Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2014 at 20:51:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vespa cabro vs. Apis mellifera.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vespa cabro vs. Apis mellifera.jpg
Info created by J.Ligero & I.Barrios - uploaded by Alurín - nominated by Alurín -- Alurín (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2014 at 21:53:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Chess Queen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Chess Queen.jpg
Info created by John Fowler - uploaded & nominated by —Mono 21:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- —Mono 21:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2014 at 01:17:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling Civitas Dei, Entrance of the Cathedral, Aachen, Germany.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling Civitas Dei, Entrance of the Cathedral, Aachen, Germany.jpg
Support "Civitas Dei" (the City of God), neo byzantine mosaic of the ceiling at the entrance of the Cathedral of Aachen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany. The "City" looks like the cathedral itself, surrounded by allegories of the four major rivers of the Antiquity -- Jebulon (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support also after the edits. Tomer T (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Tilted ccw Poco2 22:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not at all. Horizontal lines of the city are... horizontal.--Jebulon (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but I disagree, the horizontals I see are not horizontal, see note Poco2 17:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You nitpicker ( but right. Please notice anyway that this design is not flat ) ! --Jebulon (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like the mosaic but I don´t like the format. The ratio of length and wide of the image doesn't work here with the image itself. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not far of your opinion. My goal is to provide always the more informations possible, but sometimes it does not work very well, and I know I should "sacrify" parts of pictures, but it is not in my mind, and I'm wrong...Do you suggest a crop like this one ? (see annotation)--Jebulon (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also would go for a crop like the one suggested. But leave the original for encyclopaedica purposes! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's go for the new version, with a better crop (original is kept as first upload) ! Thanks to reviewers, their idea is actually an improvement.--Jebulon (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The new version works. --Godot13 (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the crop is an improvement for this image, but the not symmetric pattern of the arcs distract the image impression, nice documentary image, nice mosaic, but not an impressive picture, I´ve seen much more impressive pictures of intersections --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SupportJee 02:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Nice detail, interesting subject, good crop, but still tilted Poco2 11:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
horizontals ? Verticals ? I don't see what I could change. Remember this is an arched vault...--Jebulon (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2014 at 14:33:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Girl Posing at Glacier Point Yosemite 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Girl Posing at Glacier Point Yosemite 2013.jpg
Oppose I tried it several times but didn't come to the conclusion that this composition is really featurable. I don't observe any harmony between the girl and the background. Is she actually posing? it doesn't look like that to me. Maybe that pose makes somehow sense from a different angle, no clue. Btw, it is blueish, you should increse the temperature a bit. Regarding personality rights, please, go ahead, is it allowed to stay there? I know the place and don't remember such an spot. Poco2 21:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Poco for your careful review. First: I've uploaded a new version with slightly modified WB, but I think WB is OK (even a bit too warm when you take the sun side of Half Dome as basis). Some background information to the photo: The rock where the girl is sitting looks more dangerous than it is - it is far from being dangerous :) The "rock" is about 1 meter high and is easy to go there. It is located on the public accessible part of Glacier Point, it is like a podium. The clue is that behind the "rock" there is no deep hollow (as the choosen perspective pretends) but just the normal visiting point where other tourist walk around :) The idea for the photo was: A lot of tourist (also me) go there and pose in front of Half Dome and take a photo. I saw this girl there during her friends were photographing her and asked if I can also take a photo. To the composition: For me there is a lot of tension between her and Half Dome. The curvature of her body corresponds to the curvature of the Half Dome - I tried to capture this moment. Also the sun lightens her well - head and legs are bright, her shirt is in shadow. I hope you understand my motivation of the nomination and the context of the photo better now?! --Tuxyso (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply] Add: On this photo you can see the "dangerous" situation quite well. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks to you for the detailed explanation and motivation, still, I'll keep the opposing vote. Poco2 13:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. Just to be sure: Your only remaining reason for opposing is missing Wow of the composition, right? --Tuxyso (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No wow at all due to the fact that this composition is IMHO artificial, looking at the picture I don't see the harmony you seem to observe, even after your explanation. She on that rock is rather a disturbing element to a nice background Poco2 17:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support wowww. Impressively and dangerous. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per Poco a Poco. Although the image is technically good, I don't find the theme or composition featurable. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support because this is the closest I've ever seen (and for that matter may ever see) anyone come to properly imitating a Maxfield Parrish "girl on a rock" illustration in a photograph. Really ... you should have had her dressed like one of his models, and just gone wild with the color saturation and the light on the rocks. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Daniel for your informative comment. Up to now I have not known these illustrations, but you are right there are some similarities :) --Tuxyso (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per Daniel Case's explanation of the similarity in composition to Maxfield Parrish illustrations. JesseW (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Right now, I'm the master of the future of this picture... If I oppose... Mmmmh delicious ! Happy new year !--Jebulon (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Three more minutes for that cute girl. Jee 14:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2014 at 20:07:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral Not the best sharpness due to the f/3.8 aperture. Nice colors but composition-wise I'd include more at the bottom (wider). --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 20:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2014 at 20:00:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vendor babies Balls.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vendor babies Balls.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2014 at 00:20:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Glacier diagram.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glacier diagram.svg
Info A picture of an alpine glacier and surrounding landscape characteristics. Made with ♥ by kelvinsong—Love, Kelvinsongtalk 00:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2014 at 13:37:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support One of the best pics I've seen in the last few months. Just tested the new fave gadget with it. --A.Savin 20:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2014 at 07:30:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mercedes-Benz Museum 201312 08 blue hour.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mercedes-Benz Museum 201312 08 blue hour.jpg
Support Hard to find any shortcomings here. Probably the crop at the left looks a bit random / unmotivated to me despite its function of bringing the main motive out of the center. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I'am not a friend of too tight crops ... let it breathe. • Richard • [®] • 20:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the comment, neither am I, really. I didn't shoot it wider because there were some distractions on the right. I probably should have. I could include more on the top though, would that help? — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 10:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2014 at 19:11:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Étang de Thau, Mèze 04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Étang de Thau, Mèze 04.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2014 at 18:15:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment yes, it's OOF. ISO 800 with noise kicks also in. --Ivar (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fear, that's right. The picture is not sharp. That's why I didn't consider to nominate it to QI, either. Poco2 22:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2014 at 00:50:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo July 2013-25.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo July 2013-25.jpg
Info Walking on the beach in Porto Covo, Portugal. Long live minimalism! All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose (weak) I really like the interplay of different surfaces: brown beach, water+beach with a nice diagonal line and white parts, water with a gradient from green to blue. My opposing reason is due to the person walking there. Her white dress creates imho not enough contrast to the white water parts beneath her and thus the walking person does not work as central compositional element for me in that tiny size, sorry. Nonetheless quality and idea is very good. Probably a black dress and a white bag had been perfect :) --Tuxyso (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question I would like to understand, whether this is intended just as a modern art contribution or as a scientific contribution? The file descriptions are very short and for some of the images only a file description in Estonian is given. A size scale is neither provided in the images nor in the file description, though at least some of the images appear to represent different magnifications. I understand that all images are electron microscopy images, being artifically coloured, but I don't understand the colour coding. Why is a yellow colour chosen for some trichomes while the others are coloured in green/blue/red? -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Yes, thous are SEM images that have been artificially colored (technology uses beam of electrons, not light, and therefor allows no color), but the images have no specific color coding -- only goal seems to be to distinguish the trichomes from the leaf. I would view it as both modern art and as scientific contribution. Even the author is know for both of his scientific work and from photography (example). I asked from author to add the information about the size of the structures on the images. As additional information I might point out that this series (and there where some other images as well, that I didn't included to this nomination) won the Estonian Science Photo Competition 2013. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support enough wow for me. --Ivar (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't think it is justified to feature five similar images of the same subject at once. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment What are you exactly opposing? Are the images bad or you just don't like that there's a 5 of them? And how should I choose if they are "five similar images"? Btw there where more images uploaded by Heiti, but I already choose the most different ones to show how different the trichomes can be. Kruusamägi (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I may support this nomination, if you compile the set into a single image and if appropriate scientific information is provided in the image description (scale information, instrument used, differences between the investigated samples, if any, etc.) -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Wow factor and high scientific and educational value. Jacopo Wertheriγ∂ψ=mψ 19:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I support the step, I want more good scientific pictures for Wikimedia --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose maybe "artsy", but not scientific IMO. Colorization troubles me, I don't know where is the truth, even with explanations. And colorization is not well done technically, especially on the last image. --Jebulon (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Should I withdraw this nomination and nominate thous images as one-by-one? Kruusamägi (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2014 at 16:19:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:LighthouseKiipsaate.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:LighthouseKiipsaate.jpg
Oppose Nice, OK, but "featurable" ?--Jebulon (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose hm, the main, the lighthouse, is simple to dark. The rest another random sunset image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The lighthouse seems half inclined. ArionEstar (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It seems inclined because it is inclined.--Urmas Haljaste (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose (weak) Inclined or not in real, it destroys imho the harmony of the composition. The slightly diagonal coastline is nice, but not the lighthouse. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Alchemist-hp. While it is a nice sunset image -- the focus is the lighthouse, and more detail on is needed for featured quality. JesseW (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Well I prefer the silhouette. I tried also HDR and different exposure settings but this one is definitely the best result. The lighthouse has not many details to be exposed. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Alchemist-hp + composition. I expect the lighthouse more on right than blocking the view as here. Expect more grass; now it is ending on the left bottom corner of the frame. Jee 02:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 02:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2014 at 07:40:56 (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 5 Jan 2014 at 12:19:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tallinna Niguliste kirik 22-03-2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tallinna Niguliste kirik 22-03-2013.jpg
Info St. Nicholas' Church, Tallinn, all by Ivar (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Light is excellent as usual with your shots but imho the composition is unbalanced. I guess that you would like to take the nice "onion dome" at the very left into the picture. But the problem is that the church, your main motive, is turned to the right image border and thus creates due to its right placement an unbalance. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support (weak) There still is something in the composition that is annoying me but I am not exactly sure what it is ;) Kruusamägi (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2014 at 11:37:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A5 with Frankfurt airport on the horizon - Autobahn A5 mit Flughafen Frankfurt am Horizont - 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A5 with Frankfurt airport on the horizon - Autobahn A5 mit Flughafen Frankfurt am Horizont - 02.jpg
Info Light traces of traffic: Many cars and one airplane.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2014 at 13:02:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Munich subway station Mangfallplatz.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Munich subway station Mangfallplatz.JPG
Info Munich subway station Mangfallplatz with train arriving - all by -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very nice, although the signs and the clocks are a bit overexposed.--Florian Fuchs (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment that's true, Florian. Usually the lighting in underground stations is very demanding, often being too bright and too dark at the same time. The dynamic range in need is huge. So this image forms a compromise. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment That's why I supported it anyway. Although, you might have considered creating a DRI... --Florian Fuchs (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Yes, in fact I had considered that option, but there were too many non-static elements, i.e. the train and the passengers. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment With a DRI you could have chosen certain parts from each picture. In that case e.g. the signs from a picture with a shorter exposure time and the remaining parts from the photo displayed here. --Florian Fuchs (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Unfortunately I'm still not really familiar with exposure blending and HDR techniques - sounds like a good new year's resolution ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Funny, this is my subwaystation. I live 300m from there :-) • Richard • [®] • 20:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Per Florian Fuchs, but per the author answers too...--Jebulon (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry. The picture is a bit soft to me, and the design of this station doesn't generate much of wow (this one is way more interesting), although the long exposure of the train is of course a very nice idea. --A.Savin 18:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Whatever one thinks of the station's design, I like the composition it offered. I wish the lit signs at the far end of the platform weren't so blown, but given how far they are from the camera it's a miracle we can read anything at all down there. Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Prefered the another FPC, this station is too ordinary to me and the perspective distortion is not helping, either Poco2 11:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info there's no distortion, in fact the walls are slanting. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2014 at 13:05:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:SMP May 2008-9a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:SMP May 2008-9a.jpg
Oppose I support the colored one (if issues fixed) Poco2 11:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I agree with Alchemist-hp (the world is colorful), all see the world in color, so show something in black and white makes us see in a new way, and I think that our friend Alvesgaspar trying to convey .In my little experience think the color catches our attention visually, but it distracts the eye so they do not see certain things so easily. I like this photo. Greetings to all and Happy New Year 2014 --Rjcastillo (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like b/w treats; but Here I enjoy the "real colored" textures on stonework. Jee 02:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Better this one than b&w but this one has blue CA in the silhouttes, the image is also ccw tilted. I'd support if corrected. Poco2 11:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2014 at 06:09:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Theba geminata variability.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Theba geminata variability.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2014 at 13:17:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry, no "wow" effect. Personally, I find the motive boring. It is just a snapshot of someone hiking on a mountain to me.--Florian Fuchs (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Florian Fuchs St1995 20:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support No technical problems at high-res, and I like the composition: nice vanishing-point perspective on the trail, and the contrast between this solitary (yes, others are visible in the distance if you look at it at full size) hiker, so small, in front of this massive massif is just great. So great it adequately offsets the imbalance created by that annoying rise on the right (although I'm sure there's nothing that could have been done about that). Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 16:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2014 at 13:45:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brasilia Supreme Federal Court of Brazil 2009.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brasilia Supreme Federal Court of Brazil 2009.jpg
After rev. by Colin: Better, but still per Colin. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 16:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I've reverted the noise-reduction applied by ArionEstar as it removed all the fine detail from the image. Please don't do that to other people's pictures. User:Cayambe is active on Commons and if there is noise reduction necessary (there wasn't) then I'm sure he could do it from the RAW file. The building is impressive but this photo isn't up to FP. The resolution is relatively low these days and the cleaning equipment and man on the RHS are distracting. -- Colin (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment @ Colin: Thanks for reverting the image. --Cayambe (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /ArionEstar (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2014 at 06:01:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pont de l'Amour (Aqueduc), Villeneuvette, Hérault 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pont de l'Amour (Aqueduc), Villeneuvette, Hérault 01.jpg
Neutral Very nice image, but the wow-factor is limited. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Norbert, the place is pretty and I am satisfied if I managed to make a very nice image. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2014 at 01:28:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eileen Collins photographed by Annie Leibovitz as part of the NASA Art Program.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eileen Collins photographed by Annie Leibovitz as part of the NASA Art Program.jpg
Oppose underexposed, distracting shadows. Far away to be featured for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Either dawn or dusk, so exposure is correct. Love the atmosphere. Kleuske (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Great image, and of historic significance. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Very good image of a culturally significant person taken by a culturally significant photographer. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist, + crop too tight above and below.--Jebulon (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist, shadows are too much of a distraction. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Sure, Annie Leibovitz can't handle exposure; should stick to "auto" :-). Come guys, you make fools of us. Nasa usually give us this sort of bland studio portrait and now we get real art and we can't spot it. Per Kleuske, the lighting is fantastic. She jumps out the screen in her red uniform and the eye is instantly drawn to her no-nonsense face. No wonder Nasa chose this image to publicise an exhibition of their Art program. -- Colin (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You miss the point (though the photographer is famous enough for us to consider this work in the "Artwork" category to be honest). You agree with Alchemist that Leibovitz underexposed this picture? Are you now saying this is "crap"? -- Colin (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Colin's arguments let my cold like a piece if ice. I don't care about who is Anne Leibovitz, with all due respect. "You make fool of us" is not acceptable. I have the right to dislike the work of a sacred cow, and I have the right to write my disagreement here. To me, this picture is full of flaws, regarding our usual criteria. Thank you and happy new year.--Jebulon (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1. Agree full to Jebulon. A happy new year for all. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the Internet makes you brave enough to ridicule a pro portrait photographer for not being able to expose or crop her pictures properly, then you should have thick enough skin to take what reaction you get. Yes you are more than entitled to your opinion and to stand by it. I agree there are no sacred cows and even pros take bad or mediocre pictures at times. Review, discuss, challenge, think. If you just want to vote and run away, then the unwatch button is up the top-right. And, yes, a happy new year to you to! :-) Colin (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not ridicule anybody nor anything. Are you suggesting I am a coward ? I'm afraid you are going a bit too far, dude. If the Internet makes you brave enough to (try to, without any success) ridicule me as an amateur photographer, feel free. No offense: I am an amateur photographer. (Not exactly the same meaning in french, less pejorative). If you are soooo politicaly correct to think that any work, because of made by a well known photographer, is obviously good, feel free too. I agree: think. Your first comment, dear Colin, made me have a strong reaction because you say, in other words: 1) this picture is good, because of made by Anne Leibovitz, therefore, shut up. 2) who are you, poor insect, to contest the Nasa choice for its Art program. And you suggest me to "think" ? "Think" yourself too, by yourself. And many thanks for your wishes.--Jebulon (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jebulon, I haven't said anything about "amateur photographer" (that's Kleuske below), and your points 1 and 2 are not what I said at all. There is a difference between commenting on a work to say what you like and dislike, and commenting to say the photographer made a basic technical mistake like "underexposed". You might not like the lighting effect here, and you may hate it enough to oppose based on your own tastes, but you claim Anne Leibovitz, one of the worlds top portrait photographers has made a basic mistake. And also, when picking the which image to use from her shots, she picked the faulty one. And then NASA chose to exhibit this faulty photo and to lead with it in their publicity. This is all too much. I suggest you stop digging and consider the oppose was badly worded. By all means say it is too dark for you or that you don't like the lighting effect, but please, "underexposed"? -- Colin (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for me, I think that I've nothing more to say. I've given my opinion, arguments and vote, and have nothing to change. I think it is time for an EoD, sorry--Jebulon (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may be time for a DR, sadly, as the copyright status of the image has been questioned. -- Colin (talk) 07:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't see any DR? Jee 07:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Village Pump "NASA art program" -- Colin (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm; I noticed that discussion earlier, but didn't notice the "update" by Russavia. Something wrong as I doubted below. Jee 14:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be sorry if this picture should be deleted, even if I voted "oppose" here. But I'm afraid...--Jebulon (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frankly, I just looked at the image, which struck me as brilliant, the fact that it's Leibowitz escaped me. Lemmesee... Internationally acclaimed photographer on the one hand, amateur photographer and Commons regular on the other... Now who am going to take seriously on this... Kleuske (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"She jumps out the screen in her red uniform" - except its orange and you should be able to tell that from the photo. Rmhermen (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Sorry, I do agree with Colin on this one. This is far more interesting than the bland portraits they usually take. This is an artistic portrait and you can tell that it isn't accidental that the photo is 'underexposed' in parts. Targeted lighting is a completely legitimate method and I think it's been executed very well in this case - the only question is whether you like it or not. As with any art, we're all entitled to make our own mind up about that, but the photo does not contain major flaws in any objective sense. Diliff (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I checked the file history, visits the source pages several times. Personally I don't like full body portrait; so prefer a half body one similar (but a bit more generous crop on bottom) to one in Flickr. But showing the full costumes may have more EV.
The "half body" is just a crop someone made. The actual portrait has the same vertical size but is actually a bit wider. See this photo of it. It is interesting the white balance appears different in that photo and the colours more saturated -- but it is hard to tell what is right. Another photo from that set has Collins with her helmet off and two examples here and here look different to this. I prefer a less sickly coloured sky. -- Colin (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Notable work by a noted artist with historic significance. Targeted lighting to feature the upper body and face works great as a deliberate style, even if it's not to everyone's taste. -- KTC (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: no image available - Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[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 8 Jan 2014 at 12:45:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:More London Office Development at Dusk, London, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:More London Office Development at Dusk, London, UK - Diliff.jpg
Support Very good work. The people on the right look weirdly grey, but it's not distracting. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 15:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Very good scene and detail, and the brickwork at ground level show no parallax problems, which is hard to achieve. However, there's a glitch in the sky at the top (above the Shard). Of the three blurry people on the RHS, the middle one looks like a solid grey smudge has been applied rather than the result of overlapping frames or motion blur. I'd be very tempted to see what content-aware-fill can do with that, or see if you can rescue something from an individual frame. -- Colin (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I wasn't that happy with the grey smudge person but I was too far along the post-processing to go back to the originals as it was quite a lot of work (so many minor adjustments here and there as Photomatix doesn't provide consistent output for each frame - ie if one frame has a lot of sky, it tends to process it very differently to a frame with a lot of bright lights) so I spent quite a bit of work re-balancing it both before and after the stitching, which may have introduced the weird glitch next to the shard... Content-aware fill just makes a hash of fixing the person on the right side though. I don't think the image would suffer too much to just crop that section out completely. The smudge in the sky next to the Shard is easily fixed. Just need to decide whether to leave to start from scratch again or crop. ;-) Diliff (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You do the HDR on each frame before stitching? I can see how a tone-mapping program might produce wildly different output for each frame. Is the alignment not good enough to process HDR after stitching? -- Colin (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I typically do process each frame individually prior to stitching. I can see how it might be useful to stitch first and then tone-map afterwards, but you lose the ability to remove ghosts using Photomatix if you let the pano stitcher (Hugin, PTGui etc) do the HDR-file creation. The ghost situation would probably be far worse if I hadn't eliminated them prior to stitching with Photomatix. Once the HDR file has been combined with PTGui, they'd be one big swirly smudge... Swings and roundabouts I suppose. I'll try the stitch-first-then-tone-map method on this scene and confirm. Diliff (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems to have been a success. I've uploaded the new version over the top of the old. Hopefully it's not introduced some new glitches that I've somehow missed. Diliff (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It is tilted ccw, would support if fixed Poco2 11:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, this should have been fixed yesterday but I just realised I had uploaded the old version straight over the top of it, rather than the version with the corrected verticals. Should be corrected now. Diliff (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Love that pissy-colored light in the buildings. Makes me feel sorry for the people stuck working there so late that we can see them in the windows at their desks. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2014 at 12:51:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Thorny oyster.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thorny oyster.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 06:13:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Geranium nimbus.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Geranium nimbus.JPG
Strong oppose Background is distracting, picture is rather pixellated, and most importantly, the flower and stem is blur. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 10:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2014 at 20:37:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Too much noise, sorry. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 20:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice shot. Noise is fine at night (correct me if wrong, I'm inexperienced in this), but this is too much. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 08:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It's just some firework. It's not outstanding (hardly any colour) and there is no other subject in the photo to make it interesting. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 12:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Julian H. -- Colin (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2014 at 10:56:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Amanecer en Huitzila, México, 2013-10-10, DD 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amanecer en Huitzila, México, 2013-10-10, DD 01.JPG
Info Sunrise landscape near the village of Huitzila, Morelos, Mexico. All by me, Poco2 10:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Good job photographically, but in the end it's too ordinary a sunset over too undistinguished a landscape. Just doesn't do it for me, sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose: In agreement with Daniel Case. Pretty, but not enough to meet the sunrise/sunset bar. Julia\talk 11:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2014 at 10:08:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Avenue des Champs-Elysées from top of Arc de triomphe Paris.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Avenue des Champs-Elysées from top of Arc de triomphe Paris.jpg
C'est ton droit le plus strict, mais c'est un coup de poignard dans le dos d'une inélégance crasse.--Jebulon (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support And again I change, I'm not an inelegant murderer... --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:30, 04 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Thank you very much Paris 16 for surprising and unexpected nomination !--Jebulon (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose nice view, but it's oversatured and has obvious lacking sharpness, even QI is questionable in this case --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Nice shot, but lacking some sharpness. I wouldn't request too much of this, since it's hard to get it so nicely sharp, but sharpening it a little more would be good. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 16:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some sharpening added. One can read the name of the subway station, and count the number of cobblestones on the ground. Please see annotation. --Jebulon (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I don't see any difference (sorry if I'm blunt here). But I do find that viewing it on the file's description page is good. :) (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 10:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry I don't understand your comment. A cache purge problem ?--Jebulon (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, unfortunately it does not seem so. I opened 2 tabs, with 1 tab containing the full size of the older version and the other the full size of the newer version. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 14:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose (weak)Looks as if the farer part of Champs-Elysées is in shadow (see note). Is it due to a cloud? For me the photo has a lot of Wow in thumbnail size but is somehow distappointing in full size. Sharpness of the foreground is good, but the last third is in shadows / dust and looks imho unfavourable and lacks sharpness. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the shadow is due to a cloud. The avenue is almost 2 km long, and it is impossible to have an uniform light.--Jebulon (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But I guess the weather in Paris is much better than in most parts of Germany :) Watching for a moment where parts of the Champs-Elysées are not under a cloud should be no big deal and makes for me the difference between FP and non-FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amen. (it is raining a lot because of a storm during the time I write this. No way for me to take another picture tonight, sorry. And october was very nice in Bavaria, far much better than in Paris (see following pictures, coming soon)...--Jebulon (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Having looked at it at 100%, unfortunately, I have to agree with Wladyslaw. --A.Savin 18:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose: I'm normally very pleased with Jebulon's work, but Wladyslaw is right, here the quality is not good, even with the resolution being fairly low for such a "large" view. A reproducible shot, no reason not to anticipate a better photograph. Julia\talk 11:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Reproducible shot" ? I'm a Parisian, and it was my first time at the top of the Aec de Triomphe ! And who will pay for the ticket ? Maybe I'll ask Wikimedia France for a support ! --Jebulon (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't speak for Wikimedia France, but it's the kind of thing that Wikimedia UK would give "microgrants" for. You should ask your chapter! :) Julia\talk 20:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral +:view, -:lack of sharpness Poco2 11:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral +:view and color, -:lack of sharpness --Claus (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2014 at 00:28:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Crystal Mill, Colorado.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crystal Mill, Colorado.jpg
Info created by John Fowler - uploaded by PDTillman - nominated by Mono -- —Mono 00:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- —Mono 00:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Nice composition, good light and interesting motif. Who dares to enter the hut? Seems to be a fragile construction :-). But too much is blurred due to long time exposure and inappropriate aperture (f/5.6 is not suitable for a landscape image with foreground). The blurr is OK for the water, but almost all leaves, parts of the hut and mountains are blurred too. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice place and composition, but oversaturated and not sharp enough. Some parts are too strongly denoised IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support (weak) I fully agree with Norbert, f5.6 was not a good choice but the compsosition and light justifys my pro vote. To the sharpness: IMHO sharpness has to be assessed with regard to the resolution. In the case here we have full size D800 resoultion. If you zoom out 2-3 steps in Firefox the water part and the house are incredible sharp. For me it is a bad habit to scale down and make an image "sharper" rather to leave it at sensor resolution. Although a photo looks sharper after downscaling you loose nonetheless information. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I like this picture very much. Especially, the light is amazing. However, as previously mentioned there are too many blurred parts due to the badly chosen aperture. --Florian Fuchs (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2014 at 22:30:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dead Cypress at 17-Mile Drive 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dead Cypress at 17-Mile Drive 2013.jpg
hehe, not only a dead cypress :) You also have rocks, sea, sky and probably an intersting composition... --Tuxyso (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose Very nice compo, but imo the light isn't favorable. Cypress is almost entirely in the shadow. --Ivar (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support The tree could be slightly brighter, but great shot nevertheless. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2014 at 00:47:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Donauuferbahn-Oberleitung-DSC 5892w.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Donauuferbahn-Oberleitung-DSC 5892w.jpg
Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- P e z i (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice silhouette, nice sunset but ... I have no idea what I'm looking at and why it's important. So I look at the image and see it's supposed to have something to do with a rail line in Vienna. OK, what does it tell me about the rail line that serves to illustrate useful information that might be imparted in an encyclopedic article (something which this image is currently not used for at all)? Also, frankly, as an image itself it's just too cluttered, between the stuff on the tower and the wires running across it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This is the Overhead_line#Tensioning, a very essential part of a power cable. I think the structures and details are even better visible in this silhoutte than in an ordinary picture. It's not in use because I've uploaded it recently. (And generally I think there is a trade off between wow and encyclopedic value.) --P e z i (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose somewhat per Daniel Case. It doesn't look impressively beautiful to me. The composition is ok for an encyclopedic shot but nothing special artistically and I think that would be the only basis on which this could work as fp. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 13:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Leitoxx 15:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2014 at 17:29:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fernanda Lima in 2012.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fernanda Lima in 2012.jpg
Comment portrait is really nice, but the background has many dust spots and signs of posterization. --Ivar (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2014 at 07:27:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I don't think the perspective works, a less distorted view from farther away would be desirable imo. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 09:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment You may be right, but farther away there is a lot of water.--XRaytalk 09:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Unusual perspective but featurable for me. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment You may be right, but not are aware of the geo-location. A better from your (and maybe my) viewing position requires that one would have to stand in water. The theoretical ideals are not always available.--XRaytalk 14:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eine Unmöglichkeit es nicht besser abbilden zu können rechtfertigt nicht zugleich eine Auszeichnung als ein FP-Bild. Ich würde dann eher sagen: Pech gehabt. Und wieso nicht aus einem Boot auch photographieren!? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's right. I respect your decision to oppose. (I like the image and the perspective too. The perspective emphasizes the size of the statue. That's why I've nominated it.)--XRaytalk 16:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2014 at 13:05:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The violent youth of solar proxies.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The violent youth of solar proxies.jpg
Info created by IAU/E. Guinan, uploaded/nominated by me St1995 13:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2014 at 21:06:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:St Olaf's church, Tallinn, July 2008.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Olaf's church, Tallinn, July 2008.jpg
Oppose Nothing exceptional. Most of the church is not visible. -- Colin (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment "Most of the church is not visible" -- is that a joke? Most of it IS visible and as the church is completely surrounded with buildings, then there is no way to get the rest of the church to the image without some heavy demolition. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See other image that is larger than that, and realizes that it is surrounded by buildings and, indeed, it is possible to see the entire top of it. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 19:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2014 at 10:00:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gustave Le Gray, Pavillon Mollien, 1859.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gustave Le Gray, Pavillon Mollien, 1859.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 01:58:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chethi poo in Thiruvananthapuram, India.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chethi poo in Thiruvananthapuram, India.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2014 at 11:04:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-098.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-098.jpg
Oppose Per all the other aboves. I think I know what you were thinking, but it's hard to tell. Daniel Case (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2014 at 20:13:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Endla looduskaitseala õhtupoolikul.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Endla looduskaitseala õhtupoolikul.jpg
Info created by Siim Kannistu - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Significant CA (red/green). Should be possible to remove. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Request please add a geo-tag and correct the visible CA. The perspective distortion is borderline, but for a landscape image "ok". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry but despite traces of over sharpening, not especially sharp and relatively low level of detail in large parts of the image. I am also not convinced by the light / composition, with darker foreground. Heavy colour noise in the water.--ArildV (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2014 at 12:34:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:World Trade Center, New York City - aerial view (March 2001).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:World Trade Center, New York City - aerial view (March 2001).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2014 at 15:14:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral I find it a nice shot, since I'm not a American (if not I will oppose!), but I find that there is slight insufficient of wow. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 15:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral I like the idea but feel the "Route 66" logo is placed too high up the image. This would work better if the camera were placed closer to the logo and a wider lens were used. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Per KoH, but I think we could get closer to a support just by cropping all that dead space at the bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for review! IMO it's better to have look to the other images than this one. --XRaytalk 13:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 15:36:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Western massasauga rattlesnake.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Western massasauga rattlesnake.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2014 at 11:24:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment If the image is already FP, then this nomination no more has reason to continue open. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 22:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Extended content
? Please don't close nominations, if you don't know the rules. Jee 05:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From above: Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.) There are less than 10 supports at the moment. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 14:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2014 at 13:04:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:VISTA's infrared view of the Lagoon Nebula (Messier 8).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:VISTA's infrared view of the Lagoon Nebula (Messier 8).jpg
Info created by ESO/VVV, uploaded/nominated by me St1995 13:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2014 at 15:33:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pakri tuletorn1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pakri tuletorn1.jpg
Info Pakri cliff, all by Ivar (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Nice light but very empty composition and depressing-looking subject at that time of year. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 08:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep the FP-tag is and was simply a time stamp in the past. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Can you clarify? I'm not quite sure what you mean from what you said. —Mono 20:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take a look here. Do you like still and continuously renominate all our FP images? This image was excellent in 2005, not today. The 2005 award says all. Please think about it. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I agree with Alchemist-hp. Imo we should stop delisting older FPs. These had been promoted for a reason, and we should honor and thus historicize that decision, especially if we can't agree with it anymore only due to technological developments. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I follow Alchemist-hp's und Martin's arguments. I don't see any sense in delisting old FPs for the reason that sensor technology was not as advanced as today. Will 16 MPs be enough in three years? --Tuxyso (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep As Alchemist; but only in cases like this, where the resolution would be the problem nowadays. --P e z i (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delist This is a tired debate and folk who don't believe in delist should seek to abolish it by consensus rather than disrupt the voting. Is this among the finest on Commons? No. Look at the Category:Monument Valley. When there are dozens of better pictures than this, then something is wrong if this remains featured. The only people who care whether a photo was featured in 2005 are the photographer, the nominator and perhaps a few voters. Nobody else gives a damn and would prefer if FP isn't cluttered by images kept out of vanity. Using the "sensor progress" argument is a fallacy, all that counts is what people take and upload to Commons. If the average photo that just anyone can take and upload is so much better than an FP like this, then who are we kidding? -- Colin (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Hard words. I didn't want to 'tire' anybody or 'disrupt' anything... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But it is tiring to keep these debates for every delist. While we have a delist mechanism, votes here should be done in the spirit of that: that FP is the best on Commons, rather than a record of what was best at some point in time. This image is now among the worst on Commons. Please everyone take these other arguments to the talk FP page and debate there otherwise just abstain from delist voting altogether. -- Colin (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delist Not convinced by the composition (overlap of foreground and background subject), slightly tilted, quality insufficient (independent of the year it was taken, since better resolution is possible with relatively inexpensive film equipment). — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 17:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Julian (and others), can a non-appealing composition be an argument for delisting an FP? OK, you have other quality arguments, but imho delisting an image only because one does not like the composition is not sufficient. During an FP process you will always find reviewers who do not like one or another aspect (like composition, crop, motive). But as stated on the FP page, delisting is done because [o]ver time, featured picture standards change. The compositional standards have not massively changed but mainly the quality standards (over-exposure, resolution, advances in image editing software). Thus compositional aspects cannot serve as only delist reason. Delisting cannot be understood as second regular review just with different reviewers compared to the original nomination. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this case, that doesn't matter because the other arguments are sufficient imo. In general, I don't know, but if (a significant amount of) people complain about a composition in a delisting-nom and didn't in the original nom, that tells me that the standards have changed, purely by observation. If that's not the case, it won't be delisted for that reason. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 16:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2014 at 22:36:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Temporary oppose. Could you please correct the file name and the description? It is categorized in Embden geese, but it is described as an Anser cygnoides—see Anser cygnoides and w:Swan Goose to compare. --Myrabella (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forwarded to MPF for opinion. Jee 04:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 10:35:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
InfoChristian sent me an email with two ideas for improvement: I have now modified WB (slightly warmer) and reduced overall brightness and increased whites. IMHO the image has been improved due to this changes. I look forward to further comments. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I'd like it even more, if some of the left part would be cropped ;) But it's a FP nevertheless. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The complete pano was MUCH longer at the left side. I cropped it that way in order to start the composition with increasing mountains. --Tuxyso (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 13:57:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Apis melifera on Hypericum perforatum-DSC 5123w.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Apis melifera on Hypericum perforatum-DSC 5123w.jpg
Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- P e z i (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Background is distracting and the bee isn't fully sharp. Kruusamägi (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I like the composition, but unfortunately, the head, and the left eye in particular, is out of focus. --Sputniktilt (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose Picture and subject is out of focus, distracting background. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 15:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 15:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2014 at 01:37:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2014 at 01:37:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Ramblin Wreck leads the Georgia Tech football team in their Homecoming game..jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Ramblin Wreck leads the Georgia Tech football team in their Homecoming game..jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2014 at 16:43:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Amboy (California, USA) -- 2012 -- 4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amboy (California, USA) -- 2012 -- 4.jpg
Comment Nice scene, but I feel the image is too dark. The whites should be actually white, i.e. at a level where they would blow out if pushed any further. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May be that's a good point. Thanks for the advice. I improved the white color.--XRaytalk 07:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2014 at 21:49:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Munich subway station Candidplatz.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Munich subway station Candidplatz.JPG
Info Now I'd also like to nominate the second of my two recent (imo and hopefully also in your eyes) FP-worthy images of Munich subway stations, with this one being the way more friendly and colorful candidate. All by -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Please take a photo of the subway station Großhadern too (U 6); it shows painted stratums. --Schnobby (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support HDR technique for preserving the details of the hightlights had been a good choice here (e.g. at the clocks). Nonetheless a great shot. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I think, this one is too similar to the other subway station photo, which you nominated below and which is is likely to become a featured image based on the already given votes. One featured image of this kind/type is enough considering the FCP critera. Also the mirror image of the photographer on the glass plate in the front is a bit disturbing. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I agree with Diliff, Colin and their arguments in the discussion above. As this is an image of a different station constructed with a totally different design, I think both images could get a promotion to FP. As far as the reflection is concerned, see below. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Because of the reflection of the photographer and his tripod.--Jebulon (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Well, I've come to consider this as more a feature than a bug: A clandestine portrait of the artist as a young fool, going on a photo spree late on Christmas Eve, hoping everybody else would stay home... ;-) Honestly: Even a polarizer doesn't help here, and as for photoshopping the reflection: I simply don't feel competent enough to work on that, considering all the different lights and shadows besides my own. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2014 at 17:50:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Царський курган 007.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Царський курган 007.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2014 at 12:53:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:7 More London Riverside at dusk, London, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:7 More London Riverside at dusk, London, UK - Diliff.jpg
Oppose too much glass, too much blue, the composition is so so.--Claus (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please, tell me how I can take a photo of a glass building while reducing how much glass is shown. ;-) As for blue, well it was taken during the blue hour... Sorry for upsetting your compositional sensibilities. Diliff (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Don't see anything wrong with the photo. --(✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 14:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Strange building and weird reflections. The building looks aglow with yellow light. Good level of detail. -- Colin (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Very nice shot, but the other photo of the same object below is better and the idea behind FP is to feature the best photo, not the best and the second best. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other photo below is not of the same object. In that image, which is a panoramic view of the complex, the building is mostly obscured and you certainly cannot see it in any detail. The two photos are sufficiently different. Diliff (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well both photos are in same wiki category and show buildings of the same building complex. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NorbertNagel, we often have several featured pictures of the same subject, sometimes even the same angle of view. This view and the other are different enough that many would not even suspect they were the same building. So please strike your invalid reason for oppose. -- Colin (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand, that we have different opinions on this topic and that it may have happened earlier that several pictures of the same subject have been featured, but this does not mean that my position is invalid. I ask you to respect my opinion as I respect yours. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are suggesting this is how FP should operate, which is a question beyond this individual picture. The idea behind FP is to select the best pictures on Commons, not the one best picture. I can respect differing views on one picture but if you want a different FP from the rest, then you need to get consensus for that change. I can also respect your view of how FP should work, but fundamental shifts such as this may be considered disruptive change is suggested by voting at the image-level. You've chosen a rather bad example to make your point. We do often oppose or go neutral on images that are too similar to others (especially recent) but never because it is the same building, even from the other side. -- Colin (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Norbert, so if there is already one FP of an entire category, by your logic there should not be a FP of any other photo in that category? In this case, the category is for an office complex, and in that complex there are many notable buildings, each deserving of a FP IMO. As the two images are both clearly a different subject and a different object, the category they are in is mostly irrelevant. All it does is suggest that perhaps we could create more specific categories for each subject. That is not the fault of the image(s). Diliff (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
weak oppose: First: I've seldom seen such brilliant combination of HDR and stitching technique - probably the highest quality shots of that type we have on Commons - you master the processing of those images in a nearly perfect way. The same with the image here: The quality is far beyond QI average - I've only discoverd a small artefacts from stitching / fusing (see note). The reason why I oppose anyway is mainly due to compositional aspects: the different widths of the framing building at the left and right, diagonal elements on the floor starting amid the image and not going through the complete picture, the building at the right background distracts the symmetry, an unclean border of the right framing building and finally the different types of surfaces at the left and right which also distract the symmetry. All in all: This centered shot can for me only work with perfect symmetry which is distracted by several elements. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I agree with you that it could possibly be improved by centring the image so that the widths of the two surrounding buildings are equal. I left it slightly off-centre because I thought the tree would seem cropped otherwise but I concede it might be better. I'm happy to upload a centred image over the top of this one. I assume this is not enough to convince you to support however. I did take a similar panorama of this building another evening but I wasn't as pleased with the lighting as it was too dark. It may solve some your compositional issues. The view is from much closer so the building is more distorted, but the distracting foreground elements are minimised. What are your thoughts? Not as a potential FP candidate, but in terms of the composition. Diliff (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer the closer view. I am personally a great fan of close shots of buildings because the lines and architecture are accentuated well there. See for example this shot I've photographed with a T&S optic. To your closer image: It is much better that the pyramid-shaped building at the right is hidden. But there are still distracting elements at the left and right. I would crop them out - see my proposal. But cropping is always a matter of personal taste. But you are right, light is better on the nomination. --Tuxyso (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will see if I can revisit (for a third time!) and improve on both images with good composition and good lighting. As you say, cropping is a matter of personal taste. I try to 'let them breathe' (as Richard Bartz mentioned on another nomination) but sometimes it's just not possible. In this case, the building is cropped either by the framing or by the buildings - you can take your pick about which. ;-) Diliff (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2014 at 12:37:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Weak oppose I would have loved this photo to be featured...but sorry, the background, I have to say, is quite distracting. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 15:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I think it's mainly a little dark, which should be easy to fix. Not sure whether or not the background is still distracting if it's brightened. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 15:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually don't mind the darkness, even though it does affect the picture a little bit. As for the background, I've tried different brightness levels on my computer, but none works. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 15:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2014 at 09:30:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:D9-40C.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:D9-40C.jpg
Oppose Also very strong CAs, the perspective in unfortunate, the locomotive is too close to the left border of the photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2014 at 14:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Isabelle Faust B 09-2012.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Isabelle Faust B 09-2012.jpg/2
StrongOppose Terrible flash (shiny forehead, cheeks), terrible colour (jaundiced middle, flushed side), terrible clothes choice (for portrait clothes need to not grab the attention), poor pose (looking away), unfortunate facial expression, distracting background (tubes coming out of her back, into her neck), unflattering lighting direction (highlighting pores and facial hair), strange crop (you've only kept the LHS because she is looking there). The camera did its job but everything else is how not to make a good, never mind flattering, portrait of a lady. -- Colin (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow! Probably the most flattering feedback on my work ever. Just don't forget to open an RfD, as terrible photos are out of Commons scope, as you might know. --A.Savin 15:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps a courtesy deletion would be best :-). -- Colin (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I am sorry. Although Colin put his decline rather harshly, I totally agree with his findings. --Florian Fuchs (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Support After the well-balanced feedback at the beginning, now my extreme opinion: I'm not so much in the portrait business and the slightly different skin colours in the face are a bit surprising (make-up?), but I would consider this as an clearly above average portrait of a concentrated looking musician with instrument. Light and pose are good considering that this is not a studio shot. The background and the clothes are not disturbing to me. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. Yellow nose is disturbing :( --Kikos (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
weak oppose Cannot follow Colin's severe assessment. I like the expression of face and body - it looks rather concentrated. Two aspects are disturbing: the steel banister at the left side in the background and the strong highlights on the face resulting from sweat + flashlight. IMHO some basic standard retouching work (skin) should be done before uploading female portrayals to Commons. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Needless offensive, assessment of Colin.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We find it easy to pick fault in some remote professional's donation (e.g., although well done and looking fantastic on preview, one of the eyes isn't completely in focus at 36MP peeping or similar fussiness). Here, because Savin is one of us, we were too kind last nomination by saying nothing and he has misinterpreted that when renominating. Or perhaps we are looking to make allowances. Why? Nobody makes allowances for one of our holiday landscape/building snaps being the wrong light or bad weather? I have a whole gallery of Scandinavian professional portraits, some candid like this and some posed, and many of them could be FP perhaps and many far better than this. Do a Google Image search on the "Isabelle Faust" to see how a good portrait of her (posed or playing) might look. Then come back here and consider if "very good in every respect" is a reasonable conclusion and whether my comments are harsh but fair. FP is supposed to be our very best and make us go wow with appreciation. -- Colin (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CommentI do not doubt your honesty! Your choice of words is a bit disappointing. End of discussion?--Famberhorst (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank-you. I accept some may prefer I mince my words. Sorry to A.Savin if feeling bruised. Stand by my opinions, though. Better luck next time. -- Colin (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Just all wrong for an FP—bad crop, shadow to side too distracting, composition is off, and why use landscape orientation when portrait was so obviously called for? Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment IMHO, I find that Colin's thorough (albeit harsh) assessment is fine. Through all this comments, photographers can learn more, understand their mistakes and thus improve their photography. If everyone is so "kind" and "considerate", how is a photographer going to improve, and how are we going to learn from one another? (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 04:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2014 at 17:46:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Klodzko Ratusz wieczor.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Klodzko Ratusz wieczor.jpg
Comment Some issues with the sky (notes added). --Ivar (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done Spot and light banding corrected. -- Jar.ciurus 20:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per {{u|Iifar|Ivar}.Support I think I was too picky earlier on. Now I find it OK. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 04:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Wrong WB (it is blueish), perspective correction on the left improvable. I'd support if corrected Poco2 11:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Better now: SupportPoco2 18:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done Those background buildings and the town hall were just a little tilted. I've corrected it. The picture has been warmed a little. -- Jar.ciurus 20:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2014 at 12:44:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Matsalu metsas.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Matsalu metsas.jpg
Comment There in no perspective issue. The hut is actually crooked. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support Awesome shot. Sharp, great colours and composition. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 14:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral I like the atmosphere and image composition, on the other hand there are substantial blurred areas around the house (mainly in the tree regions).-- Norbert Nagel (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Excellent picture. Impressed with reed roof and forged parts. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Composition is ok but there are too much blurred areas in the trees -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This blur is actually intentional and it the guidelines it is called "motion blur". the branches are moving in wind. If all the branches in the background were sharp there would not be enough contrast between the hut and the trees. I actually would prefer even more blurred background but it was quite windy and with longer exposure time I would have had some overall blurriness due to camera shake. I nominated this picture because I was encouraged by the success of another picture of mine also with large blurred areas that was unanimously elected to featured picture. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The blur is also to make the hut stand out, or it would just blend in with the background if everything is equally sharp.
Support (weak) I consider it an interesting approach to leave background blurred like that, but at the same time I am not so much convinced about the overall wow effect of this image. You have some really nice shoots from Matsalu, ones that I consider even better than this. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2014 at 18:44:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Namikawa Sosuke - Bowl with Chrysanthemum Blossoms - Walters 44546 - Profile.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Namikawa Sosuke - Bowl with Chrysanthemum Blossoms - Walters 44546 - Profile.jpg
Neutral Nice and delicate, but disappointgly small.--Jebulon (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose A very nice object indeed. But the overexposed part is too large for me. Also per Jebulon. --Cayambe (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Cayambe + die DOF + sharpness can be also better. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Like many Walters Art Museum donated images, this is professionally taken but miserly in size. The subject poses a lighting problem with reflective silver and translucent colour. I think the degree of "blown" silver highlights is acceptable but would prefer perhaps a little more silver rather than the quick change to dark shadow for the metal. If it was larger, I'd support, but the subject itself is rather small. -- Colin (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2014 at 22:01:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sinemorec - rocks.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sinemorec - rocks.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2014 at 15:34:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Crëusc de Secëda d inviern.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crëusc de Secëda d inviern.jpg
Support Imo the sun (even if overexposed) makes a dramatic counterpoit to the nude body of Christ in the ice -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support prefer this one; the sun is already big enough --P e z i (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I prefer this one.--Alurín (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral With such a bright sun, I would have expected the snow to be much more white, not blueish-gray. Especially in the foreground and along the ridge top. Lupo 16:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Snow is never white, specially in a backlit photo. Thanks for the note --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't say it should be white, but whiter. I think the foreground was underexposed because of the bright sun. Lupo 19:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not underexposed, as you can see it still fits in the histogram, but it is a lot darker compared to the sun - I don't like HDR btw or at least I'm not comfortable with it ;-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Prefer this tighter crop and hence more simplistic composition. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 17:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Strange artifacts to the left of the cross (halo & shade, both even visible in the thumbnail), halos to the left and at the top of the foreground fence poles. These artifacts do not exist in the original nomination. Lupo 21:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done New version, thanks, you're right, oversharpening is certainly (one of) my biggest default. --Christian Ferrer 08:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, to my eyes, nothing much has changed. The fence poles still have the halos left & right, and the cross a slightly less noticeable halo on the left. However, I've given this image some more thoughts, and I must say I'd even oppose this crop being featured if these halos were completely fixed. First, I do think there's something wrong with the snow; see my comment on the original nomination. But more importantly, I feel that by cutting off the cliff at the bottom right you lose the vertical dimension. It's nearly as if the cross stood on some unremarkable hill. Lupo 16:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Too bad the snow is trampled. A nice fluffy snow cover would make it perfect. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
why, lots of people go up to the crucifix, that's why there is a fence --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2014 at 20:24:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bois des Aresquiers, Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault 06.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bois des Aresquiers, Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault 06.jpg
Support Nice composition with the dirt path leading our eyes to the trees, which are well-balanced with the water and sky on the right. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice but no wow for me. -- Colin (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It would be a great background for something but this something is missing here. It would be a great landscape photo if the trees were fully in frame--Urmas Haljaste (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like the calmness coming from this photo. Well composed, nice colors with high technical quality. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose no wow: a random landscape view + the sky is a bit overexposed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment no wow, ok if you want, it's your point of view but overexposed certainly not. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:15, 05 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2014 at 23:16:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Guildhall, City of London - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Guildhall, City of London - Diliff.jpg
Support Very good! Technically challenging, interesting motive, outstanding quality / sharpness. Question What pano hardware do you use? --Tuxyso (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd rather find out the pano SW... Poco2 13:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's PtGui as you can see in the image description. Also Hugin is very good for multi-raw panos (leaving the stability issues aside) - I've compared the results of both programmes with different multi row shots. The key questions with Diliff's panos is which hardware (surely not computer hardware but camera hardware) is used. Pano head? Nodal point adapter? Special shooting technique? Would be interesting to hear something about that. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed it is PTGui (and Photomatix) on the software side. I use a Nodal Ninja 3 panoramic head to avoid parallax issues. Diliff (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Another hammer shot Poco2 13:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 11:40:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:PM08-13 img03 Kloster Lehnin.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:PM08-13 img03 Kloster Lehnin.jpg
I prefer this version, maybe you can work again a bit on the WB on this last one, but the view is more captivating IMO--Christian Ferrer 23:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2014 at 16:39:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Penguin in Antarctica jumping out of the water.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Penguin in Antarctica jumping out of the water.jpg
Support Thanks Ivar. I personally find this an fantastic shot, and it would be a pity if not promote to FP. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 04:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2014 at 18:37:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Shipka pass (Шипка) - Monument of the Russian emperor Alexander II (by Pudelek) 2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shipka pass (Шипка) - Monument of the Russian emperor Alexander II (by Pudelek) 2.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2014 at 05:44:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Olympic Parc Munich at sunset.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Olympic Parc Munich at sunset.JPG
Oppose Nice sunset, but main object not visible. -- -donald- (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nothing really *that* fantastic. Foreground is a bad one, and the sun is all the way to the left and barely visible or obvious. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 10:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Alright – I wanted to get some reactions and see if a silhouette of the park could work. Obviously it doesn't. Thanks anyways! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2014 at 11:47:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cetorhinus maximus by greg skomal.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cetorhinus maximus by greg skomal.JPG
Info created by Greg Skomal (NOAA)- uploaded by Yzx - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The photo looks a bit unsharp because has a bit of noise. it is fixable? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 19:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2014 at 21:57:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eurema tominia tominia.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eurema tominia tominia.JPG
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, invalid nomination; page created on 03:27, 2 January 2014; added now in between the nominations. Jee 13:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This page is created with {{FPCnom}}. I didn't see a relevant documentation anywhere. It seems the FPCBot closes such nominations earlier. Anyway it is not a good practice to add nomination in between the list. Jee 15:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2014 at 22:37:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hong Kong skyscrapers in a night of typhoon.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hong Kong skyscrapers in a night of typhoon.jpg
548
509
57
137
1999
1328
Antenna looks stronger on other photos. Is it actually that hidden or is this an editing problem? — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)
weak Oppose Unbalanced. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC) please avoid using not-bot-friendly templates. Only "support" or " oppose", and write the comment. Thank you .--Jebulon (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Thought about this for some time now. Thanks for fixing the problem I mentioned, looks good now. But I'm worried about the banding in the sky and generally not a fan of these full-nighttime photos compared to a photo with a little bit of light from the sky. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 10:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2014 at 17:47:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lijiang Yunnan Old-town-02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lijiang Yunnan Old-town-02.jpg
Oppose Good quality. The water wheel is cropped very tightly though, especially on the bottom. Additionally, the light highlights the background and only shows small parts of the foreground. I therefore think the composition doesn't meet FP standards. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 18:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Julian is right with the light, but this time it creates an interesting contrast. The composition is very appealing. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2014 at 17:36:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Riwaq at Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Riwaq at Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque.jpg
InfoRiwaq at Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque, Muscat, Oman c/u/n by • Richard • [®] • 17:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support interesting and valuable view, good impression of depth, harmonic image, very good quality, pleasant transition of light and shadow --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that was more an exclamation than a question !!! I'm not sure I could save enough tough buy this... Should we create a special category for "E.T." materials ;)--Jebulon (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jeb, it is available for rent (for curious guys). I saw Godot13 used a (somewhat) similar one in his Jerusalem tour. :) Jee 16:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2014 at 19:22:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vista de Ciudad Ho Chi Minh desde Bitexco Financial Tower, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 13.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vista de Ciudad Ho Chi Minh desde Bitexco Financial Tower, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 13.JPG
Info Night view of Ho Chi Minh City from Bitexco Financial Tower, Vietnam Poco2 19:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Shaky tripod? Or do people actually drive like that? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hard to tell, the tripod is pretty robust but the location, in the 49th floor of the second tallest building in Vietnam, could be the cause. Anyhow, the picture itself is not "shaked". Poco2 23:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It kind of looks like the shaking tails off at the end so it might be from the shutter actuation. I don't have a ton of experience with this kind of photography. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The streetlights throughout the picture are not blurry, so it's definitely not the camera. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very nice composition. I am not sure but wasn't a similiar image already nominated? Or do I just remember from QIC? --Tuxyso (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but I don't see anything special in the composition, perhaps because it was shot from so high up relative to the other buildings. It looks like just another competently-done nighttime cityscape, a QI for sure but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I like this picture, composition is really nice. But it's blurred. Also quiet noisy but it does not bother me. I think ISO 100 was not a right decision. Exposure time 8 seconds is a lot and there is always some camera shake. ISO 200 or 400 do not cause too much noise. It would have given you a lot better exposure time and less blurry result. I also don't like the DoF. Both bigger and smaller aperture would have given better result. With big aperture and focus on the middle bridge would have given you nice bokeh at the distance. Smaller would have given you more detail at the distance. Average aperture has given you average result. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2014 at 23:27:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Cueva de Basconcillos el Tozo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Cueva de Basconcillos el Tozo.jpg
Very weak Support Good, but lens flare on the right.--XRaytalk 08:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CommentYes, it flares on the right but it does not affect to the general composition. You should note this is a huge image due to it is a panorama made merging 5 vertical photographs and the position of the sun is perfect to give light to the main entrance of the cave. I had to take a decission: to maintain in darkness the cave with no sun in the composition or wait until the best hour to take the pictures, that is, with light inside the cave (you can check the river entering inside) and the green valley. I preferred the last option.
Oppose Some very significant halos and a band of strange colour and noise that goes through the sky are problematic in my opinion. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 10:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CommentI uploaded an update image. What about this one? This is a new panorama correcting the problems of merging of the last image, as well as cropped to avoid those lights. --Mario Modesto Mata (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes better but now new lens flares in the valley on the right and IMO the quality in the upper part of the picture is not the best (sky and top of the mountain), however very nice at low resolution -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 15:32:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Northern rough greensnake.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Northern rough greensnake.jpg
Oppose Jpeg artifacts and low quality (maybe camera sensor), remember italic in specie name. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2014 at 06:43:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Landscape south of Pájara.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Landscape south of Pájara.jpg
Oppose Poor quality, with lots of outlines/CAs around the subject. Certain parts are also very pixellated. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 08:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry. The foreground looks sharper than the background. DoF missing.--XRaytalk 13:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 21:59:30
Info I think it should had never been selected to be a FP image due to the very low quality of the photo. It shouldn't had been nominated as a set and the other image was the only reason it got the FP status. (Original nomination)
Keep The quality is perfectly fine for a historical image. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delist Looks for me like a scan from a small print of the image (e.g. from a book). Sorry, not excellent for me. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It was promoted in a set, if you want to delist this image, the other must be also delisted because the other one would not maybe have been promoted without this one. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Christian, if you see there, you will realize that most people who oppose against this zoomed image, liked each other, for example: Kruusamägi, said: "If it should be seen as a set, then I can't agree with the nomination due to the very low quality of the second image"and Julian H., who said: "Fully support the first one, but the second image has quality problems and I don't see a reason for nominating this as a set." ArionEstar (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Sorry; this is recently promoted (24 December 2013) and we can't discuss it again and again every week. Jee 16:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I think we need a rule: a "renomination" is possible after a half year at the last nomination, better one year. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Per Jee, we can't discuss it again and again every week all the promotions of the past week (in 3 or 4 years, ok) --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMHO the general problem / failure with the original nomination was to nominate it as a set. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally against set nominations and they are not properly handled in our FP galleries. But we have to respect community consensus here. Any attempt to improve set nominations and how they should be handled (whether equal preference as single nominations or not, whether eligible for POTY or not, etc.) can be discussed on FPC Talk. As far as I know not all sets are going to our chronological lists and so will not appear in POTY. For this set, I only added the first picture to the chronological list. Jee 17:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment As it was said, then the problem is that with set nominations, images like that may pass to become FP-s. How could this be any reason at all, that this was "recently promoted"? Specially, when the problem is that, it shouldn't had been promoted at all. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should be decided by the majority of opinions. Can't you see "9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral" there? Jee 14:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 14:24:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose We have lot of FB images from bees that I'd consider better. At a moment I don't like the position of flower that is coming towards viewer and therefor is mostly out of focus and distracts viewer. Image could be bigger (seems like a rather strong crop from larger photo). Kruusamägi (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 21:28:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:PanoramaFrías.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:PanoramaFrías.jpg
Comment Cannot open the file at full size Poco2 13:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment My two browsers can't open it neither. --Ivar (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I have realised that it cannot be opened at full size as well. How can I solve it? Do I reupload it? Do you know if something similar happened before? --Mario Modesto Mata (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can open the first version, maybe there's something wrong with the image you included in the last version. Try to export it again. Poco2 00:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Michael, can you open it? with which browser? Poco2 00:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, Poco, I cannot open the file itself, but I can navigate it easily with ZoomViewer (I use Mozilla Firefox with Ubuntu 13.10, by the way). Michael Barera (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I reuploaded the image and now I can view it at full size. I hope you can also as well. I think the problem was that I uploaded it with Adobe RGB colors and not with sRGB, because this is the only parameter I changed. --Mario Modesto Mata (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 21:35:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo December 2013-12a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo December 2013-12a.jpg
Info I have been chasing this subject for years, with mixed results: here, here and here. This time I believe the conditions were unique, with the stormy sea all white and the foam, illuminated by the setting sun, dripping down the dark rocks. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment That's good. Really! But I just wanted to ask that first: if there are 2 very similar FP images, where 1 seems better, then should the other be delisted? Kruusamägi (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info -- We don't have a specific policy on this. Everything is analyzed on a case by case basis. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Well, anyway I prefer this image to the other. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I personally prefer File:Porto_Covo_January_2011-2b.jpg. The light there is warmer, the sky and composition more interesting. On your current nomination the foam from the water has a relatively strong blue cast in the shadow parts. --Tuxyso (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info -- I have slightly decreased the blue cast. However that was the light at the place just before sunset. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Defintely better than before. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I prefer this one actually, because there's a more pronounced effect of the waves crashing on the shore. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral I prefer the other photo, mainly due to a more interesting sky. In comparison, that is just missing here. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 10:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As long as there is an almost identical photo of the same user already featured:
Comment Please give us the choice to select between both images. There is no need to have both images featured. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry Norbert, but I don't accept. There are several duplicate FP with the same subject, and the lighting and colors of the two pictures are different. But you really don't need me to make a choice. Supposing that this picture is promoted (which is far from guaranteed), the other one can always be nominated for delisting, invoking that it is identical to the present one. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now we have a {{Delistandreplace}} for identical images from same authors. So better try that. The documentation also should be amended to include this. Currently it is "It is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images." Jee 03:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose for now. Jee 03:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 17:22:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Valle de los Ingenios. Trinidad.Cuba.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Valle de los Ingenios. Trinidad.Cuba.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 21:13:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:VilniusCathedral square 2014.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:VilniusCathedral square 2014.jpg
Please remember taking care of overcategorization (corrected), thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the cut off church (on the right) is not harmonic, technical accomplishment average and ok, but not outstanding --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment There is another building next to the cathedral at right. This is all you can get at this side. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Some problems (see note), oversharpened and too much noise reduction in my opinion. Composition looks not outstanding but ok to me. Not knowing the place, I'd guess a photo from the left side rather than from the right could work better. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 10:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Done some corrections. Retouching errors fixed, more noise and less sharp. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I don't agree with what you said about the noise and sharpening. I don't notice any losses in details. I could do without any but then the sharpening and no-noise fans would mind. I agree what you said about the composition. It's not the best to capture it from left because you can't go far enough and so the bell tower would be distorted to a degree that cannot be fixed. Haven't seen any better solutions in Commons. My idea was to show the whole square with the bell tower and the statue. If the intention is to show only the cathedral then it's the best from left. Will try to fix the area you don't like. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Luminance noise reduction is 15% and color noise reduction is 20%. Really too much? Do you see somewhere loss of details? --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 18:28:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zollhafen Mainz-Weinlagergebäude Südmole.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zollhafen Mainz-Weinlagergebäude Südmole.jpg
Info Historic wine warehouse on the southern jetty of the port Zollhafen in Mainz, Germany. All by Martin Kraft -- Martin Kraft (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 22:07:43 (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 15 Jan 2014 at 22:19:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Parque en Casco Historico. Trinidad.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parque en Casco Historico. Trinidad.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 10:50:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Duck at Munich Zoo2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Duck at Munich Zoo2.JPG
Oppose Blur and noisy. Background looks unnatural as well. Even for zoo shots, I would expect something looking natural. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 14:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2014 at 18:41:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Montreal - QC - Gipfelkreuz Mont Real.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Montreal - QC - Gipfelkreuz Mont Real.jpg/2
Far as I know, it is permissible nominate an image again if it was not promoted. And the nomination occurred last year. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 22:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nomination occurred less than a month ago and it had nearly no "support" votes. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[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.
Comment The image has to be FP to have another nomination? In my knowledge, if an image has not become FP, she can be nominated again. Or is not that how it works? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 19:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Answered on my talk page. Jee 04:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2014 at 07:25:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Groomed skirun from Seceda Val Gardena.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Groomed skirun from Seceda Val Gardena.jpg
Support Imo minor sharpening could make it even better. --Ivar (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your support. This picture comes out of the camera "as is" and I am proud of that. You are right, a little sharpening could make it more appealing, but I prefer to supply Wikimedia with the raw material so anyone can adjust it to his needs. (I also detest downsampling btw). Thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2014 at 11:20:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kungsgatan January 2014 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kungsgatan January 2014 02.jpg
InfoKungsgatan (Swedish for "King's Street"), Stockholm. Exposure fusion from 2 exposure (5 and 1/10 sec. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Left and right are leaning in at the edges but it's not very disturbing, nice warm atmosphere -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2014 at 13:30:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Amboy, Kalifornien, USA, Hist. Route 66 -- 2012 -- 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amboy, Kalifornien, USA, Hist. Route 66 -- 2012 -- 1.jpg
Info (This image with alternate clipping replaced a withdrawn image.) created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRaytalk 13:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support (weak) The photo draws my attention and is technically well done. I wished the background had been a bit more intersting and not that flat (mountains only very far away). --Tuxyso (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Music to my eyes, since I had suggested this crop. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I'm really liking the symmetry. --Mr. Mario (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2014 at 16:17:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chicken Egg without Eggshell 5859.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chicken Egg without Eggshell 5859.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2014 at 16:01:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dome Cappella Chigi from inside, Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome, Italy.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dome Cappella Chigi from inside, Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome, Italy.jpg
Info designed by en:Raffaello Sanzio, executed by Luigi da Pace (1519) - photographied, uploaded and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SupportThe Creation of the World, Extraordinary cuppola and drum of the dome of the "Chigi chapel", showing the planets, the sky, and in the middle God the Father, in the church Santa Maria del Popolo in Rome, Italy. Cartoons are from Raphaël, and there is no other example of mosaic by him. Please enjoy the details. I chose a black surrounding, in order to eliminate ugly distractive elements below, not made by the master.-- Jebulon (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Technically well done near to perfect. You managed a difficult light and shooting situation very well. But I am thinking if it is eligable to remove the whole [[::File:Roma-santa maria del popolo.jpg|context]] of the painting and put just black around it. Probably you can provide some background information about your rationale for this decision. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What may I say ? Only this : please, read carefuly the nomination and the file description page... Of course the blind background is intentional, in order to focus the attention on what I want to show. I hesitated with a .png version with only a round pic and no backround at all. My goal is to question the reviewer too. "Is it a plate or what ? Oh no, wow, it is a ceiling !" Anyway, sorry, This is not a "painting", but a mosaic. Of course we all have seen the picture you links. The "context " you mention is out of scope (i.e. Else than the mosaic, and not by Raphaël), as I was just centered under the drum, there is nothing else to see, except, as I already wrote, distractive lights from windows, and other architectural concentric "circles". And I wanted to hide all little parts of the paintings/frescos if any visible, only distractive (and again, out of scope). But you understand this very well, I'm sure, even if everything is always discussible without end, of course.--Jebulon (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Thanks for your explanation. It stays a very good shot. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I understand Tuxyso's concerns; but satisfied with the reply by Jeb. Jee 03:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2014 at 16:07:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kallukse mänd 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kallukse mänd 2013.jpg
Info Kallukse pine (Pinus sylvestris), all by Ivar (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Oppose. The power line is a problem imo, many things are good but not outstanding. I dont't know what's on the right, so I'm not sure if rotating -70° around the tree would create new issues. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 17:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2014 at 09:13:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lafarge, ZI Horizon Sud, Frontignan, Hérault 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lafarge, ZI Horizon Sud, Frontignan, Hérault 01.jpg
Oppose No offence Christian, but I think most of your nominations belong at QI. Please can you explain why the viewer should go "wow", which is necessary for FP. -- Colin (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No offence Colin, but can you explain the question? Do you ask me to convince the viewer to go "wow"? Because I can't do that, I am not a carpet salesman! If my photos are for your eyes of a status insuffisant, you can pass your way or oppose. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:06, 05 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Convince" is too strong and not what I asked. I feel many of your nominations are technically ok pictures but lack "wow", or even any clear subject. Why do you go "wow" when you see this picture. If you can't express your own amazement at the picture, why should anyone else be struck by it. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Colin, I could very well say why I find it wow, but I prefer to let each make the own opinion each. Good state of mind, isn't it? -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:38, 05 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find it odd why on Commons FP people don't give a rationale for their support/nomination like they do on en:wp. We are left with a picture and to figure out why it is special. A really special picture is obvious and gets 10 supports before the next day. Sometimes it takes some help to know why something is good - it isn't obvious. But also, if you can't explain to others why it is special, then I feel you shouldn't nominate. Seriously, Christian, why is this special? You might not convince me, but you might convince someone else to support. -- Colin (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you or someone else see nothing special in this picture, maybe it is not special and do not deserve to be promoted, I choose to let my photographer's talents to convince you. Is it so bad? Sorry if my pictures irritate you or someone else. I work hard to improve and I consider good to use my current and future actives nominations to make you share my work and my "extraordinary photos of landscapes". -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:06, 05 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support A high quality photograph of worlds largest cement manufacturer in the middle of a nice landscape taken at very good light. No wow? --P e z i (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The company, Lafarge, may be the worlds largest cement manufacturer, but this plant doesn't look special at all. And the light is not good photographic light. And the landscape doesn't, I'm sorry to say, look that nice. There's really nothing FP about this. -- Colin (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
De gustibus et coloribus non disputandum ? That's what we do in every review ! Discussing about matter of taste ! :))--Jebulon (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2014 at 10:35:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mount Vernon Estate Upper Garden.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mount Vernon Estate Upper Garden.JPG
Oppose The shadows are too dark imo, and many areas look strange because some selective blurring (or noise reduction) has happened. I don't see any noise, so that's unnecessary. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 14:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WeakOppose. A bit too much sky, and the sky looks overpolarized. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment it has signs of oversharpening. --Ivar (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I guess I'll have to work on the image - maybe I'll nominate it again after that. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2014 at 15:03:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
The Qafa e Valbonës, or Valbona pass in Albania connects the town of Theth, located at Theth National Park in a valley formed by the Shalë river with the town of Valbonë in Valbonë Valley National Park. This photograph was taken in October 2013 on the Valbona side at about 2/3 of the ascent to the top of the pass. It shows the mountains surrounding Maja Grykat e Hapëta, which is one of the highest mountains of all of Albania.
Info created myself, Tobias. This is my first candidate/nomination for a featured photograph -- Tobias (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Yes, it is too unsharp, and maybe a little bit noisy. But as it is your first nomination in FP, I think you deserve more feedback: my opinion is that except unsharpness, this picture is very good. The colors are nicely contrasted, the white balance is good. The composition works very well with the mountains, the valley, and the transversal foreground. The landscape is appealing and eye catching. And we have not so many good pictures from Albania. Well, don't discourage, and we wait for your next nominations !--Jebulon (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info new version uploaded. --Ivar (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info The photograph is shot with a modern full-frame DSLR at ISO 200 (hence I also do not understand why there should be noise) and a good lens (and appropriate shutter speed) at f/11. The detail is in my opinion definitely there. In Ivar's sharpened version this is much easier to see, so thank you Ivar! --Tobias (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 19:22:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jõesuu vaatetorn.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jõesuu vaatetorn.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2014 at 17:15:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kreta - Bucht von Malia1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kreta - Bucht von Malia1.jpg
Info amazing view at the different landscape types of Crete and the Bay of Malia, high resolution (approx. 110 MP) view with many interesting details; all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose notably curved horizon, harsh mid-day light, stitching issues on the bottom right corner (sharp and blurry frames). --Ivar (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(1) absolutely straight horizons for such wide angles of panoramic views are unnatural. (2) harsh light? I see no overexposed parts here (3) stitching issues: hardly to see, not significant for the image impression, even in 100% view of this irrelevant image part --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes: our world isn't flat. The world is round, since Copernicus and Plato :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The most of the buildings are with "blown out highlights" (ausgefressenen lichtern). I think this image is a bit overexposed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info (1) I have eliminated some minor clone errors that Julian H. mentioned, (2) I have darkend the image a nuance (3) precised the location data by adding a description and the geo code of the camera location --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I disagree concerning the horizon, I think that in a 180+°-panorama (almost 360 here?), the horizon is the main horizontal element in the photo and the panorama rotation axis should therefore be aligned to that. But the resolution and detail is fantastic and the other issues have been fixed, it's FP for me now. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 15:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral blown whites + some visible stitching points, however a very good panorama, maybe it could be used somewhere --A.Savin 11:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Jee 02:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2014 at 17:12:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Macaca nigra self-portrait (rotated and cropped).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Macaca nigra self-portrait (rotated and cropped).jpg
Info created by a female Celebes crested macaque - uploaded by Odder - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -- Another great pic, heck the image could have its own article on WP, but I am not sure I am convinced by the no copyright argument. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that DR established anything other than what most people write at DR is a completely uneducated guess. -- Colin (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
odder, it is exactly as Colin pointed out it. As is often the case at DRs like this the result is without case law or even a legal opinion to back it up. In this case the outcome was very disrespectful of the photographer who created the conditions that allowed these photos to be created. There are some jurisdictions where even the monkey could be imbued with the copyright as its creator. Regardless, in absence of actual case law, legal opinion, or even an informed one, it would seem the precautionary principle would be the best approach instead of participating in a self-serving rights grab. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isn't uncommon to have nature photographs triggered by the animal passing some light beam. Or lightning photographs triggered by the flash. Or a camera installed to take pictures periodically. These presumably give loads of duff shots and some person chooses the decent ones and works on them a bit and publishes. And we really have no idea what processing the photographer did of the raw shots. We wouldn't have this photograph if it wasn't for that photographer. Morally, I think the photographer (the person who owned the camera and "developed the film") has some rights to it, regardless of whether law has anything to say on the issue. -- Colin (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The owner of the camera is named at the image description page, which is a good thing I think. Jcb (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - selfie of the year - Jcb (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Alchemist-hp, just a quite note, the FPX template shouldn't have been used above as this already had a support vote other than mine (the nominator). Anyway, sure the image is below 2MP, and that is the "guideline", but we can, and do, ignore all rules on our projects (as I showed above with the Iranian nomination). I think the photo basically has all other requirements needed for FP, except for the 2MP, so how about ignoring all rules in this instance. :) russavia (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:russavia: a rule is a rule for me. When we ignore our guidlines then we don't need these. Please delete these now ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Alchemist-hp in line with your request I have gone ahead and deleted Commons:Imаge guidelines. Now that we no longer have this to deal with, can you now vote with your heart and change your vote to support? russavia (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose if "rotated and cropped." Only original as it is by the Macaca nigra has any significance here. Good work by her, indeed. Jee 08:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Due to concerns over unresolved copyright violation. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Very cool, but the resolution just isn't there, without strong mitigating factors. Yes, it's uncommon for an animal to take a selfie, but it's not like a similar photo can never be taken. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Distorted face because of too short distance to the object. -- -donald- (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Wow! Wonderful example of animal intelligence and ability to learn from. Certainty our ancestors! Jee 13:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry; but I sympathize with the efforts of "the photographer in background". (per Saffron's comment below) Jee 03:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The original is nice as well - Jcb (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Yes, this one is also great. I love this pic. Natuur12 (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, still too low resolution, 2MP needed, but otherwise a nice and interesting shot. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but the resolution is really low. --Ivar (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose 1) low resolution, 2) possible copyright issues - the Daily Mail photoghrapher could claim copyright due to staging, postprocessing, or simply having had the funny idea. Sorry --A.Savin 19:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Due to concerns over unresolved copyright violation. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose For a selfie it should be more far away (close up distortion) since these persons have long arms --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per my comment above. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Distorted face because of too short distance to the object. -- -donald- (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Many users voted against ensuring potential problems with copyright, however, no one is able to make a nomination for deletion. :) --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why bother with a DR when people pick and choose when copyright is to be respected based on little more than personal opinon? Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"the finest on Commons"? Don't see what is "fine" about taking someone's work without permission. -- Colin (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Get me the contact details of the monkey, and I'll be sure to contact them for permission, if you do desire. russavia (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm being serious Russavia. The monkey did not buy the camera and travel to a foreign country to take pictures. He didn't download the images into Lightroom, choose the ones that worked and delete the failures, adjust the levels and noise, crop and tidy up, save as a JPG and then contact his agent to get the images released to the press. This isn't some funny random cameraphone facebook photo someone found on the internet and appropriated. This guy takes photographs for a living. These photographs are his work. -- Colin (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you should nominate this picture for deletion. odder (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm tempted to use the "Commons is not Facebook" rationale. :) Jee 15:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the point, odder, if the project only cares about copyright law? I just don't think this is anything to be proud of. Now, if the human photographer wants to donate the image CC then I'd support one of these. Has anyone asked him? After all, the Internet has stolen his picture already. -- Colin (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been in contact with the photographer and he indicates that the first time this image was uploaded to Wikimedia he requested it be taken down and it was. He is quite unhappy it was re-uploaded and asserts his copyright over this image and is seeking legal advice to escalate this further. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is quite a serious issue. If that what you state above is true, those three images should be suggested for deletion asap. Sandstein and odder are OTRS members, with the result that their real names ( + probably the adresses) are relatively easily ascertainable. I think none of both would be pleased to be taken to court by a photographer who claims copyright on that pictures and has a real chance to have it adjudged. --A.Savin 21:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It makes no sense to me to sue individual volunteers. If somebody has doubts about the PD rational, he/she can start a DR and the community will discuss and decide. Also the photographer is able to contact the WMF legal department. If they think he is right with his claim, they will remove the files. Sueing an individual volunteer instead of contacting WMF will fail in most jurisdictions I guess. Jcb (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A glorified blog whose underlying mantra articulates that "I want a PRINCIPLED Free Culture Movement" is to be trusted as a reliable "media organization" when it comes to the discussion of copyright, given their disdain for the photographer in this case, is quite a dubious position to take. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 02:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 19:24:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Reomäe kiriku sisevaade.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reomäe kiriku sisevaade.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2014 at 20:20:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rethymno - Wellenbrecher.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rethymno - Wellenbrecher.jpg
Support Interesting textures ... it seems like it's waiting to be used as an album cover by some interesting band. Daniel Case (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not enough wow. --Claus (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It's just a fragment of the breakwater. Definitely not an outstanding composition. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose These tetrapods can produce great abstract photos, but this isn't an interesting enough composition for FP. You might want to look at this month's photo challenge Commons:Photo Challenge/2014 - January - A bunch of stuff to see if you have a photo (or cropped photo) in your collection that could be entered. -- Colin (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
different people, different opinions --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support As I wrote previously in the QIC page, I think there is something different in this picture. Something "more" I would say. I like the random geometry (can geometry be random ?), the various lights for the same objects, the composition, and the minimalism. Well, a FP for me.--Jebulon (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 17:03:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Suitsu jõgi Matsalus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Suitsu jõgi Matsalus.jpg
Delist As long as we have the Google Art Project version (or another high-resolution version) as an FP. Michael Barera (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 23:25:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2013(2)-Israel-Jerusalem-Temple Mount-View 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2013(2)-Israel-Jerusalem-Temple Mount-View 01.jpg
Comment I will go back to the raw file and check on the sky color (I processed this image on a different computer). As far as composition, I thought the framing and deep DOF was interesting (at least to me). Thanks for the reviews...-Godot13 (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Reworked from the raw file. While the composition remains the same, I hope the sky is better.-Godot13 (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2014 at 23:28:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kosterhavet-Ursholmen 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kosterhavet-Ursholmen 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2014 at 11:06:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:13-08-09-peak-by-RalfR-04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:13-08-09-peak-by-RalfR-04.jpg
Support Good detail really deep, and I checked since now, thanks to Wikimania, I have good first-hand knowledge of what I'm looking at on the Kowloon side. I like the idea of coming in tighter ... not every picture of the Hong Kong skyline from the Peak needs to show it all. Daniel Case (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2014 at 11:17:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Sandstone bas-relief of a Dvarapala statue (gate guardian) in Banteay Kdei ("Citadel of Chambers"), built in the mid-12th to early 13th centuries AD, Angkor, former Khmer Empire, today Cambodia. All by me, Poco2 11:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2014 at 07:48:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Red-rocks-park-in-autumn.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Red-rocks-park-in-autumn.jpg
Info created by Photos Public Domain - uploaded and nominated by Ethically Yours (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Composition ok but not outstanding. Technical quality poor - unsharp and heavy JPG compresssion. -- Colin (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Quality issues, mainly compression, that are visible at a reasonable viewing size. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 15:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 14:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2014 at 19:58:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Baum frisst Schild.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Baum frisst Schild.JPG
Info Happy meal, a hungry tree :-) all by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
weak Oppose Surely an interesting photo and a technically well done shot. But imho the motive is not spectacular enough. If you are frequently in German woods you know such kinds of hungry trees very well. A simple Google Image Search reveals that there are much more spectacular examples of Baum frisst Schild. A more illustrative example is when the tree eats the sign from both sides as on this shot.--Tuxyso (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Rare scenario and well, lets say a wayward composition. I entirely share the consideration of Kleuske • Richard • [®] • 14:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 02:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2014 at 15:14:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I have no idea what exactly I'm looking at. More like an abstract piece of artwork (no offence, dude). Also, no wow. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 15:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if you are inside the Canyon you don't know what is really around you. The whole place is some kind of natural artwork - people who had been there will agree with this statement. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral It is a fantastic shot. However, for me to be considered FP it needs an scale, as a person around to compare and to know how big or how small are these fantastic geological structures. --Mario Modesto Mata (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the review. There was a previous (unsuccessful) nomination of mine with scale. I have another shot with a stick as scale. Do you think the one with stick is better? I like the composition with the nomination at hand. You can fully concentrate on forms, structures and light/shadow parts :) --Tuxyso (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the scale it is better because we can consider how big the structure is. On the other hand, I prefer colors of the image above; it has more contrast. --Mario Modesto Mata (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposeSimilar one already featured. I'm sorry (I didn't check for the quality). --A.Savin 22:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
sorry,but both images are VERY different. They share the same material but have nothing else in common. Really a reason for opposing? Hardly to understand for me. Even the orientation is different. --Tuxyso (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is an image within the same scope. FP ist the "very best" of us, and sometimes, less is more. --A.Savin 12:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As A.Savin mentioned:Similar one already featured. As long as you don't give us the choice between the two, I oppose. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still find this argument rather strange. With this argument you could delist a lot of FPs, e.g.
In the case if you have exactly the same perspective, with the same framing, with the same objects and with similiar light I can follow your argument. But I see no reason to have different very good shots from the same place. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your comparison with Taj Mahal is not very relevant as people need different views of such a famous site. I am tempted to consider these two works as separate as the previous FP is about a particular spot (Heart formation) and this one is a generic view. But we can't blame the opposers if they are a bit selective, considering you have several successful FPs of this particular place. Jee 05:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2014 at 16:31:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Viola tricolor pansy flower close up.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Viola tricolor pansy flower close up.jpg
Info created by Photos Public Domain - uploaded and nominated by Ethically Yours (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nothing really sharp, chaotic background, strange white spots in the purple part of the blossom. --P e z i (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 02:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 06:22:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Le Signal de la Grave, (2446 m.). cairn.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Le Signal de la Grave, (2446 m.). cairn.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2014 at 11:36:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sadhu and a picture of Siva.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sadhu and a picture of Siva.jpg
Question - How sure are we that the painting of Shiva is de minimis? Looks borderline at best to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are reproductions of ancient arts/concepts; so no one can claim copyright for them, I think. We made such a conclusion for similar works, earlier. Jee 05:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not the gist of the discussion from what I've read. Lets say I take Vishnu, and depict him in a new way, perhaps inspired by public domain works and in a similar style. The new poses, backgrounds, etc. would still draw a new copyright. Otherwise every depiction ever published of any public domain figure would also be public domain, which is certainly not recognised. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree; but most of the "components" I'm seeing on those pictures (including two small pictures on the stick) are very common in India. They are heavily re-printed and sell on roadside for a price of their printing cost. The watermark we are seeing there is that of the re-publisher. Here, in India, we use everything for free, including Microsoft Windows. :) Jee 06:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LOL, it's very similar in Indonesia ;-). However, as the servers are in the US, and US copyright law is a bit stricter, I'd want proof that this print is already public domain before supporting (unless, of course, we determine that it is de minimis). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 13:56:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Surfers Paradise Dec 2013.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Surfers Paradise Dec 2013.JPG
Comment Great! But some geometric distortion required - tower in center of picture is "fallen" :) --Kikos (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2014 at 06:12:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Quai François Maillol, Sète, Hérault 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Quai François Maillol, Sète, Hérault 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2014 at 15:48:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Santuario nacional.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santuario nacional.jpg
Weak Support. Could benefit from some haze removal (unsharp mask with large radius, small amount). A pity there's this gray building in the bottom left, but I guess that can't be avoided. Lupo 12:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 20:42:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Kapfenburg mit Himmel.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Kapfenburg mit Himmel.jpg
Info Kapfenburg Castle and sky on a sunny winter day. All by -- Kreuzschnabel (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I like this picture, nice colors, unfortunately the composition is not the best, too sky. Main object too distant. I am sorry --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strangely enough, I like this image particularly because of the big sky and the clouds gathering above the castle. Well, de gustibus … --92.203.122.181 21:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 15:06:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support -- The photographer made a bold choice in this composition and I think it works quite well. The observer feels much more drawn into the drama than it would normally be offered by a conventional shot. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2014 at 19:22:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support James Bond is missing. ;-) --XRaytalk 13:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC) IP vote is not eligible --P e z i (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support No la había visto, sino la habría nominado de inmediato. Excelente toma. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I suppose I could complain about the very slight CA at the left or the shadow at the right but ... Phuket, this is a beautiful image. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 16:49:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Origanum vulgare - harilik pune.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Origanum vulgare - harilik pune.jpg
Info Inflorescence of Oregano (Origanum vulgare), all by Ivar (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Good details on the focal point; but the stem, leaves, etc. all OOF. The first comment I got when I started posting at whatplantisthat was "although abstract works look beautiful, they are less useful for us to describe the subject." I think your lens is very good for a single flower or its fine parts; but not enough for an entire plantinflorescence profile like this. (Good work; this comment is intended as a positive criticism to improve your works. Keep on.) Jee 03:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment main subject was not entire plant, only inflorescence. --Ivar (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Corrected; thanks. :) Jee 07:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 17:02:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Thillebierg 2014 07.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thillebierg 2014 07.jpg
InfoPithead building of the former "Thillebierg" ironmine in Differdange, Luxembourg. All by VT98Fan (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2014 at 12:23:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Männikjärve raba laugas.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Männikjärve raba laugas.jpg
Oppose Darkening the sky if it is very bright makes sense to me. Making it even darker if it's dark already doesn't. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 14:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Gradual filters are a quite commonly used in landscape photography. Sky is dark? By far not dark. You can see the sky in histogram. I prefer some texture in the sky and not the solid light gray surface. I know that at such high latitudes where I am living I should not even take may camera out of the bag from October till March because there is just not enough daylight and only few days with clear skies but I am stubborn and I am capturing photos in winter and am using different techniques to make these photos look close to what is captured by human eye. Sky is dark only at night. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main problem I have is that the reflection of the sky in the water is brighter than the sky itself (in the photo) which can never happen in reality and looks wrong to me for that reason. Some darkening is ok, I frequently darken skies myself, but it's very far from being white and losing texture here, so I just don't see the necessity. It's entirely your decision though, only a question of taste. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 10:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2014 at 19:35:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Flash light or artificial light in natural environment is not a good practice because this generates wrong exposition and hight contrast. Distracting left background --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The use of flash is usually inevitable in macro photography but here it is too intensive. Flash diffuser would have made the flash softer and the result better. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I have to agree with Urmas Haljaste, the flash wasn't really well used. I'm sorry but I believe the nomination is bound to fail because the picture is not really good :( --PierreSelim (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2014 at 17:56:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Don Quijote de la Mancha. Teatro Teresa Carreño.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Don Quijote de la Mancha. Teatro Teresa Carreño.jpg
Support The position of the legs of the female dancer are perfectly aligned to the three background elements. The photo is definitely an eye-catcher. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Anatidae is a family containing 146 species in 40 genera on nearly every continent. That's just too big a group for a set of four rather common birds to be special. And the individual pictures, while ok, are not among our finest. -- Colin (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per Colin, the family is too big for one set, I can maybe support every only images but not this set -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These images are just a few, and could not exist another set with other images? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 23:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm flattered that you like my photo, but the same problem exists as with your Brasilia nomination: the purpose of a set is not to choose a few representative examples from a gigantic category of loosely related things. Examples of acceptable sets would be four pictures showing the metamorphosis of a butterfly, the eight pages of a pamphlet, or a pair of pendant paintings. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
StrongOppose Sorry; set is not intended for these types of sets. We already had a similar discussion recently while some one nominated a "birds" set with 16 pictures. We have a difficulty to present sets in POTY and the current consensus is to preset only the first or best picture in a set (the nominator can decide if he/she prefers) and mention others in description. See related discussion at Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_Year/2013#Set_nominated.E3.80.80FPs and the notice at Commons:Featured pictures/chronological/current month. Jee 03:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2014 at 22:13:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Saint Côme & Saint Damien Grandes Heures Anne de Bretagne XVIe.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint Côme & Saint Damien Grandes Heures Anne de Bretagne XVIe.jpg
Oppose Restoring scratches, blemishes, etc. went quite well, and applying a black background is a good idea. As the high resolution original reveals, the colours in this nomination are a tad too bright. Assuming the original faded over the years it's quite reasonable to apply some sort of brightening and contrast enhancement. I'd be glad to support an improved version. The book's binding (and the resulting bend) is always an issue, but I think it's fair to assume that separating the original is not an option. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support As some may know, the "Community" nominates me as a kind of specialist of restoration, and of this special book. No one have any idea of how such a restoration is difficult, and needs time and care in post-processing. Far much more than for any photograph here around. And this one is very well done. Yes, the brightening is maybe a bit strong (faces), but illuminated books, especially made for a Queen, were painted with "harsh", and flashy colors, with exagerated contrasts, in order to remain colorated for years or even centuries. Remember that this was painted around 1500; 500 years ago ! And we kept enough of original colors, to be able to restore almost how it was. Look, one can see the brush marks ! So, I support strongly this picture of the famous two brothers, patrons of med. doctors. My advice: add a bit of darkness, and reduce the brightness a little, then adjust the contrast.--Jebulon (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
New file uploaded. I understand Chistoph Braun's arguments ( he's an expert too) but I think Jebulon, who worked on this book before me, understood what I tried to do : I wanted to show the picture as it could be seen by Anne de Bretagne the first time she had a look at it... I know it's difficult and probably impossible but it can be honestly tried, especially with somebody else's advice. So I've modified a bit my first picture according to the upper appreciations. I hope the difference with the original is now not so big as it was previously.--JLPC (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per Jebulon (not that I could claim his expertise...) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2014 at 13:09:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Balliol College Dining Hall, Oxford - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Balliol College Dining Hall, Oxford - Diliff.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2014 at 21:03:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chaplin The Kid.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chaplin The Kid.jpg
Info created by Unknown (Publicity photo for "The Kid") - uploaded by Jbarta - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The is an uncontroversial edit and would recommend you just upload over the original. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not do so as the image was up for FP, and thus (in case there were issues) I wanted others to have a chance to easily compare them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood. You did an excellent job of repairing the large scratch but otherwise the two images are identical, hence my suggestion. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was referring to the de-artefacting I did on the JPG, actually. A little bit of detail appears to have been lost. I don't think it's a significant amount of detail, but others may disagree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support but also pro uploading this over the other version. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 09:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support If for the simple fact that there are still some large scratches in the first image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 10:48:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Friedenskirche November 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Friedenskirche November 2013.jpg
12
3287
5591
412
5616
3749
crop suggestion
InfoFriedenskirche (The Church of Peace) in Potsdam (Brandeburg), Germany. View from Marlygarten im Schloßpark Sanssouci. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose (weak). The image is technically without flaws and winter is the best time to take a photo from this side. But I have looked several times on the image to find something special. It is carefully composed, light is good but it looks imho rather flat due to the centered perspective. I guess a perspective as on this image is much better and has more FP potential than your back view. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The image would be much more captivating with a crop at bottom, I've tried and IMO it's much much better, see note. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not entirely convinced, and now has more user voted for the current version.--ArildV (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2014 at 13:31:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kiipsaare leaning lighthouse.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kiipsaare leaning lighthouse.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2014 at 03:58:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pelecanus erythrorhynchos at Las Gallinas Wildlife Ponds.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pelecanus erythrorhynchos at Las Gallinas Wildlife Ponds.jpg
Weak support Nice shot, but some blurness at the head and upper neck area. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 08:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry. It's a really nice image. The body and the feet looks sharper than the head, but the head is important IMHO.--XRaytalk 13:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@XRay: I carefully applied some selective adjustments. Please check if the new version works for you. As for the back part of the head – that's where the feathers are softer and I left it as it was. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support It's better and good enough now, but IMO it could be sharper.--XRaytalk 11:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2014 at 11:01:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait of Henri Frenay, head and shoulders ppmsca.13371 edit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait of Henri Frenay, head and shoulders ppmsca.13371 edit.jpg
Info created by Frink - uploaded by Christoph Braun - nominated by Claus
Support for three reasons : a/ Very good restoration, b/ a true black and white photography, i. e. without any "absolute black" or "absolute white", but subtle grey mid-tones c/ Obvious historical value. --JLPC (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Excellent portrait of a french hero of the "Résistance" during the WWII. Per JLPC --Jebulon (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support For all the reasons mentioned above + historic value. Kleuske (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support sehr schöne und handwerklich exzellente Restaurierung, nicht übertrieben aber es betont den Bildcharakter. Schönes Korn --Ralf Roleček 20:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Excellent B&W portrait + historical value. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 12:27:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The statues of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il on Mansu Hill in Pyongyang (april 2012).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The statues of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il on Mansu Hill in Pyongyang (april 2012).jpg
Support yes - the technical quality of the image could be a bit better. Still, the unusual and uncommon subject, the artistic banality of the two "demigods' " statues, in short: the absurdity of the whole scene wow me quite a lot. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This one makes me grin. We need more of this. --A.Savin 19:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose for sure a valuable picture and a very useful documentation. But not every reasonably proper image of North Korea can get because of the restricted entry requirements automatically a FP. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the quality isn't perfect, but imo acceptable. I had seen pictures of worse quality become promoted, and they were nowhere near so valuable. --A.Savin 21:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Bad crop: too close to the top. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 22:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry but neither the quality or crop convinces me. I guess this is a standard stop for all goverment-run tourist groups in DPRK and the picture is not unique enough to compensate for quality shortcomings. I am also not convinced that this is the best picture of the monument on Commons (see category:Mansudae Grand Monument).--ArildV (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 14:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 06:27:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wedding Skyline San Diego 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wedding Skyline San Diego 2013.jpg
Info Wedding shooting in front of the skyline of San Diego all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Some feedback is appreciated. No wow? Quality problems? Compositional problems? I like the photo and it is (at least for an average European) relatively spectacular to have a bridal couple in front of such a nice skyline. I think this photo is also educationally interesting because it shows a typical action of a wedding photographer - placing the couple in front of a nice background. Where is room for improvement? Thanks, --Tuxyso (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like it. May be less green at the bottom would be better, but it's OK. --XRaytalk 14:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Per XRay, the green grass is disturbing and break the dynamic of the picture whitch here is horizontal, I think it need a crop at bottom of about 350 or 400 px -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CommentTuxyso I shall have crop the image a little more to have so much sand as green grass, that would visually have been more harmonious and removes none details important for the image -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the moment I would like to keep it as it is. IMHO the different surfaces (sand, grass, water) and different sizes are somehow intersting. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral shouldn't there be a "personal rights" tag? The facial expression of the spouse seems to tell me, that he dislikes the presence of an additional photographer. The bride looks like weeping. The bag in the foreground (suppose it's the equipment of the wedding photographer) is disturbing (I know you couldn't change that). --P e z i (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Jee 14:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 12:02:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Церковь Иоанна Предтечи (Керчь) 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Церковь Иоанна Предтечи (Керчь) 01.jpg
Neutral Somebody please fix the white pixels at the top border (see image note). Visible only at full resolution. Lupo 22:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support and top border fixed.--Jebulon (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 16:44:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Maybe I am too spoiled by Estonian landscapes but I don't see the right rural atmosphere here. Good photo but not outstanding. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 16:22:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kohle-Kohle-Kohle!.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kohle-Kohle-Kohle!.jpg
Info created by Spyridon Natsikos - uploaded by Sarkana - nominated by TCCE -- TCCE (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Well an impressive vehicle. Sorry, but this is generally much too dark, the shovel and many details can not be seen. --Böhringer (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 18:08:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Театр оперы и балета. Зал.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Театр оперы и балета. Зал.jpg
Oppose Same as I said at QIC great view but below quality threshold for FP, there is a high noise level and the quality drop in the top part is not adequate for a FP, sorry Poco2 21:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2014 at 14:37:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:PalmseManorPark.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:PalmseManorPark.jpg
Oppose Composition not really working for me. Like the various subjects are facing out of the picture and a gap in the middle. -- Colin (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2014 at 11:15:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mourèze, Hérault 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mourèze, Hérault 01.jpg
Oppose Unattractive light. Key subject is very small and surrounded by too much uninteresting tree landscape and not enough of the interesting rock landscape, which is the big feature of this area. Sky not interesting. -- Colin (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 22:43:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bellagio Las Vegas December 2013 panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bellagio Las Vegas December 2013 panorama.jpg
Oppose - The railing on the right is rather distracting. I find the perspective correction gives all the buildings that top heavy look. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2014 at 07:24:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dahlia 'Bishop of Auckland.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dahlia 'Bishop of Auckland.JPG
Neutral Nice, the flower actually stand out very well. I had gently pushed down some disturbing leafs to knock the flower more out from the background. • Richard • [®] • 13:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I have the opportunity to do something to lower the flower.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2014 at 15:17:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pterocnemia pennata head Edinburgh Zoo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pterocnemia pennata head Edinburgh Zoo.jpg
Oppose I am not fully convinced about the DoF (but not the main reason for oppose). But the photo is definitely too dark, look at the histogram. approx. +0.8/+1.0 in LR. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC
Comment According to guidelines: Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Definitely not too dark. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Surely can an image be on the low side of the tonal curve but it depends on the motive. With this motive I see no obvious reason for a tonal curve with an emphasis on the low side. Please load this image into any good image editing programm and make your own judgement and do not only cite the image guidelines to argue against my assessment. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Dof field is shallow and perfect here. Nice and sharp. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WeakOppose I like the composition but really miss a tick of sharpness, especially in the eye and peak, sorry, Poco2 21:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2014 at 16:40:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sorà y Zecca da Ruatsch a Calfosch da pert de mesdi.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sorà y Zecca da Ruatsch a Calfosch da pert de mesdi.jpg
Comment I think that it is overall a bit too bright Poco2 21:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your note. I worked for a slightly corrected version, but now, after 10 support votes I feel a bit uncomfortable to upload a modified version.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support A tad oversharpened it seems to me; but the color, composition and detail more than make up for that. Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The picture has not been sharpened (I rarely do it). Thanks for your support!--Wolfgang Moroder ([[User talk:Moroder--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)|talk]]) 10:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm ... maybe it was the camera. Oh well ... Daniel Case (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Wow! I was only planning to scroll down the page but this really jumped out at me. -- Lewis Hulbert (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Excellent composition. I'd like to encourage you to upload the corrected version, though. The current image is slightly too bright. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Very nice place, but Per Cayambe. And I find the colors a bit oversaturated.--Jebulon (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are the real colours. I invite you to come visit. I did not at all modify the file in regard to saturation. Farmers here live on cattle and need lots of grass...--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for invitation ! For sure I'll come one day, bacause I'm very interested by earing you speaking ladin !--Jebulon (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2014 at 10:13:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kapellbrücke with flowers.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kapellbrücke with flowers.jpg
Comment Nice, but imo unfortunate upper crop (also cropped swan at bottom doesn't look very good) and blue channel is a bit overexposed. --Ivar (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose bad balance, blown out parts, bad crop, boring standard composition of this well known bridge --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Bad crop and blown sky in corner. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— TintoMeches, 14:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2014 at 10:40:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Must-Jaala järv1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Must-Jaala järv1.jpg
Info Lake Must-Jaala, all by Ivar (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Actually I find the composition quite interesting --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral There is definitely wow for me, but I think the crop is too tight all around. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 16:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Per King, good attempt of composition but the trunks in foreground are too much close of the sides, however nice picture. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2014 at 20:39:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rio de Janeiro Corcovadoview crop2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rio de Janeiro Corcovadoview crop2.jpg
Question What's that black thing in the middle of the water at left? A bird? A plane? (Definitely not Superman, though). Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Prefer the wider crop. Btw, it is a bird. -- Colin (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Prefer this crop which shows the bridge on the left and doesn't lose much important from the bottom. -- Colin (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. Already the coming days of the end of the vote and no one supports. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Size is definitely better with the new version, but at a moment I don't see that this addition in size will add much to the image. It doesn't bring out new details. Kruusamägi (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes; there is a huge size difference. But I failed to understand your intention here. From the EXIF, I assume both are same work with background retouched in the first nomination. But there is no such information give there. Personally I discourage delist and/or replace if the benefit are marginal as there is a lot of background works we are doing for every FP (including the silent work by Thierry Caro to categorize them properly). Jee 16:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2014 at 12:33:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Greylag Goose - St James's Park, London - Nov 2006.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Greylag Goose - St James's Park, London - Nov 2006.jpg
Then, I I withdraw my nomination. Improbable be successful because the resolution is low ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 13:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 11:09:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Tilted clockwise, composition is only almost symmetrical and doesn't work overall, in my opinion (especially the bottom crop). — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 22:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Good mood but per Julian, composition seems too ordinary. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your review. Another image from this series with a better composition will follow.--XRaytalk 08:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2014 at 09:55:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Neque Illic Mortuus, inside of Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome, Italy.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Neque Illic Mortuus, inside of Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome, Italy.jpg
Oppose I don't like that the image is taken from a side and not directly from front. That doesn't seem to be the best possible angle. Kruusamägi (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment My choice: the Death looks directly at YOU ! ark ark ark... and yes, it was the best angle possible to obtain a posed place without tripod...and to avoid flash shadows --Jebulon (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2014 at 10:33:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
SupportA bit tilted (the windows of the first and second floor), anyway nice and good IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After another look, I see no tilt, I like the colors, sharpening and the architecture of the bulding --Christian Ferrer 07:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2014 at 12:26:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral The front part is in shadow, a pity.--Jebulon (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry, IMO too much shadow at important parts of the image. Another cut would be better.--XRaytalk 13:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC) Invalid vote. User need to be registred --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2014 at 18:37:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panoramic view of Istanbul- Yeni Cami (The New Mosque), Galata Bridge. Turkey, Southeastern Europe.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panoramic view of Istanbul- Yeni Cami (The New Mosque), Galata Bridge. Turkey, Southeastern Europe.jpg
Comment Excellent shoot, nice details, but tower on top is thin with sky?. Could be more interesting see more on bottom --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2014 at 13:56:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:13-02-28-sektkellerei-henkell-wiesbaden-by-RalfR-09.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:13-02-28-sektkellerei-henkell-wiesbaden-by-RalfR-09.jpg
Info Henkell, Wiesbaden; entrance Marble Hall; all by -- Ralf Roleček 13:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2014 at 11:28:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sepolcro Laghel Arco di Giuseppe Moroder.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sepolcro Laghel Arco di Giuseppe Moroder.jpg
could be nice open the grate and try another composition. The composition look forced. I preffer look more and more space in eviroment. Thanks --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, maybe you'll come here and help me to find the key. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can talk to the priest or person in charge. I myself have had to ask permission to take photos in churches prohibitedareas. No need to react rudely. :) --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The priest is a good friend of mine; unfo.rtunatly he lost the keys. You don't tell me that I'm rude while you give me sardonic comments --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry I have to say that whether or not it's possible to open the thing, as a resulting image, this doesn't convince me overall (beyond good quality). — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 21:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Harsh flash shadows on the wall do not look good. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 15:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2014 at 13:22:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Commons:Featured picture candidates/
Support Excellent composition, very very hard to take (maybe from a airplane), Nice shoot. --The Photographer (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe the shot was taken from the shoulder of the Rodovia Anchieta, above this road. --AdmrBoltz 23:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Very nice view, but I think that it is cw tilted and I feel that darkening the shadows in the top part would also help Poco2 11:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Histogram is all squashed together at the bottom; image is way too dark. Judging from the shadows, this was taken in harsh sunlight, so it should be much brighter. Would support a version with corrected levels. Lupo 11:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Compare with File:Chevrolet Malibu 1977 Color.jpg! Something went wrong when this was desaturated. The B/W version has a completely different histogram. If re-done, would need to start afresh from the color version. The color version, however, has a problem in the sky where I placed the image note: it's way too red there. Remnants of this are still visible in this B/W version. Lupo 11:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, sky is better, though that mountain looks a bit artificial (very straight mountain slope). Also, the bushes there are now heavily blurred, and that sign has gone, too. What is it with that top left corner anyway? The color version also has been photoshopped there. Why? How did this corner look in the original, and why do you feel there's a need to photoshop that corner so heavily?
Unfortunately, the histogram in this B/W version is still badly skewed, making the image way too dark. Lupo 13:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done The montain in "original" version is really artificial. I built photography based on another of the same montain, I think that histogram is fixed. Nice review --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, the histogram still looks the same. It's shifted to the left, topping out at about 200, with the range above basically empty. The distribution is completely different from the color version. I tried desaturating the color version myself: a little gamma correction in the highlights, bringing the gamma down a notch to bring out more details on the ground in the foreground left, and then a luminosity-based desaturation. That gives a, IMO, much better balanced B/W picture. But of course, it still has that problematic upper left corner from the color version...
The mountain is now really better, but again this rather heavy-handed edit now lost the left half of the triangular sign on the pole, and gives a strange effect where the shrubs to the left of the pole are dark, and immediately to the right are very bright. If you could upload a color version with the original, unedited upper left corner, I can give this a try myself to produce a B/W version.
I like this image, but I also think the less editing is done the better. Lupo 16:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're becaming maniac with the histogram, I invite you to see image itself. There is no perfect histogram, each image has a different exposure which creates a different histogram. A perfect histogram kill artistic compositions --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I'm not a maniac. I find the image too dark and too subdued, and the histogram and especially its comparison with the color version tells me why. But you're free to disagree, of course. Lupo 20:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not bad, but it's a long way from "not bad" to " featured picture" IMO. I see here a bw picture of an old car, and it is not outstanding to me, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I agree with Lupo and Jebulon. — TintoMeches, 13:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Seems a complicated nom ([1], [2]). Please don't close until 19:11, 20 January 2014. Jee 16:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As other opponents. --Karelj (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 02:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2014 at 17:43:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2014 at 18:19:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Garzweiler Tagebau-1230.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Garzweiler Tagebau-1230.jpg
Comment nice compo and interesting excavators, but imo noise reduction is a bit too strong (washed out details). --Ivar (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ Ivar: Thank you for your comment. I have uploaded a new version. Raymond 13:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral May be black is missing and there is noise at the bottom of the excavator. Additionally the DoF with f/5.6 is small.--XRaytalk 11:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2014 at 23:32:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support of course:) Please, let me give you some additional information about what you are looking at:
Info These cavities are called "Galería de los Espejos" (Mirrors Galery) and are part of an ancient 25 km roman aqueduct built during the 1st century aC and composed of sections like this one caved in the mountain and open areas as most people know of an aqueduct.
I added also the geodata. Thanks Smial! Poco2 17:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looked at it and was immediately fascinated because of composition and lighting situation. One of those photos that work - without HDR, or pushed colours, or other heavy manipulations. -- Smial (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2014 at 22:56:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Playa de Ojos - Fuerteventura.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Playa de Ojos - Fuerteventura.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2014 at 06:54:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
SupportLet's Gdansk!!! An excellent illustration of an urban focal point, well accomplished. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2014 at 10:02:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Exeter College Chapel, Oxford - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Exeter College Chapel, Oxford - Diliff.jpg
Support and again: stunning quality. And no: A perspective correction does not seem necessary, imo. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I was going to mention that perspective correction does not work well on this image - the angle of view is already very high, so correcting the verticals would warp the top corners too much. Already they are at the limit of what I would consider acceptable. Diliff (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I wonder what happened to the lights? I'm not sure I like it but it's surely FP anyhow--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What happened? The lights were just extremely bright and with a stopped down lens, you often get those star patterns around the light sources. I used an aperture of f/13 so that the whole scene would be in focus. It's quite unavoidable. It could be minimised by using a wide open aperture, but then the image quality would be much worse so it is a sacrifice worth making. I don't mind the effect though. Diliff (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Perspective distortion is not accepted neither QI nor VI. It's weird that we can make in FP. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To say that no uncorrected perspective distortion should ever be QI, VI or FP is very narrow minded. I'm usually the first to correct it where it's appropriate to do so, but I don't think it is here. Some images have such a large angle of view that perspective correction is not appropriate. In the case of this image, one consequence would be much greater distortion in the stained glass on the sides. Diliff (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no excuse for any perspective "distortion" with Photoshop CC. See Photoshop CC Warp Perspective and follow the example at the bottom :-) -- Colin (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2014 at 11:51:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Terminal 4S, Aeropuerto de Barajas, Madrid, España, 2013-10-17, DD 03.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Terminal 4S, Aeropuerto de Barajas, Madrid, España, 2013-10-17, DD 03.JPG
Info Terminal 4S, Airport of Madrid-Barajas, Spain. All by me, Poco2 11:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition. Floor reflection is too vague so I would prefer less floor and more ceiling. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2014 at 20:06:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rhinoceros unicornis (posterior).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rhinoceros unicornis (posterior).jpg
Support --That is a great picture in which every body can find out amazing encyclopedic value. Alborzagros (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Like the textures on back! A proud Indian.Jee 14:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2014 at 21:30:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Akademietheater-DSC 0654w.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Akademietheater-DSC 0654w.jpg
Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- P e z i (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info Akademietheater (Part of Burgtheater), Vienna
Oppose - the contrast between the stark white and black is disturbing to me, especially since the crop is uneven. There's also a vignetting effect and the perspective feels just a bit off. —Mono 01:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Thanks for feedback. For the "perspective" - please have a look on this different view to get a feeling for the shape of the building: File:Akademietheater-DSC 0656w.jpg --P e z i (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The left seems to be leaning left. Perspective correction overdone slightly? — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 10:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Thanks for feedback. Don't see any leaning out (please take the step in the facade as reference, not the border). As I already wrote in answering Mono, this building has a special shape. --P e z i (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what I did. All the lines are left-leaning, not just on the edge. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 13:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are right; new version uploaded (also with a slightly tighter crop on left side). But still thinking, that ShiftN did a good job; it was definitely less than 0.5° leaning ... --P e z i (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2014 at 19:17:57 (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 26 Jan 2014 at 21:36:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
InfoPanoramic image of Wadi Bani Khalid. A wadi about 203 km from Muscat, Oman. c|u|n by • Richard • [®] • 21:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Great detail, the scene works well in my opinion, but the amount of clarity added looks unreal, especially in the sky. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 23:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2014 at 19:18:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry, but I do not find sufficient interest in the composition. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry to repeat always the same old things, I know I can be annoying: the landscape depicted in this photograph do not send me anything. Clouds and trees are not taken into consideration, yet there are, it follows a nasty cut image. I'm sorry --Pava (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2014 at 23:49:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Upholstering the seats of your own car.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Upholstering the seats of your own car.jpg
Neutral Good idea, good composition apart from the bottom crop, that could be more generous, I miss a piece of the textile. Furthermore the noise level is a bit high, that is especially annoying in the shadow below the textile Poco2 11:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose A potentially great picture has been spoiled by poor execution and post-processing. The room should have high contrast with the light outside clearly outside of the dynamic range of a camera set for exposing inside. The histogram indicates otherwise, with everything in the midtones. Here, the shadows have been lifted such there is no black (as it should be under the table) and lots of noise, and the whites/highlights reduced so much that the window is posterised and falsely coloured. The shutter speed is a little low for capturing someone who isn't holding a still pose. -- Colin (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Explained well by Colin. The highlight darkening worries me the most. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 23:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Colin. When you're indoors it's OK if a window is completely blown-out. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Nice Colin review. However, I deleted RAW file. Maybe in the future I could try do a reverse engineering Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2014 at 19:31:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose We have already featured a very similar image of the same originator recently (File:Müürlooga (Arabidopsis thaliana) lehekarv (trihhoom) 311 0804.JPG). I think one featured image of this type is enough. Another point, which I have already mentioned quite some time ago, is that the image description lacks any scale information. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2014 at 22:18:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fragmento del Valle de Viñales. Cuba.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fragmento del Valle de Viñales. Cuba.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2014 at 04:39:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Los Angeles (California, USA), South Olive Street -- 2012 -- 7.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Los Angeles (California, USA), South Olive Street -- 2012 -- 7.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 00:25:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wadi Bani Khalid East RB.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wadi Bani Khalid East RB.jpg
InfoWadi Bani Khalid (right) and the entrance to Kahf Maqal Caves (left) heading east. Wadi Bani Khalid is a wadi about 203 km from Muscat, Oman. c|u|n by -- • Richard • [®] • 00:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like this one more than your other nomination. The elevated camera position gives an excellent overview of the Wadi. There's a lot to discover in this image. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Colors just right everywhere in the image, detail flawless—anyone who doesn't look at this at full res is missing a lot. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 07:46:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Angla tuulikud Saaremaal.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Angla tuulikud Saaremaal.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2014 at 07:37:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kaberneeme campfire site.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kaberneeme campfire site.jpg
Oppose -- Not very informative and not sufficient wow to do without. It does not look like a campfire, btw, more like a chimney on fire. Kleuske (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info Description of the picture is in Englis: Outdoor fireplace at Kaberneeme campfire site, Estonia. You are right, it's not a campfire. "Chimney on fire" would be also a good description but it's not actually fire in the picture. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Great picture without doubt. Maybe I'am a bit oldschool but in the earlier days of COM:FPC we had a maxime that a picture should be QI + VI + somehow special to become featured. This image seems to fulfill only the need of a "wow" picture, but nothing more in my opinion. Only recently I've noted that a lot of featured pictures aren't used in the whole project, what makes me sad somehow. FPC is going to degenerate into a cheap imitation of FlickR, instead of being a media file repository for making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content. But don't worry I'am shure there will be a bunch of claqueurs who cheer up this image in their stoic manner, like they (nowadays) always do. Just my 5 cents. Regards 77.187.26.83 19:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Maybe I should leave it be but after you have humiliated everybody who have or would have given their support to this image I cannot keep silent. If you think this photo is not a featured then you can just show your opposition in a way that others do. I am sure nobody will support the nomination because nobody wants to be a claqueurs. Nice move, you must be a politician. I don't know who you are because your comment was anonymous, but even if you are somebody really important, I must say your are going wrong with your statement. There are pictures that are not used in the project but it does not mean the pictures will not be used in the future. The scope of educational and useful content is not limited with your understanding of these things. People are different and they might find different photos useful. Your patronizing attitude towards me and some other users does not honor you. I don't worry about the voting, I have really nothing to lose or win here. To be honest I didn't have high hopes about this photo to be prompted to FP. I leave it yours and others to decide. But I didn't expect the comment "only idiots will support this" either. This is not intelligent. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is no question about intelligence but rather fairness. Eagerly uploaders with "only" encyclopedic contributions will never get a chance to be honoured here. My intention to add my 5 cents isn't personally, nor I want to offend someone, but in my opinion the candidate carries that "wow at any price" thing too far. 77.187.168.116 22:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support stoically claqueuring. Besides, the picture does have EV in more than just one regard and its technical quality is very good. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Excellent example of pathlines visualizing fluid movement. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 08:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Main reason to vote support/oppose to me is: will I see this picture on startpage of my home wiki? Nope! Nothing to see there. Nothing exceptional. Not all good quality images I'll see on frontpage - only exceptional. --Kikos (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I Support. I know it's difficult to make a picture of quality and shooting at the right time. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 10:25:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Portal Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Portal Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque.jpg
Info Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. Created and uploaded by Richard Bartz - nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2014 at 06:58:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rethymno - Neratzes-Moschee1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rethymno - Neratzes-Moschee1.jpg
Info high resolution image of this interesting former mosquee, all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Besides my vote on QIC and the question wether or not an historic building mainly covered by scaffolding is really a good subject, I don't like the tight crop on the top and, the "floating" balkonies on the left and this perspective leading to a strong distortion of the towers top. Imo the view point of the previously used picture in de.Wikipedia was way better. --Martin Kraft (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The tight crop I easy can change. The balkonies I can retouche. The former pic is IMO not better because it has very disturbing parts on the left. But I have also a different view of this building. I will upload it the next days. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course the crop could be changed, but that should been done prior to the nomination. Once nominated, we can only evaluate an image as it is. Even with that improvements made, this image may be good but still not really extraordinary. --Martin Kraft (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not able to guess which of your points are essential for your opinion and which not. Astonishing that you not argue on the essential point. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read what I've written in my first post: The overall perspective and compositon just isn't optimal. The absence of obvious mistakes alone doesn't make it a Feature Picture --Martin Kraft (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I already have written: a subjective perception without substantive argumentation isn't helpfull. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 14:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2014 at 15:33:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:13-06-27-gouda-by-RalfR-127.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:13-06-27-gouda-by-RalfR-127.jpg
Info Cheese market in Gouda, cheese and a brig with Friesian horses for transporting the cheese - all by -- Ralf Roleček 15:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Problem building perspective. The construction appears to be made of cardboard (such as Hollywood scenarios) and that could fall at any time. The point of building some kind of blur is observed. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Das große Gebäuse sieht für mich ehrlich gesagt so aus, als wäre bei einer Perspektivenkorrektur irgendwas schief gelaufen. Schwer zu beschreiben, aber das Haus sieht irgendwie in sich verdreht aus. Auch sonst find' ich's irgendwie nicht so doll: Menschenauflauf im Hindergrund, dessen Grund sich nicht erschließt, dem Pferd fehlt der Kopf … --El Grafo (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Das Bild ist nicht perspektivisch korrigiert, es ist original aus der Kamera mit 10 mm fotografiert. --Ralf Roleček 22:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, dann wäre das vielleicht in Fall, wo eine solche Korrektur angemessen wäre. Ich bin beileibe kein Freund davon, auf Teufel komm raus alles "gerade" zu ziehen, aber das hier sieht für mich einfach irgendwie "falsch" aus. Ist natürlich nur meine persönliche Meinung … --El Grafo (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Despite the technical shortcomings an excellent photograph. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Composition issue: bad crop right (the horse) and left (person).--Jebulon (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2014 at 15:17:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:4.8-17-1990-Guld-koranside-recto-og-verso.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:4.8-17-1990-Guld-koranside-recto-og-verso.jpg
Question I dont know if it is posible. Translate each page in description section. thanks --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 20:12:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vagues et manchots à l'assaut de la plage.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vagues et manchots à l'assaut de la plage.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 19:52:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bangladeshi and U.S. Paratroopers Take to the Skies at Cope South 14 Image 24 of 27.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bangladeshi and U.S. Paratroopers Take to the Skies at Cope South 14 Image 24 of 27.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2014 at 06:11:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bibliothèque du Parlement-19729.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bibliothèque du Parlement-19729.jpg
Oppose Despite the lower resolution, I prefer this simply because it has more room to breathe and the light is better. Top and bottom show a lot of CA here, too. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 09:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2014 at 11:59:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Serbian Christmas meal.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Serbian Christmas meal.jpg
Info created, uploaded and nominated by PetarM -- Mile (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info I would, If I could see one. This might be result of stacking, not CA (right-shadowed part of candle). --Mile (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Photographer no longer sees the picture, just the CA. -- Colin (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Good food picture. -- Colin (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Really good photo. Some CA on the bottom left, I think that could be reduced a bit, but not horrible. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 20:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would agree, the CA on the bottom left is stronger and worth tackling, whereas the "CA" that The Photographer has been edit-warring on the file-description-page to keep is essentially sub-pixel. -- Colin (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done CA removed, good observing Julian, haven't saw it earlier. The Photographer - I really cant help there, I cant see any CA there, if you could be more precise I could solve. --Mile (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's actually still strong CA in a few places in the highlights of the silverware. But on the candle and napkin the CA is at perfectly acceptable levels. The Photographer, sub-pixel-peeping a 16MP image is disruptive. Please stop. It will only encourage people to upload downsampled images and then Commons is the loser. If you want perfection, I'd be grateful if you could buy me a Zeiss Otus for my birthday. -- Colin (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I am absolutely against perfection because it kill artistic pictures. However, I Will not a beginner's and important error pass becasue the Featured Pictures are the best pictures of commons. Somebody asked me a question and I answered. This error is perfectly correctable in one click with lightroom or photoshop and with some more in gimp. I do not understand how something so easy to fix can be this problematic. This error that you consider negligible, would not have passed the requirements of image quality (see image quality section in commons). If we allow this kind of easy corrected mistakes to pass, we should rethink about this section requirements. This section should use the requirements of quality images (and more), but now is being considered a section with lower requirements. I doubt that this would have happened in QIC. --The Photographer (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are making a "beginner's error" in thinking the amount of CA on that candle is in any way important. And this sort of fussing is harmful. Software tools can't guarantee to remove all CA and certainly not all kinds of CA and they do so by altering the image, which can be harmful to colour accuracy elsewhere in the picture. And such CA can only be fixed by the creator who has access to the source uncropped image and ideally the RAW file. Attempting to fix CA by editing a JPG or a cropped JPG may actually do much more harm than good. By all means point out minor flaws as a suggestion, but withholding support on the level of issue you annotated is rude and ignorant. -- Colin (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done red CA removal at serviette. Hope satisfied now, did it at 400%. I should say in start - photo is at full crop, no downsizing and hiding like some could or would do. Pixel peeping (among PD) is often done by hardcore begginers but its more domain on dpreview fanatics, but with time it come to normal behaviour. Judge with tolerance full sized photo, be harsh on downsized one. Have a margin for compact camera owner, and other for full frame owner. That would be my advice. --Mile (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not done Every CA still there. I added another note, you can see strong chromatic aberration. I really love this image, If you wan, I could try fix it, send me a mail. --The Photographer (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done one more correction. For candle, none to see. I am glad you set new standards, just don't set something you cant follow. --Mile (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your version was based on an old upload so I've reverted it. Mile had already uploaded an improved version (with other quality improvements overall such as to background and stacking). His version doesn't eliminate the CA entirely but the worst bits are now much reduced. -- Colin (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but for me the crop at the bottom left is too tight. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support yummy, yummy, and then cheers--Тајга (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Of course the I understand that lense distortion is deliberate, but the fact that nothing is straightly vertical is disturbing to me.--Jebulon (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The idea of creating a still life is good, yet the composition looks rather ill-conceived in terms of arranging objects by colour, shape, size and camera angle of this composition (per Jebulon). I like the soft light but would expect clean reflections for featured picture status. Last but not least: a lit candle would be the icing on the cake Serbian Christmas meal. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2014 at 09:54:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tartu kesklinn.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tartu kesklinn.jpg
Oppose Some white clipping and I don't see a subject that works in terms of a nice composition. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 20:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Actually I think the subject and lighting are great for FP. It's a pity that so much of the facade is blown out. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2014 at 13:06:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tête grimaçante Franz Xaver Messerschmidt.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tête grimaçante Franz Xaver Messerschmidt.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2014 at 15:25:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Säulengang Alte Nationalgalerie Berlin.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Säulengang Alte Nationalgalerie Berlin.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 14:10:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lagoon Nebula.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lagoon Nebula.jpg
I withdraw my nomination. Arriving the day to close the nomination and no one supports. Maybe another nomination in the future. ARiOnEStAr (talk) from Google Translate. 16:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2014 at 05:06:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anglo-concertina-37-button.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anglo-concertina-37-button.jpg
Oppose The composition and subject are great, but I just don't think the DoF is good enough. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Jee 06:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2014 at 01:12:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Church of All Saints, Odiham 1.JPG/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Church of All Saints, Odiham 1.JPG/2
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2014 at 07:01:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:NGC 6946.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:NGC 6946.jpg
Comment Good, but a bit unsharp and there are black round margins on the ends of the image. Even so, it is a good image. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2014 at 12:25:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:NormandySupply edit.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:NormandySupply edit.jpg/2
Oppose Maybe we need a more sofistiqued restoration process, fixing tilt and noise problems --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 14:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2014 at 16:20:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Party House by night, Sofia (by Pudelek).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Party House by night, Sofia (by Pudelek).JPG
Comment The man on the right is cut. And the picture is a bit unsharp. This is fixable? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
crop is no problem, but sharping for me is OK --Pudelek (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ArionEstar I corrected the license and attribution on the crop per the CC BY-SA terms. Feel free to discuss with me on my talk page if you have any doubts or difficulty to understand the terms. Jee 03:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2014 at 11:59:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rio Yayabo. SS.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rio Yayabo. SS.JPG
Oppose Composition uninteresting, perhaps a closeup near the fisherman would have been better or a better weather with blue sky --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2014 at 11:30:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Helix Bridge and Marina Bay Sands Hotel, Singapore - 20130103.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Helix Bridge and Marina Bay Sands Hotel, Singapore - 20130103.jpg
Oppose Sorry, its a interesting building but the technical quality is too low (blurry, noisy, few details are visible).--ArildV (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Lots of blown highlights in the clouds make the underexposure of the buildings that much more (ahem) glaring. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Too pixellated, and bad angle. As a Singaporean myself, I'm sad that I can't support this picture to be promoted to FP. I advise you to shoot the MBS from Gardens by the Bay. That would be a better angle, although you would need to omit the Double Helix. There might be other good locations as well, but those I don't know. As for the Double Helix, sorry, I'm not sure where we can shoot it. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 15:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 14:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2014 at 21:43:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info View of the middle age village of Albarracín, located in the autonomous community of Aragón, in the Northeast of Spain. In the picture can you observe the tower of the Alabarracín Cathedral on the left, the village in the middle (population ca. 1000) and the city walls in the background. All by me, Poco2 21:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Excelente, para mi la mejor foto al menos de la semana. Se podría hacer alguna versión alternativa con menos cielo, me gusta bastante la idea de una versión panoramica. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2014 at 21:09:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kreta - Ufer bei Kokkini Chani.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kreta - Ufer bei Kokkini Chani.jpg
Comment The cropped rock at left is disturbing (my taste). And maybe you could crop/clone out the white part of a boat (?) near the right bottom corner ? Very nice mood anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral notable noise on the sky, one dust spot on the upper right corner, distracting element on the bottom, overall composition not outstanding for me. --Ivar (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
notable noise? I have made this shot at ISO 200 with a camera that is known for it's good noise performance. But your headstrong votes in my pictures is nothing unknown anymore. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Nice view and use of diagonal line but placement of horizon is questionable. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment No, it looks worse IMO. I uploaded new version with cropped rock at the left. I think it looks better now, that rock is not disturbing now. Of course, please revert my change if you like:) Regards. Halavar (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Jee 04:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2014 at 16:32:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Badische Urschiene.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Badische Urschiene.jpg
Comment I would have crop on the sides and the bottom to leave fewer wood (see note) -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info The whole original construction consisted of the rail, longitudinal pinewood stringers (on which the rail is fixed) and crossbars of oak (visible in the upper right corner), not only in the rail itself. Here the original substruction is reconstructed. The wood is not decoration, is is part of the original construction (see image caption). --Llez (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposeNeutral unfortunately there is a very bad crop: that hole in the upper right is irreparable--Pava (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done Sorry, it is reparable! Upper right corner adjusted. --Llez (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
well yes of course adding in editing a piece that does not exist is obvious that reparabile, I was talking to traditional systems. I change my vote to be contrary to neutral, because they are very tight, but I can not believe favorable--Pava (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination and back to uncropped version --Llez (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2014 at 06:26:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Broken tree against the sunset.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Broken tree against the sunset.jpg
Oppose Per Kikos. If an image could be said to have "anti-wow", this would be a good example. Daniel Case (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per above opposers. I feel that this picture lacks structure; there is too much going on, causing dilution of the composition. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per above, the composition lacks structure. Going close up to view only part of the tree stump with sunset background and some kind of geometric composition would likely have created a stronger picture. -- Colin (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Thanks for nominating, I wasn't aware. It is not so much the tree trunk itself, it's rather the back light of sunset and its reflection on the tree trunk and grass that make up the charm of the image. I curious how the voting ends. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I could imagine this to work, but in this case, I have to say it's too chaotic. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 22:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I am sorry. 15 min trying underestand what is that, however, too abstract for me. IMHO could be better a more detailed explain about this composition. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Neither fish nor fowl; too objective for an abstract image and too abstract for a portrait of nature. Sorry. --P e z i (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose no "wow" to me. The trees in the back are disturbing the composition - there is no clear structure visible. BeBo86 (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2014 at 03:53:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Binz (2011-05-21) 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Binz (2011-05-21) 01.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2014 at 23:46:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Lovely setting and composition, but I think it is a touch oversaturated. The cars are a real eyesore. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment That was a bit rainy autumn day and sun was already low, so it really did looked like that. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The mood and composistion is actually good but the top crop is too tight IMO Poco2 11:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose A view with the antenna fully in the picture and fewer branches in front of the building seems possible by slightly changing the position. Currently, the top crop is too tight in my opinion. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 23:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 14:28:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hanna book cover.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hanna book cover.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2014 at 19:11:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mourèze, Hérault 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mourèze, Hérault 02.jpg
2117
2439
509
232
4288
2680
disturbing
Info The church and a part of the village of Mourèze, Hérault, France. All by -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose half of the picture is in shadow, the subject is now slightly cuter than usual, but certainly already seen. But the thing that I think is wrong is all part out of focus that close to the room that creates a bad disorder --Pava (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but here I find the light a bit too weak, you have much more appealing examples from your FP collection: like that one or this one. --A.Savin 20:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination You're certainly right, the place deserves better, I will go back at this place. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 19:57:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spotted Deer or the Chital.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spotted Deer or the Chital.jpg
Oppose The head is not in focus and the man-made background is much disturbing. Please, try Quality Images Candidates first. Regards, --Cayambe (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cayambe: This image is not a work by a wikimedian and so it's ineligible for QI status. --A.Savin 22:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok and thanks, I missed that :-) --Cayambe (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: no chance to succeed because of obvious flaws already described, sorry--Jebulon (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2014 at 14:17:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Erdbeerschalen Viktualienmarkt München.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Erdbeerschalen Viktualienmarkt München.jpg
Oppose A Quality Image, probably, but not a FP, IMO. The thema is common and not outstanding, and the technical result is not extra: only a few of fruits are sharp. And yes, the fly is a bit disturbing.--Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regretful oppose as color pops nicely and composition is striking, but DoF problems more than offset that. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not convinced by the composition. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Quality doesn't matter for this type of motif (although i am a proven DOF fetishist). Nice composition and color. • Richard • [®] • 13:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose not far enough, not close enough, also a large part of the image is totally out of focus --Pava (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2014 at 18:06:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support As you approach the top corners, blurring is observed, however, main subject is water color, almost incredible to believe the purity of the water, like a large swimming pool. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2014 at 16:23:01 (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 10.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Prismas Basálticos, Huasca de Ocampo, Hidalgo, México, 2013-10-10, DD 10.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2014 at 21:04:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tuscan Landscape 7.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tuscan Landscape 7.JPG
Comment Well, I'd argue that the whole scenery defines the motif. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment You are right. I refer mainly to the elements of the stage, trees, buildings. The fields also gives the impression of being too far. However, I really like the sky. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like it. (Please add the geo location.)--XRaytalk 16:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info Unfortunately I can't add exact geo information. I was cruising the Val d’Orcia, occassionally stopping to take pictures. This one was taken in the vicinity of Montepulciano. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support because of the portrait format, I am not sure why that decision, I'd have liked to see more from both sides. Poco2 13:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 00:43:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hendrik Voogd - Italiaans landschap met parasoldennen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hendrik Voogd - Italiaans landschap met parasoldennen.jpg
Info created by Hendrik Voogt (Amsterdam 1783 - Rome 1839) - uploaded by Ophelia2 - nominated by --Pava (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
if this image is a 100% reproduction of this painting then "unfortunate crop" is an invalid argument --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sadly that's not completely true. The Nachtwacht by Rembrandt, for one, was cropped, which is still considered to be very unfortunate. Kleuske (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NeutralOppose The version at the Rijksmuseum has completely different colors. Also different and (I think) less noticeable cracks. This version here looks overprocessed to me. Lupo 14:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
acquisition matters a lot, a good acquisition can have brilliant effects very close to the oil color. It seems to me that it is not true the other image, but it will depend on the light. I do not think we can speak of "overprocesssed". thanks for reporting, very valuable, however. --Pava (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our version here gives the Rijksmuseum as the source. The direct link in the template on the file description page doesn't work, though, so I don't know if the Rijksmuseum did do two versions of this, or if the one I found was supposed to be the true source of our file. But if so, the difference is striking. I like the version now available at the Rijksmuseum better. Lupo 20:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Switched from neutral to oppose. Lupo 12:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info Alternative: from the Rijksmuseum. No restoration attempted by me. Lupo 14:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry but there is now a contradiction, however, with your vote, you should not remove the neutral version and put the other in favor of this proposal that you've seen? --Pava (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's the contradiction? Lupo 19:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
you propose an alternative without vote on it, now it's ok :) but did not want to be a severe criticism, so maybe I was wrong to expose myself --Pava (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 00:39:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Francesca Romana Forum Romanum Rome.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Francesca Romana Forum Romanum Rome.jpg
Comment Where ? Improvable ? --Jebulon (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do not be upset Jebulon: it seems that you write the same things in all the images, it is to be considered as an intervention spam or troll, that one vote. However commons is free, it is for others to evaluate. He used even on a framework, which is an all seen say that it is 100%. Here the cut is good, very good indeed. --Pava (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't worry Pava, all is fine, but there is a mistake in your comment. Do you mean "he writes the same thing", and not "you write the same thing", right ? About the crop: I've tried other solutions, but nothing works better than this one, indeed. It is interesting to see that the church is in the Forum Romanum, just along the Via Sacra... But you know this better than me, of course !--Jebulon (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
is what I meant. About the Basilica: It is fascinating location, although it's a bit 'think they have also built a church there in the middle --Pava (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Thaks for unexpected nomination !--Jebulon (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose QI, no FP, the cut off ruins deviate the view to the main object. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are going strong, tonight ! Congrats ! --Jebulon (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it would be a good decision not to replay if you haven't s.th. factual. Thank you! --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
End of the Discussion with you, thank you again.--Jebulon (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't you think it's a bit absurd to declare EOD and replay again and again? I think so. You'll not manage to ban me from speaking. TY. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What a cheat ! "flim-flam" is obviously not an attempt of "discussion", so, no Eo"D" possible this time. Anyway, only 5 days more to wait before the end...--Jebulon (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Looks like the sky was blurred to reduce noise. Shouldn't be visible on the edges and in the clouds. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 23:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I've tried to reduce noise and compression artefacts in the sky, but I don't think it is very disturbing nor visible (around the cross, perhaps...)--Jebulon (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question We should be interested to know why do you oppose, please.--Jebulon (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just for the journal: maybe Viscontino is not in mood to get in entraped in a nonsense-ad-infinitum-conversation like we had here already. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 06:23:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Amerikaanse windmolen.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amerikaanse windmolen.JPG
Oppose Oversharpened. Would suggest ISO 100 and f/8, maybe less depending on how the lens performs there. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 23:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 01:03:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Thessaloniki Promenade.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thessaloniki Promenade.JPG
Comment There is too much street at the bottom and it seems to be CW tilted.--XRaytalk 07:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but for me, this is not a FP. The composition appears randomly set and the image is rather noisy than sharp. --EveryPicture (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: overall insufficient quality, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 21:01:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Roborovski Hamster Female.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Roborovski Hamster Female.jpg
Oppose The flash lighting is too harsh. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per KoH, unfortunate lighting. Also strong loss of detail through NR in full view. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: insufficient quality, unfortunate lighting, no detail, composition not outstanding, nothing featurable--Jebulon (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[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 3 Feb 2014 at 12:09:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Emmelie de Forest, ESC2013 press conference 12 (crop).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Emmelie de Forest, ESC2013 press conference 12 (crop).jpg
Oppose Lacking sharpness, overlapping bokeh. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Lacking sharpness, ovelapping bokeh.--Jebulon (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[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 3 Feb 2014 at 12:11:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Emmelie de Forest, ESC2013 press conference 12.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Emmelie de Forest, ESC2013 press conference 12.jpg
Oppose Lacking sharpness, overlapping bokeh. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: lacking sharpness, overlapping bokeh.--Jebulon (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 20:00:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fisherman in action!.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fisherman in action!.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: strong chromatic noise, not correctible. Parts overexposed.--Jebulon (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[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 31 Jan 2014 at 22:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Virgin River, Zion 2009.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Virgin River, Zion 2009.jpg
Info created by David Scarbrough- uploaded by PDTillman - nominated by Mono -- —Mono 22:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: oversaturation and lack of sharpness, sorry--Jebulon (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[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.
Support -- —Mono 22:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2014 at 13:32:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anas castanea.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anas castanea.jpg
Support Wow, that red eye is really interesting... Halavar (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Insufficient crop, and pixellated to a certain extent. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 15:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Funny ... this image is the same size and even then it is a FP. And if possible, mark areas where there is pixelation. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm talking about crop, dude, not size. As for the pixellation, the head looks so. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 06:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I like this duck, but the reflections are a bit too strong and the detail/resolution a borderline case (4MP picture with an 18MP camera). --A.Savin 21:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Agree with Alexander, it is too small IMHO, lacking therefore detail, although it was shot with a 700 mm. So, it looks like the subject was much too far. Poco2 13:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then, I I withdraw my nomination. Improbable to be successful because there are 6 supports and 4 opposes. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 12:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2014 at 15:08:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dog feeling in Chacachacare Harbour.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dog feeling in Chacachacare Harbour.jpg
Comment Could be nice a comment about why strong oppose in order to improve my quality as a photographer. thank you very much --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The dog and foreground are very dark, despite background objects having clipped whites. This is also a problem in terms of composition, because the eye is drawn to the background with far more contrast, but nothing interesting in it. Additionally, I am not convinced by the sharpness anywhere in the photo. The pose and facial expression of the dog are nice though. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 10:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 02:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 18:46:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Tiber, Sant'Angelo bridge, Saint Peter's Basilica, at dusk, Rome, Italy-- Jebulon (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support very nice! --Ivar (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose image atmosphere good but not breath taking for me, but strong technical issues here: partial very blurry and not sharp, slobbery impression, see to be a too strong clearance of noise --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"slobbery" ? Wow. I forgot that you know very well how to chose the good word...--Jebulon (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
look at 100% view at this picture and you´ll see what I mean --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
you imagine that I nominate here in FPC without opening the image at 100% ? Please.... Anyway, no matter. Remembers me some months ago...--Jebulon (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
then you should proof your nomination criteria, this image has a serious problem with the mentioned matters --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's wait what others say. EoD for me with you, thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you take objective arguments personal don't candidate here pictures. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EoD for me with you, thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I didn't support the last one because I thought this could look better in less darkness. This is better in my opinion, despite having less detail. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 22:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Really beautiful scene. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support eeeeh Italy ... heart apart, very nice photo, congratulations. Well cut the trees, which is very rare here on FP --Pava (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Maybe agressive denoise (from camera internal filter). Excellent composition --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral pro: nice composition / con: halos around the trees, washed out cupola of st. peters (see notes) - too much noise filter? Is there a chance to fix that? BeBo86 (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for review. I understand what you mean. I'll try to fix.--Jebulon (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've corrected the halos, but there is no gain with the original raw file regarding the cuppola, please notice the distance between the camera and the subject: almost 2 km. The lens is what it is... In spite of the subject, no miracle ! --Jebulon (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 16:40:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment The crop is a bit tight at bottom IMO. Is it possible to have a little more space at bottom and to clone out 2 or 3 disturbings things? (see notes) --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed The disturbing spots are removed or reduced. Another crop at the bottom is not possible, sorry. Additionally I reduced the overhead at the top and on the left side.--XRaytalk 12:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Pleasant and harmonious image of a common object. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Since the bell is the main subject, the crop does not bother me much. Good compo, good execution. I like it. en ik kan het weten, want it heb een bel aan m'n fiets Kleuske (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support beautiful photo, for me it's also available in VI --Pava (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the composition does not say "wow" for me. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The idea is good but I see some issues: the detail is low (the original shot was 3 times bigger), it is overall a bit dark, the reflexion is there but not really drawing the attention (too distorted and the scratches in the bike mine it). Sorry, not a FP to me. Poco2 13:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--XRaytalk 04:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 03:25:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Good, but it really needs perspective correction.--XRaytalk 16:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose good, but it really needs perspective correction. Sorry, but here it is FPC page, and pictures should be corrected before nomination.--Jebulon (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 05:36:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Egretta thula at Las Gallinas Wildlife Ponds.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Egretta thula at Las Gallinas Wildlife Ponds.jpg
Support Awesome shot. Frank, you shoot some of the best bird photos I have ever come across. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 15:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2014 at 22:26:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Half Dome from Glacier Point, Yosemite NP - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Half Dome from Glacier Point, Yosemite NP - Diliff.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2014 at 08:44:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral I like gold colors but I am not sure about of wow factor in this composition. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 15:26:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kakerdaja raba talvine maastik.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kakerdaja raba talvine maastik.jpg
Comment nice really nice, do not vote for me because the row of trees on the left, you could do something much better at cutting. And that element in the lower right is of considerable disorder, because it is sliced in half (but these are things that just seem to give importance and do not want to spoil the vote). But beautiful photos. --Pava (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2014 at 16:14:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mount Vernon Estate Upper Garden.JPG/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mount Vernon Estate Upper Garden.JPG/2
Neutral Good composition but most of the building is hidden and the building (as main subject of the shot) is not really outstanding Poco2 22:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It would be wise to pay a gardener and try again. --The Photographer (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 20:35:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schwierige Passage (von Adi Holzer 2002).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schwierige Passage (von Adi Holzer 2002).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 23:15:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Good quality but the composition, the subject and the lack of detail (too much cropped out probably) are IMHO not at FP level, sorry Holger, Poco2 13:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I understand the scientific interest of to have in many of your photos a cut mushroom put on the ground, but for me it ruins the composition which would gain to be more natural. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 10:43:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Sofia (by Pudelek).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Sofia (by Pudelek).JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 09:19:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Männikjärve raba tornist.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Männikjärve raba tornist.jpg
Support A good but wowless landscape gets it wow from a wooden puncheon bridge that seems to go back to infinity. Daniel Case (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2014 at 06:53:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rummu aherainemägi2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rummu aherainemägi2.jpg
Info Spoil tip in Rummu, an example of rainfall erosion. All by Ivar (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
weak Oppose sorry but I dont get it. The quality is good (especially the grass in the foreground is very high quality, the main subject is actually less impressive) but imo neither the subject or composition stands out. The light is pleasant, but not outstanding.--ArildV (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Interesting composition plays an important problem in arid soils. Places like these soon become deserts. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2014 at 10:28:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Effect makes the image even if the landscape is not very nice (apart from the trees that lose a bit 'though) no "wow" effect and for me is lackluster, there seems to be a white coating over. --Pava (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC) PS: you can try to increase the brightness? a bit to see if it improves --Pava (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose with regrets, because technical quality is perfect. But I dislike the centered composition very much, with the vertical street and the horizontal line of buildings, I find the picture a bit "flat". The crop of the avenue is too harsh at the bottom, IMO. Maybe a portrait framing should work better, if not centered. Well, I'm sorry. Matter of taste, this one does not work with me.--Jebulon (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 09:13:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault 04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault 04.jpg
Info The town of Sète and the Mount Saint-Clair from Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault, France. All by Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Pilnīgi nesapratu, kas te ir nofotografēts!!! (sorry, no words to describe in English) --Kikos (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry to have too fast reacted Kikos. Thank you for to have rewiew my picture. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I know that I am very far from being a good photographer but it is possible to have a little of restraint in comment, a simple "no wow" is widely enough. I am not quibbling and would not like to be obliged to become it. Thanks in advence for next voters. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Reply[reply]
Comment Thanks for honesty about Your professional level. Can I ask: why You are nominating Your pictures if You understand that You are very far from being a good photographer? This is some kind of irreverence to other wikipedians? "How far can I go with this kind of pictures?" This picture is far from simply "no wow", this is something diferent. --Kikos (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An "undo" can be considered as "withdrawn comment"; so striking off that part. Christian, please take it that way. Jee 05:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2014 at 12:39:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque RB.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque RB.jpg
StrongSupport Superb picture. It seems a design made on the computer or a work of art. -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 12:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Could somebody provide any information about FoP in Oman ? I can't find anything about Oman, but there is no FoP in almost all arab countries around... I'm pessimistic --Jebulon (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then, I I withdraw my nomination because problems of Freedom of Panorama (FoP). Maybe another nomination in the future. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 19:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2014 at 15:13:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:PIA14712 crop.tifCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:PIA14712 crop.tif
It's the south pole of a planetoid beyond the orbit of Mars... No f*cking WOW?! we're spoiled rotten by NASA, ESA and others.Kleuske (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I am sorry, IMHO I preffer another objects like super nova or god hands. I am not expert in this topic, but I know what is PIA14712, maybe this image has a hight EV and it is important but the image only show a big grey rock. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It only show a big grey rock because Vesta is a grey rock but although it is a big asteroid it is a small solar system body. May be you will find the wow in the fact that previously to the DAWN mission, this was the best image we had from Vesta so although it is known to exist for more than 2 centuries we finally could see it in detail. Last but not the least, "wow" is of course a very subjective criterion but IMHO is hard to be wowed by a Nebula when there are already 29+5 of them in FP and no dwarf planet, asteroid or even Neptune and Uranus. --G Furtado (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I love the photos from NASA, this image has a great story, however, IMHO does not have enough interesting visible elements in color, composition, shape and use of space . Sorry --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Nice image, high encyclopedic value. Kleuske (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2014 at 14:53:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Plaza de Toros de Maracaibo pano-1-7.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Plaza de Toros de Maracaibo pano-1-7.jpg
Question Why the fake bull? is it a joke? --2.40.91.160 03:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it was a joke based in this for my friends in real life but I forget upload the right version. I hope this is not misinterpreted. I have always been against photo retouching, especially something so obvious. I am sorry, right version is up now. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question That's actually a good question. I sincerely apologize if I'm wrong, but the bull does in fact appear somewhat fake. How come there's a torero and a bull (both surprisingly sharp btw) in action while the arena is still being serviced by staff? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question I'm not so big specialist in this kind of sport but bull appears to be flying some distance above ground. It is mounted there? As toreador too?Of course. Bad joke :( --Kikos (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2014 at 11:11:25 (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 6 Feb 2014 at 15:56:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ESC - United Kingdom 07.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ESC - United Kingdom 07.JPG
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Far from current quality criteria in FPC, sorry (Noise, sharpness, crop, composition...)--Jebulon (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[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 6 Feb 2014 at 15:55:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ESC - United Kingdom 05.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ESC - United Kingdom 05.JPG
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: far from current quality criteria in FPC, sorry (Noise, sharpness, crop, composition...)--Jebulon (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[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 6 Feb 2014 at 14:58:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sofia kyrka January 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sofia kyrka January 2013.jpg
Oppose sorry, but WAY too tight crop --A.Savin 21:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral The light is so nice I'm tempted to support, but the crop really is very tight. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 13:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I know what ArildV wanted to show with the image. All that matters is the church, not the ambiance. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I've been away from the commons few days. The problem with this almost 80 meters high church is that it is built on a small plateau on the top of a steep hill in a park with tall, old trees. It has been discussed before in FP (see also link to an aerial photo). So either I have to do like the image below or use an even more extreme wide angle (photo taken with 24mm on full-frame camera). Unfortunately I do not have access to any such objective, and it would require even more perspective correction.--ArildV (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This one is almost as tight. Besides, it is certainly not an "alternative" but a completely different image. (Maybe you should ask Arild what he himself says to a nomination, before simply nominating.) --A.Savin 23:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Not an alternative at all. Different season, light, angle, ... — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 13:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment An almost identical photo was nominated 2012. But, since it was taken with a DX camera I can retake it with D600 and the same lens and get a less tight image.--ArildV (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info This should be converted into a different nomination, according to the rules -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination because tight crop. Maybe another nomination in the future. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 09:53:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stage Door Johnnies.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stage Door Johnnies.jpg
Oppose Chromatic aberration, noise and poor bokeh. Which is pretty much what you would expect with a 4 year old camera with a ASP-H sensor in poor lighting conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose no wow. + strange reflection horizontal line at bottom, and blank line to be crooped out. + disturbing thing at left. + noise and CA--Jebulon (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nothing special.--Claus (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: no chance to succeed because of flaws mentioned above.--Jebulon (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[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 30 Jan 2014 at 06:26:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gymnadenia conopsea - harilik käoraamat.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gymnadenia conopsea - harilik käoraamat.jpg
Info Inflorescence of the fragrant orchid (Gymnadenia conopsea). All by Ivar (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very good, I think the insect on the flower is a member of the Asilidae family -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I guess she was more like one of Culicidae, who was resting before next air attack on me. --Ivar (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I too think so and many of them are harmless. Jee 14:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Nice but why are new version smaller (the original 24 mp versions was excellent in full size)?--ArildV (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I was not 100% pleased with the full-size version (maybe I was a bit too harsh to myself). --Ivar (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose see Wladyslaw + busy background, you can do better pictures of flowers --A.Savin 11:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I agree with Wladyslaw. The quality is good but half of the flower is in shadow. Maybe it wasn't the best angle Poco2 13:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2014 at 21:24:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Strömsbergs bruk 04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Strömsbergs bruk 04.jpg
Info Part of former ironworks Strömsbergs bruk, Sweden. All by me. -- V-wolf (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Light is not the best. I preffer a blue sky. I cant see a main subject in composition. I am sorry --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support Some blue parts in the sky may be better. --XRaytalk 16:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 06:55:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cirque de Mourèze, Hérault 23.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cirque de Mourèze, Hérault 23.jpg
Comment I don’t like the centered composition too much. Rule of thirds would make a more impressive image. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not edit all my RAW files and I believe that I have one that can correspond to what you say, I go tried to find the time to edit it and to propose it as an alternative. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose because of the other choice (which is not an alternative, but another picture. Beware of the rule of "only two noms per nominator" !) you should maybe withdraw this one, IMO--Jebulon (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Inded it's an other image, but of the same subject, from the same author, with the same material, from the same point, with the same regulations, with the same light (2 minutes of difference between the both), with the same edition, the only difference is 116 mm and 82 mm. I don't want the both promoted, one is enough. I so consider them as versions similar enough to be considered as reasonably alternatives. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, this is "another image"... So you have three active nominations for the moment, my friend...--Jebulon (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only two can be promoted it is thus only two nominations, I find its rather similar to be considered as alternative and I do not intend to withdraw --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. Either nominate each individually or accept that only one can be promoted. For future reference, if I get the sense images are being uploaded just to wear down resistance I will oppose both. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Saffron Blaze No problem, I understand, but I uploaded absolute whole lot of my images on Commons, but the lack of time makes that I cannot publish them quite at the same time. I did it this time because it seemed to me relevant because of the first comment. I believed to read in this page this sentence : "Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken". Specially in certain cases or the images are very, very similar. Here it is as a crop but for the better, there is no loss of resolution. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh and yes I accept that only one can be promoted, this is thus the purpose of this alternative. Thanks to me you can find the best for commons (the purpose of this page), you have more choices. And if you believe that it is an attempt of cheating from me, be sure it is not. I suggest you to oppose both. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support As it is not another version of the same file, but another distinct file, I think it is not an "alternative", but a new nomination.--Jebulon (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral. Composition looks much more interesting that way. Would prefer to have less sky and more rock though. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This crop today is a third picture in the same FP. The voting is now confused. I suggest this be closed without prejudice and a new nomination made with whatever is felt to be the best. -- Colin (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 00:26:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Peilturm am Kap Arkona.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Peilturm am Kap Arkona.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2014 at 14:26:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stralsund Marienkirche 2006.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stralsund Marienkirche 2006.jpg
Comment I think an good image of that building would be a very good candidate, after all it was the tallest building in the world for some time (even if it had another tower back then). However, I feel that the image has some issues: First, there are remaining parts of white background that come from perspective correction (it shouldn't be a QI according to today's standards). Second, I find the sky somewhat strange: very mushy, detail overall also isn't great, you can see that eight years of camera development have passed since then. --DXR (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then, I I withdraw my nomination. Improbable to be successful because the sky is weak and bad perspective. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 11:08:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2013 Kraftwerk Heilbronn im Abendlicht.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2013 Kraftwerk Heilbronn im Abendlicht.jpg
Comment I think that it is too dark Poco2 13:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info I already brightened the foreground area considerably, more would raise noise. The light was rather tricky (and changed rapidly, the cooling tower was in that light only for a few seconds). --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SupportKohlkraft? Ja bitte! This is one of those pictures where the large sky portion actually helps (And everytime I look at the title I keep expecting to see Ralf and Florian ... oh well). Daniel Case (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info German Kohlkraft would be cabbage power in English. Try Kohlekraft ;-) --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dammit, there are times when I wish I'd formally studied the language ... Oh well, at least "cabbage power" would be greener (literally and figuratively). :-) Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
.jpg/555px-Chamaeleo_namaquensis_(Walvis_Bay).jpg)
%2C_Bulgaria_(by_Pudelek).JPG/600px-Vihren_(Вихрен)%2C_Bulgaria_(by_Pudelek).JPG)
%2C_Villeneuvette%2C_Hérault_01.jpg/480px-Pont_de_l%27Amour_(Aqueduc)%2C_Villeneuvette%2C_Hérault_01.jpg)
.jpg/318px-World_Trade_Center%2C_New_York_City_-_aerial_view_(March_2001).jpg)
%2C_Hist._Route_66_--_2012_--_5705.jpg/450px-Amboy_(California%2C_USA)%2C_Hist._Route_66_--_2012_--_5705.jpg)
.jpg/600px-VISTA%27s_infrared_view_of_the_Lagoon_Nebula_(Messier_8).jpg)
_--_2012_--_4.jpg/450px-Amboy_(California%2C_USA)_--_2012_--_4.jpg)
_-_Monument_of_the_Russian_emperor_Alexander_II_(by_Pudelek)_2.JPG/413px-Shipka_pass_(Шипка)_-_Monument_of_the_Russian_emperor_Alexander_II_(by_Pudelek)_2.JPG)
_lehekarv_(trihhoom)_311_0804.JPG/225px-Müürlooga_(Arabidopsis_thaliana)_lehekarv_(trihhoom)_311_0804.JPG)
![Historic Route 66 near Ambay (California) [another version of the withdrawn image with another crop]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Amboy_(California%2C_USA)%2C_Hist._Route_66_--_2012_--_1.jpg/592px-Amboy_(California%2C_USA)%2C_Hist._Route_66_--_2012_--_1.jpg)
.jpg/300px-Macaca_nigra_self-portrait_(rotated_and_cropped).jpg)
._cairn.JPG/400px-Le_Signal_de_la_Grave%2C_(2446_m.)._cairn.JPG)
.jpg/450px-The_statues_of_Kim_Il_Sung_and_Kim_Jong_Il_on_Mansu_Hill_in_Pyongyang_(april_2012).jpg)
_01.jpg/437px-Церковь_Иоанна_Предтечи_(Керчь)_01.jpg)
_-_Tsarevets.JPG/693px-Veliko_Tarnovo_(Велико_Търново)_-_Tsarevets.JPG)
%2C_Galata_Bridge._Turkey%2C_Southeastern_Europe.jpg/600px-Panoramic_view_of_Istanbul-_Yeni_Cami_(The_New_Mosque)%2C_Galata_Bridge._Turkey%2C_Southeastern_Europe.jpg)
.jpg/345px-Rhinoceros_unicornis_(posterior).jpg)
_lehekarv_(trihhoom)_311_1001.JPG/400px-Müürlooga_(Arabidopsis_thaliana)_lehekarv_(trihhoom)_311_1001.JPG)
%2C_South_Olive_Street_--_2012_--_4847.jpg/450px-Los_Angeles_(California%2C_USA)%2C_South_Olive_Street_--_2012_--_4847.jpg)
.JPG/475px-Party_House_by_night%2C_Sofia_(by_Pudelek).JPG)
_01.JPG/529px-Binz_(2011-05-21)_01.JPG)
.jpg/350px-Emmelie_de_Forest%2C_ESC2013_press_conference_12_(crop).jpg)
%2C_Bicycle_--_2013_--_4368.jpg/440px-Rome_(Italy)%2C_Bicycle_--_2013_--_4368.jpg)
.jpg/300px-Schwierige_Passage_(von_Adi_Holzer_2002).jpg)
.JPG/464px-Alexander_Nevsky_Cathedral%2C_Sofia_(by_Pudelek).JPG)
_-_Asenova_Mahala_quarter_2.JPG/450px-Veliko_Tarnovo_(Велико_Търново)_-_Asenova_Mahala_quarter_2.JPG)
Info created by J.Ligero & I.Barrios - uploaded by Alurín - nominated by Alurín -- Alurín (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Support -- Alurín (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Interesting event, but the Vespa in unsharp, and the background very noisy.--Jebulon (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination. Thanks for your comments. --Alurín (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment Tilted ccw Poco2 22:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Neutral Nice detail, interesting subject, good crop, but still tilted Poco2 11:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Request Maybe you could add the "personality rights template" in the file description page ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
Abstain as author. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 07:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
_lehekarv_(trihhoom)_311_0802.JPG)
_lehekarv_(trihhoom)_311_1004.JPG)
_lehekarv_(trihhoom)_311_1005.JPG)
Question I would like to understand, whether this is intended just as a modern art contribution or as a scientific contribution? The file descriptions are very short and for some of the images only a file description in Estonian is given. A size scale is neither provided in the images nor in the file description, though at least some of the images appear to represent different magnifications. I understand that all images are electron microscopy images, being artifically coloured, but I don't understand the colour coding. Why is a yellow colour chosen for some trichomes while the others are coloured in green/blue/red? -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
,_Bulgaria_(by_Pudelek).JPG)
,_Villeneuvette,_Hérault_01.jpg)
Done ArionEstar (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
,_Hist._Route_66_--_2012_--_5705.jpg)
.jpg)
Keep the FP-tag is and was simply a time stamp in the past. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
_--_2012_--_4.jpg)
_-_Monument_of_the_Russian_emperor_Alexander_II_(by_Pudelek)_2.JPG)
_lehekarv_(trihhoom)_311_0804.JPG)
![Historic Route 66 near Ambay (California) [another version of the withdrawn image with another crop]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amboy_(California,_USA),_Hist._Route_66_--_2012_--_1.jpg)
Fixed should be better now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
chromatic aberration. See notes --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
._cairn.JPG)
The Egyptian Goose (Alopochen aegyptiacus) is member of the duck, goose and swan family Anatidae. C/u by User:Richard Bartz
Chestnut Teal (Anas castanea), Gould's Lagoon, Tasmania, Australia. C/u by User:JJ Harrison
A Greylag Goose (Anser anser) in St James's Park, London, England. C/u by User:Diliff
.jpg)
_01.jpg)
Delist and replace -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
_-_Tsarevets.JPG)
,_Galata_Bridge._Turkey,_Southeastern_Europe.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_lehekarv_(trihhoom)_311_1001.JPG)
,_South_Olive_Street_--_2012_--_4847.jpg)
Not done Every CA still there. I added another note, you can see strong 
.JPG)
.JPG)
Underexposed (see notes), --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
_01.JPG)
.jpg)
,_Bicycle_--_2013_--_4368.jpg)
False death cap (Amanita citrina) in Hesse, Germany.
False death cap (Amanita citrina) in Hesse, Germany.
.jpg)
.JPG)
_-_Asenova_Mahala_quarter_2.JPG)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Bulgaria_(by_Pudelek).JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Villeneuvette,_Hérault_01.jpg){kind=link}
,_Damien_Hirst's_Verity_--_2013_--_5.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Hist._Route_66_--_2012_--_5.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_--_2012_--_4.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Monument_of_the_Russian_emperor_Alexander_II_(by_Pudelek)_2.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_lehekarv_(trihhoom)_311_0804.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
-Israel-Jerusalem-Temple_Mount-View_01.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
._cairn.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_01.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Tsarevets.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
,_Galata_Bridge._Turkey,_Southeastern_Europe.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_lehekarv_(trihhoom)_311_1001.JPG){kind=link}
,_South_Olive_Street_--_2012_--_7.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
_01.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Bicycle_--_2013_--_9.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Asenova_Mahala_quarter_2.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Bulgaria_(by_Pudelek).JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Bulgaria_(by_Pudelek).JPG){kind=link}
,_Villeneuvette,_H%C3%A9rault_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Villeneuvette,_Hérault_01.jpg){kind=link}
,_Damien_Hirst%27s_Verity_--_2013_--_5.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Damien_Hirst%27s_Verity_--_2013_--_5.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Damien_Hirst%27s_Verity_--_2013_--_5.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Hist._Route_66_--_2012_--_5.jpg){kind=link}
,_Hist._Route_66_--_2012_--_5.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Hist._Route_66_--_2012_--_5.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_--_2012_--_4.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_--_2012_--_4.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Monument_of_the_Russian_emperor_Alexander_II_(by_Pudelek)_2.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Monument_of_the_Russian_emperor_Alexander_II_(by_Pudelek)_2.JPG){kind=link}
_lehekarv_(trihhoom)_311_0804.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_lehekarv_(trihhoom)_311_0804.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-Israel-Jerusalem-Temple_Mount-View_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-Israel-Jerusalem-Temple_Mount-View_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
-Israel-Jerusalem-Temple_Mount-View_01.jpg){kind=link}
-Temple_Mount-View_01.jpg){kind=link}
-Israel-Jerusalem-Temple_Mount-View_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
-Temple_Mount-View_01a.jpg){kind=link}
-Israel-Jerusalem-Temple_Mount-View_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-3){kind=link}
._cairn.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
._cairn.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Tsarevets.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Tsarevets.JPG){kind=link}
,_Galata_Bridge._Turkey,_Southeastern_Europe.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Galata_Bridge._Turkey,_Southeastern_Europe.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_lehekarv_(trihhoom)_311_1001.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_lehekarv_(trihhoom)_311_1001.JPG){kind=link}
,_South_Olive_Street_--_2012_--_7.jpg){kind=link}
,_South_Olive_Street_--_2012_--_7.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_South_Olive_Street_--_2012_--_7.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
_01.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_01.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Bicycle_--_2013_--_9.jpg){kind=link}
,_Bicycle_--_2013_--_9.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Bicycle_--_2013_--_9.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_-_Asenova_Mahala_quarter_2.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Asenova_Mahala_quarter_2.JPG){kind=link}
