Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2014 at 15:52:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry to interrupt the support streak, but I really don’t like the background cutting the main object in halves, even less since it’s a similar colour as the bird. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The res is certainly not low (and I doubt that Yikrazuul is a Hasselblad user, to have that high expectations on resolution...), but the background here nonetheless spoils the composition for me. --A.Savin10:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. A very fine picture with technical excellence in terms of lighting and sharpness. Too bad about the background. --Kbh3rdtalk22:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2014 at 17:20:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral - Being in the shade does help with the even light, and the exposure is excellent. Nice color cooperation between the subject and its surroundings. Excellent sharpness in the face and tail, but the DoF drops off a bit too quickly on its back. A very nice image even if not purr-fect. --Kbh3rdtalk17:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2014 at 13:13:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mont Saint-Michel at night - BeBo86.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mont Saint-Michel at night - BeBo86.jpg
@Martin Falbisoner: thanks for your comment. In this case, one big problem was tourists crossing the new built bridge, so all shots were a bit shaky. (Note: I have downsampled it a bit now, as a consequence of perspective correction.) Level of detail is comparable to the existing FP of Mont Saint-Michel BeBo86 (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BeBo86: : Hmm, well, what the heck... I really like your image and I do understand how difficult night shots are. The photo does look better now, and though downsampling as such is never a good solution... I'll change my vote to weakSupport --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sharpness is OK for me (night shot). Composition and motive is very nice. I will support the image if you correct the verticals (take a look at the very left building) --Tuxyso (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Much bigger than the other FP of it I'm aware of ;) So could have been a nice replacement (I would have seen no reason to keep both which are similar). But the sharpness issue largely nullifies this improvement. Composition wise I don't see why the mount is not centered (the empty space on the right adds no value). Not a fan of the scaffoldings either. - Benh (talk) 09:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Benh: Compared to the other file, level of detail is close to equal - yes. "Improvements" could be: less overexposed areas (thanks to exposure bracketing), more pleasing colors, more interesting sky (which gives the picture depth), and corrected perspective (thanks to Tuxyso) which the other file has not. I like the composition as it is, because a) I like the blurred clouds b) the composition doesn't look too centered and c) the result is a nice 16:9 picture :-) The scaffoldings are a pity but they simply are there BeBo86 (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder why the image wasn't taken a bit earlier. Were the lights only switched on by then? Personally, I would like more light, both in the sky and on the darker parts of the rock. --DXR (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info This was also because of tourists crossing the bridge (and the picture). This was the first moment with no tourist crossing my view (but you can see bicycles with lights coming from the left ;-) The alternative was to shoot from the handrail on the other side of the bridge, but on this side there was kind of a dam which didn't look good in the foreground (currently there's a building site!). BeBo86 (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, even though I would probably have tried to combine shots to remove the tourists but fair enough. Looking at suncalc, the sun would have been quite a bit to the left so that would have worked, probably. BTW: Imho it's not good to remove the EXIF with a later upload. --DXR (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
just to mention I faced the exact same problem on my own shot (to a lesser extent, it was taken at winter time). Mont Saint-Michel is one of the busiest site in France. About using several shots to remove people, I'm a bit skeptical ; light decreases fast. Not sure it would be so easy to used empty parts from other pictures (possible to adjust exposure but depending on the number of people to erase, could drive one crazy ;) ). - Benh (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for sure it isn't easy, but we are talking FP here, and if it takes a few hours in PS, it does. But granted, that's a bit academic now. --DXR (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the photo as it is (also the decentered composition with the links from the street going through the picture). Level of detail / sharpness is sufficient for me. Regarding the shooting time: I guess the sun sets at the very left part of the photo. If BeBo86 had shot earlier there had been problems with backlight. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the sun is much farther on the left, so "backlight" is not really an issue here. The people, on the other hand... - Benh (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I like the dark blueish background and the lightning is good - a few places some minor problems with exposure control, but is is quite difficult to avoid in such kinds of photos. I especially like the mood of the lower buildings to the right. My biggest problem is the per-pixel quality for a 3.6 Mpixel image. I would have opposed if it was daylight. At these conditions it is harder, and for me it just passes the FP bar quality-wise.--Slaunger (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but per above. Yes, it is an iconic location and I understand the choice of time, but in my opinion the quality just is not good enough to be the best of commons --DXR (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2014 at 13:35:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cristo Redentor - Rio de Janeiro RJ.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cristo Redentor - Rio de Janeiro RJ.jpg
@Wilfredo: I respect your opinion, but it is justifiable. That's just a view to the sky of a monument, the composition would be composed only the monument itself and the clouds (if any), which are not significant in the sky. ArionEstar (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2014 at 00:09:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cemitério da Consolação 232.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cemitério da Consolação 232.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2014 at 21:45:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cemitério da Consolação, São Paulo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cemitério da Consolação, São Paulo.jpg
2617
2469
107
107
3391
4003
Hilarious. The correct is "cemetery" and not "cemitery".
Comment Interesting photo, but the sky looks strange (perhaps due to heavy processing, due to large contrasts in the picture).--ArildV (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done I'm flattered by this nomination, thank ArionEstar very much. This is another version reconstructed from RAW with more color and details information. I correct the perspective and I tried to correct a problem can not be corrected, the photograph was taken to inadequate time, however, the process for obtaining permits to take pictures took all the entire morning. I think that is much better --The Photographer (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2014 at 11:54:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:30th St. Moritz Polo World Cup on Snow - 20140202 - Cartier vs Ralph Lauren 18.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:30th St. Moritz Polo World Cup on Snow - 20140202 - Cartier vs Ralph Lauren 18.jpg
Support This picture was taken during the one of the matches of the 30th St. Moritz Polo World Cup on snow, a Snow polo competition in en:St. Moritz. The horse's tail is clipped, braided and wrapped for safety reasons. The player is sporting a red polo outfit, marked with the Cartier logo, Cartier being the sponsor of one the team. -- Pleclown (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2014 at 08:06:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Бескрајност,бр.3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Бескрајност,бр.3.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2014 at 17:12:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dalian Liaoning China Two-Chinese-at-Xinghai-Bay-01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dalian Liaoning China Two-Chinese-at-Xinghai-Bay-01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2014 at 07:37:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose for sure a remarkable place for an amphitheater, but photographical nothing special for me. Above all the background is extremly overexposed/washed out --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like the composition and motive very much, that was the reason for nomination - photographically special enough for me :) But you are wrong with the background - there is nothing overexposed. It was a very foggy (and windy) day thus the landscapes is hidden behind fog. For me the the naturally washed out background is a good contrast to the remarkable mining waste tip. I have also a b/w development of this photo where this contrast is even more accentuated and looks great imho. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this image we have also strongly fog File:Los Angeles Pollution.jpg (even more than in yours) but we have not a washed out impression. I belive that there was fog, but this image is nevertheless not well done. You have made the exposure on the main object and have forgotten the background. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like often quality is here, the value also is here, but the weather make the image very sad. However the main subject occupies almost all of the image and save it from the sad mood. -- Christian FerrerTalk16:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support due to improvable sharpness, lighting and lack of "tension" in the picture. I'd have prefered another POV with a different angle Poco217:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2014 at 08:33:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support per Slaunger and Daniel Case. Excellent management of the light, "driving" the eyes to the bell tower. Really good.--Jebulon (talk) 10:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2014 at 10:49:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014-08-21 16-51-25 Impatiens-glandulifera.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014-08-21 16-51-25 Impatiens-glandulifera.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2014 at 10:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Iron sculpture Zauberlehrling (sorcerer's apprentice) looking like a deformed and dancing power pole, photographed at sunset. The huge sculpture war built for EMSCHERKUNST, an art exhibition in the public space. all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does an installment which is scheduled to be dismantled after a certain period of time (here: 2020, as far as I understand from the wiki article), qualify for the permamence criterion of FoP-Germany? --A.Savin13:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Savin: As far as I understand the article, there is a Emscherkunst exhibition every year until 2020. Some of the works will be dismantled, some will stay. This seems to be a permanent installment, see emscherkunst.de: „Der "Zauberlehrling" gehört zu den permanenten Arbeiten der EMSCHERKUNST.2013 und ist auch nach Ausstellungsende jederzeit in Oberhausen nahe Haus Ripshorst frei zugänglich.“ Therefore there should be no problem regarding the freedom of panorama. ireas (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) A.Savin, intersting question. I am not a lawyer - but for such a long period one can say that the installation is permantely in the public space and thus qualifies for FoP. There was a judgement in Germany regarding the covering of the Reichstag (Christo covered the German Reichstag for a few weeks) which said that photographs of Christo's installation does not fall under FoP. The period here is MUCH longer thus I do not think we have problems here (BTW: Is it an FPC concern??). As you can read on this official homepage of EMSCHERKUNST the exhibition is administrated until 2020 but I find no indication that the Zauberlehrling is destroyed afterwards. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the scultpures are dismantled when done and not re-installed elsewhere they qualify as permananet much in the same way as it would be for ephemeral art like Ice Sculptures.
Comment Excatly that was my idea with this backlight photo. I also made some other daylight shots - but the shape of the sculpture is much better accentuated on the photo I've nominated here. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support In spite of some slight sharpening white lines along the steel, maybe. Anyway, all is excellent here (IMO): the subject, the backlight, the composition. Different and funny, congratulations ! I like it very much ! --Jebulon (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2014 at 11:08:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Prismas Basálticos, Huasca de Ocampo, Hidalgo, México, 2013-10-10, DD 25.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Prismas Basálticos, Huasca de Ocampo, Hidalgo, México, 2013-10-10, DD 25.JPG
Oppose Nice place, high geological interest and value ! But you were not lucky with the weather, and the long exposure has consequences: a disturbing ghost crossing the bridge...--Jebulon (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried it and created the alternative below with the result. The "bad weather issue" is gone but the result is pretty different to the former one. Poco221:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I played with boosting the saturation in a local copy of this image, and I think it helped, but I would exclude that bright patch of grass behind the trees in the upper right from the process. I also think a shift of the view slightly to the left could help -- remove that fragment of a road from the right side and move the left end of the footbridge a little farther from the left edge of the image, though I cannot say what that would then bring into the picture. I don't know whether these changes would make it FP, though. --Kbh3rdtalk17:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2014 at 10:37:39 (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 2 Sep 2014 at 14:03:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:AnoushehAnsari.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:AnoushehAnsari.jpg
Oppose Not good enough for a portrait taken under studio conditions, imho: 1) Crop should be either wider or more tight (arms cut off just above the hands, part of her left shoulder is missing). 2) The suit is already very "busy", so I'd prefer a calm, neutral background – that color gradient plus the flag is just too much. 3) Heavy JPEG compression artifacts on the background. --El Grafo (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2014 at 19:53:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mallorca - Kathedrale von Palma1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mallorca - Kathedrale von Palma1.jpg
It's rather paradox. You think the light is harsh, Alchemist means the church is partially in shadow. I think the light shows the cathedral in a good and interessting way. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very impressive view, composition, and size (I did not find any stitching error). Some "rework" in the sky is visible -artefacts- (I know how it is difficult to manage this). The contrasts of some parts of the building and vegetation are not the same everywhere (some parts look like "dusty" and pale). But it can be corrected and we already have promoted worst pictures than this one, IMO...--Jebulon (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The few "dusty" areals are no fault of the stitching or a sign of bad processing. The sun was shing very strong this day and there are some interference. This phenomenon you can find also in my single shots of this church (e.g. File:Mallorca - Kathedrale von Palma6.jpg). I understand if you oppose because of this but I don't think it's thatmost disturbing. A similar physical effect you can see on this image File:Toronto - ON - Schaft des CN Tower.jpg which is for sure actually interessting. So: nothing correctable here because it's just nature. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As there wasn't any retouching on the sky the are for sure no retouching marks. No need to invent reason. If you don't like it just oppose. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but iifar is right, it may be retouching marks or colour banding but the problem is in the end the same. There were similar issues on one of your FPC's some weeks ago, I set image notes, but you ignored. --A.Savin09:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alchemist, the sun seems to be on your right and not behind you, it would even be better on the left later during the day. And per Ivar, the shadowed areas in the upper parts are not very dark (low contrast areas) -- Christian FerrerTalk23:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Maybe there was no retouching but there is pixelation in the sky with ares abruptly darker. I also agree with the comments regarding improvable lighting and lack of contrast, but both are still acceptable to me. Will support if the problems in the sky are addressed. Poco217:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2014 at 14:27:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Palacio de Comunicaciones - 47.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palacio de Comunicaciones - 47.jpg
Support I guess it never exists without the buses, so useless to require anything else. Already excellent this way. --A.Savin15:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link; as far as I understand it would require a series of tripod shots, which is probably not the case here, and unlike the scene with the people who move around quickly we have here a scene with buses which - I guess - stop for a relatively long time, so that I doubt that an otherwise homogenous series would have been possible. There is of course always a possibility to apply PS cloning, but in this case with relatively big parts of street and facade obscured by the buses, it will probably not really work, or just with visible retouching traces, which I certainly would not prefer. --A.Savin10:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link too. I had heard about that, but I don't usually take my tripod with daylight, I prefer (by now) single shots, though I'd like to learn how to stitch pictures like you do. However this is one of the busiest places in Madrid and one of the main bus stops (even at 3am) and you have to wait for the sequence of traffic lights to have no cars in the foreground, waiting for a chance to have no buses and no cars would take forever (I understood the technique, but imo some parts would always be obscured, it is very busy), to have some good takes it took me about 20 minutes and I was starting to be sun-burnt haha; in this one less than half a second later a few motorbikes would appear in the picture coming from the left. I also think buses are somehow part of the place, so it's not so disturbing. As Alexandr says, cloning would also be difficult, and I don't master photoshop. --Kadellar (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, I wasn't arguing that you must remove the cars and buses anyway. :-) I was just saying it is technically possible. It's fine when they are in the background and not obscuring much of the subject. Diliff (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2014 at 17:20:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Yellow boat in Conleau, gulf of Morbihan, France.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Yellow boat in Conleau, gulf of Morbihan, France.jpg
Support Minimalism. A lonely yellow breton boat, waiting high tide under breton sky, Gulf of Morbihan, Brittany, France. -- Jebulon (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO he means, that the mast destroys the depth between the foreground boat, the water area and the background trees. --Ras67 (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colors are harsh on my eyes and the lighting is rather "flat". The mast brings emphasis to the dark and contrasted background. Nice composition though. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2014 at 14:16:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Before Sunrise at the Salar of Uyuni, Bolivia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Before Sunrise at the Salar of Uyuni, Bolivia.jpg
Oppose I like symmetries, reflections and simple compositions (less is more), and the nominated candidate is pretty, has a very simple composition, is pleasant to the eye and also have some wow. But we also have in our guidelines that the value is the main goal, and I am sorry, but for this almost featureless photo, I think the value is too limited. To quote from the guideline: "Beautiful does not always mean valuable". Sorry, --Slaunger (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a beautiful photo and definitely has some "wow" to it, but IMO it's still too plain to be worthy of FP status. --Graphium14:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2014 at 06:50:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dettifoss July 2014.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dettifoss July 2014.JPG
InfoDettifoss, a northern Icelandic waterfall situated on the Jökulsá á Fjöllum river, has a width of 100m and a drop of 45m, making it Europe's most powerful waterfall with an average flow of 193m3/s. Its enormous dimensions can be measured using the group of people on the left bank as scale. What I like about the picture is the barren and yet powerful, almost primeval mood it conveys. All by myself, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, exposure too long for my taste. It looks more like sand than water (In my opinion...). Sorry. A very nice place, and in interesting natural phenomenon, anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I so rarely visit this candidates page, I don't want to vote, but I would agree that Dettifoss looks somewhat strange in this photo, just too smooth and static through the long exposure - much smoother than the actual impression is (I have actually seen this waterfall a few years ago). In my opinion, images like File:Iceland Dettifoss 1972.jpg (already a featured picture) or File:Dettifoss TimBekaert.JPG better convey the actual "Dettifoss feel". Gestumblindi (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree that the waterfall is not helped by the long exposure in this case. I find that around 1/10 to 1/2 seconds is the ideal exposure length for waterfalls to achieve a sense of movement and flow, but without completely removing the texture of the water. It's also very monochromatic, although I guess this is just the reality of the landscape. Diliff (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I really thought this picture would meet with a more positive response. Anyway, thanks for your reviews. And yes, Diliff, the reality of the landscape up there is in fact rather "monochromatic", with overcast skies, rocks of all sorts and sizes, and muddy water. I withdraw my nomination --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a bad photo at all, but I don't think the exposure length and the position of the camera is ideal, I also don't get a sense of the scale of the waterfall, except when I notice how small the people are on the other side. It's better when the picture can speak to you without having to look at the little details like that to understand it. I don't like to tell people where they should have taken a photo from because I don't know what options were available, but it would have been nice to see it either from closer to the edge or from further away and along the cliff edge so that you can see the waterfall's drop better. Or from higher above it, but I guess that is not possible! :-) Diliff (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2014 at 21:43:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Zakład przyrodoleczniczy "Wojciech" w Lądku-Zdroju.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Zakład przyrodoleczniczy "Wojciech" w Lądku-Zdroju.jpg
Oppose Nice, but haloes along the dome and the foliage (oversharpening ?). I think the two people on the bench in shadow are a bit too much eye-catching.--Jebulon (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Good shot, interesting building but lack of wow to me, maybe also as a result of the centered composition Poco217:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2014 at 22:46:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lincoln Cathedral Nave 1, Lincolnshire, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lincoln Cathedral Nave 1, Lincolnshire, UK - Diliff.jpg
Support Of course. One question though, how do you decide between 35mm and 50mm? Is it a matter of DoF or time? Or has the 50mm replaced the 35mm for better quality/higher res? --DXR (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. The Sigma 50mm has replaced the 35mm for most of my stitching now, but I sometimes go for 35mm when I need wider depth of field. 50mm provides only just enough DOF in many of my panoramas (even when using the hyperfocal distance to maximise DOF) and sometimes I need to go all the way to f/16 (the smallest aperture on both the 35mm and 50mm lenses). At this aperture, diffraction is a problem and starts to eat away at the detail advantage of 50mm. Also, 50mm requires more individual photos to capture the same scene. So basically, I use 35mm when I am not as concerned with quality/high res, and when there are objects very close to the camera that would be out of focus with my 50mm lens. But for most stitched architectural photography, 50mm is the 'sweet spot' for me and if the scene is worth a bracketed and stitched image, it's probably also worth spending an extra minute or two to capture it with the 50mm lens. ;-) Diliff (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting explanation about 35-50mm, thanks. One question from me as well, do you remove people from the scene before stitching or the other way round? Removing first, right? You'll have to organize a workshop! ;) --Kadellar (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I very rarely need to use Photoshop to remove people, I just wait very patiently until people are not in the frame. ;-) It's a bit easier because of the stitching though. For example, If they are on the right side, I can take all the photos of the left side (and all the photos of the ceiling). I just have to keep a mental picture of which sections still need to be taken, and then I wait until people decide to move away. Sometimes it doesn't take long, sometimes I wait for 15+ minutes and one person leaves just as another person arrives. It can be very frustrating. Sometimes I just give up and leave them in the photo, but it's rare. Maybe the looks I give these people while I wait is enough to make them disappear! ;-) Diliff (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support French gothic cathedrals need you too ! (please see note. Maybe -I repeat, maybe- I've found something a little wrong)--Jebulon (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The slight tilt in the ceiling ribs is probably because I wasn't perfectly centred (or the ceiling isn't perfectly in line with the floor tiles). The problem with these old cathedrals is that you would assume that the middle of the central floor tiles is the middle, but not always... Even if you are away from the true centre by just a one centimetre, that can be enough to be very obvious in a photo like this. Lines deviate more when the angle of view is very wide. Diliff (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I would love to spend some time in the French cathedrals. My wife is from Picardie but we usually just spend all our time in France with her family... I was surprised to learn that there are six cathedrals in Picardie! Beauvais, Amiens, Noyon, Senlis, Soissons and Laon. There are a lot more cathedrals in France than in England... It would take a long time to visit them all. Diliff (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My favorite is Laon. Not very far, Reims is very nice too, and very historical (kings coronations took place there). Paris... Chartres... What a photographical tour for you !--Jebulon (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was lucky enough to be approved for a grant through Wikimedia UK to cover the costs (fuel mostly) of visiting these English cathedrals... I wonder if Wikimedia France would consider a similar arrangement for me to photograph the French cathedrals... ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I suppose the distortion in the nearer light fixtures and the capitals above them is an unavoidable consequence of perspective correction/projection? Impressive nonetheless. --Kbh3rdtalk16:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately yes. it's a very wide angle of view and the distortion is unavoidable (only choice is to have a more narrow field of view). Diliff (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The key item to do this properly is a panoramic head. This will let you rotate the camera without introducing parallax errors. If you don't have this, it will not be possible to replicate my methodology. I can explain the rest of it in more detail if you'd like though. I've been asked a lot of similar questions recently, I might put together a page with as much details as I can. Diliff (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you very much for your immediate response. Unfortunately I only count on a tripod, however, I am interested to know your technique for shooting even in my imagination --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The photo is brilliant as usual. But let me mention that I really appreciate your attitude how you deal with questions. You make no secret of your great shots - you describe in-detail the shooting techniques, the required equipment and most notably you take every question seriously (here an on your talk page). Beneath your great photos your activity on Commons with informative statements is highly beneficial for everyone here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxyso (talk • contribs)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2014 at 22:08:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Southwell Minster West Window, Nottinghamshire, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Southwell Minster West Window, Nottinghamshire, UK - Diliff.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2014 at 21:53:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Złota Stupa w klasztorze Erdene Dzuu 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Złota Stupa w klasztorze Erdene Dzuu 01.jpg
Oppose Not sharp enough, in spite of the very nice blur of the sky. Too tight crop, left and right. Anyway, a stunning, unusual and very interesting building.--Jebulon (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky looks overprocessed (did you use a Gaussian filter?) and that right crop is not really good, especially that table with the blue cloth (can you clone that out?). I would support if both issues are corrected because the subject has wow to me in spite of the missing sharpness Poco217:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know how to make it more realistic. There was a very interesting sky on that day (see my other images from that place from that day) and I didn't do other things about that sky except adding more light (it was too dark) and noise reduction. --Halavar (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2014 at 22:49:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cemitério da Consolação, São Paulo (edited version).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cemitério da Consolação, São Paulo (edited version).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2014 at 15:42:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Not yet. Lots of smearing in the sky right to the cactus. Seems as if some power line has been cloned out, the fragments of which are now scattered all over the area. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the area right of the cactus still looks severely smeared while in othere places the sky is quiet and even. Even in preview mode it looks like a dust or smoke cloud rising from the horizon. Why remove the power line at all? --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It’s still the annotation saying, "even worse cloning". Additionally, removal of a permanent feature from the frame could be reckoned as a deceptive manipulation, making the image ineligible anyway. What if someone quotes this image as a proof there was no power line when it was taken? --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2014 at 08:52:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Catedral de Puebla, México, 2013-10-11, DD 12.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Catedral de Puebla, México, 2013-10-11, DD 12.JPG
Support. But isn't this your third active nomination? I do think that perhaps the maximum of two should be raised to perhaps 3 or 4 though. Diliff (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kadellar: thanks for your comment. I tried it before the nomination but the result was not convincing, because the dome in the top far left was leaning in too much. Actually the wall and that dome are not aligned. This version is a kind of compromise. Poco214:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I think it is better to take a pano from 2-4 images, correct the perspektive and crop it. Now it looks still unnatural for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I usually find this to be the case also. The control over perspective from software like Hugin or PTGui is more powerful than simple perspective transforms in Photoshop (and has the added benefit of greater resolution or less obvious distortion at the edges if you downsample). Diliff (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, Colours, quality and motif are really nice, but the perspective correction is way overdone for my taste here. --mathiasK14:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to the wide angle of view this shots is difficult. But if I take a look on the photo I also get the impression that something is wrong at the left side, probably due to perspective correction. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2014 at 15:55:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment I may be wrong, but I think white balance could be used here to separate the subject from the background. Even then though, I have to say that the composition doesn't convince me completely, and there is a lot of clipping on the subject. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)16:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2014 at 21:04:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Harrow and Wealdstone station MMB 08 350121.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Harrow and Wealdstone station MMB 08 350121.jpg
Comment - I find this image much more appealing if the bottom third or half of the foreground below the train is cropped off. The focus is the train and that impressive sky. The broadening platform that dominates the foreground is boring and detracts from those elements. --Kbh3rdtalk00:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark clouds doesn't develope featured pictures and I see nothing special about this picture. A dramatic sky may be a good choise for landscape/nature images but here I have the impression the station was just pictured during a bad weather period. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was quite a stunning few minutes certainly - this and the few I took around then are some of my favourite railway photos. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A train station under a dark sky is not a featurable subject for my eyes, sorry. I fail to find something "special" here. Technically very good however. It is only a "no-wow" problem.--Jebulon (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not bothered by the sky at all ... this is England we're talking about, after all, a country about whose skies native Douglas Adams once described as having the "natural colour ... [of] a rancid dishrag." Yes, it was rather pleasant during Wikimania, but we had to cancel the Friday evening photo meetup (or at least the outside portion) because of skies like these and the weather they portended.
I would, however, agree that a tighter bottom crop is called for, probably flush with the junction of the rail and the image edge on the bottom right. Oops, I see now that's been done. Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you didn't have to cancel. About 10 of us still went on the photo meet up and suffered through the drowning rain! And apparently another 10 more Spaniards who got separated from us were just behind! ;-) Diliff (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't know that ... we all got separated, the natives decided to go home or to the pub, and the more I thought about it the better that idea sounded. Daniel Case (talk) 05:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think the composition is very good, and for a static image like this with little wow (for those not into trains, that is), I would expect the composition to be almost perfect. Diliff (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2014 at 05:30:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Is there a way to lighten up a bit the are in the right? both, subject and background, are pretty dark and therefore the insect does not stands out that much. Poco216:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2014 at 09:56:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rana temporaria in nature park Trhoň in 2014 (2).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rana temporaria in nature park Trhoň in 2014 (2).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2014 at 15:09:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sharpness not enough IMO. I don't like the cut. Below could be more cropped and top left it is too tight around the head. I miss the lead room. --Hockei (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2014 at 00:49:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Agulhas Negras no Cume.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Agulhas Negras no Cume.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2014 at 07:57:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cannon Street station Mars 2014.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cannon Street station Mars 2014.jpg
Info Cannon Street Railway Bridge and Cannon Street station, view from Bankside, London. Some of the City skyscrapers in the background. From left Tower 42, Heron Tower, 122 Leadenhall Street, 30 St Mary Axe, and 20 Fenchurch Street. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They might look strange but I don't think they are unnatural. At this time of the evening, with some light clouds, I often get similar looking clouds which are orange or red because of the glow from street lights. Diliff (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a good and quality shot but does not meet FP level to me. The bridge itself is not a very appealing subject (with poor lighting) and cuts of the nicer buildings (especially the walkie-talkie building) in the background. The street lamp in the middle is also pretty disturbing. A higher POV would have been probably more interesting. Poco217:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to nominate the picture when I saw that it was used to illustrate a talk by Peter Wynne Rees (the chief planner of the City of London from 1985). London is not Paris or Florence, it is a much more chaotic urban landscape (not as harmonious and beautiful, but perhaps more exciting). The picture captures the urban landscape with typical elements for London. The River Thames, one of many railway bridges, all generations of the skyscrapers in city, the typical mix of old and new. I do not care if the bridge is not appealing, the bridge is IMO an interesting and important part of the urban landscape.--ArildV (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2014 at 17:23:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Svartifoss July 2014.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Svartifoss July 2014.JPG
Oppose -- It is a very interesting subject. However in this image the shadows are too dark, and the color balance does not seem quite right. There are details in the shadows that could be brought out – I tried some adjustments in a local copy and was able to improve it somewhat. I don't know if it could be made FP worth, though. --Kbh3rdtalk01:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info @Kbh3rdFixed - new version; @Uoaei1 I know it looks funny but the rock wall is actually like this; @Ivar Yep... and a tripod, both of which were - unfortunately - not an option when taking the picture. I had to improvise at bit... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2014 at 11:31:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ohridski biser 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ohridski biser 01.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2014 at 08:31:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Conditional oppose It is a very well executed photograph. However, I have a problem with the extreme distortions of the pillars at corners of the photographs, and I would propose cropping it at the top and bottom in the same manner as at the sides. I would support such a crop. --Slaunger (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for me, much better now, thanks. Maybe you should notify the other voters as well, as they may not necessarily agree with my preferences. It is quite a different version now... --Slaunger (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2014 at 14:53:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info A lateral view of a Saperda carcharias, a species of longhorn beetles. Sadly one of the antennae was broken but I think thats not that annoying from this side. c/u/n by me, mathiasK14:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The focus is very soft on the remaining antenna and somewhat soft on some of the legs. First I suspected it was due to DOF issues, but it is taken at f/13, so I guess it cannot be that? Could it be motion blur? The exposure time was 1/60 s, a little slow. Whatever, the reason is, it is a pity as it distracts from the body, which has a very nice detail level. Light and composition is also good. Subject is interesting. I did not know about the longhorn beetle and that it is actually considered a serious pest for poplar trees. Not sure I can support due to the soft focus issues, but it was interesting and I learned something. --Slaunger (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Slaunger! First of all, thank you for your review. It was a pleasure to read because of your last point: "it was interisting and I learned something". Thats really cool!! Cause one of the most importent things in taking pictures for me is that the pic makes us want to know more about something. And if that is the case, then it is much "better" than any fp-sign could be! :-)
To the technical thing: The soft focus issue you mentioned is in fact a dof effect. When I was taking the pic my first intention was to get the max possible magnification with the whole bettle on the sensor. To get this I need to go as close as possible to the bettle. In this actual pic the distance between sensor and bettle was ~45-50cm. With my 90mm macro and f/13 this means a total dof of ~1,0 - 1,3cm. Now you need to keep in mind that the beetle is pretty "big" with ~4cm body length, and when it was sitting like this it is also wider then 1,5cm from "edge to edge". So you see, even with f/13 it isn´t possible to get the whole body in focus with this resulting magnification/resolution. I hope I could explain myself, my intention and the picture passably... ;-) Regards mathiasK18:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand completely, and I am glad you appreciate the review, although I did not support:) It surprised me that the f/13 is the limiting factor, but you are right, I just checked with an online DOF calculator. It appears that if you had moved away to 75 cm you would have gotten a 2.5 times larger DOF, at a cost of approximately half the pixelage on the main body. Maybe it would have been a better compromise, but it is so easy to be smart in hindsight. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I got the dof point and youre right. It is very narrow. But as I wrote above, there isn't much room for more dof at this magnification. When, for instance, shooting portraits with f/2.8 the focus should match the eyes amd the rest should be oof. Its nothing else here, I had to choose between max magnification, with a limited dof which fits the eyes and the body, or less magnification with more dof... It looks like I choose the wrong one. ;-) Greetings mathiasK07:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2014 at 18:52:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Traditionally decorated camel against background of Great Pyramid of Giza (Khufu’s pyramid), Pyramid of Khafre, Pyramid of Menkaure (left to right). Giza, Cairo, Egypt, North Africa.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Traditionally decorated camel against background of Great Pyramid of Giza (Khufu’s pyramid), Pyramid of Khafre, Pyramid of Menkaure (left to right). Giza, Cairo, Egypt, North Africa.jpg
Oppose Unfortunately cropped tail, with CA along it at left, and unfortunately cropped fourth pyramid at right. Subject overall too "touristic", like a postcard, not my taste, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong CA on back part of animal (visible even in the preview on the nomination page!), blown parts on neck and head, channel overexposure in the red parts (loss of detail), and bad crop as pointed out by Jebulon. ArionEstar: Good to know but loving the country a pic has been taken in is not really part of FPC criteria ;-) --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2014 at 22:47:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Agulha do Diabo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Agulha do Diabo.jpg
Great scenery but Oppose per Yann – there are JPG artifacts all along the edges. Furthermore, the pic seems severly tilted clockwise to me, judging from the cloud shapes on the left background. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2014 at 11:34:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Huerto del Cura, Elche, España, 2014-07-05, DD 32.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Huerto del Cura, Elche, España, 2014-07-05, DD 32.JPG
OpposeNeutral for now. The stones are too bright, and the upper left trees are too dark. This can be fixed with the proper technique – the stones are not totally blown out and can be recovered. I like the color and composition, though the plant comes perilously close to touching the right edge of the image. If there is a wider crop available to work from consider whether slightly better framing is possible, too. --Kbh3rdtalk02:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kbh3rd: Thanks for your feedback! I can make all those corrections this evening out of the raw file. I also have the possibility to expand the right crop, this frame was actually intentional. Poco206:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a definite improvement and better than mine, which I've removed but is viewable here. Does the original allow for including more on the left, also? The dominant feature of this image is the plant that arcs across the frame, of course. It originates in the burst of leaves at the lower left, but that part of the plant is truncated by the crop. The arc leads the eye right to that, and I have to wonder whether it would be better to include the whole plant, though without knowing what else that would bring into the composition. That might also help with the issue of the line of the rock wall coming right out of the corner, which is not optimal. --Kbh3rdtalk18:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2014 at 08:43:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2013 Ząbkowice Śląskie, Rynek, dom nr 22, 06.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2013 Ząbkowice Śląskie, Rynek, dom nr 22, 06.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2014 at 17:58:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wildkatze-Anholter-Schweiz.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wildkatze-Anholter-Schweiz.jpg
CAs fixed. Cannot change your perception regarding the composition - I like it as it is, especially with the inclined branch. But I cannot follow your focus argument. What is wrong to focus on the eyes? Head, eyes and a lot of areas of the coat are sharp. Und noch mal auf Deutsch um Missverständnissen vorzubeugen: Die CAs habe ich korrigert. Deinen Kommentar bzgl. der zu gewöhnlichen Komposition kann ich nicht verstehen, mir gefällt sie. Deinen Kommentar bzgl. des Fokus ist nicht nachvollziehbar. Was bitte ist falsch daran auf die Augen zu fokussieren (wie bei Porträts üblich, sollte dir bekannt sein)? Große Teile des Kopfes, der Augen und des Fells sind scharf - ich kann beim besten Willen kein Problem sehen. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Es ist nach wie vor ein unschöner Farbsaum zu erkennen und auch eine unschöne Ausfransung der Kontur. Der Ast korrespondiert fotografisch mit nichts anderem im Bild, im Gegenteil ragt er nur als störendes Element in Richtung des Betrachters empor. Dass ausgerechnet der hintere Teil des Holzes scharf, aber der vordere sehr prominente ins Bild gerückte unscharf ist finde ich eben unglücklich. Zur Katze selbst: sie sieht schlauchförmig aus und wenn man es nicht durch die eigene Erfahrung besser wüsste konnte man das Tier auch für eine felltragende Schlange halten. Ich kann daran kein geglücktes Detail erkennen, was mich von den Socken haut. Fazit: generell technisch handwerklich okay, für ein FP mir klar zu wenig. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
very weak Oppose – I would so much like to support this because it’s an unusual image of a cat, and it really strikes me (though I am rather a lover of dogs than cats). The emerging rod is certainly a matter of taste. I like it for supporting the cat from this side; in case it rises to its feet it can put its front right paw onto it. On the other hand, there’s the harsh light pointed out by Christian Ferrer. Fur is partially blown, and so are the whiskers, some of which even show JPEG artifacts. Furthermore, there’s a slight motion blur all over the image. Maybe camera shake? Look at the fur around its eyes, it’s blurred in one direction. That keeps this image slightly below FP threshold for me – but, as I pointed out, it’s a pity. If only the blown parts can be fixed from a raw file, I might change my vote. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGFKreuzschnabel :) Nicht immer direkt den schlimmsten Fall annehmen. Beim Schreiben hatte ich umfänglich im Kopf, zweite Bedeutung im OAD, Synonyme wären: detailed, in-detail oder elaborate. Ich habe den Begriff oben mal ersetzt um Missverständnisse zu vermeiden. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2014 at 22:36:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bus stop in São Paulo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bus stop in São Paulo.jpg
Comment Nice shot. A bit too bright though, would be fine if the blown sky on the left edge could be fixed. Noise level pretty hich but than can be helped. Colours look a bit washed-out. Have you got a raw file to rework this? To me it’s not yet supportable but could become so with the improvements suggested. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2014 at 21:27:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Isidorovskaya Church SPB 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Isidorovskaya Church SPB 01.jpg
Neutral Not convinced of the composition. I think a few metres to the right would have been a better vantage point, showing more of the river bank and less of the rather uninteresting street on the right. The railing in the foreground is distracting. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2014 at 23:20:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose This image does not have a chance to be featured, I am sorry. If you need help, you can always ask me for advice. The composition is not the best, the tree cover the route, no apparent main subject --The Photographer (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2014 at 21:27:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Salasaopaulo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Salasaopaulo.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2014 at 15:46:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Man Eating at the Market of Antigua, Guatemala.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Man Eating at the Market of Antigua, Guatemala.jpg
Over exposed windows are a fact of life, unless one believes portrait/candid photography shoult start using HDR! However the glare from the windows is distracting so they become the focus of the eye rather than than man. -- Colin (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Also, the man's elbow and dish should not be resting on the bottom of the frame. That violates general composition guidelines, and although breaking "rules" sometimes works, that does not work here. I also think that the pillar cleaves the picture into an uninteresting left and a truncated right. How about a vertically oriented picture encompassing more of the right part? --Kbh3rdtalk18:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2014 at 16:42:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:SchleusenanlageFahrenholz1.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:SchleusenanlageFahrenholz1.JPG
Comment Can you lighten up the dark areas in the wall? And the sky seems little blown out. Try to adjust this. Otherwise nice picture. -- -donald- (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice view but poor quality: Clouds blown, whitewater blown, severe loss of detail on all the structures, blurry edges (nothing is really sharp), opposing wall too dark. While the picture as such is nice, it is by no means outstanding IMHO, and the technical flaws let me no choice but to oppose. Sorry. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2014 at 01:25:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose This looks like it was taken through glass; there are yellow splotches showing up everywhere. Otherwise a pretty skyline. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2014 at 08:46:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chrysopidae 01 (MK).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chrysopidae 01 (MK).jpg
Info A very tiny (body ~ 10mm long) Green lacewing Chrysopa sp. I know that the dof is pretty narrow but I think that resolution, sharpness and the given details (especially on the head and the wings) are pretty nice, so I give this one a try. The Rest is up to you... ;-) c/u/n by me, mathiasK08:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support because the area in focus could be wider with the camera sensor parallel to the longitudinal axle of the animal Poco216:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry Mathias, it is a nice shot and a nice insect but not good enough for FP. I agree with Jebulon on the sharpness issues and lighting is not very good either. Please see also this one: it was a very difficult shot to make despite the critter being still. The only way to get it on focus was to shoot from some distance. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2014 at 10:49:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vilnius - view from Hill of Three Crosses01(js).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vilnius - view from Hill of Three Crosses01(js).jpg
Oppose An impressively broad panorama, but not terribly sharp compared to others that we've seen here. There also appears to be some chromatic aberration, and the trees in the foreground are out of focus. The left side is washed out from shooting into the sun and may have been better omitted from the picture if the rest was FP worthy. As it is I'd leave it in for documentary value. Do you know the horizontal field of view in degrees? That would be nice to see on the description page. --Kbh3rdtalk03:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2014 at 00:15:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ardea alba in São Paulo Zoo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ardea alba in São Paulo Zoo.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2014 at 18:37:03 (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 Sep 2014 at 17:33:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Commemorative stele at the Lido de Thau 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Commemorative stele at the Lido de Thau 02.jpg
Info For the no french speakers, there is a an english translation of the stele text in the file description. I don't aspire that there is any value here. Maybe there is, maybe not. For that I know there is COM:VI. This nomination is for the picture itself and only for it. -- Christian FerrerTalk17:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but the composition does not appeal to me at all. Would prefer it un-centered. Furthermore, I can’t make anything out of the shadow on the lower right, and would like to see more of the water beyond. It’s not a bad picture but does not reach FP level for me. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thirsty :-) no, honestly: it’s the composition. Too much horizontal lines keeping my eye from wandering about. A diagonal coastline would make a difference. Nothing special on this picture for me, sorry. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. The centering compo is a bit boring IMO. The shadow in the right corner below is too disturbing. Great emotional and historical value though. Nice picture, but not a FP to me.--Jebulon (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2014 at 07:32:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gentoo Penguin AdF.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gentoo Penguin AdF.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2014 at 17:03:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kaltenbronn 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kaltenbronn 1.jpg
Oppose 1/3 third of the photo (left side) is completely unsharp. It is not only unimportant foreground but it is substantial for the overall impression of the photo. Yes, photos in the wood with fog and sun light have always very good chances on FPC but I do not see something special here. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2014 at 14:59:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Laienrefektorium, Kloster Eberbach 20140903 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laienrefektorium, Kloster Eberbach 20140903 1.jpg
Info The Lay Brothers Refectory of Eberbach Abbey. The room was built ca. 1200 and had been used as a wine cellar since 1500. Today, the room houses 12 wine presses, all older than 200 years. c/u/n by me, DXR -- DXR (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice work. The text of the photo template on your image page looks strangely familiar! ;-) And I see you've used a five image bracket with +2EV spaces. Has Nikon released a new firmware to allow you to do this or do you have to select the shutter speeds manually? Diliff (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Text is only sa, not sa-by, so I hope that's alright ;-). Unfortunately, Nikon has remained lazy, I'm shooting nine photos and throw away four (still better than doing it manually, though). I guess that's one way to boost sales for new shutters... --DXR (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that is an extreme way of getting 2EV spaces but I agree, better than doing it manually. It would really add a lot of time to the shooting and processing too. Diliff (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Well, I try to stick to the "Diliff method" (or at least what I believe it to be): So I take the bracketing in camera, stitch five full panoramas from the exposures and then combine them in Photomatix, export them as 32-bit tiffs (without any further edit in Photomatix) and then finish editing in Lightroom. --DXR (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's essentially my method yes, although PTGui can output 32 bit TIFFs so I don't need to take the intermediate step of using Photomatix (unless I want to use its ghost removal function). Diliff (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you two very much for the info. HDR is something that's left for me to do and I'd love to get this kind of results (this picture and the next nomination by Diliff), even if it's not stitched panoramas. I don't like unreal HDR :P --Kadellar (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work 60 images WoW, Nice Camera, Nice equipment and technique. I hope someday can do something like that. I don't know if it is posible without a equipment, I really love this technique and the result of course! --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2014 at 22:48:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nazionale di hockey su pista dell'Italia - 14.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nazionale di hockey su pista dell'Italia - 14.jpg
Info Italy national roller hockey team, winner at the 2014 CERH Championship in Alcobendas, Spain. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it me, is it the lighting or the whitebalance? The image seems a bit yellow to me. I like the action though. The dutch phrase "boer met kiespijn" ("to smile like a farmer with a tooth-ache") comes to mind looking at the second and third place-teams. Kleuske (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the white balance was a headache. There was the standard light, but near the floor there was another light (an advertisement) and also the playing field makes a warmer reflection. This was the best WB I could get for the series after trying different temperatures. --Kadellar (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow to me, just a documentary image without anything special. Unfortunate framing too (feet of the Men In Black cut off, and half man on the left). --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The composition is indeed better or at least more striking on the other but the quality is much better on the current nomination. The quality is even very good IMO, but if we forget the subject, the value, and the quality; and that we look only at the visual object which is the image so sorry the cut men are disturbing, a bit too much for to be compensated by the value of this documentary image. However I understand your point of view. I think will not support the other image too because of the DoF a bit small IMO, really sorry... -- Christian FerrerTalk17:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2014 at 07:51:15 (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 Sep 2014 at 19:16:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pentatoma rufipes at a cherry leaf.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pentatoma rufipes at a cherry leaf.jpg
Info "DoF too shallow (legs ooF)" --> I think no, because f/16 in the maximum for a single shoot from a living animal. Only a focus stack can show you a better DOF, but not from a living bug. I used: . But "unfortunate harsh light" is as argument accepted. Thanks for your review. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support The dof is ok for a shot like this, but the light is pretty harsh, thats true. But overall the resolution and sharpness are pretty good, so still fp for me. --mathiasK14:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2014 at 13:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Peterborough Cathedral Lady Chapel, Cambridgeshire, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Peterborough Cathedral Lady Chapel, Cambridgeshire, UK - Diliff.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2014 at 13:32:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wakefield Cathedral Rood Screen, West Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wakefield Cathedral Rood Screen, West Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg
Yeah, it's not a very symmetrical cathedral at all. These asymmetries seem to be very common in English cathedrals. If you think that cathedral is bad, look at this one. It looks normal at first, and then you start noticing some strange details. And then some more. And then you start to wonder how the cathedral is still standing and what drugs the builders were taking! ;-) Diliff (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 00:14:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jardim Botânico de Curitiba (5095293334).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jardim Botânico de Curitiba (5095293334).jpg
Oppose The subject has symmetry and it's in the center. Either the shot should be symmetrical, or composed somehow off-center. The light is just ok and the quality is also ok, nothing to complain about but also not outstanding. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)18:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2014 at 17:07:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Barque abandonnée Île aux Moines, Morbihan, France.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Barque abandonnée Île aux Moines, Morbihan, France.jpg
Oppose Focus issue – the near side of the boat is unsharp, while the next boat beyond is sharper. Not much wow for me anyway. Does not reach FP level --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sharpness is imho not an issue here, the front side of the boat is sharp enough. I am also not fully convinced of the composition. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2014 at 17:16:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:El Hemisférico, Ciudad de las Artes y las Ciencias, Valencia, España, 2014-06-29, DD 71.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:El Hemisférico, Ciudad de las Artes y las Ciencias, Valencia, España, 2014-06-29, DD 71.JPG
Support -- Valencia is a photographer's gem. A wonderful mix of old and new. This image brilliantly capturing one aspect of the new. I wish I had seen it when open like this. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That oppose is rather harsh. Those are stunning too, but neither features the interior of the building. Moreover, this not being en:FP, it is not a sin to have more than one FP of a subject. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like those other photos, also, but this one deserves to be judged on its own merits. Far from being redundant, it presents quite a different view than the others. --Kbh3rdtalk02:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the angle a lot, making it look like an eye. I also think that some time around the blue hour would have been a lot better than a black sky. But this is still worthy of FP status imo. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)12:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2014 at 11:31:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo August 2014-5b.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo August 2014-5b.jpg
Info The day is coming to its end in Praia Grande (Big Beach), Porto Covo. The lifeguard has already left and most people are leaving too. I like the light, the peace and the golden color of some cliffs. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2014 at 22:10:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
The landscape wouldn't be that impressive if I would take more of the right side on the image. Beside of this I think a full sun would take to much attention. So we have an indication and can concentrate more on the landscape itself IMO. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2014 at 18:21:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Карпатский 05.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Карпатский 05.jpg
There isn't much you can do without going back to the original RAW files (if taken as RAW). It's likely the result too much post-processing of a JPG file (which has less ability to be manipulated than RAW) and then made worse with JPG compression. Diliff (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2014 at 11:27:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Catedral de Valencia, Valencia, España, 2014-06-30, DD 157-159 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Catedral de Valencia, Valencia, España, 2014-06-30, DD 157-159 HDR.JPG
Comment Very nice main subject, but the current crop is a bit strange, imo. At least for me, the heads are quite distracting and the crop could also be changed so that the ceiling is centered. Perhaps a matter of taste, but have you thought of defishing here? --DXR (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2014 at 09:04:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Wolany, kapliczka.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Wolany, kapliczka.jpg
Weak Oppose. Very pleasing to look at, good light and colors, but I do not think the almost centered composition is properly balanced, which for me leads to 'only' moderate wow, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2014 at 09:29:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ines August 2014-2a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ines August 2014-2a.jpg
Oppose This is a really nice image, and I am really sorry that I have to oppose, but it looks as if she would paint her face. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very meaningful portrayal of a juvenile girl. The composition, as Slaunger already pointed out, is great as her expression. QuestionAlvesgaspar, was it a spontaneous shot or was it carefully arranged? --Tuxyso (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- It was one of some ten spontaneous shots. With this one I (we) got lucky. Only the framing was later carefully adjusted. That is why I don't agree with Yann above :) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment spontaneous or not, I like the composition. There's a strong diagonal from the diagonal roof (?) in the top right corner along her left eye → nose → brush → wrist → foot. It's symmetrical (distances from the points where it crosses the image border at the top and bottom to the nearest corner are more or less the same) and it has the brush right in the center. Forcing that into a rule of thirds composition (head at the upper right intersection, I guess?) may totally kill it. --El Grafo (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually like the fact she's kinda hiding behind the brush. In combination with the look on her face it almost looks like she's up to some kind of rebellion: Take this, crusty old world! I'm gonna take it into my own hands. I'm gonna paint you in my colors, and you're gonna be new and shiny! ;-) Love it! --El Grafo (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThe unconventional pose does not work well in this case for me. Sorry, it looks too much artificial and... "posed", I'd prefer something more spontaneous. Very appealing dark eyes, however !--Jebulon (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question@Jebulon: . Regarding the feeling that the photo is posed and not very spontaneous, I came to think of that he have many FPs of very staged/posed portraits, especially of notablehistoricpeople (and I think you like a lot of those). Why is it OK that these historic photos are staged, but one of a comtemporary, non-notable person it is not? For me, it is a little like Culture sélective des plantes (spontaneous) vs Génie génétique (posed). You can sometimes get lucky with the first, and it sounds for sure good, in the latter case it is under control, and more deterministic (but it does not sound good), and if you know the end goal you can get a good result with skill and work. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info@Slaunger: Sorry in advance for bad english. There is "pose" and "pose". This is an "assumed " pose, in an official context, idem for the two other examples you quoted, and all the three has a special value (age, historical, technical, restoration, rare, value of models etc...), from a time when there was no other possibility for taking pictures of persons. I am not the photographer, and I did not nominate these pictures because of "pose". I did not try to attract the support votes with "pose", and even not, in some way, with artificial built composition. IMO, one of the main merits of the Ines picture is in the "pose", and I feel a bit embarrassed with this. That's why, IMO, there is no comparison possible between the picture of Ines and the one of Berlioz.--Jebulon (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jebulon: Thanks for the explanation, and just to clarify, my question was not meant as a criticism of neither your vote here and the objectives for nominating pictures of historic notable persons, I just started wondering what you perceived what the difference in poses there and here. The only thing I still do not entirely understand, is your comment about "...one of the main merits of the Ines picture is in the "pose", and I feel a bit embarrassed with this." Do you mean that in this case the pose is 'too much', 'not fitting' for the type of subject, or something completely different? Just trying to understand... --Slaunger (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Slaunger: For sure you noticed that it happens that I may be sometimes a little..."upset", but no need to be so careful with me, my friend. I did not perceived any criticism in your questions, and if any, it is your full right to criticize ! The answer of your question is, I think, in my first comment: it looks too much artificial, and I'd like something more spontaneous, something catched "à la volée". This is not the case.--Jebulon (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2014 at 08:09:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Minox 35 ML 2014-08-31 11-01-57.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Minox 35 ML 2014-08-31 11-01-57.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2014 at 08:11:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose These shots are always very hard to control from an exposure point of view, if you 'only' make a single shot as here. Although nice, I think too many details are lost in the most brightly illuminated areas. Diliff has recently made an impressive display of what is possible for these church/cathedral interiors by combining different exposures. I consider his work as being at a completely outstanding level, and not the new baseline for FP. Still, I think the gap is a little too large quality-wise. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the largest problem for me is the composition. It feels unbalanced due to the seating being cropped. Well, I'd be the first to say that you shouldn't have to do what I do to get a FP, but my methodology provides a lot more flexibility which I often appreciate when I get home and process the images. I can get a wider angle view than is normally possible with a lens, and later on, if I feel the view is too wide, I can crop it a bit without feeling like I'm losing precious detail by doing so. And of course with multiple exposures, there is no worry that detail has been lost due to overexposure. But actually in this image, I think it could have been underexposed by 1/2 a stop or maybe more without losing any detail in the shadows. Diliff (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have the same feeling as Slaunger. IMO the focal point is not at the good place, the pic is a bit too soft, not sharp at edges and yes, I've had reduced the exposure a bit too. The cropped seating is not a problem for me here. I've noticed that there are often no chairs in anglican cathedrals, but they are almost always chairs in the catholic. So, seating is often problematic in composition. But, like Slaunger, I think we should not consider Diliff's work as the "church interiors bar" :) !--Jebulon (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's something I've also noticed too. Anglican cathedrals have removable chairs, almost never permanent seating. But if I'm honest, my belief is that it's because Anglican cathedrals are more of a multi-purpose historical location and less of an active place of worship (of course there is still a religious aspect, but just less so. I really get a very different feeling when I visit the Catholic churches and cathedrals. There are fewer tourists, and more 'believers'. I'm not sure if it's the same in other countries. Maybe that's just because of the philosophical/theological differences between Protestantism and Catholicism and the purpose of a church/cathedral? Not sure. Diliff (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to say also that permanent seating shouldn't mean that it's ok to cut them out of the image though. That was my original point but I got a bit distracted. ;-) I think actually it should be more important to include the seating if it is an architecturally relevant part of the church. Diliff (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Remix from original - Stiftskirche Herzogenburg Innenraum 01.JPG by Uoaei1. Please dear Uoaei1 evaluate this alternative, I liked the picture and I think this might be useful. If you do not agree please comment that I remove this alternative. Adjust colors and brightness. Thank you -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 16:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC) -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs19:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2014 at 21:09:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:30th St. Moritz Polo World Cup on Snow - 20140202 - Cartier vs Ralph Lauren 9.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:30th St. Moritz Polo World Cup on Snow - 20140202 - Cartier vs Ralph Lauren 9.jpg
Support This picture was taken during the one of the matches of the 30th St. Moritz Polo World Cup on snow, a Snow polo competition in en:St. Moritz. The player is sporting a red polo outfit, marked with the Cartier logo, Cartier being the sponsor of one the team. The couple player/horse may seem a little out-of-focus, but I think this is not a real issue for FP, as the picture is more about speed and dynamics. -- Pleclown (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2014 at 20:53:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Building in Avenida Paulsita.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Building in Avenida Paulsita.jpg
36
119
3767
2571
3813
2735
upper and lower crop suggested (aprovechando las zonas grises)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2014 at 22:42:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Constantine the Great in Oria (Retouched).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Constantine the Great in Oria (Retouched).jpg
TemporaryOppose: I hate to say this, but since there is no Freedom of Panorama in Italy, we need to make sure that the sculpture is old enough to be out of copyright. Ideally, the description page would mention the sculptor, year of his death and year of "publication". For very old works something like 17th century plus a source for that in the edit summary may be sufficient. I'm not going to nominate the image (and the other versions of it) for deletion for now, because I'm convinced that this can be resolved quickly. Sorry for being pedantic, --El Grafo (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Please note that this is not only a concern related to copyright: Commons:Image guidelines#Image page requirements says Images should […] have a meaningful […] description. A description for an artwork not mentioning the artist and the year of creation (or at least the century of creation for older works) is incomplete imho.[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2014 at 23:01:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tomb of Safdarjung, New Delhi edit 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tomb of Safdarjung, New Delhi edit 2.jpg
Oppose What a pity! Such a great idea and composition – but insufficient quality, sorry. Hopelessly overprocessed, severe noise reduction all over the image, and still some chroma noise in the floor. Not even a QI to me. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2014 at 10:25:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:White Storks in Poing September 2014.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:White Storks in Poing September 2014.JPG
Fixed: new version. I've tried to address the issues you correctly mentioned, Kreuzschnabel. The bright bugs are gone, and I restored as much blown plumage as possible, though there some limits. Imo it's a bit better now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support – I’d still crop a bit off the top and maybe the left, the birds still look a bit squeezed into the corner. Foreground looks overprocessed but birds themselves are fine now IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think having one bird's head be right in front of the other's body does not make for a good composition. Lighting could also be better. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2014 at 17:57:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sète from Lido de Thau, Hérault 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sète from Lido de Thau, Hérault 02.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2014 at 16:40:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Circolo Italiano Building in São Paulo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Circolo Italiano Building in São Paulo.jpg
Oppose. Too much perspective distortion at the top, and also, it seems that there is horizontal compression at the bottom, the car, the street signs and the people appear horizontally squashed. Skyscrapers are very difficult to photograph well from ground level, especially so close. In these situations, I think its better to not correct the verticals completely. Diliff (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2014 at 23:34:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Il trionfo della Divina Provvidenza,Palazzo Barberini.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Il trionfo della Divina Provvidenza,Palazzo Barberini.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2014 at 15:39:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cannaceae Canna L. Golden Gate.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cannaceae Canna L. Golden Gate.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2014 at 15:46:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Man Shopping at the Market of Antigua, Guatemala.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Man Shopping at the Market of Antigua, Guatemala.jpg
Oppose weakly. I like the colors and the composition. It's not as sharp as one would like, and the people aren't very interesting to me. --Kbh3rdtalk03:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too busy and maybe random composition, neither the market nor the people are the main subject. The people appearing are also not buying, but rather passing by. Also not categorized. --Kadellar (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2014 at 19:22:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Naval Cathedral of St Nicholas in Kronstadt 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Naval Cathedral of St Nicholas in Kronstadt 02.jpg
Support the people might be disturbing, but great light. This is a case where centered composition works (clouds break the perfect symmetry and add to the composition). --Kadellar (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The direct Sun works great with this. The very obvious sky darkening halos around the trees keep me from supporting. The processing around the cross on top is also not ideal, although admittedly that's dificult because it was apparently very bright and caused some glaring. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)18:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2014 at 19:54:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Park Aalto-Theater Rundumsicht.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Park Aalto-Theater Rundumsicht.jpg
Info The user Slaunger added two notes (thanks!) showing tiny stitching errors (with one error I am not sure if it is a real one, I will check it with the single images). Unfortunately I have currently not the original image material available (on vacation) but I promise to fix this small errors in seven days. However feel free to comment the nomination and vote (but please oversee the image notes for a moment :) --Tuxyso (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They are really very minor, I just happened to notice them while scrutinizing the stitch, which is impressive. I agree they can be safely overseen for now. --Slaunger (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A assiduous piece of image working to get such a high resolution and sharp picture. But a featured picture is more than just a sharp image. The image impression is IMO dull and unbalanced (especially the left part of the image is very boring and needless). The lower part of the image is sunken in a deep shadow. The thumb view doesn't convince me, sorry. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2014 at 13:31:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zalduondo Eliza II.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zalduondo Eliza II.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2014 at 06:31:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:USCGC Eagle coming into St. John’s, NL.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:USCGC Eagle coming into St. John’s, NL.jpg
Oppose The lighting is not very good. In general, daytime photos are best taken in the early morning or late afternoon, and 10:19 is a bit too close to noon, which results in flat lighting. Also, the subject is backlit, which is not a good idea unless you are going for certain effects, such as a silhouette. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2014 at 16:53:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Not sure what you mean. I prefer the other one. You can give a vote for that. Here are many pictures where I cannot find any wow (or they have other things) and they were chosen as FP. --Hockei (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question mathias K, would you please review the new version? Otherwise I'll come up with the idea that your statement is just a revenge of my rejection against your picture. Although I don't want to think so. --Hockei (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hockei: Sorry to forget your nomination. No my vote wasn`t a revenge vote for anything. If you would had noticed me, like I do right now by "linking" your name, my answer would be earlier... So sorry again. But anyway, the saturation is a little better but still too much for my taste. Maybe it is because of the bit harsh light, I dont know. No bad picture but not featured to me. --mathiasK15:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2014 at 20:06:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Interior view of the glass ceiling of the courtyard of the Postal Palace, Mexico City (Mexico). The building was built at the beginning of the 20th century, when the Post Office became a separate government entity in Mexico. Its design and construction back then was the most modern of the time. In the 1950s, the building was modified and its structure was affected, so when the 1985 earthquake struck Mexico City, this building was heavily damaged, undergoing restoration works in the 1990s. All by me, Poco220:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2014 at 16:49:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment The building is blocking the view on the farther right side. I can crop the sky, but the horizon will be almost at the middle then. Is it acceptable? --Ivar (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it would be nice to see it with this detail. Imo you can leave the picture as it is now. If someone else asks for a crop, we'll see. Now the horizon is slightly below the middle, I think if it was slightly above the middle, the city would feel more important in the composition. --Kadellar (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2014 at 21:02:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Concours national d'attelage élite Rennes 2014-9.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Concours national d'attelage élite Rennes 2014-9.jpg
Support I feel some wow here. But why not in color ? Par ailleurs, sauf son respect, je dois dire que je trouve drôle le rapport entre le sujet de l'image et le nom de son auteur... Mais ce n'est pas la raison de mon support, of...course !--Jebulon (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2014 at 17:56:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Suurupi ülemine tuletorn 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Suurupi ülemine tuletorn 2013.jpg
10
177
4053
2569
6101
3432
Perhaps better to crop something like this to make the lighthouse more prominent.
Oppose Sorry, I can’t see anything outstanding in this picture. Just a distant lighthouse hidden partly by trees and a large uninteresting shadow area in the foreground. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. The resolution and sharpness are impressive, and the light is nice, but there is no wow. I've suggested a different crop in the image notes, but I don't think that would make it FP. --Kbh3rdtalk03:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2014 at 09:20:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Pedro, Novi Pazar, Serbia, 2014-04-15, DD 14.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Pedro, Novi Pazar, Serbia, 2014-04-15, DD 14.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2014 at 02:34:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lifeguard, Sydney, Australia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lifeguard, Sydney, Australia.jpg
In my defense, I don't like post-processing and keep it to a minimum. From what I remember it already came out quite saturated when scanning the negative but I currently don't have access to the original file to verify it. Also it was a very sunny day in Sydney, the lifeguards there definitely wear flashy colors, and as for the color of the ocean, you can search Google Images for “Bondi Beach” and check by yourself. In short, I might be wrong as we all know how our minds are good at playing us tricks, but that's close enough from how I remember the moment. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small (not special enough to barely crawl over the 2 mpx threshold), vignetting, channel overexposure. And I fail to see anything special (featurable) in a person seen from the back, I miss some "message". Sorry. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Well, it seems that my tastes in photography highly differ from everyone else over here. I'm wondering why I even bothered to post a colorful, fresh and lively scene that portrays the exercise of a job in a specific country with an original point of view and that tells a story between a group of persons. It obviously doesn't have as much impact as a bunch of bricks, a flower, a poster, or a couple of lemons. Fair enough, I'm finally starting to get a better grasp of photography, and I'll be happy to send you those from now on. Oh, and I'm really sorry to have posted a picture which barely goes above the 2 millions of pixels—I'll know for next time that 2 millions actually means 20 millions, thanks. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that you should be so bitter about it. Firstly, I guess the fact is that this is at the end of the day the platform used for illustrating wikipedia. Most people here mainly shoot objects and are thus more able to judge those subjects than the more people-focused shot that you post (at least this is true for me). Personally, I simply don't find this image very compelling, partially due to the technical factors (vignette, oversaturation, crop) but more due to the subject, but perhaps simply a matter of taste. When I look at your flickr, I think that you have many more powerful images. Perhaps they will not be FP or are not ideal for commons, but don't stop trying here from time to time. --DXR (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, I would be really interested to know which ones of my photos you consider as being more powerful, as it is exactly the kind of feedback that I'm looking for in order to improve my photography. And despite of having joined a few online communities, I've been struggling to receive any proper feedback so far—my last hopes being currently in 1x.com which I've just joined recently. Cheers! -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2014 at 05:03:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose -- A very nice picture but not good enough to reach the present insect bar (see here, please). Sharpness and detail are on the poor side (see the eyes) and the unconventional framing is not the best. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I would have supported it as it looks great at first glance but Alves is right, it's not quite good enough to match the best FP images of insects. The main problem is the shallow depth of field. Of course we should expect a shallow depth of field with macro images, but it is worse than it needed to be. You used only f/6.3. Normally for maximum depth of field, you should use f/11 (or even f/13 to f/16 if you are prepared to sacrifice some sharpness of DOF) on a 1.6x crop sensor. Diliff (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 19:04:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro Vitória-Régia I.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro Vitória-Régia I.jpg
Oppose. This photo does not appear to be drawing much interest, but it deserves feedback. It is a beautiful place, and I think the soft lighting is good for such a scene. However the image lack sharpness throughout, even in those places that are in focus. But too little of the image is in focus. A narrow DoF puts both the foreground and the background out of range, and I don't think that works with a picture such as this. Indeed, one would like to see the entire patch of lilies in sharp focus. The flowers on the right are sharpest, though still somewhat soft, but the flowers on the left are way too soft even though they are not too removed from the center of focus. --Kbh3rdtalk03:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 11:20:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:30th St. Moritz Polo World Cup on Snow - 20140201 - BMW vs Deutsche Bank 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:30th St. Moritz Polo World Cup on Snow - 20140201 - BMW vs Deutsche Bank 1.jpg
Support This picture was taken during the one of the matches of the 30th St. Moritz Polo World Cup on snow, a Snow polo competition in en:St. Moritz. The number 4 in grey (Deustche Bnak team) is the primary defence player, trying to reach the ball before the number 2 blue (BMW team). -- Pleclown (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting and refreshing subject, and I also think the action aspect is well caught regarding the horses. What I miss is better timing, where there is more infight between the two teams. For instance, in the same category, you have File:30th St. Moritz Polo World Cup on Snow - 20140201 - BMW vs Deutsche Bank 15.jpg which shows that aspect better, although it other aspects it may not be FP worthy (e.g., the background is too busy). The light is a little dull, on the other hand the snowfall also gives it a more "tough" look, which I kind of like. --Slaunger (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2014 at 18:03:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bourgogne Montbard Brenne.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bourgogne Montbard Brenne.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2014 at 11:10:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ilha Fiscal.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ilha Fiscal.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 01:38:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Uni pass 2014-09-06.tifCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Uni pass 2014-09-06.tif
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 11:52:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Alhambra evening panorama Mirador San Nicolas sRGB-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alhambra evening panorama Mirador San Nicolas sRGB-1.jpg
Info Dedicated to Jebulon for lending his tripod to me for this panorama and for showing me this great place to see the Alhambra from Mirador de San Nicolas, Granada, Spain. First serious contribution after changing over to a Lightroom and PTGui Pro workflow as described recently by Diliff (Thanks!). Only one exposure and five images though in this case (baby steps first). For reference, see also this existing FP from the same place, taken four years ago .... by ... Jebulon.
Comment Please notice that it seems to be the first time we have in "Commons" BOTH the Alhambra complex (meaning: inside of fortifications) AND the Generalife (Palace and Gardens). Congrats to the tripod !--Jebulon (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulon, It is kind of you to emphasize this property of the photo, but there is at least one other panorama which covers at least the same field of view, albeit it suffers from serious blending problems and stitching errors in the seams. --Slaunger (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice light. Making good compositions from these viewpoint is harder than it seems, because there are many things not to crop. Aren't you participating in Wiki Loves Monuments? --Kadellar (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am particularly (and seriously) happy for this vote, Alchemist-hp! It is the first support vote from you on an FPC of mine in the 6 years, 2 months and 17 days you have been around! My self-confidence got a real boost there, reassuring me, that I am beginning to do something right. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 10:08:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lancing College Chapel Nave 2, West Sussex, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lancing College Chapel Nave 2, West Sussex, UK - Diliff.jpg
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. This chapel is notable for being the largest school chapel in the world (It's almost cathedral sized). The school has about 500 students aged between 13 and 18. -- Diliff. (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning. Do you know what the story is with the names on the chairs? Notable former students? Shall they be arranged in a certain order to be configured correctly? -- Slaunger (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't know. My first guess would be principals of the school, but it could be former students. Tradition is very important for these kind of private schools so I guess it's their way of honouring the history of the school, but I don't know exactly what history it is. Diliff (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 10:43:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lincoln Cathedral Presbytery, Lincolnshire, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lincoln Cathedral Presbytery, Lincolnshire, UK - Diliff.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2014 at 20:27:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:CBO Carolina.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:CBO Carolina.jpg
Neutral The composition with the background is nice I think, the smaller boat also adds some interest. The quality is not outstanding though, it's not really sharp at fullscreen which it should be at 1/320th and 110 mm and the blacks are clipped in a few places where they wouldn't need to be in my opinion. The quality isn't really bad, but I'm not sure if it's above the FP threshold. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)19:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2014 at 13:54:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Paczków, staw.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Paczków, staw.jpg
Comment It's tilted quite strongly. The reflection should be on the same vertical line as its origin. The sharpness in the background doesn't worry me that much because it's really just the background. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)08:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 16:52:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Nice. With highlight recovery already set to 62, I assume it's not possible to recover any more information in them? Especially the lower blown area is quite large. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)08:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is only possible to recover a part of it, but some kind of halos appear, this was the best point imo. Some rays of light came through the leaves, as you can see in the background. --Kadellar (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 16:43:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Symbol of the Barberini family with children.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Symbol of the Barberini family with children.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2014 at 00:05:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stonehenge, Condado de Wiltshire, Inglaterra, 2014-08-12, DD 09.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stonehenge, Condado de Wiltshire, Inglaterra, 2014-08-12, DD 09.JPG
Oppose reluctantly. The fence behind the henge ruins it for me. The dramatic sky is good, but I am not sure I otherwise like the lighting and color. --Kbh3rdtalk04:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Featured picture candidates/File:Stonehenge, Condado de Wiltshire, Inglaterra, 2014-08-12, DD 09.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stonehenge, Condado de Wiltshire, Inglaterra, 2014-08-12, DD 10.JPG
Info This alternative is very similar to the original but with a wider crop on the right for those (ArildV, Slaunger, Julian) who were not convinced because of this. About the fence I cannot do much. Poco209:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose thank you for the new version, its better but not FP imo. It is not enough with a QI of a spectacular place. We as photographers must add something extra. The weather / light is nice but not enough for FP. Neither the quality or the composition is outstanding, just a not very exciting distance photo composition (and unfortunately a disturbing fence). There are many better compositions of Commons (which indicates that a better photo is possible, for example file:Stonehenge_Clouds.jpg (less flat), file:Stonehenge_wide_angle.JPG, file:Stonehenge - Flickr - Adriano Aurelio Araujo.jpg and File:Stonehenge_20130915.jpg. In the end, I ask myself if it is one of our finest images of an ancient monument? And my answer is unfortunately no.--ArildV (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, will not, too similar to the picture above IMHO. It is funny to see that I proposed an improved version as alternative but got no support Poco221:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2014 at 17:46:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2013 Longines Global Champions - Lausanne - 14-09-2013 - Kara Chad et Alberto II 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2013 Longines Global Champions - Lausanne - 14-09-2013 - Kara Chad et Alberto II 2.jpg
Support Kara Chad and Alberto II during the CSI2* Final 1.45 m at the 2013 Longines Global Champions Lausanne event on the 14th of september 2013 -- Pleclown (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.Jee02:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2014 at 10:30:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Blue hour panorama shot of the Schloss Wilhelmshöhe ("Wilhelmshöhe Palace") is a palace located in the Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe in Kassel, Germany. Although the site was used already in the 12th century as monastery, and later as a castle, the current palace was constructed between 1786 and 1798 for the Landgrave Wilhelm IX. The palace, as essential part of the Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe became UNESCO World Heritage in July 2013. All by me, Poco210:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Temp of bulidling is a bit better. But sky is problem. If you see those statues on the roof - echoes are all around. On some other parts of roof edge there are visible retouche failures. Did you try with normal sky ? I would pixel-peeping, but those mistakes are pretty visible. --Mile (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the scene, but surely the blues are not right? This type of lighting is common here and it is simply yellow, nothing that could be corrected with WB w/o making everything else weird. --DXR (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DXR: Are you suggesting to go back to the initial version? Of course that it is yellow, but this discussion whether the color lighting deceives the original color of the subject is a never ending discussion. Is the perception of the human eye (and camera) more accurate that the real colors of the subjects? I don't have a clear opinion about that. Poco220:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am, mainly based on the look of the grass. I agree that it is hard (impossible) to get these ones right, but for sure I prefer a yellowish building to blue grass. --DXR (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The last version you uploaded is better than the previous ones but I think the image has been pushed too far in processing. The sky is posterised (particularly on the right side near the trees) and the grass is showing signs of digging too deep into the shadows (colour information has been lost due to underexposure, it's blue in the darkest parts). I think you need to give up on the grass and let it remain underexposed, but this is another situation where bracketed images might have saved it. Also, there are a lot of weird ghost-like areas around the edges of the building, particularly on the left side. Diliff (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, that's a tough one... I really like the image, and I'd love to support. There are minor flaws as already pointed out, and the picture tends to be overprocessed, but imo it's still within limits. I'm primarily concerned about the foreground. I'd say you don't need all that poorly exposed and overly pushed grass. Better crop it radically. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Falbisoner, Diliff, Mile, everybody: I have took the raw files again and processed everything from scratch using different software but at the same time taking care of addressing all issues you have mentioned above. I think that the result is actually better, but would like to hear it from you :). Martin, I share your opinion and therefore will not easily give up. Btw, I forgot to mention that a few weeks before taking this shop the palace got the UNESCO World Heritage estatusPoco209:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm, as far as the composition is concerned the latest version is much better. But - unfortunately - there are also some new issues regarding sharpness/noise. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Diliff. This type of lighting is annoying, I've tried taking images of buildings lit like this myself and couldn't find a solution that doesn't look bad. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)09:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, still going to have to oppose this one and will probably oppose all edits you could come up with on this image as the entire image still has the same issues with being pushed too far. The grass is a little better and doesn't have blue patches, but now the sky is very noisy, and parts of the building are now blown (red and green channels). I think when it comes down to it, you shot this image a little too late in the blue hour and the sodium lights were too overpowering. As they are quite monochromatic, they cannot be properly WB corrected so they will never look good when they are the dominant light source. Diliff (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2014 at 15:28:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Oriental-Themed Cocktail Set.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oriental-Themed Cocktail Set.jpg
Comment I think the watermark should be removed (it is not a signature). It seems that there is quite a lot of noise for a picture of this size. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea and setup but poor quality: Image tilted CW, sides leaning out, lots of noise, and blown ground surface (this is the worst issue, the shadow edges look awful). --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2014 at 19:14:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Diphyscium foliosum.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Diphyscium foliosum.jpg
Request A short explanation should be helpful, I'm interested to know more about this image. What is it (categorization is very scientific) ? What size in real ? Technical: The frame is too tight, the "thing" needs more space, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thankyou for your interest. It is the sporophyte of the moss Diphyscium foliosum. The real-world size of the image is about 2 or 3 mm across. It is a stack of multiple images to gain depth-of-field at high magnification. Des Callaghan
Support Thanks for answer. I'm a complete ignorant, but I'm very impressed. Nice and very useful. Great job. Again: more space, please ! ;) --Jebulon (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very good, congratulations. If I can: There are traces of old background that could be removed, a softening of the cutting areas of the subject and the black background in some spots would be interesting. I say this because in a larger format that draws attention. I agree with Jebulon the background should make more space, this tight. The technical aspects of the implementation (including the background changing) could be described like this: Glassy carbon in Retouched template. -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs14:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thankyou. Yes you are quite right, the edges were a bit messy. I've retouched them and given the subject a slightly larger canvas. I've uploaded the new version, over-writing the original version. Des Callaghan
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2014 at 16:57:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral It is a very bold and refreshing choice of illumination with the backlit sun hidden behind the main subject, and not surprisingly challenging to control regarding exposure whilst not drowning the main subject in background light. I think you have succeeded quite well. The framing of the sunlight is very eyecatching and a nice effect, the main subject is also still nicely detailed and crip, but I find it is too dark for me to fully support. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Slaunger, except that it is not too dark for me. But I'd be happy if you could manage to brighten the building a bit...--Jebulon (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support for the centered position and improvable sharpness but compensated through a very nice atmosphere and an interesting subject Poco212:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2014 at 16:32:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Thanks! It is worth to note that normal visitors will not get to the position right below the dome, so you will hardly find other images like this. I had the rare opportunity to get there, as I was involved in a concert where we had the stage right below the dome . --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2014 at 17:09:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vitral em Igreja Santa Efigenia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vitral em Igreja Santa Efigenia.jpg
Oppose The technical quality of this image is excellent, but the artistic quality of this stained glass is not. The face of Christ is absolutely featureless, and it is not attracting me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info @Uoaei1 I do not understand the tastes of the artists of Venice, origin of stained glass in this Church in 1910, but it is a relevant Church (here) and very beautiful, and this stained glass and photographic work seem appropriate on a multi cultural work. - I respect your opinion and your work and this is for information only. ; ) -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs00:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Uoaei1: This presumption is relative. The art of the countries and regions should not be compared, you can not compare the pre-Columbian ceramics with Japanese ceramics, and stained glass of "notredame de Paris" with "notredame of Italy". Why ?, the reason is simple, the technique may be higher in other parts of Europe, however, the artistic value is relative and depends on the region and the historical moment in which it was created, however, does not lose value because art can not be compared. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are absolutely right that it is dangerous to compare or rate artistic value, especially for someone who is interested, but not an expert. The technique of the artist is not important for me. My major criterion is: does this inspire me? For me, this stained glass does not (like almost all artworks of this style), as I miss facial expressions or emotions. Or in other words: no wow for me, sorry! But if it inspires you, in an artistic, religious or any other manner, then it does well. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2014 at 22:03:08 (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 21 Sep 2014 at 05:13:32 (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 24 Sep 2014 at 06:02:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Slaunger: The options for a different composition in this case are very rare. I think this image is interessting because of the good visible vanishing point projection, the sharpness of the image and the building itself. The shadows are very low and if we look at two sides of a building we have the inevitable situation that there is always one side illuminated and one in shadow. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you when you say it cannot be done much better given the possibilities, but not every subject is featureable, and I think this is one of them. No matter how much effort you put into it, it is probably hard to get a wow feeling for this rather ordinary building. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"ordinary building" is subjective and not appropriate. It's a Art Nouveau building with historic importance (not visible, I admit), but if you don't like it no problem. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Es wäre hilfreich, wenn du etwas sachlicher bliebest. Daß man dein Bild nicht herausragend findet, heißt doch nicht, daß es schlecht ist, und mit „don’t like it“ hat es auch nichts zu tun. Auf FPC zeichnen wir die allerfeinsten Bilder aus, die Commons überhaupt zu bieten hat, das Sahnehäubchen. Und da finde ich ebenfalls, daß dieses Bild, so gut es auch gemacht ist und so schön und wertvoll das Gebäude sein mag, Oppose nicht dazugehört. Es hat einfach als Bild zu wenig Besonderes. Natürlich ist das auch Geschmackssache, aber genau deshalb geht’s ja hier per demokratischer Stimmabgabe. Ich habe mir angewöhnt, auch für Contras dankbar zu sein, denn sie zeigen mir auch, daß sich jemand mit meinem Bild auseinandergesetzt hat, wenn er es auch anders sieht und empfindet als ich. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ich persönlich fände es hilfreich wenn du Unterstellungen dort lassen würdest, wo sie hingehören: nämlich außen vor. Ich bin an keiner Stelle unsachlich geworden sondern habe lediglich Slaungers Argumente hinterfragt, um sie besser zu verstehen. Das erlaube ich mir stets dann wenn ich etwas nicht verstehen. Ansonsten brauche ich weder einen Ratgeber, wie ich mit Kontrastimmen umzugehen habe noch sonstige Kommentaroren. Vielen Dank. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you find my use of the term 'ordinary' as being not appropriate. With 'ordinary' I mean ordinary relative to other FPCs of buildings. And not supporting an FPC (among the very best Commons has to offer) is not equivalent to 'not liking' (something is good). And yeah, it is tough nowadays at FPC. I sometimes see more notable buildings in better light and compositions being rejected by experienced reviewers such as yourself, also when the best possible vantage point and time of day has been used, but due to the constraints of the place it was simply not good enough. Its tough, the bar is high. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2014 at 16:12:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Qualified support Such a great and memorable people shot ... we need more of these to balance out the landscape and building images that dominate here. However, I'd feel even better about it if something could be done about the CA on the outer fringes of the garments. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2014 at 14:29:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vue From Kuelap, Chachapoyas, Peru.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vue From Kuelap, Chachapoyas, Peru.jpg
Neutral Nice place and cool weather, some interesting light in my opinion. I would support if the background was a little sharper, especially at the left, the branch was cropped out on the right and possibly with some dodging and burning. Did you shoot RAW? I think this shot has potential in terms of editing. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)18:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedbacks! Yes I did shoot RAW but I'm not so comfortable with the post-processing bit yet. I've tried to apply the changes you've listed as well as some brightness/colors readjustments. I'm not sure what you meant by dodging/burning though. Let me know if it's any better! -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it is much better. It's still a bit washed out (due to ISO 400 and some atmosphere I guess) and the subject isn't completely exciting, but I really think the composition works now. I'd be interested to hear what others think. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)20:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 09:06:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:GreenBike@woodenWall.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:GreenBike@woodenWall.jpg
Oppose Beautiful color and texture, and nice composition. But it's not sharp enough, while at the same time parts look like software sharpening was over-applied in an attempt to compensate. And although the colors are of prime interest here, parts look over-saturated, especially when viewed full size. I also think it may have been better with a larger depth of field; I cannot really appreciate the out-of-focus grass in the foreground. --Kbh3rdtalk03:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excellent idea, very nice composition, at least something different in the "wow" section. But unsharp, oversharpened, and oversaturated. Per Kbh3rd.--Jebulon (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 12:29:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jean-Paul-Denkmal (02).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jean-Paul-Denkmal (02).jpg
Comment The quality is good. What I don't like is that the saturated blue sky is almost blinding in its strength and it makes it hard to enjoy the statue (in my opinion). If others feel the same way, this could probably be corrected through editing. The wow isn't outstanding but it's an interesting sculpture. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)08:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks for the review. I know that this isn't a high-wow-image, but I decided to give it a try nevertheless. I didn't (intentionally) boost the saturation in any kind of way (just used auto levels in RawTherapee) and as far as I remember, that's how the sky looked on that day. However, if other people feel the same way, I can of course try to turn it down a notch. BTW: I kind of prefer the colors of the Yashinon lens I used in the other picture, but due to the shorter focal length I had to get closer to the statue so the perspective isn't as good. --El Grafo (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't want to imply that this happened through editing, it probably looked just like that in reality. I just think it would help to change the sky here, making it look differently than it did on that day. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)11:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 05:17:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Roundhay Garden Scene.oggCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Roundhay Garden Scene.ogg
Comment Roundhay Garden Scene is a two-second film that was shot in October 1888 by Louis Le Prince in the suburb of Roundhay, near Leeds, Yorkshire. It is the earliest surviving motion picture.Alborzagros (talk)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 12:00:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vienna - Double guitar Paris 1690 - 9606.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vienna - Double guitar Paris 1690 - 9606.jpg
Neutral. I disagree with donald on the cropping. The crop might be right if taken as a composition of light and color rather than a photo of an odd guitar, and including the entire neck and head might ruin the balance of the visual elements as seen here which somehow appeal to me. (Though I would like to see the whole guitar in order to judge whether or not that composition would work, and also because it is an interesting guitar.) Aside from the crop, as a composition of light and color the available lighting is suboptimal – the bridges are harshly illuminated, and the bottom may be too dark and shadowy. --Kbh3rdtalk03:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 15:33:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014.06.07.-03-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim---Tagpfauenauge-Raupe.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014.06.07.-03-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim---Tagpfauenauge-Raupe.jpg
Info I'm not sure because of the stem in the foreground. But I'll never know what you think when I don't dare a try. ;-) All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if I may: the right stem should stay for three reasons: The other stem (unfocused) stands out too much; sheet looks unfinished, loose; the stem helps to identify the blurred in the context. I would cut off only the right side of stem (keep the bud). -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs20:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems underexposed, and of course is in the shadow of the leaf so not best lit. I don't see anything here that raises this photo above the many other photographs of the caterpillar, or among our best. -- Colin (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appearance is not reality, Colin. This picture is not underexposed. This caterpillar is black. And this photo shows the animal in it's real living environment. Maybe I should take and set it on a stem into the sun next time? --Hockei (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware the caterpillar is black. You could present us with a completely black picture and claim this is what it looks like in the real living environment at night. So that's not a strong argument. The level of exposure and lighting are chosen to display the subject to best effect. I think neither are optimal here. But my main concern is that at FPC one needs to compare the image to its peers. And when one does that the picture doesn't stand out. -- Colin (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I look at a picture, see and decide if it is excellent or not and I never compare with others. This is the right way IMO. I don't consider this here as a competition. --Hockei (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hockei, the definition of this forum is: "Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons." This isn't a Flickr "fave" or a Facebook "Like!" but a serious judgement of whether this picture is considerably better than its peers and deserves to sit among other such images as our finest work. Therefore if you don't compare with others, you really aren't doing your job. The world is full of "nice" pictures. File:2014.05.25.-05-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim--Tagpfauenauge-Raupe.jpg is better lit, though a less interesting pose. The lighting issue with this photograph is easily resolved by the use of a reflector (even a white card would do) which is pretty standard kit for such photography. -- Colin (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, Please stick to facts and don't suggest the people here I would be active in flickr or facebook just because of my point of view you don't like. --Hockei (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said it due to your comparison of my reviews with the facebook-"like"-button. We should leave it at that. This leads to nothing. --Hockei (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 14:57:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Blackwall DLR station MMB 15.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blackwall DLR station MMB 15.jpg
Just a question, and apologies to everyone else here, but Wladyslaw, you clearly have a problem with me, and you demonstrate this very well in many locations. Please answer me this: what did I do to you that pissed you off so much for so long? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I think there are too many blown areas. A few lights in the background don't worry me, but it's also in the foreground and the sum of the bright surfaces make up a large part of the photo. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)16:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a good picture - I like the colour and composition but doesn't reach FP standard. The blown highlights are extensive and the focus is too close resulting in all background being blurred but the nearby motion-blurred train is in focus. Perhaps worth trying again at this location and try during the blue hour for some sky colour too. -- Colin (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 15:26:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Yeah... a church interior! Bored of? I hope not! ;-)
I think it is pretty obvious who was my ideal when I was shooting this one?! :-) My last visit in this church is a while ago and the actual high-res-multi-exposure-church-interior pictures presented by Diliff and DXR where so inspiring that I want to try it for my own in this church again. This nominated result is the most ambitious picture I've made so far. It is merged of 135 single pictures and for those who like, here is the full res ~344mpx version. But instead of the big one I want to nominate this downsampled version because I think it is the best compromise between resolution, size (compression) and quality.
I'm aware that (sadly) the nominated picture isn`t perfect and there are some minor stitching errors which, thats what I think, dont distract that much from the overall view. But thats just my opinion. Also the brightest lights in the windows where not exposed perfect because of shooting "just" 3 exposures with +/-2.0EV... That's too little I've learned! ;-) So far from me, now I´m very curious what you think about this try of mine. c/u/n by me, --mathiasK15:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice disciple. Still, one thing to improve imo, about composition: there's too much floor and the crop of the ceiling isn't optimal. I guess you were more worried about exposures and stitching than about general composition. --Kadellar (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Youre right about the composition thing and the crop at the ceiling. Sadly there isn`t any more room way to the top (still not enough pictures ;-) ?!). At the bottom my intention was to give the left column a little more room to the bottom. I´ve already tried a crop like your sugestion and with the cut on column it feld like the picture was too compresed horizontaly then. Anyway, thanks for your review! --mathiasK17:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support... but... with only 3 exposures at +-2EV, as you say there isn't enough dynamic range. I usually do 5 images with +-9EV. ;-) I didn't see any stitching errors on my first look, so probably they're not that bad. Also, why the angle and the cylindrical/Panini projection and not rectilinear? Maybe the angle of view is too high. I do think Church interiors look better when taken from the middle of the interior so that the symmetry is expressed. Diliff (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! My first intension was to take this picture from the middle of the interior, but than I realized that the candelabra would be right in front of the organ. Thats why I choose this point of view. --mathiasK21:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good enough reason, and I guess I would have done the same actually to avoid the candelabra. But I would have chosen a camera position much closer to the seating so that it didn't feel so distant to the viewer. I try to fill the frame with what is interesting, and a lot of foreground empty floor space is not so interesting (but I admit, some of my images such as this recent nomination have the same issue). I don't think anything is really gained from being as far back as you were. I think an ideal camera position might have been close to where the flowers are on the left side. And I still think rectilinear would have been better. :-) Diliff (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diliff, thanks a lot for the tips! My intention when shooting this one was to capture as much as possible visible from my viewpoint. But I think youre may be right that a) this isn`t the best viewpoint and b) I didn`t have to show that much of the interior. Sometimes less is better... ;-)
To the projection: during the processing in PTGui I thought that rectilinear may look a bit awkward cause of some visible streting at the corners. But now I think when I cut out the stretched areas it could look a bit like youre "sugestion", closer to the chairs, less column and it would look more focused on the interesting things. I will give it a try! So thanks again, mathiasK14:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty much per Diliff. Nice but perhaps still a bit of room for improvement, though I get the argument with the candelabra. Probably better to trade res for large bracketing, if you have to (and can, camera-wise). --DXR (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC) BTW, it is surely too much praise to be mentioned in one breath with the master ;-) [reply]
*Oppose Thank you for this nice image, and of course no, I'm personaly not bored with church interiors. I notice that some supporters here support..."but". All these "but" make me oppose, for instance :I don't think anything is really gained from being as far back as you were. I think an ideal camera position might have been close to where the flowers are on the left side. And I still think rectilinear would have been better by Diliff are for me two good reasons for oppose, and I share the opinion. The left bricks are too much IMO, and the "curved" threshold disturbs me. The overall sharpness is not so good as I expected in thumbnail view. The light of the window is not very well managed (lack of detail: one can see the little window panes below, but not above). I like the original composition though. Sorry for this vote, I feel a bit embarassed with it, because I know pretty well that I'm not able to take the same kind of shots...--Jebulon (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to raise this point again, but I really hope sharpness was not a major factor in your decision, because it is excellent at 30MP or so, still much more than most of the uploads here. I guess " I think we should not consider Diliff's work as the 'church interiors bar' " will be pretty tough to handle in practice. --DXR (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jeb, you don`t need to apologize for your vote! It is well founded and I can understand your points. OK, per DXR I hope the sharpness issue isn`t that big. But anyway your vote is OK for me and I think every founded review is helpful. So thank you. ;-) --mathiasK14:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you and DXR are right that the sharpness should not be a factor in opposing because it is clearly very high resolution and we should not be encouraging downsampling as the only way to impress here at FPC. But Jeb's compositional criticisms are fair and are valid reasons to oppose IMO. As per my comments, I too think the image could be improved with my suggestions but I guess unlike Jeb, I thnk it is still 'good enough'. Diliff (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry for bad english) How do I "judge" a picture ? I just open it by clicking on the thumbnail until the full size proposed, and see what is given to me ! And I'm sorry, what I see in this case is (for my taste), not as sharp as it could/should be. About "encouraging downsampling": Don't worry, those who think that downsampling gives a better result will continue to do so, and my oppose vote here will not change anything. Alas. But why uploading very high resolution pictures if they are not sharp enough ? I think it is an interesting question about the final/ultimate purpose of our work here... Must we absolutely chose between 'sharp' and 'big' ? And at the end, I'm not sure that the 'good enough ' concept is compatible with the FP (the best of the best) concept. Thanks for this interesting discution.--Jebulon (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure, of course I do not want to tell you how to vote, you know that very well and I agree that the compo here is a matter of taste. But I think that the way you review sharpness does indeed encourage downsampling. I completely understand this when we talk about 10 or 15 MP, but here your criticism becomes more "it's an inefficient way to use commons" than "the image is not sharp", and I do not think that should be held against the image. The decision how to size a panorama is much harder than a normal image, imo and we do have to make some trade-off between size and sharpness. --DXR (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you, it does encourage downsampling because with reviews like Jebulon's, it would be much easier to downsample it and have a sharp 30 megapixel image and then nobody could complain about the sharpness. And probably nobody would ever know that it was downsampled either, they would simply be impressed by the sharpness and detail. I downsample my images too, but I am careful not to downsample so much that I lose real detail. I don't do it to impress voters on FPC, I mainly do it because it's easier to manage the files, and because the edges of my images are less sharp than the centre due to the wide angle of view (edges will always be softer for this reason) and because f/13 is a bit softer than lets say f/5.6 or f/8. Even though I usually downsample a bit, I wouldn't usually encourage others to do it because it's easy to go too far and lose detail and because it shouldn't be necessary to win votes. Voters should consider whether it is sufficiently detailed for the subject, not what the sharpness is at 100%. That of course doesn't mean we can't consider and discuss the softness at 100% and whether the right settings or equipment were used, but it shouldn't be a major reason for a vote by itself. In fact, if I didn't downsample my images, Jebulon may oppose my images too as they probably begin life about as soft as this one. :-) I use one of the sharpest prime lenses in existence so it isn't a question of using a good lens, it's just that a typical f/13 image is not very sharp to begin with, and then when you distort the edges with reclinear projection, it will never be as sharp as any of us would like. Diliff (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I understand what you write. Again, this picture, as it is, is not sharp enough to me. Opening a picture at full size is a bad way to review ? I'm afraid we disagree here about sharpness, risks of downsampling, and evaluation. Let's continue to live together, peacefully, with that. Please notice that I opposed for other reasons too, and consider that I agree with the fact that downsampling is a bad thing. --Jebulon (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to live together peacefully. I don't want to prolong the discussion too much but just one last set of questions for you to answer so I can understand why you disagree (and also maybe to make you think about why you disagree too)... This image is about 85 megapixels, right? If it was downsampled to 40 megapixels and was sharp (ignore the other compositional issues that we discussed), would you support it then? And if the answer is yes, then why would you support it and not the less sharp 85 megapixel image? The detail is the same (maybe even a bit more detail in the 85 megapixel image), so why is it so important to evaluate it at 100%? Of course we all do it, because it is the highest level of zoom possible before the image pixels begin to become larger than the screen's pixels and it is what our image viewer/browser defaults to. But really, 100% is an arbitrary zoom level. We use it to see 'what the image is made of', but it isn't necessarily the best zoom level to appreciate the image or its real sharpness. Compare this to how we would evaluate the detail of a large billboard poster on a street. A poster usually has much more detail than a 6x4 photo but at a close viewing distance (the equivalent of viewing images at 100%) the 6x4 photo is surely going to look sharper. We might look at a 6x4 photo from a few cm away but we would never normally look at the poster at this distance, so why should we do the same for this image which is the digital equivalent of a poster? What I'm saying is that yes you can review images at 100% if you want, but you should not look only how it appears on the screen at 100%, you should look at how the sharpness relates to the resolution and view it at a zoom level that is appropriate. Only then can the connection between sharpness and low resolution (or softness and high resolution) be broken. Diliff (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First: I appreciate the effort, which has gone into the capture and processing of this image! It is tedious work, and I guess several hours must have been used on it (it would for me). However, I do not like the composition that much, and I can echo the aspects regarding this by Jebulon. Also, the exposure control, while good is a bit lacking at the windows (if the compo had been great, this aspect alone would not have lead me to oppose).
Regarding sharpness and resolution, I find it is more than adequate considering the huge pixelage. I find it is a recurring flaw in reviewing images to open them at 100% and think they should be razor-sharp without at the same time considering their resoltion. Sure, if you nominated a 4 Mpixel image it should, as it is the total amount of information in the image, which counts, but the best balance between resolution and information is best achieved by retaining a little pixel softness. I find that this balance is just perfect in the nomnated photo. You can always downsample, the reverse you cannot do. And if you want to print in large scale, it will always be optimal to have the full pixelage to avoid visible pixelation. Say, for instance, if this image was printed as a 50' image (along the diagonal), in approximately 80×100 cm format, the width of the individual pixels would be less than 0.1 mm or 260 PPI. This is way smaller than what you can resolve by eye at a typical viewing distance of 50 inch display. (At least I do not watch television as at viewing distance of 15 cm). --Slaunger (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing. I do not agree with Jebulon on weather the "sharp at 100% review philosophy" leads people who would not otherwise downsample to downsample. In my 20 Mpixel Alhambra nomination, which all reviewers appear to fancy, I can honestly say that I have downsampled the final stitch more than needed and more than what would be optimal for large scale printing simply to avoid the silly pixel peeping at 100% comments. I have as such pixel-prostituted myself. Shame on me!--Slaunger (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like it more, but of course I already supported so it doesn't change my vote. ;-) I did spot a few little stitching errors when reviewing this image, but very insignificant. Did you use a panoramic head or just a regular tripod head? Well done anyway. Diliff (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, thanks again. This one was taken with a selfmade pano-head. I've builded me one a couple of years ago but used it not very often. It is not comparable to a "real" one but it works pretty well so far. I will make a pic and show it... --mathiasK18:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have 7 votes, so it is maybe not necessary of to propose an altertnative only for me... So sorry to have strike my support but I shall have preferred a wider view than the last version. :) -- Christian FerrerTalk17:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2014 at 07:30:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cheetah at Sunset.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cheetah at Sunset.jpg
Oppose Truly stunning, but given the marginal resolution, it should be razor-sharp at full resolution, which it really is not. I think the softness is because you have hit the diffraction limit with an aperture of f/17. Would have been better with a larger aperture, ISO 100, and a shorter shutter time. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Changed my mind after considering the creators reasonable comments on my talk page regarding my original assessment and the conditions of the shot. The timing and atmosphere of the shot mitigates to some extend the not so impressing technical quality and the "thumbnail" resolution. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it worth quoting what Arturo wrote on Slaunger's talk page (which is a reminder imo of the usefulness of saying something when nominating: "By definition, a picture of a wild predator after sunset has important technical challenges, mainly the almost inexistent light, and the fact that a cheetah on the prowl will stay on top of the termite mound for a second, not even two. You are lucky if you see it, compose and fire. There is no time to change settings. Honestly, I think this image is unbelievably atmospheric, one of the most powerful in my portfolio - you can almost hear the crickets, smell the savannah, feel the determination of the hunter. And as such, I expected it to be evaluated on its artistic strength, the story it tells, the feelings it conveys, not by the sharpness you would expect in an arquitectural image." I agree that it is one thing to expect a careful consideration of shutter/aperture/iso for an architectural image, but when capturing a fleeting and magical moment like this, one never gets a second chance and fiddling with one's camera may just lose everything. In terms of the "'thumbnail' resolution", Slaunger mentions, I think there are mitigating factors for wildlife photography. The image was taken at an effective (fully-frame equivalent) focal length of 200mm with a 10-year-old camera. The image resolution is about half the sensor resolution. I don't know if this image is cropped, but heavy cropping is more likely in a wildlife photo than one taken in other circumstances. -- Colin (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A silhouette is more about recognisable shape than fine detail. Sure, one can find flaws, but it is a great moment captured from just the right angle of view. -- Colin (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you Slaunger for changing your mind, and thank you Colin for your comments. I have uploaded a full-res file, at 4000px, instead of 1920px as before. I think this will improve resolution but some border softness remains as the light was really almost inexistent when the cheetah showed up. The image is very slightly cropped, perhaps only 5% or so. --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk)
Comment Thanks everybody for recent support votes... To Poco, you are of course right, the settings were very awkward indeed... and not on purpose. I think I have never been shooting in the bush at F17... you rarely need more than F10 with wildlife subjects (except macro, or closeups of animals with very long snouts...), and you rarely have enough light for that at dusk... This cheetah took me completely by surprise, I was driving back to camp, almost at night already, when I saw it on the mound. I could only stop the car, grab the camera and shoot. I had probably changed the aperture by accident when leaving the camera on the seat....
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 18:10:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vihula mõisa tuuleveski 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vihula mõisa tuuleveski 2013.jpg
Neutral. Nice lighting and clouds. But this is an example of a case where (in my opinion) the rule of thirds should not be followed. If a third of the picture is empty space, that's too much. I would crop some of the grass and perhaps a little bit on the right as well. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Happy to see that crop suggestions were followed, and provided subsequent supports ! As for me, I see a very better picture, but I'm still not convinced by the subject--Jebulon (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 23:45:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fugro Explorer.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fugro Explorer.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2014 at 21:14:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
weak Support – pity the tree covers so much of the building but I think this is hardly avoidable. Moving the camera a few metres to the right might have cropped the distracting blocks out and shown a little more of the tower. The bicycle wheels not being perfectly round is caused by the wide-angle view, I presume, because the dial-plates are. Impressive picture however. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only an average quality shot, nothing special. Unfortunate light: The front part of the church which is the main motive here is in shadow. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jebulon. IMHO the nominator is closed minded to any argument - he prefers not seeing the obvious. 2 hours later (as up to now only edit on an FPC page tody) - no comment. Und noch mal auf Deutsch: Der Nominator verschließt sich jeglichen offensichtlicher Argumente. Zwei Stunden später wird eine Nominierung von mir, die bereits mehrere Tage läuft, mit dem inhaltsleeren Kommentar n.th. featureable bedacht (als bis dahin einzige Editierung auf einer FPC-Seite am heutigen Tag) - da muss man glaube ich nichts mehr zu sagen. So macht FPC auf jeden Fall Spaß. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Die nachweisliche Falschbehauptung, die Kirche befände sich im Schatten, darf nicht unkommentiert bleiben. Und was meine Stimmabgabe beim Leuchturm damit zu tun hat und welche Relevanz sich hierfür ergibt, bleibt dein Geheimnis. Weiteres ist hier nicht zu besprechen. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the church in shadow ? Isn't it ? Not my concern, but of course this can/must be discussed. But the way to discuss this is important, "open your eyes" is not acceptable here IMO. Retaliation votes ? No need to be a strict and circumspect observer to see that they exist in many cases here... Sometimes I feel that "persons" are more important than "pictures" in FPC.--Jebulon (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To maintain s.th. obviously wrong makes me uncomprehending. My advise to open the eyes is compared to this instability proper blandness. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Taxiarchos228: I have opened my eyes and as can be clearly seen by the annotation I have added to the nomination page, the facade of the main tower most prominently seen from the vantage point is clearly in shadow exactly as described by Tuxyso. I have to echo what other reviewers have said: Your comment about open your eyes is way out of line. It gives a poisonous work environment on FPC and is uncollegial. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is larger and sharper than your typical QI but isn't making me go wow either for the subject or the arrangement. -- Colin (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 16:10:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lancha Gávea I.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lancha Gávea I.jpg
Comment I added categories that should be correct based on the description and my id of the aircraft. I think the photo is tilted significantly, I'd correct that if you don't mind. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)17:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Which one of the boat or the plane is the main subject? Having both in focus with a balanced composition get our eyes going back and forth from one to the other without understanding what really you're trying to show here. Maybe the simple coincidence of having both in the same picture? That wouldn't be wow factor to me. Also the colors are not so appealing and the highlights on the boat contrast with the darker mountain in the background, making it a bit tiring for the eyes. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2014 at 15:59:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paróquia Nossa Senhora da Conceição (Santa Ifigênia).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paróquia Nossa Senhora da Conceição (Santa Ifigênia).jpg
Oppose For sure a good photo. But quite some glare from the lamps and detail level not quite as impressive as in the building interiors we have become used to recently in this single frame, single exposure image. I think it does not quite pass the interior bar. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2014 at 09:39:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jardim Botânico Fanchette Rischbieter em Curitiba 09.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jardim Botânico Fanchette Rischbieter em Curitiba 09.jpg
Oppose Quite interesting and pretty good photo, but the composition appears to me a bit arbitrary. Almost symmetric, but not quite. Distracting lamps. Overall technical quality level is OK IMO. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be possible to find a vantage point where the lamps can co-exist with the buildings in a better manner. Here one of them is obstructing the view to a main entrance in the building, it appears. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 18:59:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Savannah Anole.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Savannah Anole.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 15:36:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Ceiling fresco of the Imperial Staircase of Göttweig Abbey by Paul Troger (1739): Apotheosis of Emperor Charles VI. Photographed, uploaded and nominated by Uoaei1 -- Uoaei1 (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is the north-east corner of the fresco, so maybe it is due to uneven illumination. However, as far as I can remember, the light was quite diffuse there. The same effect is visible on all photos I took, and also on photos from other sources. Unfortunately I cannot check on-site in the near future, but I will do further investigations and apply a correction, if necessary. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 17:58:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picturates candidates/File:Duvbo Metro station September 2014 01.jpgCommons:Featured picturates candidates/File:Duvbo Metro station September 2014 01.jpg
Support nice perspective, image impression and motion capture. maybe you can improve the signs a little bit? the letters are not so sharp as they could be (as non moving parts) --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The motion blur of the train is great, but personally I don't like the slight blur of the people in the picture, especially the guy with the camera. Either they should be sharp or more blurry with movement. -- KTC (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a photographer you don't have a choice, people are moving in a subway station. The only way to avoid blur of the people is to use a very high ISO, but that will affect the quality negative. Longer exposure (with very small aperture=diffraction) is no guarantee for more blurry people (a person can stand still, another only move his head once, and so on). --ArildV (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a photographer, you do have a choice. You have the choice to wait and wait and wait until all the stars align perfectly and you get the shot. ;-) I say that as a joke, but it's also true. There does have to be a practical limit though, if this is the best result of half an hour of waiting then fair enough, you did your best. I suppose the biggest obstacle to this photo is getting the two trains coming in at the same time and everyone still at the same time. I can imagine that would be very tricky. Diliff (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough Diliff. I stayed a long time at the station, and only once came two trains simultaneously. I know many of my pictures of Stockholm subway is relatively empty of people, I avoid rush hour traffic and photographs often departing train heading towards the city center (fewer people are leaving the train on suburban stations). But the point here was to get the two trains. Regards--ArildV (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't think the blurry people is enough to put me off. Although if I have to find one criticism (I usually do!), it's that parts of the image are a bit lacking in contrast. The darker parts of the image look fine, but the seating area, the lighting/air vents at the top and the signs could do with darker blacks and more contrast IMO. Just a minor issue. Diliff (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 21:27:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hereford Cathedral Choir, Herefordshire, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hereford Cathedral Choir, Herefordshire, UK - Diliff.jpg
I believe they are. The building is of course very old and the deformations are because of this. Or maybe an imperfect construction. I'm not sure. But I do know they are not because a problem with the stitching. Diliff (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's an interesting detail of the structural point of view, and was well evidenced, very good, ty -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 14:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC). P.S. @Diliff stitching error ? unlikely. Your work is technically detailed and executed consistently and carefully, that is not a compliment, it is a fact. I feel their work as precious (this is a compliment, if I can : ) ), ty -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs21:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2014 at 01:25:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Luz Metro Station of São Paulo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Luz Metro Station of São Paulo.jpg
The Photographer, can you explain your intentions with this picture, because clearly it isn't a standard exposure and if the station was actually that dark, people might fall onto the track. I see from other images in the category, that the platforms get very busy with people waiting (something that is barely visible on the right hand side here). It's hard to appreciate the architecture of the roof. -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your comment Colin (I send a hug o/). I wish to convey the admosfera this terminal on a Sunday afternoon, I wanted to convey the feeling of loneliness, give a picture of this terminal as it was 100 years ago when everything was calm and relaxed, I used the technique of backlighting for obscure details of our current society, the bright colors were too expensive at the time. This photograph is an invitation to stop time in a terminal that always looks in motion, this photograph is a reminder of what once was this terminal. --The Photographer (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Light exists thanks to the darkness before the light came darkness. Darkness always been associated with fear, death, however, for me darkness is synonymous with life because through obscurity can paint light. The darkness is as light mechanism recognizes itself. You are very perceptive. I liked this comment despite being negative. This comment is just an additional information and my intention is not to discredit your vote. --The Photographer (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It is a very nice shot, very arty, would make a great background for the opening titles of a certain kind of movie ... but it doesn't help a viewer who wants to know what the station looks like inside, i.e. someone reading an encyclopedia article or Wikivoyage page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 22:02:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Interior view of the dome of the Central Market (Mercado Central), a 100-years-old modernist building located in Valencia, Spain. The market contains 400 stores that employ approx 1500 people, and is the biggest in Europe dedicated to fresh products. All by me, Poco222:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some minor quibbles—a little light bleedthrough in one of the windows, and the crop is just a hairsbreadth away from being too tight for me. But sometimes true art is that which stops just short of perfection. (And I like that it looks like a giant watch, without hands or numbers, this way). Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel Case. Maybe some chromatic noise in the darker part at left. I like very much the short descriptions provided in the nomination, always interesting.--Jebulon (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 21:26:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Winchester Cathedral High Altar, Hampshire, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Winchester Cathedral High Altar, Hampshire, UK - Diliff.jpg
Support--Very, very impressive... May I ask, how many partial images have you combined in order to achieve the final outcome? If you don't mind disclosing your arcane secrets, that is... --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk)
I don't mind, they aren't as arcane as they might seem. :-) I believe it was 45 images in this one. 3 rows by 3 columns, and five exposures for each of those. Diliff (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2014 at 12:14:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Louvre museum 2014.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/Louvre museum 2014.JPG
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is overexposed in a way that is almost certainly not fixable. Furthermore the quality is not on par with other FPs of the Louvre (see hereor here) --DXR (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2014 (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 Sep 2014 at 22:19:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Serra dos Órgãos 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Serra dos Órgãos 03.jpg
Oppose Nice but not outstanding. I’d like to see more of the surrounding. Lighting is flat and uninteresting. And the foregound foliage is way sharper than the actual mountain – maybe due to atmospheric reasons (hot air turbulence), the pic should be re-taken when the air is cooler then. --Kreuzschnabel04:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2014 at 01:49:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Funnily I tend to prefer some shadows rather than a direct light which is going to flatten all the volumes—but you're right, there's probably a bit too much of it here. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not so good exposure control and I find the right-hand-side crop arbitrary. The strong perspective distortions does not work well for me either, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Slaunger! I've reworked the image recently to make sure the luminosity/colors would look as realistic as possible so I'm not sure what you mean by “exposion control”? Now for some reasons it looks OK in Lightroom with a black background but it indeed looks a bit weird on a white one—like if there was a grey filter on top of the image. What kind of visual trick is that? :) Is this "grey filter" what you were referring to?
I agree with the crop on the right side. I don't have a wide lens and unfortunately I shot too much on the left which is now cropped. Bah, I'm not even sure why I've uploaded this here... I guess I just wanted to make sure it's technically deficient even thought I kind of like it for some mysterious reasons—maybe because it looks cool for a church? :)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2014 at 11:24:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Nice panorama, but maybe the boy in red should be cloned out, it attracts too much attention imo, the rest of people are ok. --Kadellar (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your review. May be the boy is a little bit disturbing, but IMO he should stay there. It's just the moment taken the photo. Good weather and people are sitting in the grass. ;-) --XRaytalk12:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Nice, but one question: The texture of the stones in the foreground has quite varying softness. In some areas you can quite easily resolve individual stones. In other areas at almost the same distance the structure is almost entirely lost. Why is that? -- Slaunger (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews and questions. I'll remove most of the problems, but it seems that there are too many problems. --XRaytalk05:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2014 at 23:06:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jardim Botânico Fanchette Rischbieter em Curitiba 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jardim Botânico Fanchette Rischbieter em Curitiba 02.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2014 at 23:30:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Portuguese Empire.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Portuguese Empire.png
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2014 at 09:40:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Tarnobrzeg, Zamek Tarnowskich 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Tarnobrzeg, Zamek Tarnowskich 01.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2014 at 06:53:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Flaminio obelisk.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flaminio obelisk.jpg
Comment That picture is tight it seems obvious, then you come and ask me where's the "wow" not understand it at all. Respect other people's work, as I respect it, if you do not think this is the "wow" just say ,thanks.--LivioAndronicotalk07:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2014 at 22:24:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bubo September 2014-4a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bubo September 2014-4a.jpg
Neutral Tricky. It’s certainly not bad but there are some issues I dont approve of: 1. crop (too much space on top, too little on right); 2. perspective (seen from above makes the bird look smallish and a bit funny); 3. motion blur in plumage. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The quality is impressive, getting sharp feathers at this resolution is really something. That being said, I also dislike the point of view from above. It's essentially a portrait, and taking it from significantly above eye level doesn't work in my opinion. The background is a little distracting (but not too much), the light is ok. For the crop, I would probably prefer it if the bird would be looking into the picture (i.e. more space on the right than on the left). — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)09:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2014 at 22:44:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Junge Silbermöve im Flug bei Texel 02 2014.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Junge Silbermöve im Flug bei Texel 02 2014.jpg
Comment Up to now I did not know what the nictitating membrane is :) Unfortunately I have no other (sharp) photo where the eyes are sufficiently visible. With the bird here the nictitating membrane is imho quite transparent thus the eyes are still quite visible - with a lot of other in-flight shots you often only see a pure black eye socket. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2014 at 18:48:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014-09-07 10-37-55 La-Resurrection.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014-09-07 10-37-55 La-Resurrection.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2014 at 18:50:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014-09-07 10-57-15 Le-sculpteur.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014-09-07 10-57-15 Le-sculpteur.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2014 at 17:20:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:DFC Sete v FNC Douai Coupe de la Ligue 2014 t140222.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:DFC Sete v FNC Douai Coupe de la Ligue 2014 t140222.jpg
Oppose Could anyone please explain me what's special in this photograph? I'm definitely not the best at interpreting things in photographs and all I can see here is a guy swimming with a ball in front of him and I don't feel much intensity like I would have expected. Isn't it a "common" shot that could be taken in any water polo game? The composition also buggers me a bit, I wished the picture was centered differently and a bit more stretched horizontally to emphasize better the horizontal line created by the subject. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2014 at 14:17:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose For me a good photo with a good composition, but I find the light rather dull, and there is something artificial looking with the texture of the brick surface of the Puente. Not among the very best IMO. Maybe too aggressive luminance noise reduction? -- Slaunger (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2014 at 13:40:44 (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 27 Sep 2014 at 08:49:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Hohenheim 2013 06 dawn panini pan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Hohenheim 2013 06 dawn panini pan.jpg
Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. I used panino as a compromise between curved edges (cylindrical) and far too heavy distortion (rectilinear). — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)08:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I looked several times on the photo and finally decided to oppose: Surely, we have very nice light here - the photo transports nice morning mood. Shadows are no general problem for me if they are not on important parts of the main object. In the case here the very strong shadows on the roof and on the left part of the facade are very disturbing. The roof and its structure is imho important. I am also not fully convinced of the perspective. Due to the strong side perspective the left part of the building is overemphasized. If you take a look on the thumb you can get the impression that the edges of the building are slightly curved - I know from own stitchings that this problem is diffucult to avoid but in the case here it is visible due to the clear structure of the building. Probably you can provide some background information regarding shooting time and perspective - I guess centered perspective at 12:00 on the same date had been better. Or in the noon at 15:30 from your shooting position - strong shadows had been avoided. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Wladyslaw, Christian Ferrer, Tuxyso: Thank you for the detailed reviews. Regarding the shadows: I wanted to show (as you recognised) the morning mood here, and decided to not shoot the building at a later time to avoid relatively flat and boring light. I agree that the shadow right in the center of the image is not ideal, I have now tried to brighten the shadows in general and this one in particular some more. I think the central section of the roof is also much more visible now. Did this improve the image? Regarding the perspective: I also liked that the trees on the right created a shadow on the grass that highlights the position of the building on a hill. A symmetrical shot would not be able to show that, but would of course represent the building itself slightly better. The symmetrical shot I took a little earlier is quite boring in my opinion (apart from quality problems). So I decided to accept the slight curvature here. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)11:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A very little brightening of the shadows will not change a lot the image. A good thing when we bright an image is to increase a bit the saturation (or maybe the vibrance) to keep the nice mood. -- Christian FerrerTalk11:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I brightened the shadows a lot in the last edit, and did increase saturation a little in the process (even though the thumbnails don't seem to update). — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)12:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer your centered image :) A few hours later had been perfect regarding shadows. In your nomination important (symmetrical) characteristics of the building come not out well. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2014 at 09:04:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sala Westminster, Palacio de Westminster, Londres, Inglaterra, 2014-08-07, DD 015.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sala Westminster, Palacio de Westminster, Londres, Inglaterra, 2014-08-07, DD 015.JPG
Comment. My first thoughts when seeing this image is that the sky is overprocessed. Some of the blues are a bit too deep (yes it's possible, but I've rarely seen it in London!). And the car on the side is unfortunate. I'm sure it's hard to get a good photo without them in the way though. Diliff (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2014 at 09:11:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bright red tomato and cross section02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bright red tomato and cross section02.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: It is licensed with a GFDL and a non-commercial license, which is not acceptable according to the quidelines. Moreover, it is also below 2 Mpixel resolution, also against the guideline.
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 25 Sep 2014 at 19:14:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support The Alcazaba (meaning : the fortress in arab) and part of city walls, from San Cristobal hill, Almería, Spain. Alboran Sea in background.-- Jebulon (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looked a bit boring at the first glance (thumb) but it is really nice in full monitor width and/or 100% view. Nice work (composition, light, motive). --Tuxyso (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2014 at 06:14:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lüdinghausen, Burg Lüdinghausen -- 2014 -- 5502.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lüdinghausen, Burg Lüdinghausen -- 2014 -- 5502.jpg
Oppose Very nice composition and sky. The photo appears to be exposure fused from more than one image as there are ghosts on the right hand side from vegetation being placed differently in different captures. Also, the glare from the sidelamps on the path to the building are disturbing, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. A small remark: It's a tone mapped image from a HDR image. IMO it's nearly impossible to take a HDR image of branches in the nature without movements. But the branches are not illuminated and IMO they are not disturbing.--XRaytalk10:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, HDR mapped and not exposure fused:) Anyway, the same effect regarding the ghosts. I agree you cannot avoid such effects unless you are in conditions of no or very low wind, and I also agree this aspect is not that important. I would also not have opposed due to that little detail in itself. For me the biggest issue is the glare from the lamps. --Slaunger (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Slaunger, sorry. + halos along the roof (oversharpening ?), and green CA near the right chimney. The sky looks unnatural to me. Excellent composition though, and very nice place.--Jebulon (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support For the nice atmosphere and interesting subject and in spite of quality flaws and a centered corridor (would have preferred that the POV is not in the middle of the corridor bridge) Poco212:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2014 at 05:25:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:View from Imperia Tower Moscow 04-2014 img12.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:View from Imperia Tower Moscow 04-2014 img12.jpg
I guess it is a decorative facade element, or an advertisement screen. It is surely not a photographic or postprocessing issue. --A.Savin14:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be "technical floors"[2], likely for HVAC, etc. It doesn't look like this in other pictures of the building on the internet. A moire problem from downsampling?? --Kbh3rdtalk15:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moiré from downsampling was also my initial thought and the objective for asking. But A. Savin has explicitly stated it is not a processing artifact... -- Slaunger (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From looking at different photos online, I'm almost certain that this is an LED panel of some sort that is displaying changing patterns. There is a slight bit of moiré going on, but the general appearance seems to be represented well and doesn't seem to be an artifact to me. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)09:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for nominating. Yes, there is going to be FoP in Russia from October 1, yes it is also retroactive, and yes it does not require taking the photo from the street. --A.Savin13:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question There is a section (see annotation) in the middle, which looks "weird" to me (but not necessarily "wrong"). What is it? Is the image a crop or have you downsampled? -- Slaunger (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the reply. It is good. Regarding FoP: Should we just pretend it is October 1 now? The sun does rise sooner as compared to my location, but I did not know you were days ahead:) -- Slaunger (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the FoP question, I had of course the option to wait with the uploading, but other views I took then were all general cityscapes and with this single one I didn't want to delay several months. Again, FoP is retroactive; even if the file was deleted, it had to be undeleted after 10-01. Regarding the nomination, I'm not the nominator and I would have waited of course; but there are few days left, so in the end it's just a hairsplitting. --A.Savin15:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The image description should identify the dominant subject (Mercury City Tower?), not just where it was taken from (Imperial Tower). Quality image of half a building. --Kbh3rdtalk14:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, maybe the horizon in the middle is not a perfect illustration of the rule of thirds. But let's celebrate the new FoP in Russia ! (The strange thing annotated appears on many other pictures -see Google- of this skyscraper, there is no wrong manipulation or so).--Jebulon (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose, at least for now, due to the bottom crop, it's too abrupt for my taste. The building has for sure FP potential, actually some pictures on the web are pretty amazing. Do you have a way to show more of it at the bottom? If not, why? Poco211:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2014 at 18:58:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:GandM Purist-Grace match cricket balls.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:GandM Purist-Grace match cricket balls.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 19:40:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support The nave of Limburg Cathedral, usual technique. Unfortunately my position was not quite centered (small differences of a few cm become apparent if you take panos), but I still think that the result is quite pleasing. The cathedral was crowded most of the time and so I had to be very quick to get an image without major ghosts etc.-- DXR (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, you're experiencing all the problems I have with my panoramas, I see. Yeah, it only takes a few cm of misalignment and things like arches lose their apparent symmetry. And of course creating the illusion of an empty cathedral by being selective about when you take each frame... I usually try to wait until everyone is out of the image, but it's not always possible. I've learned to be patient though. At least, I appear patient, but I'm throwing daggers at them in my head. ;-) Diliff (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's driving me mad and often enough, the benches are not a very good indication either. Personally, I don't mind people sitting in the benches since most actually pray/meditate, which of course is the main purpose of a church. Those who wander about aimlessly are far more dangerous ;-). --DXR (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True. I've just spent a week in Lithuania and one of the churches in Vilnius was full of brainlesstourists. I don't expect people to always avoid walking in front of my camera (since it takes 5-10 minutes to shoot a full panorama), but these people were just standing right in front of the camera all the time. They could stand anywhere, but they didn't care that they were ruining my photos. It took 45 minutes of waiting to complete one panorama. Grrr! Anyway, I finally got it, and it was a really beautiful baroque church so maybe you'll see it here in a few weeks. :-) Diliff (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2014 at 14:26:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama Egmond aan Zee Leuchtturm 2014.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama Egmond aan Zee Leuchtturm 2014.jpg
10180
1172
443
1667
27312
5210
Vertical lines from the base of the edges of the tower does not align at the same places on the top protruding structure. It appears to be slightly tilted to the right.
Comment Very nice stitch and very impressive resolution and overall quality. The Leuchtturm is leaning a bit to the right. Is it leaning in reality also? (difficult to find good vertical alignment points on the conically shaped mast). -- Slaunger (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO OK as it is. If you draw a vertical line through the red top the line reaches exactly the middle of the lighthouse. I've vertically aligned to the buildings at the background and the pano head was perfectly adjusted. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, it does not reach the exact middle on my monitor. First I got, an impression of leaning by just seeing it in thumb. Then I thought it could be some kind of perceived leaning, so I checked by panning over an approximate 50% view and look at the edges of the base of the tower and where the corresponding vertical lines intersected the top. The intersection points are not symmetrical, which I think they should be. I will try to indicate with an annotation, although it is hard to get sufficient precision in drawing the box. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the remaining building like the church have very good vertical alignment, but the lighthouse protudes much higher and it is really not possible to properly insert vertical alignment points as there are no vertical lines in the lighthouse to align with, and it is my experience that this can easily lead to extrapolation errors although the base align well vertically. Its difficult, its difficult. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, Slaunger. It took me a lot of time but you had been right, something was wrong there. The problem is that near the light house there are only very few (and short) vertical lines in the background. The solution was to manually add a vertical line with manually estimated coordinates (without having such a long vertical line there). IMHO it is better now, please take another look. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! I send you a mail shortly after my initial comment offering to send a crop showing it, but you found out yourself. It was subtle to see, I agree.-- Slaunger (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very little barrel distortion, the sea at the edges is at a higher elevation. I agree that the lighthouse seems leaning. But all the others verticals are straight, so for me it is leaning in reality. -- Christian FerrerTalk17:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure if it is barrel distortion, but I have now fixed the sea level at both sides. Please take another look, Christian (if you have time) and give me a feedback if the elevation issued is fixed for you. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At full resolution I moved the cursor of the window from a side to the other : The sea at right is straight but is higher than the sea of the left. The level of the sea at left is more straight than the first version but is always a bit leaning especially near the land. -- Christian FerrerTalk06:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Something I forgot to ask, when I got distracted by the lighthouse leaning, which is now fixed... The sky alternates between blue and more white: Did you use a polarization filter? -- Slaunger (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Slaunger, using a polarizing filter with Panos is a no-go. If you take a look on the EXIF data you can see that the angle of view is very wide - about 270° - the setting sun is left to the left edge, and right to the right edge thus this is the explanation for the alternating brightness. Exposure time was identical with all shots, light situation did not change during the shot. The brighter areas in the middle are imho due to the opposing sun. Don't expect a 100% homogeneous sky with such a wide view. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I agree completely. I had actually looked for FOV information but overlooked it in the EXIF. I just wanted to be sure it was not due to using a polarization filter as that could have given such an effect with smaller FOV. With a FOV of 270° the effect as shown here is as expected and is unavoidable. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Add: If you take a look on this 360° pano by Böhringer you can observe a similiar effect: You have two bright spots: The direct sun (and the areas around there) and a brighter area exactly opposed to the direct sun (180° to the direct sun). In my pano the brighter areas around the direct sun are visible at the left and right border, the area 180° from the direct sun is visible in the middle of my pano. All in all I see no problem there. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Frankly, I'm sorry but I'm not sure this ordinary (IMO) landscape deserves a so huge work. The technical performance is probably very high, but I feel no wow in any way (and I prefer remain silent about sharpness...).--Jebulon (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every motive deserves huge work, but time is often limited, Jebulon. If you are on vacation you can take the time, wait for golden hour light and make a highres pano of an (imho) not ordinary landscape. BTW: A panorama of a similiar position with overexposed sky and bad light was sold in the local shops for 300 euros :) Now a much better pano is freely available. Isn't it a benefit? I do not understand your last sentence: "and I prefer remain silent about sharpness". If you see seriously problems with sharpness I can answer: The pano shown here is an unscaled (!!) sensor resolution version - imho the optical performance of the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 I've used here is impressive. Normally panoramic views (also all of my former panos) are normally downscaled (default setting in Hugin is e.g. 70%) thus they look surely sharper at 100% view. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tuxyso, I think, on sharpness, that Jebulon's comment is saying he would prefer not to engage in yet another FPC discussion over "pixel-peeping" reviews and whether to downsize for FP. Let's agree to disagree on that one and move on. [but I agree with you that the picture is impressively sharp for a non-downscaled pano] -- Colin (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2014 at 19:47:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tallinn Toompea Upper Old Town 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tallinn Toompea Upper Old Town 2013.jpg
Support Nice POV of the old town. Looking at it I almost have the impression that it is in the middle of a forest isolated of the civilization Poco211:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "The composition isn't very compelling, with the tree obscuring the most interesting part of the scene." Jee02:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 21:10:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment The idea was good and the composition (apart from the thigh crop), as well, but I think that the problem is also that you got the wrong side of the butterfly, the one in the shadow Poco210:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice ! Making photograph of butterfly is not always easy, but I will try to find a better light next time. Jiel (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 16:33:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose maybe I have missed s.th, but this is a partial visibel ordinary gate covered with plants and grass, see n.th. special in the object or composition. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 22:06:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Nysa, Bazylika św. Jakuba i św. Agnieszki, witraż.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Nysa, Bazylika św. Jakuba i św. Agnieszki, witraż.jpg
Oppose In general, stained glass windows are appealing, because of light, colors and contrast. But as for me, I find this one on the kitsch side, and not very interesting. In other words: no wow, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By the way, I notice that we have here a polish nominator, and at least six polish supporters, not regulars in FPC. I'm sorry, but I suspect national canvassing in this case.--Jebulon (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 21:56:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info View of the Great Bath, part of the Roman Baths complex, a site of historical interest in the city of Bath, England. The baths, based on the local hot springs, were built during the Roman occupation of Britain and has become a major touristic site. Note that this picture is a HDR needed to increase the range due to tricky lighting conditions. All by me, Poco221:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm not sure if I like this angle that much as the water loses its colour because of the reflections, but it's well captured. Especially as you managed to get a view of it without any tourists in the view! Amazing. I've been there 3 or 4 times now and it's always been extremely crowded. Is the timestamp correct or did you forget to change it when you were in the UK? :-) I didn't know it was open so late. Diliff (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The time stamp is correct. There were a bunch of tourists, but probably very few in comparison to the normal visiting hours, since nobody expects that it's open then. We also got late to Bath and were surprised that you could get in until 9 pm and stay until 10 pm! as you can see here. The problem about going late is the lighting combined with the fact that they will not let you use a tripod, so you have to be imaginative about how to solve that :) Regarding the POV I have to say that before getting there the shot from this angle was my favourite and after taking photographs everywhere in the site I think that I was not mistaken. Poco208:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I prefer the view from the upper level because the Georgian side of the baths and of course the Abbey is visible (I think it adds to the atmosphere), but fair enough. :-) Your image shows a better perspective of the Roman side. I've seen some really lovely images of steam coming off the water (I guess taken in colder weather) which is also great for the atmosphere. Diliff (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this shot my intention was to show the Roman Baths as far as I can show them the way the used to be, without having any other architectural elements built 1000 years later (like the abbey). The combination of the abbey and the baths is also nice and for that I have different pictures, but here I wanted to keep it roman, show lots of water as symbol of the bath and play with the reflexion. I am convinced that the place has lots of potential for great shots like the one you mention with steam. I will probably have to come back for that and at the same time I encourage everybody to visit Bath, the city, not only the Baths, is amazing and full of interesting spots to capture. Poco210:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2014 at 23:15:48 (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 24 Sep 2014 at 02:59:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info The rear view of Heritage House (Building 54) at Central Experimantal Farm in Ottawa. It's built in the Queen Anne Revival style and used to be a home for senior farm staff. This building is a National Historic Place of Canada.
Comment It's a nice subject, but the trees in the background are too dark to make the difference between the house and the background. Try at another daylight. -- -donald- (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) Support I like the point of view, the building and the subdued evening light. Furthermore the quality is good, so overall featured to me. --kaʁstnDis/Cat20:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2014 at 23:13:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Good, but not among our very best IMO. Light a little dull, field of view is so large that the "perspective correction" leads to unfortunate geometrical distortions in the upper corners of the building. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 22:01:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:View of Angers on the Maine river from the castle.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:View of Angers on the Maine river from the castle.jpg
Weak Oppose due to the lack of sharpness which could not be compensated with a stricking composition (the wall in the foreground is disturbing). I wonder whether it would have been possible to the picture further to the left to have a better view of the river and even show a nicer perspective a bit for of the scenery on the left Poco211:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There Is nothing wrong with the sharpness of the photo even if you can't read the number plates of the cars. Technically speaking there is no blur, the focus is correct the aperture is good (f/9), the exposition time is 1//500. I can't comment on the composition, mostly a matter of taste--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2014 at 07:39:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral It is a refreshing nomination concerning the subject and the composition, which is rather eye-catching. I find the crop to the left of the cap unfortunate, which is why I do not support. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2014 at 09:32:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose The wow is there and I like the red color of the plane and its contrast to the ice. But the detail level is too low, it is somewhat noisy and the blue color of the ice looks unnatural and overprocessed. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be too bad if this picture wouldn't pass for technical reasons. I'm sure there's ways of improving it—the main problem I believe is due to chromatic aberration and could be easily reduced in post-processing with softwares such as Lightroom (check under the "Lens Correction" panel, in the "Color" tab). It's hard to tell but the blue of the ice might not be that unnatural—I might be wrong but I feel like I've already seen such a color in glaciers. I wished there was a bit more space on the top so the place would be centered insted of being on the upper part of the image, which would fit better the direction in which the plane is heading towards. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2014 at 06:21:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Refugio Militar Capitan Cobo - Pico Veleta - Sierra Nevada - 2014-08-07.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Refugio Militar Capitan Cobo - Pico Veleta - Sierra Nevada - 2014-08-07.jpg
Wladyslaw: It is a stitch of four images. My kit lenses are not as good as I would like, and they produce soft results at image borders for certain focal lengths and apertures. (A prime lens is on my wish list). That results in an uneven image quality. The pic is close to 15 Mpixels, and I think the pixel quality is sufficient for FP given the pixelage. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of restitching, and I notice that the ueven sharpness is due to not all images having perfect focus. Luckily, there is a big overlap between images, and by using masking in PTGui, I can see that I can achieve a better technical result (and I should stop blaming my glass all the time, it is actually not that bad, when used correctly). -- Slaunger (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like it very much and was ready to support but I got a bit disappointed by the fact that reading the "Todo por la Patria" is pretty annoying. Is there a way to combine those 4 frames to fix it? Poco211:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Poco a poco: I understand what you say, (I think). The first time I zoomed in I also thought: what an ugly stitching/blending error! Until I realized that the letters are suspended in a frame with space to the wall behind. And since the setting sun is coming in from quite an angle (thus the nice light elsewhere), the shadows gives the impression of ghost letters. See also the 'other version' linked to from the file page, which is a normal single shot photo. I think it would be wrong to clone put the shadows. Don't you agree?-- Slaunger (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
InfoJebulon has pointed out a stitching error on the file page. I would like to try and make a complete rework this evening, since I have acquired Lightroom since I made this stitch, and I would like to try my new LR plus PTGui workflow on this. --Slaunger (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info@Taxiarchos228: , Poco a poco, Jebulon. I have reworked the image completely in a Lightroom + PTGui workflow. Two (upper right and lower left) of four sources images are not perfectly sharp. Using masking in PTGui, the use of these images is now minimized, the three texts are now entirely clear. There is still some residual softness in lower left and upper right corners. I think it is not so bad, but understand if you find it unacceptable for FP. I did not quite get the same white balance in this process and have ended up with slightly more vivid colors of the roof and a darker sky, to be honest I am not sure, which one is closest to the truth. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralSupport I really like the composition, the lightning, the soft colors, and it might possibly be atypical enough to be a wow. I note some weird blurriness on the stones below the sign "refugio militar", is it due to the sitching? -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Christopher Crouzet: : Thanks for your positive comments and also your observation about blurriness. I agree there is softness under that sign. If you read some lines above, I think I have also acknowledged this problem in my newest revision and explained the origin: It is not due to the stitch in itself, but is caused by the fact that not all source images have perfect focus. In the newest revision I have tried to minimize the presence of these soft areas, but they are not entirely gone, and it annoys me too. I had chosen autofocus, but should have gone for manual focus instead. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't read all the comments in depth, my bad. I find the picture more interesting than many other featured buildings out there, so no reasons to oppose. Thanks for your efforts! -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Christopher Crouzet you did not oppose, but voted neutral, which was very understandable given the actual quality issue you have observed. But I am of course happy you have chosen to reconsider and change to support. Thanks! - Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2014 at 10:46:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Tolle Komposition mit guter Nutzung wiederholter Elemente. Level of detail and sharpness is not very good, but with Poco. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image lacks detail and this is not compensated by the great composition and colors. Tourists are disturbing. And per Mile. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe focus should have been on the first arch to avoid the unfocused cobblestones on the foreground, but I think it is good enough as it is. --Kadellar (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2014 at 16:22:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Not bad but too noisy considering the small size. There’s a focus problem too, the plumage on the neck being distinctly sharper than the face. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely better than before, I strike my opposing vote. But the quality reaches imho no FP bar compared to other bird of prey --Tuxyso (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2014 at 13:49:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Turbinhuset September 2014 04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Turbinhuset September 2014 04.jpg
Info Historic turbine house in Västerås, Sweden. This small hydro power built 1891 plant is probably one of the most important buildings in the history of Västerås. In the neighboring town of Arboga was an electric company who was looking for opportunities to expand. To get the company to move to Västerås the Västerås municipality put up with land, capital, and electric power. Västerås Municipality built the turbine house and and rented it out to the company. In 1891 the company moved and changed its name to ASEA (today the ABB Group and soon grew into a multinational empire and Västerås grew into the fifth largest city in Sweden. ASEA rented the building until 1902. (when Sweden had already started to build huge hydroelectric plant in northern Sweden, of course, with technology from ASEA). The building is now a museum, located in the very center between the castle and the City Hall. I really like the early autumn light and the beautiful colors here, the composition is also chosen to include only the older buildings.
Oppose Too much in shade. I'd like to see more of the water on the right and less of the grassy slope (I appreciate this may no be practical without being in the water). Btw, why is the roof so flat and the eaves stick out so far? It looks like someone has taken a taller building and squashed it. -- Colin (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand your point Colin although I personally think that the tree shadow on the facade is beautiful. Regarding the architecture; the architect is unknown. The house has been described as a stylish mixture of Gothic and Neo-classical styles. The municipality wanted a representative building of course, located next to the historic medieval castle. A local national romantic architect interested in history (but not necessarily very knowledgeable) maybe?--ArildV (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support we can't have light without shadows, main parts of the objects are not in shadow but are shown in good lighting conditions and the parts which are in shadows are clearly visible and not disturbing. The shadow-yelling is getting me s.th. on my nerves. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 19:10:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Allébron September 2014.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Allébron September 2014.jpg
Regretful oppose Beautiful and striking as it is, I still cannot tell just from looking at it what it's supposed to be a picture of (I know, I read the description, and it's a tram ... but still), and I am further missing any idea of its encyclopedic value, save perhaps to illustrate some concept in visual aesthetics. Daniel Case (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Case, this is not en:wp. There is no requirement on Commons FP for "encyclopaedic" value (i.e. for it to be suitable to illustrate an article). There is a core "educational" requirment for material on Commons but this is very loosely interpreted. Outside of an encyclopaedia, educational media (web sites, magazines, books) require images to catch the readers eye (eye candy), to break up large slabs of text (giving the eye/mind a rest) and to engage more senses and parts of the mind than just those processing text/language. This isn't just gratuitous decoration, but actually helps the reader/learning experience. Many of those images are not standard encyclopeadic shots of "something" but may simply be lovely images with a loose connection to the subject. One may remember a fact supplied alongside a memorable image far better than if presented in plain text. The fact that this image is real, rather than just some Photoshop montage, is valuable. -- Colin (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, though, I don't think the argument that an image has EV due to the photographic technique used (or photographic mistake, even) is particularly compelling for Commons. And I'm less keen on extremely contrived images such as the Picture Of The Year lightbulbs (but I'm clearly in the minority on those!) -- Colin (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Fantastic!! Intriguing, conceptual, thought-provoking... The fact that one's mind has to make an effort to understand the image is a plus, not a minus. A cubist tram.... :-) --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2014 at 15:43:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dom St. Peter und Paul (Brandenburg an der Havel) 01 (MK).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dom St. Peter und Paul (Brandenburg an der Havel) 01 (MK).jpg
Info The east nave of the Cathedral St. Peter and Paul in Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany. The whole interior painting is fresh restored and the interior of the cathedreal was just reopened at 14th Aug 2014.
At this one I´ve tried to implement the tips given at my last nom of a church inetrior. Which means I´ve tried to give more attention for managing the lights and the composition... c/u/n by me, mathiasK15:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I think there is not much room for fixing. Sadly the big cross, the altarpiece and the stained glass aren't aligned perfect so there cant be a much better symmetrie... --mathiasK21:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Personally, I think it's lacking some contrast. I'd like to see the white/cream walls of the church a bit brighter. just my opinion though, since I wasn't there and can't be sure how they are supposed to look. Also, the white balance looks a bit wrong - too warm/red tinted. Again, I wasn't there, it does seem that the white walls are getting some reflected red from the bricks which makes them pink? Diliff (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've uploaded a new version with a better WB with less reddish tint and a bit more contrast. I think Diliff was right again, even If he wasn`t there, but now it looks better to me... ;-) Thanks for the review! Slaunger could you please have a look again if you still like it?!--mathiasK08:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Much better, well done. The top of the white walls are close to real white, whereas the bottom which is receiving reflected light from the bricks is still pink-tinted. This is how it should be, to me. Diliff (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 13:00:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
There are two reasons for this composition: I couldn't take the one you say (it is a kind of restaurant, and only one table has those views, it was occupied for veeery long, when I thought they were about to go, they just bought two more bottles of champagne); I also think a vertical composition gives more sense of depth and distance. Actually what I wanted to do is taking your picture, including the building at right, in a vertical composition, but I don't know if it is possible. Thanks for your comment anyway. --Kadellar (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agreed, a vertical composition is better, gives more depth. I would have liked less strong shadows, and a slightly more saturated sky... Is that restaurant open at dusk? :-) --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2014 at 07:21:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry, but the flash light kills it for me. The branch the owl is sitting on becomes too prominent and the light on the owl is harsh and uneven. Moreover, I find the crop is too tight. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 13:05:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rynek Starego Miasta - 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rynek Starego Miasta - 01.jpg
Info Mermaid (symbol of the city) at the centre of the Old Town Market Square of Warsaw, Poland. It is impossible to have all facades vertical, because they're not perfectly straight. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Nice pic, though I'd advise renaming the file to sth that includes the name of the city. The current file name might actually refer to numerous places in Poland. Maire (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I should have probably added "w Warszawie", but I think it's not so necessary now because it's written on the description, thanks for the review (and the nomination!) --Kadellar (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Motive and light is nice, but I cannot really make friends with the centered composition. The direction of view of the statue implies imho a decentered composition where the statue is set more to the left. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Centered composition is what a wanted here, as if the mermaid was leading the city; thanks for your comments, I understand your point of view. --Kadellar (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very charged visually—the statue would have been more nicely highlighted if it was detached from the background through a depth of field. The composition is not optimal neither. I know that the concrete block supporting the statue is not the sexiest but the lower crop gives the feeling that a bit of the statue itself is missing. I maybe would have tried to put some more space on the top as well to make the picture breathe. Now, would have it better with a portrait format to follow the vertical line of the subject? Even if the previous points were improved, I don't think it would have been enough to bring me a wow—it's just a normal photo of a statue, took from a normal point of view like millions must have done before. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most pictures here have been taken before by someone else, and even better. Check the category in Commons and you'll see this one is different from all the rest. --Kadellar (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This image is a good example of what we like, what we vote here in this section is what we believe is right, which we compare with other pictures, there's no room for new compositions. I do not have fun now as before, I used to take a photo, I think the first question, "this picture would like the friends of commons?". I remember my recent nomination, which was not accepted for not meeting the established patterns. I am sorry --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2014 at 14:34:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Selwyn College Chapel 1, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Selwyn College Chapel 1, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2014 at 06:27:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Total view of the ceiling of Melk Abbey Church with the frescos by Johann Michael Rottmayr, painted between 1716 and 1722. Photographed, uploaded, and nominated by Uoaei1 -- Uoaei1 (talk) 06:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I lost my pictures of Melk (and Austria), but I didn't take this one anyway, I think it's well done because it wasn't that easy, big ceiling. --Kadellar (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question I respect the technical quality of the photography and the mastery required to architect/paint such a ceiling but I'm not sure how you guys can look at this photo without feeling oppressed? I find the abundant light harassing and the whole being like a spam of details to look at without any exit point for the eyes... I'm feeling trapped inside a maze. I even feel like it's going to fall on my head—I didn't think I would be that sensitive to a bunch of pixels but it litterally gives me difficulties to breathe. And from a more technical point if view, it seems to be a bit blurry. That was the useless point of view from someone who don't know how to appreciate church architecture/painting in general (and even more than that). -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info It is true but I feel good to be able to enjoy every detail of the frescos, especially the upper half portion. It would fall would be a happy death, just a joke (divine grace). -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs22:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC) (whoops unsig)[reply]
Info My intention was to give an overview of all the ceiling frescos. I understand that viewing the result can be overwhelming, and I feel this effect is stronger in this compact view in one image than standing in the church with about 60 meters length and watching its ceiling. And I suppose that it was the intention of the painter - as a theological message - to show a crowded heaven. If you feel that details are a bit blurred, please keep in mind that the painting itself is intended to be watched from a distance of at least 20 meters (the height of the church). --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info! Regarding the blurriness, I actually noticed it on the golden ornaments on each side of the picture—maybe due to a slight movement when taking the photo? (which might easily happen with a 1/2s exposure time, regardless if using a tripod or not) -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Great document. It is a bit crowded but if the original work of art is crowded, the photographic rendition should be, too... --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk)
Support Very imp/opp/ressive. Even if I'm roman-catholic, I'm with Christophe Crouzet and Slaunger here. That's (south-germanic world) baroque !!--Jebulon (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2014 at 19:03:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ToB 2014 stage 8a - Bradley Morgan 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ToB 2014 stage 8a - Bradley Morgan 03.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2014 at 19:03:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ToB 2014 stage 8a - Owain Doull 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ToB 2014 stage 8a - Owain Doull 02.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2014 at 13:19:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Roberto Menichelli.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Roberto Menichelli.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the size is significantly below the minimum 2 Megapixels --DXR (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2014 (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 5 Oct 2014 at 11:37:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Niterói Contemporary Art Museum 2011.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Niterói Contemporary Art Museum 2011.jpg/2
Oppose Sorry, but I don't get the composition. Is this meant to focus on the building, or the island? Currently we have an unclear subject. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2014 at 23:34:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mural na Catedral da Sé.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mural na Catedral da Sé.jpg
Question Who's that man ? was he left handed with his sword, or should the picture be reversed (see signatures of the mosaic) ??? ...--Jebulon (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info @Jebulon The man is St Paul the Apostle patron Saint of São Paulo (St Paul) city in Brazil. In the picture the sword are symbol of his martyrdom. Good view, the picture is mirrored, compared with other images of the same work of art. (later will update this information and a little more at the source, including categorization). I leave the picture correction for the author. -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs14:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info The Photographer, you have published the picture reversed (you can not read the writing in the mosaic). Please reflects the image. Then is the Bible in the left hand of Paul and the sword in the right hand of Paul (see your description). Now you can read the writing in the mosaic. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2014 at 18:11:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paks Margareeta ja Stoltingi torn.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paks Margareeta ja Stoltingi torn.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2014 at 09:47:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Grimmia montana.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grimmia montana.jpg
Comment Looks a bit overexposed to me (many white details blown), and the lighting is somehow dull and not favourable at all (maybe better with less blue in it to get the colours warmer). I tend to oppose but let’s see if the overexposure can be fixed. --Kreuzschnabel04:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thankyou for your comments. Yes, I had made an aweful mess of the image processing. Here is now Version 2, which should have better colour and no unbearable clipping. The focus plane (from f11) does indeed mean that the nearer part of the right moss cushion is out of focus, but if I had chosen to keep that area in focus then the middle (further) moss cushion would have been out of focus, which is a more important element of the image. Focus stacking would have been a way around this problem, but that wasn't possible at the time. Maybe next time! Thanks again for your valuable comments. Des Callaghan
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 20:42:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support. Some parts of the image (mainly the sky) seem a little bit flat (lacking in contrast and saturation) but otherwise very well done technically. Diliff (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is good but looking at it I have the impression that spines are leaning out to each side (overcorrected?), the tourists, the roof on the right, the top of the shadow in the middle or the motorbikes are not helping, either, but that could pass. Poco211:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. My image could be, but the reason I nominate just to know how to nominate a picture. Common, how many times did you review your picture? It's clearly no highlights, color is not nice. See again, in detail, motorbikes, people, ... do you think your picture is OK? Is it neutral if you support your image? I WILL NEVER DO that even policies allow. Open your eyes, pls. Alphama (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My eyes are pretty open and see that you nominate pictures far below requirements and falsify your voting requirements. I´ll raise this at the discussion page. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The voting of Alphama is not to count because his basic release of it was at a time he didn't reach the voting requirements of FPC. I don't strike this voting again (Alphama made canceled my striking) because I don't want to cause a edit war. But the fact is cleary in this case. See also: here. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the quality and the building, but I think that the angle of your photo that is shown on the dewiki article is better and not so extreme (I would definitely support that one). The construction works are also a bit distracting. --DXR (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question As a totally novice and in architecture, I'm genuinely wondering where is the wow factor here? The light is flat, the point of view has nothing special, and the building itself with its non-appealing colors is not so sexy visually speaking even though I'm sure it has plenty of merits from an architectural/historical point of view. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info I have reworked the image totally and corrected the perspective to avoid the impression of overcorrecting. Now we have also a bit different crop so that the roof on the right edge is not disturbing anymore. Further I have corrected a bit the curves. Kadellar and David: please have a look if you support the image with this changes too. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quality (details) and light are nice, but the composition is imho imbalanced. I wished more space at the front. Usually it looks better to have more space on the front than on the sky part, see for example Thyssen-Krupp-Quartier-Essen-Q1-2013.jpg. Noch mal auf Deutsch: Die Qualität (insbesondere die Details) und das Licht sind sehr gut. Allerdings wirkt die Komposition auf mich unausgewogen. Meist sieht es gefälliger aus, wenn Vorne etwas mehr Platz gelassen wird und nicht identisch mit dem Himmel zugeschnitten wird, s. z.B. Thyssen-Krupp-Quartier-Essen-Q1-2013.jpg. BTW: Questioning voting eligibility in the case of unwanted votes as done above is debatable. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dein Vergleichsbild hinkt ein wenig weil im Falle von Thyssen-Krupp der Vordergrund Wasser ist, was mit der Spiegelung einen zusätzlichen fotografischen Mehrwert schafft, was im Falle des Münstersplatzes mit seinem Kopfsteinpflaster nicht der Fall ist. Ich lasse generell auch gerne Raum, habe mich aber hier zu diesem Beschnitt entschieden weil der vordere Teil des Platzes im Schatten liegt, keinen informativen Mehrwert hat und nach meinem subjektiven Empfinden der Bildkomposition nicht dient. Aber generell habe ich genug Reserve diverse Beschnitte zu machen. Erschwertend kommt hier hinzu: dadurch dass man aufgrund der Bebauung links und rechts stark limitiert ist würde bei noch mehr Vordergrund das Bild ein unüblich hohes Format erhalten. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ich verstehe deine Argumentation. Um zu beurteilen, ob ein weiterer Beschnitt vorne evtl. doch besser ist, bräuche man in der Tat ein Vergleichsbild. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In der Versionsgeschichte der Bilddatei findest du die Vorversion mit mehr Sicht auf den Platz. Generell habe ich noch deutlich mehr Reserven (mein Originalbild auf dem Rechner hat über 280 Megapixel) aber es zeigt eben nur schattigen Platz, immerhin ohne Passanten oder irgendwelchen Objekten. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the version with more space at the front. I guess you also had problems with surronding building on your current nom, didn't you? Have stamped out something (a good idea here)? Probably you can add {{Photo}}-template and {{Panorama}}-template and add some background information to your shooting technique. Number of images, panoramic hardware (I guess you used a pano head here), focal length of the single shots, panoramic software, for an example see File:Panorama Egmond aan Zee Leuchtturm 2014.jpg. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I promoted it on QIC, but as I see this was a different version. The resolution of the current one is much higher, yet there seem to be some perspective issues now which wasn't the case in the previous version. That was technically correct, very sharp and with a resolution I still cannot produce, but without unnecessarily bloated size like now. I prefer the previous version. --A.Savin09:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A higher resolution creats a higher file size. We have here perspective issues? Can you explain. This image is still very sharp IMO but I have no problem whith downsizing --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: it looks curious, but it is a single shoot (this image is a single shot) and definitly NO stitching error.
Oppose Perspective issues, church towers are not vertical, one stitching error (note added), retouching marks on the right. --Ivar (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question is: what is better: the impression of overcorrecting perspective or acceptable incorrectnes of vertical and horizontal lines? The minor stitching error and marks are corrected easily. I guess I start a 2nd candidate. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 17:38:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sedov (ship, 1921) and Kruzenshtern (ship, 1926), Sète, France.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sedov (ship, 1921) and Kruzenshtern (ship, 1926), Sète, France.jpg/2
Oppose As much as I'm a fan of the soft golden hour and the overall composition, it simply doesn't work here. The boat is extremely rich visually with a lot of little details here and there that get entirely lost with the overly complex background. Even the overall silouhette of the boat is not necessarily easy to grasp depending on the resolution of the image being looked at. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too dark overall. If the whites would be blown out by increasing the exposure, then you can do some selective lightening that preserves the highlights. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 08:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't think, the light is soft because it's the first sun rays, 30mn before it was the night, the RaW file seems correct and I did not make big changes in light levels during the editing process. I think the light is near like it was in reality. Maybe I shall have to wait a bit for a harcher light, but it was before to go to my job and I did not have the time. -- Christian FerrerTalk04:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2014 at 16:46:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Facade of Colonial Building in São Paulo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Facade of Colonial Building in São Paulo.jpg
Oppose The upper part of the photo is rather unsharp. The statues could use a little brightening of the shadows to make them stand out better. I accept, that these are the colors, which have been chosen for the facade and curtain, but, oh my, it is a really ugly color combination in my opinion (of course the photographer is not to blame for the latter), sorry. The thing about the colors may also be a cultural preference 'thing' and subjective, I do not know for sure. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2014 at 21:49:25 (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 2 Oct 2014 at 21:57:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bóveda de la sala 36, Galería Nacional, Londres, Inglaterra, 2014-08-11, DD 165-167 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bóveda de la sala 36, Galería Nacional, Londres, Inglaterra, 2014-08-11, DD 165-167 HDR.JPG
Info Dome of the centrepiece room of the Barry Rooms, National Gallery, London (England). The National Gallery was founded in 1824 and has a collection of over 2,300 paintings from the mid-13th century to 1900. The present building in London's Trafalgar Square is the third to house the National Gallery, and was designed by William Wilkins from 1832–38. The Barry Rooms were constructed later on, between 1872 and 1876 and were nouned after their designer, the English architect Edward Middleton Barry (1830–1880). The dome is located over the room 36 and is of polychrome Neo-Renaissance style. All by me, Poco221:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the glass ceiling really that dull, or simply the effect of lowering the highlights in an HDR? I can see that it is frosted glass (presumably to make the light less directional, thus acting like a huge softbox on the paintings) but just concerned this appearance is unnatural. -- Colin (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colin: I've looked into the 3 original frames and cannot say with certainty whether increasing the highlights would make it look more realistic. My problem now is that I have nothing to compare with (incredible that there is no single picture in the net of this masterpiece! I wonder whether I am so crazy that continously look up for nice motifs :)) and I left London a weeks ago. I also think that the result depends on the weather, it was cloudy. Long story short, I can tune up the highlights but not sure whether this will make it look the way it should be. Poco218:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Postcard, commons. The brightness here just looks like this is frosted glass through to another room (above) rather than daylight. I'm sure 2pm in August would be bright even on an overcast day. I know with HDR there is a temptation to reveal the detail lost in the glare of highlights or in the dark shadows, but sometimes that's how it's meant to be. -- Colin (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting confused. I have seen those pictures earlier, but I don't think that really help to compare here due to the fact that they have poor quality and there is a strong overexposure. Are you suggesting that in order to make it look more realistic I should increase the highlights and so lose detail? That would mean decreasing quality. Looking at the building from outside (comparing it here, see room 36) I am pretty sure that there is no room above it, and that is the same impression I get when looking at the original frames. Poco220:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm suggesting, but I appreciate that's a hard ask. You are looking up at the main source of light for the room. Looking directly at a light source usually takes the dynamic range off the scale. If those windows really were as dull as this, then that room would be dark and you'd couldn't appreciate the paintings (though, from the other Commons picture, I see there are some small spotlights). Let's assume these windows really are glaringly bright to the eye as one would expect from a sky light. What you've achieved then, through taking a greatly underexposed frame and combining it with tone mapping, is to achieve some magic where the detail on the glass frosting is visible. It's equivalent to seeing the words "Philips" on the frosting of a 100w bulb that is switched on, or sunspots -- something not directly visible to the eye. I appreciate that it is thrilling to extract all this detail from a scene and hurts to consider suppressing some of it. I've had a similar discussion offwiki with David Illif on the shadow detail in one of his cathedrals -- just because you can hugely lift the shadows to reveal the darkest areas doesn't mean you should. It's addictive and magical. Question: if the glass really is this dull, then I'd expect your mid exposure frame to not be blown other than for right hand side. -- Colin (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a +/-2EV HDR? If yes, then the highlights are probably actually really dull compared to most uncolored church windows presented here, because otherwise they would just be blown beyond everything. And imo the impression is realistic enough, doesn't look like massive highlight recovery to me. --DXR (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2014 at 15:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Beautiful picture, I found the better light (in the motif) than the first, the details of the foundations are very interesting, a bit boring is that green fringe in the roof, removes it would be good. A curiosity, what function this wire circling the building, happen to know? -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs18:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2014 at 21:09:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:La Fornarina di Raffaello Sanzio.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:La Fornarina di Raffaello Sanzio.jpg
Oppose Well, I've never understood why photos of paintings should be featured, but at least I'd expect them to be technically perfect—here the light and diffuse specular at the top kills it. Possibly it could be fixed in post-process to obtain a more uniform lighting with darker darks, softer highlights and less reds (according to the other references found on Google Images). -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike what you've been doing so far for me, I gave you a valid and constructive critique to genuinely help you to improve your image, and that's all you could think of for a reply, seriously? -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But at least you re-read what you write? Why put a motorcycle, an obelisk, a portrait? But I'm serious questions? Have respect for those who put the photos here. So why put a rusty truck? If you want to be taken seriously do not ask the obvious questions. I wrote the reasons, if you believe that they are not it's your problem (always the most obvious of your course) .You be more serious and we will all be happy. And remember you started it. --LivioAndronicotalk11:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're reading what you want to read. I did criticize your photo only to try helping you improving it. What I've been wondering in my comment above is why photos of paintings are worth to be featured in this category. I've also been wondering the same for some architecture shots on other nominations. That's nothing aimed directly at your photo, it's just a general genuine question. I don't get it because I thought we were supposed to promote photography here, not the work of other artists (painter here) through a “simple” snapshot. Now this can be a lively debate and a subjective one too—after all, buildings are the work of others too, but I still believe that photos taken in a city are interesting. Why? Because there's millions of possible photos of a same location, and it requires a great artistic input from the photographer to come up with a good composition, a lively scene, a nice light, and so on. In comparison, and correct me if I'm wrong, none of this is required for taking snapshots of paintings? The artistic input of such a photo is already defined by the artists at the origin of the painting and what's left for the photographer is to provide a good technical input. Wouldn't it be btter suited in the QI category? Because I don't understand how we can “wow” on the quality of a photograph where someone's else work represent 99% of the content of the image?
Now, on a side note, with your previous replies here, the final one on my nomination, and the “you started it”, do you think it's all appropriate for a community where I've been told is made of 30+ years old grown up peoples?
Anyways. I understand that with the PH-3 badge on your page you must have a high esteem of yourself, and might not want to accept inputs from someone who didn't self-credit himself, but at least you could try to apply the changes to this photo to make it technically correct?
I read what you write, you can give advice, it is said that they are valid or supported by anyone. If you do not believe that a photograph is appropriate to be featured is always your problem, you have to be more humble and respectful. --LivioAndronicotalk12:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2014 at 18:28:12 (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 1 Oct 2014 at 16:02:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Miroir d'eau place de la bourse à Bordeaux.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Miroir d'eau place de la bourse à Bordeaux.jpg
Oppose I believe the train is a bit distracting—if it's meant to be the main subject then it's hardly visible, especially with the nicely illuminated building in the background, and if the building is the main subject then the train is on the way. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2014 at 10:16:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry, nice shot but I don`t think the quality is good enough. Dof is too small and the overall quality isn`t that great. Bug bar is pretty high... --mathiasK19:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2014 at 06:24:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Purtse vasallilinnus 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Purtse vasallilinnus 2013.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2014 at 12:09:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ruine Aggstein 02.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ruine Aggstein 02.JPG
Info Castle ruins of Aggstein and Danube river, Wachau, Lower Austria. And no, it is not tilted - the platform on the left is not horizontal in reality. Created, uploaded and nominated by Uoaei1 -- Uoaei1 (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Such a nice point of view! We can feel the dominance of the castle over the valley below, valley which fits nicely in the background with a little blur to detach it from the main subject and to give it a lesser importance (both composition wise but also to convey the idea that the peoples down there were probably not as "important"). The colors are vivid and the light is nice. The only bemol for me is that the castle isn't that sharp in high resolution but whatever. Nice shot! -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is taken with the Nikkor AF-S DX 18-105mm kit lens. If you have a recommendation for a better standard zoom lens, please let me know. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2014 at 20:51:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Teatro Municipal de São Paulo 8.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Teatro Municipal de São Paulo 8.jpg
Support. Excellent subject and capture! Although it may have been slightly nicer if it were taken with slightly less ambient light. Diliff (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done@A.Savin: removed haloes in statues and a bit more of sharpening only in statues. Fixed several dust spots and retouching stripes. @Diliff: fixed blending error. Please, let me know if it is ok. On the other hand, I do not consider removing the beggar is a good practice, in this case, I wanted a real picture, that is what is there every day. If this is for a Wikipedia article, I would not change the reality and that's my main goal, I wait for several days that everyone get the hell out of the front, however, that beggar lives there. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you have overdone the sharpening / halo-removal on the statues. I looked at earlier version and they were fine: now they look like they have been cut out with scissors. The earlier version had really insignificant halo (though the harp has some moire that could be removed with the brush). Please try not to to be tempted to pixel-perfect an 80MP image. I think we are all guilty at times of looking for flaws rather than just leaving it be. -- Colin (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2014 at 01:49:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:View from Volcano Pacaya, Guatemala.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:View from Volcano Pacaya, Guatemala.jpg
I know that lens flares are usually not accepted but just checking if the rest of the photo can gain the upper hand. In the worst case, I'm always happy to receive constructive feedbacks. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not mind the flare. Quite interesting composition and good wow. I think the color noise could be reduced without sacrificing details (as there aren't really that many details). I am wondering if it would work better if you cropped the sky a bit more to follow the rule of thirds? It is pretty, but I am concerned it has too low educational/informational value to be FP. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A long discussion about different kinds of value
Thanks Slaunger! I've uploaded a new version with a noise reduction.
I had a look at the sky and to be honest I'm not a big fan of strictly following the rules anymore. For a (fun?) example, as a developer I used to rigidly follow coding conventions to supposedly help laying out my code in a visually consistent/appealing way. This brought me unecessary pain only to realize that the best rule was to apply common sense by adapting to the different scenarios and do what intuitively looked better—no rule can perfectly encompass human's subjectivity :)
That being said, I had a go anyways at aligning the horizon with the bottom line of the thirds rule and it greatly changes the composition for something that I personally don't like. I also tried a 2:1 format that cropped a smaller part of the sky, and it looks ok but I miss that wide sky which brings a peaceful feeling and allows the image to breathe.
As for the educational/informational value, I've read more than once here (from Colin notably) that images on Commons don't need to have an encyclopedic value to be promoted as featured, unlike the rules being followed by en:wp. This discussion seems to come back often—is there no “official” note about whether an encyclopedic value should be enforced or not on Commons?
The crop: My proposal was merely a suggestion to try it out and see if it worked better. I agree, 'the rule of thirds' is not always a good rule to follow, but in surprisingly many cases I find it is a good rule-of-thumb. If you find it does not work in this case. That is fine!
Encyclopedic value: You would never see me decline an image because it lack encyclopedic value, and if you read again that was not what I said either. I wrote "educational/informational" value, which is a broader term and is aligned with our core policy Commons:Project scope. The scope actually does not highlight the fuzzy 'informational' as much as it once did, but prominently states 'educational'. Of course what is meant with educational value is a question very much open for interpretation. Further directions are given in the guidelines for nominating at FPC:
Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
Aaah, sorry—educational/informational and encyclopedic values sound a bit the same to me! :) Looking at the discussion and supports for this nomination, I thought it would be OK here as well but no problem if not. Now those terms seem indeed broad—isn't this photo a showcase of the view over the volcanoes Agua and Acatenango that we can get from the volcano Pacaya? Does such photos lose educational value (if any) when not taken during the day? Isn't having variations of a same location taken at different times interesting to showcase the evolution of the light and what to expect?—of course we all know that the golden hours are a bit a cheat for photos, but that's what I'm the most excited to see when I go on a location. And if I had to go to a such spot, I'd like to know if it's better to go for sunrise or sunset, so browsing other photos might be helpful. Anyways, that's just how I seet it, I don't know if this categorizes as educational/informational and no worries if it doesn't get featured because of that. PS: I know the cropping was only a suggestion but I felt like writing :) -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is very subjective what one considers as being of educational value and how much weight is given to this in reviews. Of course a view of the peaks Agua and Acatenango is educational if it is clear that is what you see. Since you are shooting into the sun and you thus get a lot of exposure, you at the same time miss all the details of the volcanoes. You only see the contours and for me it was not even clear I was looking at volcanoes. I am not even sure the contours seen are so distinct that it is a "fingerprint" sufficiently precise to see it is from this exact place. Maybe in other mountain ranges you could see something almost similar from the contours alone? As a consequence of that, I do not find the educational value is that large, albeit the photo is very pretty.
I looove shooting photos in the golden hour, and a significant fraction of my FPs are such photos. However, they all (with one exception) have the sun coming in from behind or the side, making it possible to control the dynamic range of the exposure such that it is possible to discern features on the ground and not just contours. This gives value and context - for me. The one exception also has a tough time during the nomination and just barely passed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2014 at 07:43:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Crocodile Feast AdF.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crocodile Feast AdF.jpg
Info I feel a bit like a caveman submitting this image, compared with all these amazing and elevated church interiors... but I hope you will appreciate the intensity of the situation and the natural behaviour. I have cropped a third of the image, to the right, it was a tad too gory. All by me -- Arturo de Frias Marques (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info This image is 50% bigger (3000px vs 2000px) than the initial submission. When I submitted the initial one I was not aware that max res is a key factor for FP candidates.
Hi Kreuz, as Jee shows, the croc is eating a dead wildebeest. I have cropped it as it is because to the right there is only a piece of fairly slimy skin, and more dead body... it adds nothing in my view. However, I am happy to upload a new version, with a less tight crop, and see if it works better... --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk)
I have now uploaded a new image, less tight crop (hence image larger). Also took the opportunity and worked a little bit on the curves, the image is now brighter. If previous supporters think it was better before, let me know and I will revert to original --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2014 at 09:25:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tele2 Arena September 2014 09.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tele2 Arena September 2014 09.jpg
Comment Quite good and of good resolution. I should be careful to judge the technical quality too hard in full resolution as the pixelage is quite high, but there is some quite notable green fringing, and there is a washed-out/ghost like appearance of some of the letters. Its not terribly important, but a little distracting. You have not suffered from shutter snap during the exposure? I am saying this because it looks similar to some recent problems I have had, where I believe it was due to shutter snap. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New version uploaded Slaunger, all green fringing is removed.
Only some electronic signs have small ghosts, everything else is sharp. Probably because of the signs (small movement). No shutter snap, and I used exposure delay mode who allways have been enough (and took 20+ different photos of the arena). Imo, high quality even when compared to other full resolution FP wide-angle images.--ArildV (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral That helped, thanks, and your other explanations makes sense regarding the technical quality. I think there is too much of the photo which is black for me to fully support. I think it would have been better a little earlier when there was still a bit more dusk light avaiable to see the details in between the lights. --Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the concept that all evening / night images must be taken during the blue hour. However, nothing is black here (the sky is dark blue and no details are lost because of the darkness in the foreground. But since the foreground is quite uninteresting, and the background just sky I think it is perfect conditions to get the arena to stand out.--ArildV (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So we've got a metallic mesh structure illuminated with some blue neons, there's a few street lamps and trees here and there, the whole by night and hence without a much interesting lighting (if we don't consider the neons as interesting). Am I missing something? -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very nice architecture and certainly an interesting structure. However, I do not find the particular composition very interesting. The street lamps, trees etc. makes it a bit messy. Sorry. Pugilist (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2014 at 10:47:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Something different. The subject is quite ordinary I know, but I like very much the way the evening light works on the wet surfaces of the slightly corroded irrigation sprinkler system. And the timing of the 'splash'. Created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Diliff: You are right, it is not so sharp. It is a handheld telephoto, 131 mm with crop sensor. I opened the aperture as much as my lens allowed (f/5) to get as much light as possible. Still I had to use ISO 500 and a shutter time of 1/250 s. Maybe my hand was not steady enough? I also went easy with sharpening as at ISO 500 I quickly introduce noise when sharpening. I have now tried to do some selective sharpening of the sprinkler system in a new upload. I am not sure, it is really an improvement, but please have a look. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Digressions about amounts of precipitation in different countries
It does not rain that much in Denmark. In average 712 mm/year, only about 100 mm more than Paris. Typically there are periods with no precipitation over few weeks during the Summer in the growth period, which makes irrigation relevant. I was hoping that I could tease Colin and Diliff by saying it rained much more in London, but that is not true. The average yearly rainfall in London is only 601 mm/year. It actually surprised me, as one always hears it rains a lot in London. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a bit of a myth that it rains a lot here. It's more that it rains softly and regularly, and even when it's not rainy, it's quite gloomy and overcast. :-) There's more to bad weather than rain. Diliff (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The heavy thunderstorms we've had this weekend are more than "soft". But London is a desert compared to the west coast of Scotland. It is a little known fact that the Scottish get a day off work if the sun shines on three consecutive days. -- Colin (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have some jokes about Brittany. "Do you remember last summer ?" "Last summer ? Oh yes, it was a friday !..." Another one ? "Who told that the weather is bad in Brittany ? The weather is very sunny in Brittany ! Several times a day !". Anyway, this is a picture to be supported, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confusingly, we had a period of 6 consecutive warm, dry and sunny days in North Yorkshire last year. Our camp site warden told us he had never encountered this before. Still, it’s not the climate I love Yorkshire for --Kreuzschnabel05:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2014 at 14:17:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral tending towards oppose. I think the image is too dark, and too much space is used on dark foliage in the foreground with basically no features. On the other hand, good quality and nice mood. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2014 at 21:33:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Pole uprawne w Raszkowie.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Pole uprawne w Raszkowie.jpg
Support, the redevelopment has done the picture good. Still there is some lack of detail and very minor CA, but the scenery is really very nice. --A.Savin11:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2014 at 18:14:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:European Brown Bear.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:European Brown Bear.jpg
Support It is a great zoo shot in the sense that it is not at all evident that it has been taken in a zoo. Good pose and high quality. Nice texture of the fur. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks for the comments and taking time to review. The speckles that can be seen at 100% are due to some noise introduced by the ISO setting of 400 - which I used because the bear wouldn't keep still :-). It's always a balancing act when trying to preserve detail in fur and feathers at higher ISOs, and of course a matter of taste. This image is at the native resolution of the sensor, just cropped to square, with the subject filling most of the frame. As such, I would have some latitude to reduce the appearance of speckles by downsampling (and still leaving it well above the FP minimum size req); alternatively, I could try some NR to clean it up. In this case, however, I'd rather leave as-is, as IMO I don't think it detracts much from the image. --Baresi F (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2014 at 21:07:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Plasma globe 60th.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Plasma globe 60th.jpg
Support Thanks for the nomination. This image is the result of lots of experimenting with shutter speed. The filaments come and go rapidly and wiggle about. Too short a shutter speed and the camera doesn't get many filaments and the ISO (which in this one is 1600) goes too high. Too long a shutter speed and they filaments turn into ribbons. See Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Plasma-lamp.jpg for a lovely picture which doesn't actually represent what it looks like to the eye. I also created a video, which is featured on en:wp. -- Colin (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2014 at 14:30:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:St Mary Aldermary Church, London, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Mary Aldermary Church, London, UK - Diliff.jpg
Comment. Just before anyone asks (I know you will), the reason why the rear stained glass and ceiling appears to be tilted is because it's not facing the camera, it's angled away slightly (I think because of the tight spaces that the church is built around in central London). Diliff (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regretfully, I think the distorted ceiling is just too weird. The upper circular pattern (rose?) looks almost vertical, but is actually horizontal (see File:St Mary Aldermary Church Interior.jpg). This is what one would see when looking up, but that circle is clearly considerably forward of the camera. Would another projection or cropping below the circle minimise the effect? -- Colin (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I think the fact that it looks so circular is actually an optical illusion caused by the rectilinear projection. It looks like you're viewing it from virtually directly underneith it but as you say, it's considerably forward from the camera and the angle of view is no larger than any of my other interior panoramas (in fact, the vertical angle of view is lower than many). I suspect it is because the shape of it is concave (an effect similar to this). I could crop it but it would be a shame as the top of the arch would be lost and the aspect ratio would be square. I personally think it's just one of those situations where you have to acknowledge that it looks weird, but that it's not actually as distorted as it appears. Diliff (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC from my reading over the Summer on projections and the issues with rectilinear with wide/tall angle-of-view, the problem is made worse when there are objects affected that the brain knows the shape of. We know, for example, that you don't get egg-shaped windows in buildings or that people and cars have certain proportions. In the "General Panini" projection in Hugin (Vedutismo in PtGui) one can alter the parameters, perhaps giving more compression to the top and standard rectilinear to the bottom. I wish there was a rectilinear projection that one could combine with graduated vertical compression in the top third. -- Colin (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it would certainly be handy to be able to make adjustments to the projection that were progressive and local. However, it seems what this image needs is less compression at the top, not more. It's already had the effect of being compressed due to the illusion I mentioned previously but in actual fact there is no compression at all. Diliff (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2014 at 22:19:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Woodlands Lake.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Woodlands Lake.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2014 at 23:02:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wrinkled Chevrolet.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wrinkled Chevrolet.jpg
Comment My immediate thought was: 1. The crop is too tight. 2. This seems more like a topic for 500px or so. My afterthought was: OK, the whole point is that the car is crammed into a very narrow space, this justifies the very tight crop. And secondly it has wow, and it may be claimed it has educational value too. So, I am ready to support, almost. Please elaborate on the categorization on the file page first. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some general categorization guidance unrelated to the specific nomination
They should be much more specific. Try to click on the category Chevrolet you have added. There are eights pictures there. Do you think it is because there are only 8 pics of Chevrolet on Commons? Of course not, that is because a lot of work is being into proper categorization, such that repository users, who search for a particular kind of chevrolet for instance, can look for it in a specific category, like Chevrolet C/K (1960) Viking without having to browse through thousands of general chevrolet pictures. See also our policy Commons:Categories for proper categorization. What is the point of taking a great photo if nobody can find it, when browsing for a specific topic? For an example of proper categorization of a car, I just picked a car photo of my own: File:Citroën DS 21 27 Quai Anatole France license plate blanked 2012-06-02 cropped.jpg. Try to find some equivalent categories for your car. I am sorry if this process is a little boring or tedious, but an FP is not only the image, but also adequate metadata. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that having the good categories was a requirement for the feature nominations. I find it to be a bit of a struggle to find what categories could potentially exist for a certain photo. There are millions of them and I can't think of a straighforward way to find the right ones but by spending a fair amount of time browsing others photos with a similar subject. Oh well, I've added a few more categories according to the link to the (beautiful) Citroen, but I've got no idea of the model, sorry. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your new categories are very fine! Thank you. If you look at the FPC page, there is a link to the full image guideline in which there is a section about the Image page requirements. Here there is a link to our categorization policy Commons:Categorization. Yeah, that was complicated, but just to let you know this is not something I am making up. In there you also find some advice on how to browse the categories. I usually just start out by picking a very general category like Chevrolet and dig into it. If you use the HotCat gadget the tool helps you to lookup categories as you type, and also have handy shortcuts for digging into subcategories. Of course I could also just have done it for you, but I feel it is more instructive to guide other users into understanding how they can manage themselves. Often, I find there is something I do not know when categorizing an image (like the car model which is still unresolved in this case). Here other users are often of very good help, especially if you know who to ask. This can be difficult to know if you have not been around for a long time. However, feel free to ask me, for instance. I often know who to ask. There is a good reason for the image page requirements: What is the use of having taken a picture, which is one of our finest, if no-one can find it afterwards due to an inadequate file description or categorization? To have good metadata is to show empathy for our repository re-users. It will also boost use of the image on the various wiki-projects. That is what I find is one of the thrilling aspects of Commons, to see your images being used, and often used in contexts you had never even imagined. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I would be tempted to say that I'm here to share my photos (amongst other things) and that dealing with categories is not something I'd like to be bothered too much about. But I understand your point, and the rules are the rules. I'll try to do better next time, thanks! -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised—sounds like the only things that wows you is architecture :) Maybe I should start doing like you wand write "not wow" on every architecture photo nominated, that would be very constructive. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Christopher Crouzet: : Sometimes, LivioAndronico, also fancies landscapes and many other things I am sure. Be careful not to have bad faith and generalize. It does not stimulate a collegial atmosphere. Each reviewer has his own preferences, but by and large, combining the impressions from all reviewrs, we usually end up with a pretty fair result averaged over topics. Often it is hard to 'oppose', and hard to express why you do not find an image featurable. A lot of reviewers avoid it, because nominators always complain. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I don't agree though about the landscape note—there's a building in it! And yes, I myself do avoid opposing because I feel like I don't understand a specific domain (such as architecure) to be able to judge—otherwise I would write "I don't like the subject" in each of them like he did with my photo of the volcanoes, and that's what I was trying to say. See the discussion on my own user page for more. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SlaungerChristopher Crouzet learn to respect the opinion of others, if you do not like then you are in the wrong place. To me (and others) do not like the photo, then if there are 20 other people who will then support feature, it's called democracy, not bad faith, greetings --LivioAndronicotalk19:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LivioAndronico: I did not understand that comment at all??? Please read again. I am defending your right to oppose in my comment above. I respect that you oppose, just as I hope you respect I support. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Christopher Crouzet My vote is a personal vote on each photo, in this case to me and only me a picture of a rusty chevrolet uninspiring (and my car is a chevrolet, think they are twisted) in any case if I were to take as the yourself with someone who rejects the photos I had to make a killing in me have rejected some users also said that 8 out of 10 pictures again, if other people will support your photo will feature anyway and my life will not change. Henceforth, however, saw your resentment will avoid vote your photographs so as to avoid any unpleasant misunderstandings, greetings. --LivioAndronicotalk08:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2014 at 14:30:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Šášovský hrad (by Pudelek) 1.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Šášovský hrad (by Pudelek) 1.JPG
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry to interrupt the support streak, but I really don’t like the background cutting the main object in halves, even less since it’s a similar colour as the bird. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Neutral - Being in the shade does help with the even light, and the exposure is excellent. Nice color cooperation between the subject and its surroundings. Excellent sharpness in the face and tail, but the DoF drops off a bit too quickly on its back. A very nice image even if not purr-fect. --Kbh3rdtalk 17:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment Sharpness is OK for me (night shot). Composition and motive is very nice. I will support the image if you correct the verticals (take a look at the very left building) --Tuxyso (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Done BeBo86 (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Awesome! --LivioAndronico talk 07:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
ArionEstar (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination 
.jpg)
Question Does an installment which is scheduled to be dismantled after a certain period of time (here: 2020, as far as I understand from the wiki article), qualify for the permamence criterion of FoP-Germany? --A.Savin 13:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
_solidaginis_caterpillar,_Niitv%C3%A4lja_bog.jpg)
Fixed - new version; @Uoaei1 I know it looks funny but the rock wall is actually like this; @Ivar Yep... and a tripod, both of which were - unfortunately - not an option when taking the picture. I had to improvise at bit... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
,_Pyramid_of_Khafre,_Pyramid_of_Menkaure_(left_to_right)._Giza,_Cairo,_Egypt,_North_Africa.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
-- Christian Ferrer Talk 21:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Overexposed sky and wrong white balance? --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
. But "unfortunate harsh light" is as argument accepted. Thanks for your review. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
--LivioAndronico talk 11:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Request Please add english description. --Ivar (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_Kolosseum_--_2013_--_3379-86.jpg)
_Castle_(by_Pudelek).jpg)
_-_z%C3%A1mek.jpg)
Abstain as creator. Thank you Villy!--ArildV (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)_01_(MK).jpg)
_and_Kruzenshtern_(ship,_1926),_S%C3%A8te,_France.jpg)
I withdraw my support as I prefer the alternative candidate. --Ruthven (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
![22 File:2014 Zakład przyrodoleczniczy "Wojciech" w Lądku-Zdroju.jpg, not featured](#File:2014_Zakład_przyrodoleczniczy_"Wojciech"_w_Lądku-Zdroju.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_solidaginis_caterpillar,_Niitvälja_bog.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Pyramid_of_Khafre,_Pyramid_of_Menkaure_(left_to_right)._Giza,_Cairo,_Egypt,_North_Africa.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Kolosseum_--_2013_--_3386.jpg){kind=link}
_Castle_(by_Pudelek).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_zámek.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_01_(MK).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_and_Kruzenshtern_(ship,_1926),_Sète,_France.jpg){kind=link}
_1.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
![21:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/September_2014#c-Jacek_Halicki-2014-08-24T21:43:00.000Z-File:2014_Zakład_przyrodoleczniczy_"Wojciech"_w_Lądku-Zdroju.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
![05:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/September_2014#c-Jkadavoor-2014-09-03T05:17:00.000Z-File:2014_Zakład_przyrodoleczniczy_"Wojciech"_w_Lądku-Zdroju.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,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_solidaginis_caterpillar,_Niitv%C3%A4lja_bog.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_solidaginis_caterpillar,_Niitv%C3%A4lja_bog.jpg){kind=link}
_solidaginis_caterpillar,_Niitvälja_bog.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_solidaginis_caterpillar,_Niitvälja_bog.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}
,_Pyramid_of_Khafre,_Pyramid_of_Menkaure_(left_to_right)._Giza,_Cairo,_Egypt,_North_Africa.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Pyramid_of_Khafre,_Pyramid_of_Menkaure_(left_to_right)._Giza,_Cairo,_Egypt,_North_Africa.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){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,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured-1){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_2014-02-10_perspective_corrected.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_full_res.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Kolosseum_--_2013_--_3386.jpg){kind=link}
,_Kolosseum_--_2013_--_3386.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Kolosseum_--_2013_--_3386.jpg){kind=link}
,_Kolosseum_--_2013_--_3386.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyskusja_pliku:2014_Nysa,_Bazylika_%C5%9Bw._Jakuba_i_%C5%9Bw._Agnieszki,_witra%C5%BC.jpg){kind=link}
_Castle_(by_Pudelek).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Castle_(by_Pudelek).jpg){kind=link}
_Castle_(by_Pudelek).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_Castle_(by_Pudelek).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_z%C3%A1mek.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_z%C3%A1mek.jpg){kind=link}
_-_zámek.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_zámek.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_01_(MK).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_01_(MK).jpg){kind=link}
_01_(MK).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_01_(MK).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_1.jpg){kind=link}
_and_Kruzenshtern_(ship,_1926),_S%C3%A8te,_France.jpg/2&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_and_Kruzenshtern_(ship,_1926),_S%C3%A8te,_France.jpg/2){kind=link}
_and_Kruzenshtern_(ship,_1926),_Sète,_France.jpg){kind=link}
_and_Kruzenshtern_(ship,_1926),_S%C3%A8te,_France.jpg){kind=link}
_and_Kruzenshtern_(ship,_1926),_Sète,_France.jpg-1){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_Fornarina.jpg){kind=link}
--LivioAndronico talk 20:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
_1.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_1.JPG){kind=link}
_1.JPG)
_1.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
_1.JPG,_featured){kind=link}