interesting to me. --★ Poké95 07:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Perseverance is the only way to excellence. ;) --cart-Talk 19:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_tussen_bloeiende_heide._Locatie,_Schaopedobbe_(Schapenpoel)_04.jpg)
. --Ivar (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Keep I hate delistings, everybody can see it: this image is from the year 2003! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
.Innenhof.1.29135.ajb.jpg)
.Innenhof.1.29135_sample.ajb.jpg)
Weak support -- Thennicke (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
_croped.jpg)
.jpg)
--cart-Talk 22:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
,_overlay_of_7_channel_autofluorescence_microscopy_(30458886372).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Swenglish... --cart-Talk 09:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
_female_composite.jpg)
Kingfisher returns to perch with fish
She smashes it against the post to break its spine
Job done
And here's the blood to prove it_female_1.jpg)
_female_2.jpg)
_female_3.jpg)
_female_4.jpg)
_by_Lenny_Clarh%C3%A4ll_at_G%C3%B6teborgsoperan.jpg)
. --cart-Talk 10:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
_05032016.jpg)
but I still think this could be in the collection with the number of turtles, the reflection and the moment captured when one of them emerges from the water, like a single-shot of one of those montages. cart-Talk 10:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
_-_2.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_at_Tenn%C5%8Dji_Park_in_Osaka,_November_2016_-_1410.jpg)
Overexposed , too sky, harsh contrast and posterization in sky (top left), see notes. --The Photographer 23:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
, to see the clay color of the jars. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
--Hockei (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Zaurjad-praporshchik on Wachtmeister position of Squadron of Russian His Majesty's Cuirassier Guards Regiment
Zaurjad-praporshchik on Wachtmeister position of Squadron of Russian His Majesty's Cuirassier Guards Regiment (horizontal version)
Zaurjad-praporshchik of Russian 1st Grenadier Artillery Brigade
Zaurjad-praporshchik of Russian 1st Grenadier Artillery Brigade (horizontal version)
Podpraporshchik (Junior-praposhchik)on assignment «Wachtmeister», 3rd Horse artillery battery
Podpraporshchik (Junior-praposhchik)on assignment «Wachtmeister», 3rd Horse artillery battery (horizontal version)
Podpraporshchik (Junior-praposhchik) on assignment «Senior unteroffizier» – Kashirsky 144th infantry regiment
Podpraporshchik (Junior-praposhchik) on assignment «Senior unteroffizier» – Kashirsky 144th infantry regiment (horizontal version)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_tussen_bloeiende_heide._Locatie,_Schaopedobbe_(Schapenpoel)_04.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.png,_featured){kind=link}
.Innenhof.1.29135.ajb.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_overlay_of_7_channel_autofluorescence_microscopy_(30458886372).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_female_composite.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_by_Lenny_Clarhäll_at_Göteborgsoperan.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_05032016.jpg){kind=link}
_-_2.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_at_Tennōji_Park_in_Osaka,_November_2016_-_1410.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
![152 File:Passion of Jesus (sculpture "Crucifixion of Jesus" observing "Virgin Mary cradling the dead body of Jesus").jpg, featured](#File:Passion_of_Jesus_(sculpture_"Crucifixion_of_Jesus"_observing_"Virgin_Mary_cradling_the_dead_body_of_Jesus").jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_underside.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_tussen_bloeiende_heide._Locatie,_Schaopedobbe_(Schapenpoel)_04.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_tussen_bloeiende_heide._Locatie,_Schaopedobbe_(Schapenpoel)_04.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/FogRoad.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Kamniske_Alpe.JPG){kind=link}
![[3]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/B%C3%B6dele_Bregenzerwald_Panorama.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Engelberger_Aa_Wolfenschiessen.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Fort_Point_under_the_Golden_Gate_Bridge.JPG){kind=link}
_-_De_volkstelling_-_Palais_des_Beaux_Arts_de_Lille_25-11-2010_13-57-15.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
![[7]](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/f4/94/ea/f494ea7d3e0d9a43612fcc7df9c500b2.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](http://amxxcs.ru/wp/0pE870i.jpg){kind=link}
_male_Rio_Negro_2.JPG?fastcci_from=115348&c1=115348&c2=3943817&d1=15&d2=0&s=200){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png,_featured){kind=link}
.Innenhof.1.29135.ajb.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.Innenhof.1.29135.ajb.jpg){kind=link}
.Innenhof.1.29135.ajb.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.Innenhof.1.29135.ajb.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.Innenhof.1.29135.ajb.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
,_S%C3%A8te,_H%C3%A9rault_07.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_overlay_of_7_channel_autofluorescence_microscopy_(30458886372).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_overlay_of_7_channel_autofluorescence_microscopy_(30458886372).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_female_composite.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_female_composite.jpg){kind=link}
_female_composite.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_female_composite.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_female_composite.jpg,_featured-1){kind=link}
_by_Lenny_Clarh%C3%A4ll_at_G%C3%B6teborgsoperan.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_by_Lenny_Clarh%C3%A4ll_at_G%C3%B6teborgsoperan.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Lenny_Clarhäll_at_Göteborgsoperan.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_by_Lenny_Clarhäll_at_Göteborgsoperan.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_05032016.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_05032016.jpg.jpg){kind=link}
_05032016.jpg){kind=link}
_05032016.jpg){kind=link}
_-_2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_2.jpg){kind=link}
_-_2.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_female.jpg){kind=link}
_at_Tenn%C5%8Dji_Park_in_Osaka,_November_2016_-_1410.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_at_Tenn%C5%8Dji_Park_in_Osaka,_November_2016_-_1410.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
chromatic aberration at top of the roof.--Jebulon (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
Any trick to get really good and exiting pics here is allowed. Besides we already have a cool gas station. Technically that is the same sort and brand as I get my gas from, but 'my' station never looked that good. ;) cart-Talk 21:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
_05032016.jpg){kind=link}
_underside.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_underside.JPG){kind=link}
_underside.JPG)
_underside.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
_underside.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
,_Sonnenaufgang,_150617,_ako.jpg){kind=link}
