Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2016 at 13:20:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cabrières et le Pic de Vissou 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cabrières et le Pic de Vissou 01.jpg
Strong support I'm always partial to the sort of landscapes I aspire to take myself, and this is an excellent example: nice multiplane composition and great use of raking light to bring out detail. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2016 at 19:42:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Killdeer at Rodeo Beach.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Killdeer at Rodeo Beach.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2015 at 18:24:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Koluvere mõisa kivisild 1 2014.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Koluvere mõisa kivisild 1 2014.jpg
Support JAPWWR (just another photo with water reflections) :) But this one is really good. The distinctiveness is the nice spot of sunlight on the bridge in the center of the photo. You've captured the perfect moment here. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tree is pixels away from being cropped, it needs more space in my opinion. I'd rather have more space on top instead of a 50/50 waterline. Light is also only good on the bridge itself. — Julian H.✈ 10:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More space for spruce would have caused less space for the reflection. "Light is also only good on the bridge itself" - that's why this image is imho outstanding! --Ivar (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see your points and understand the intent. I just think that the reflection is not as important as first getting the composition "above the water" right. The reflection should serve the composition, not dictate it (my opinion only). I can see how the light on the bridge can be seen as a good way of highlighting it, but it makes the rest really dark. — Julian H.✈ 13:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2015 at 16:10:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Marabou Stork Jurong.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marabou Stork Jurong.jpg
Support - I'd be OK with running this one. That's quite a funny-looking bird. The bird is clearly photographed and the background is acceptable to me, though a little dark. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2016 at 17:53:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Maria Laach Kirche Gnadenbild 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Maria Laach Kirche Gnadenbild 01.JPG
Info Image of Grace Our Lady with six Fingers at the parish- and pilgrimage church Maria Laach am Jauerling, Lower Austria. Anonymous master, 2nd half of 15th century. Photographed, uploaded, and nominated by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I couldn´t find any pictures with this quality online, do you have a link? I found one, but this is just lightened up. --Hubertl21:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info@Yann: Again brightened a bit more, and I agree to you that it looks better now. Regarding the spots, I guess you mean the ones visible at Madonna's cape. These spots are in the painting, and I will not retouch them. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Thanks for your suggestions and your support. But please do NOT remove the defects, although it would be easy. I want to show this painting as it is - with its defects! --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2016 at 18:49:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Le Molkenrain.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Le Molkenrain.JPG
Comment Nice place, lighting time and composition, though a bit dark. However I don't think it's fixable as a brightening will add too much noise on the forest on the hills. I think the photo have been a bit underexposed. Christian Ferrer(talk)18:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great potential, with the clouds, but composition isn't working and technically I agree it appears underexposed and lacking clarity. -- Colin (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2016 at 14:08:02 (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 31 Dec 2015 at 23:12:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Castle in Stockholm (by Pudelek).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Castle in Stockholm (by Pudelek).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2016 at 08:00:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:San Carlo al Corso (Rome) - First Left chapel ceiling.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Carlo al Corso (Rome) - First Left chapel ceiling.jpg
FP should be our finest images. Therefore my question. I gave you an opportunity to explain why this image is one of our finest images. We have thousands of interior QI. Compared to the average IQ: the colors are worse (unrealistic, incorrect white balance, strange blue colour), level of detail and sharpness are average, composition is average and simple. Therefore my question, why is it one of our finest interior images?--ArildV (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very good is just empty words. What is very good here and what is better than a average QI? Sharpness (not very good, soft corners and borders), level of details (average, soft corners and borders), composition (average, improvable), lightning (average, not to bad for a old church but improvable with for example exposure fusion). Therefore my question, why is it one of our finest interior images?--ArildV (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a fundamental difference between explain every comma and asking the most basic and elementary question, why is it a FP?. Anyway, I only ask to give you an opportunity to explain why this image is one of our finest images. Very good is not a convincing answer.--ArildV (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per ArildV. One can also see in the two versions that the saturation slider had been moved over to the max. Come one, Livio, show some respect. Your efforts have zero educational value if you crudely alter the images to suit your taste. These aren't cartoons and you can't restore them to "as painted" colours with a few Lightroom sliders. -- Colin (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Also, don't use AdobeRGB on the internet. -- Colin (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but in this case, I have to oppose as Colin, Daniel and ArildV. They are absolutely right. We don´t just have to nominate the best, also the best we can do by ourself. With this picture, Livio, you haven´t really maxed out your own skills and potential. --Hubertl09:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2016 at 17:35:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Glow worms.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glow worms.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2016 at 20:47:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:AT-13763 Kuppelfigur Athene am Kunsthistorischen Museum 8970.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:AT-13763 Kuppelfigur Athene am Kunsthistorischen Museum 8970.jpg
Comment I don´t want to change your decision, ArildV, I just want to explain my approach to this statue: Everybody in Vienna knows, that there are two monumental figures at those two buildings, but in fact, almost nobody have an idea how they really look like. The distance to both is utterly to great (in this case more than 200m), this is probably the only picture wich shows the figure separately. If the weather is perfect and also the light, it´s quite easy to catch it with a good lens if there is no wind (pretty seldom in Vienna). But it seems, that it is just a technical question. My experience with this objects ist: You can´t really recap the moment. There are many motifs like this in Vienna - almost unknown in it´s details like this and this. That´s the main reason, why I nominated it. For me it was breathtaking, when I opened the file for the first time. To see something, what millions of people have never seen so detailed before, even when they all know, that this subject exists. And therefore, it´s getting personal too. --Hubertl12:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Thank you for the explanation, it explains the nomination and helps me to understand the images. I still have some problem with wow, maybe because I not from Wien.--ArildV (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2016 at 20:57:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Langenburg Stadttor01 2015-12-22.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Langenburg Stadttor01 2015-12-22.jpg
Oppose sorry, but you can´t get this scenery without using HDR. A single shot is for sure the wrong idea. See foreground, its completely noisy, due to 1.600 ISO. --Hubertl21:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too unsharp and too noisy. Sorry. Better as tone mapped image from a HDRI. Or f/8 and ISO 100. Probably you haven't used a tripod. --XRaytalk06:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand the ISO 100 and tripod suggestions. But no and no, tripod was not available and traffic meant a long exposure time for ISO 100 was not doable. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2016 at 22:31:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2016 at 20:46:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Reichstagsgebäude mit Weihnachtsbaum bei Nacht, Berlin, 151223, ako.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reichstagsgebäude mit Weihnachtsbaum bei Nacht, Berlin, 151223, ako.jpg
Info The Reichstag building in Berlin at night with a Christmas tree in front of it. Left of the Reichstag, the International Trade Centre (Friedrichstrasse) and the television tower (Alexanderplatz) can be seen. The bright thing above the television tower is the moon. The cupola of the Reichstag building was designed by Norman Foster. All by me. -- Code (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find the composition good enough to feature. I predict that someone will object to the inclusion of the poles in the right foreground, but I not only find it fine to include them but value them as helping my eyes to move laterally to the left. One of my favorite living painters, Stanley Lewis, likes to paint things like fences and construction materials and makes beautiful compositions with them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I know what you mean. First I thought I should clone the poles out but on the other hand - well, they really exist. I made some other pictures from different perspectives but this one was the best, even with the poles. But of course I could understand if someone would object them. --Code (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry: I appreciate your effort, because it is not easy nowadays to get the Reichstag on a photo the way that those ugly containers at the right do not disturb. But for an FP, the highlights are too blown for me and the crop too generous. I think that for an extremely widely photographed building like that, we need something really outstanding for an FP. --A.Savin13:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice detail and mood. Not without some imperfections, but most can be chalked up to being inevitable with the long exposure necessary to capture the building in this light. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for pinging me. I much prefer the original version. This one has a lot of what seems to me to be empty dark space that isn't doing anything. If you really want to get rid of the poles and crop the file differently, I suggest you crop it much closer to the Reichstag building, so that there's much less dark grass and such. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to see the 1st version again, as I don't completely remember what it looked like. This newest version looks OK to me, but I still feel like there is perhaps too much empty black space in front of the building. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThank you, Code. At full page resolution, I definitely prefer the original version because it has details that help me move my eye around the picture plane, whereas the newest version lacks the poles and cuts off some of the plants, and I even like the somewhat glary stuff to the right of the building for that purpose. To me, the original is much more interesting, and I will not vote for the new version to be featured. Have a great New Year, everyone! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2016 at 02:31:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Your motherland will never forget - restoration.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your motherland will never forget - restoration.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2016 at 18:49:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
A votive bronze drum from Idean Cave (where, according to the Greek mythology, Zeus was raised), dating from late 8th century BC. The decoration of the drum has many influences from Assyrian art. The central figure is identified as the Cretan born Zeus and the two winged daemons are the Kourites. It is now exhibited at Archaeological Museum of Heraklion, Crete. Support -- C messier (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't remember this object in the museum. A temporary exhibition ? Excellent anyway. I love how Crete was in the center of all the antiques civilizations (assyrian, minoan, mycenaean, egyptian, aegean, daedalic, hellenistic, roman...) A very historicaly rich country, nowadays very pleasant, with wonderful people. --Jebulon (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2016 at 13:56:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support High quality picture of a Roman mosaic. The best quality of this mosaic available not only on Commons, but also on the web. High EV. -- Yann (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2016 at 14:30:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sagrada Familia March 2015-10a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sagrada Familia March 2015-10a.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2016 at 15:58:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Надвратная башня Смоленск.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Надвратная башня Смоленск.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2016 at 11:09:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Madita und Axel Wolph Ein Abend für Licht ins Dunkel 2015 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Madita und Axel Wolph Ein Abend für Licht ins Dunkel 2015 01.jpg
Comment I do see what you mean. It just excludes practically any concert photography since the change from light bulbs to the new, strictly monochromous light emitters (usually it's LEDs), especially when blue or magenta is used. Looking at the FPs of concerts, I see that almost only those with white light get featured - or the blue/magenta parts got heavily edited (or yellow overexposure/posterization is tolerated). As a frequent photographer at concerts I am very aware of the lighting situation since the introduction of the new lamps. I do not like it, but that's how it is. I try to use/include it in the composition, which worked quite good in this one I think. The back of the lower arm is not the focus of the image, it is rather the frame. --Tsui (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm usually very worried about things like posterization, but with coloured concert lighting, it's very difficult to avoid even with the best equipment and technique. And I just don't think it hurts this photo. — Julian H.✈ 10:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on second thought: It would have been avoidable by just lowering the ISO and doing the brightening in post. Neutral I guess. — Julian H.✈ 10:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was taken with ISO 2500 (200mm, 1/200, 3.2). While camera and lense are really good at low light, increasing ISO and reducing the noise afterwards would result in a significant loss of detail (hair, textures). --Tsui (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested lowering the ISO (to something like ISO 400 or 800) with the same shutter speed and aperture and doing the brightening aferwards. The result should be almost identical while preserving all highlights. — Julian H.✈ 09:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My fault, I misread your comment above. Though I'm not sure, if decreasing ISO under such lighting conditions (overall quite dark, white light from the left, this kind of blue from the right) can bring satisfying results, it sure is worth a try. I will think of it at the next opportunity. --Tsui (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe it is usually not advisable to underexpose a photo and then brighten it afterwards. Increasing the analog gain (ISO) in the image sensor itself yields superior signal to noise ratio than afterwards when the data has already been discretised. If you underexpose the picture and then brighten it afterwards, there will be even more posterization and noise. dllu(t,c)09:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's true (for Canon sensors), but I think the problem here is actually neither posterization nor noise but blue-channel overexposure, which would be fixed that way. — Julian H.✈ 11:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is a good picture, but I think it should be possible to take higher quality pictures even in concert scenes dimly lit by blue light. For example, Denis Barthel recently uploaded a lot of concert photos similarly illuminated by dim blue or red light, many of which have much higher resolution, less noise and no noticeable posterization: [1]. On the other hand, his camera has a better image sensor... dllu(t,c)09:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't mind the blue light - artificial light is what it is so one has to expect some unusual effects. But the bottom half of the image is weak to me. The long wire from the microphone and her hand holding the wire are a distraction. The shapeless dress adds nothing either. A square crop at the top is better for me but then not particularly high resolution any more. -- Colin (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't want to change your opinion, but to me it is especially the hand holding the cable and the curve of it which, besides her calm expression, add to the appeal of the image. The lack of theatrical gesture of the one hand not holding the mic, usually singers singing ballads do such gesturing, makes it kind of subtle and serene to me. I like it like that, but of course that's in the eye of the beholder. --Tsui (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2016 at 09:51:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Соловецкий монастырь.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Соловецкий монастырь.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2016 at 19:23:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:7 Collection Eybl Great Britain - E. Kealey - Women of Britain say – GO.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:7 Collection Eybl Great Britain - E. Kealey - Women of Britain say – GO.jpg
Info 1915. 76 x 51 cm. (Coll.Nr. 2411, Collection Eybl, Vienna) Two women and a child standing at the window looking at the soldiers departure into the war. After 1915, the voluntary reports had subsided to the British regular army, it has been demanded as a patriotic duty of the woman to send men to war.
Comment The colours on this one seem to vary a lot. This one's yellow dress is far brighter, the Library of Congress is a lot darker, and New Zealand library a lot more pastel. I'm not sure which is most accurate, but this one's slightly yellowed paper may be a sign it's biasing yellow a bit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good to find someone else, who have also seen the original poster too. Not just some scans from someone who know someone who...--Hubertl10:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, one wants to sit down and do all adjustments with at least one copy in front of them. Failing that, looking at lots of scans is a good start. Memory doesn't help that much, honestly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2016 at 11:24:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hacienda cerca de Sillustani, Perú, 2015-08-01, DD 116.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hacienda cerca de Sillustani, Perú, 2015-08-01, DD 116.JPG
Oppose Yes, the composition is a bit boring, with a lot of empty sky and a lot of empty ground. I don't find it particularly sharp. However an excellent document, very interesting with good EV. But not a FP in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2016 at 15:47:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:IglesiaViña-Cupulatrasera.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:IglesiaViña-Cupulatrasera.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2016 at 17:19:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Langosta grande pintada (Schistocerca melanocera), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 18.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Langosta grande pintada (Schistocerca melanocera), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 18.JPG
Oppose Per Daniel. I used to catch locusts here in Nevada as a kid; they'd buzz in your hand and become grossly hot; ugh, I still remember that feeling. INeverCry19:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2016 at 20:08:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama of Trevi fountain 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama of Trevi fountain 2015.jpg
Weak It´s the finest picture we have from this place until now - IMO - even, when it is not the finest possible. There are many clipped parts left. 27mm is not enough wide angled. --Hubertl23:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some minor flaws here and there (sharpening lines, blurry parts), but I've never seen this iconic place of Rome like this, and without these d...d tourists !! La Dolce Vita ! Anita Ekberg and her two ... aie aie aie...--Jebulon (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeHubertl, it's not about "the finest picture of this exact subject", for that is true of most images presented here. It's about being among the finest on Commons. So compare with other city night photos. Plus points for avoiding all the tourists (though it is notimpossible and getting out of bed early seems to be how it's done). But the sky is completely black so minus points for lack of colour (blue hour). The fountain itself is quite heavily blown. So the exposure isn't handled well. The windows are at all sorts of angles so unless there's been an earthquake, there must be something gone wrong when stitching or projecting. The central third is sharp and the two reliefs there are well lit, but the rest is very soft and very very badly lit. Compare File:Trevi Fountain, Rome, Italy 2 - May 2007.jpg (daytime, I know). In that, the building is not wonky and the form of the statues, columns, stones and flowing water can all be seen. There's actually texture on the building. Whereas here most of the lighting is flat or blown or the image so soft that very little detail is there, despite the larger JPG. In Diliff's photo, one can see the fountain water beautifully falling, whereas here it is just a blur. And the nail in the coffin is that the fountain itself is cropped so it fails to be a complete image of the subject. This is not among our finest night photos, and for such a highly-photographed subject, we should expect better. -- Colin (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I confirm some aspects you set to discuss, Colin, but not in general. Your complaints are not enough for me to oppose this picture as FP. I explained my doubts. The clipping areas, using a 27mm lens (18mm with crop). Everyone, who was there, knows, how difficult it is, because you cannot go back. It´s incredible narrow. The fact, that the fountain area is cutted of, is my biggest problem, because its an inherent and important part of the fountain. On the other hand, it is not possible to get a night picture without a blurry waterfalling. The whole scenery (fountain and background) was recently renovated, so you can´t hardly compare Diliffs and Livios picture, regarding to the texture of the stones, the house etc. But I wasn´t there after the renovation. Summarized: The best night picture we have right now, I would love to take this scene with the new 11-24mm I´m working with. At the blue hour in the morning, in Summer or spring. Livios HDR are out of the camera afaik, he doesn´t make AEB with 5 or more single pictures. This maybe could bring a better result. And at the very end, he doesn´t have really good, professional lenses. --Hubertl15:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well your closing comments really sum up this nomination. Poor Livio with his inferior technique and equipment, we must make allowances. Come on, look at our excellent night photos of featured buildings and consider the combination of colours, fine detail and careful exposure and framing. Do you think that if Diliff, for example, uploaded and nominated this, the response would any anything but a column of "WTF?" opposes. We pick at a little CA or noise or a blurry corner on our best nominators, but others get a free ride. The only thing remarkable about this image is the lack of tourists, and given that Livio lives in Rome rather than having a brief holiday there, doesn't make it very remarkable in my book. He can go back. Any time he likes. I compare with Diliff's because it shows the building is not in fact the "Leaning Palazzo Poli" but a perfectly regular building, and I hardly think renovation would cause later image to be inferior. It is about light -- quality and direction. It is possible to photograph a fountain at night while still showing the flow, you need to use a slightly faster exposure. Simply using ISO 200 rather than 100 would have captured the flow rather than turning the fountain into a blur. That's the sort of detail, I expect from a featured picture of a fountain. -- Colin (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is his choice not to do a proper AEB/exposure fusion, our task is to decide whether that's a good or bad choice (same thing for the photographer's choice of aperture, time, exposure, composition, focal length). I dont understand the "lack-of-professional-lens" for two reasons. We are reviewing the image (otherwise should I oppose a similar imagetaken with an more expensive camera?), high quality lenses for Nikon does not have to be expensive (100 euro lens, 20 euro lens). Nikon D5200 is a very good camera with a very good sensor (superior to all Canon cameras except Canon EOS 5DS/R, and with better Dynamic Range when Canon EOS 5DS/R).--ArildV (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2016 at 14:26:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014.03.29.-19-Mannheim Neckarau Waldpark--Wald-Veilchen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014.03.29.-19-Mannheim Neckarau Waldpark--Wald-Veilchen.jpg
Yes, and in this case I'm not particularly wowed by it. It's interesting, but the aesthetics don't appeal to my sense of wow. --Pine✉19:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2016 at 09:30:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose It's nice and high in quality. The crop is quite tight all around though, and as a result, there is no good composition in my eyes. — Julian H.✈ 10:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The crop seems ideal on the right side and acceptable on the left side, to my eye and mind. How would you have done it differently? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe some space on the left, top and bottom? Or a symmetrical composition from further left? I don't know the surroundings, so I'm not sure if or where there is a good composition there. It's ok for showing the building, but that's not the standard for FP. — Julian H.✈ 11:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Structures like these demonstrate lightness and airiness. But that's what I miss in this composition. It looks more closely, as the viewer can expect. --Hubertl13:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version over alternative; I don't find the crop too tight and there are fewer of the distracting ad posters at right (I wonder how Paramount Pictures is going to like having their trademarked logo for The Devil Wears Prada appropriated that way?). Daniel Case (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, of which I wasn't aware. I'd like to imagine that the company, through its advertisement company, paid for the license to use it. The Devil Wears Prada itself conspicuously features quite a lot of brands, like Apple, Bang and Olufsen, Porsche, Prada, etc :-) --Cayambe (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2016 at 23:16:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2016 at 09:10:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:AT 119587 Jesuitenkirche Wien Innenansicht 9213.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:AT 119587 Jesuitenkirche Wien Innenansicht 9213.jpg
Comment There is nothing "Neo", Jebulon, this is hard core baroque, all made by Andrea Pozzo during his time in Vienna (1702-1709). He died in Vienna.
Thank you very much ! Very interesting. I will read more about this painter, it seems like a 19th c. work. Well, I'm better in baroque music than baroque painting !--Jebulon (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the frescos have been reworked in late 19th century, as mentioned in the image description. In fact, this is very visibly in close view. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Studying a high baroque ceiling like this - one of the most famous in Vienna - you don´t know really, how and were to set the focus. Even when you be there for hours as I did. Almost undisturbed! --Hubertl21:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2016 at 10:49:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A Musica by Oscar Pereira da Silva 1896.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A Musica by Oscar Pereira da Silva 1896.jpg
Weak support per Hubertl. Given the apparent circumstances this is the best that could be expected, although I believe better digitization is possible. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested that we really need to split off any painting noms as a separate "featured digitization" category. One can't critique the composition or suggest a crop or make any aesthetic complaints, because all that's a fait accompli and the one person who could do anything about that is often long dead. So, the most we can properly base a judgement on whether this belongs here is whether the digitization was achieved flawlessly. That's probably why paintings get almost rubberstamped ... we're here to judge the technical quality, not the art itself. Daniel Case (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
we're here to judge the technical quality, not the art itself. I disagree with this. I could agree in QIC, but not in FPC, as long as we accept "no wow" rationales for a decline vote ... About the "digitization", I think there is a strong difference between a work of one of us (non professional photographers for almost all of us), and the photographs made by professionals or with "tools" like "Google art" or so. My support votes are very rare for these kind of pictures...--Jebulon (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May be. For me, in this order: 1. painting from a known painter (in this case, has articles in 3 different languages); 2. the reproduction is very well made; 3. additionally here, the frame enhances the painting colors. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2016 at 06:56:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brompton Oratory 360x180, London, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brompton Oratory 360x180, London, UK - Diliff.jpg
Oppose Of course it is very impressive with the "viewer", but every window suffers from flares, a no-go for any single picture here.--Jebulon (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While i can appreciate the time and effort taken to compose this photo, i have rarely found these exaggerated perspectives aesthetically pleasing.--Fotoriety (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fotoriety, if you're only viewing it as a regular flat photo (as it seems you are judging by your comment), then you're missing the point of this image. It's intended to be viewed using a special panorama viewer as Code mentioned when he nominated the image. There are no 'exaggerated perspectives' when viewed with the viewer - you can completely control your perspective with it. Diliff (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Such information and advice escaped me earlier. Sorry. Once viewed in the 360° viewer, your photo is simply stupendous. Congrats!--Fotoriety (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think Jebulon has a point. Perhaps Diliff can explain if the flare is particularly excusable here for a 360? Or was it just the lens you used was prone to it. Still, it is currently one of our finest 360s so FP. -- Colin (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a combination of the lens used (Samyang 14mm) and the fact that it was a very high contrast scene. Flare is accentuated by bracketing / HDR merging, because the brightest exposure in the set (overexposure for almost everything except deep shadow detail) is the one that has the strongest flare, and it ends up being used when HDR merging because the flare is seen as 'useful detail', even though it's really not. So although the flare is not ideal, it's difficult to avoid except with the very best lenses - ultrawides tend to suffer from flare more than most other lenses. I'd do all my 360 panoramas with my much less flare-prone Sigma 35mm lens but it's often prohibitively time consuming as it requires a minimum of 205 images to complete the set. The much higher quality 360 of Chapel Royal was taken with the 35mm lens, although it's really impossible to notice any difference with the limited resolution of the current Commons 360 viewer. Diliff (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Diliff for interesting explanations. But I think that the bunch of supports is due more to the spectacular 360 effect than to the quality of the picture (which is very good, but not excellent). Again, there are flares almost everywhere, and nobody here would have accepted this for a single shot picture. That's why I oppose. (I use this kind of 360° views at my job).--Jebulon (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, FPs are always a combination of excellent image quality and spectacular subject - some just have more of one than the other. I think it's an exaggeration to say that there are flares everywhere... there are only 3-4 windows with significant flares. I do think it's an inherent issue with high contrast HDR scenes though. It can be minimised with pro quality lenses but it is often still there even with the best lenses that money can buy. Diliff (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The quality via the 360 viewer is disappointing (compared to directly looking at the JPG) but a better experience. However, such a 3D room really shows up that you are still looking at a 2D image rather than a realistic 3D immersive view. -- Colin (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but immersive 3D is still a while off (Light field technology and a lot of processing power is required for it to be both photorealistic and navigable). As far as the viewer goes, I need to bug User:Dschwen again to see if he can put a bit of development time into offering multiple resolution options for the 360 viewer template, or alternatively multi-resolution support in the viewer itself (Pannellum supports multi-res, so it's just a matter of incorporating the feature, I imagine). Diliff (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this picture will be promoted. So it is just a discussion. Anyway, the experience is excellent, and a great challenge. Diliff, you must be congratulated because of that. @ Benh, ça me réconcilie avec les panoramiques, je comprends mieux dans ma tête ! Lol. One can make this kind of view in an interactive way, with clickable elements, and links to another room (the treasure room, or the sacristy for instance) and then enjoy a virtual visit etc...--Jebulon (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2016 at 21:07:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Schopfaffe bei Durrell.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Schopfaffe bei Durrell.JPG
Question What exactly makes this picture a featured picture in your opinion? With all due respect, but this is maybe a lucky QI, but far away from being to be featured, for different reasons. Thanks for your answer. --Hubertl22:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel. The animal looks cool where it is, but it looks like it would've been hard to find a composition that really worked. INeverCry00:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2016 at 17:55:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support This cast is famous enough to deserve its own category here in "Commons", but I find it very impressive. As you may now, this is not a statue, neither a sculpture, but a "people". The man was suffocated by the toxic gases producted by the '79 eruptions of Mount Vesuvius, he tried to protect himself with his clothing, but finally died. Slowly, his body was covered by ashes and lava, and disappeared for centuries. But the "print" remained, and during excavations, somebody had the idea to inject plaster in curious holes which looked like "molds". And strange figures of humans and animals appeared. This one is here now, among us, for ever, as a silent whitness of a disaster. I would like to ask him about his story... I think the level of details is exceptional, and the subject just extraordinary. Would you apreciate enough this picture to promote it ? Let me hope you will be convinced...-- Jebulon (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this one just for you, as it is pinsharp everywhere. But you know what ? I find the previous one far much more interesting... I think we will have together a nice year of disagreements here ! Happy new year ! 😄--Jebulon (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't know, the front leg feels strangely bright to me. You're right, it isn't actually, it's just out of focus. Ignore what I wrote. :) — Julian H.✈ 07:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2016 at 13:01:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Munich subway station Hasenbergl 2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Munich subway station Hasenbergl 2.JPG
Support IMO, this one works better than the previous one, the compo is more interesting to me, and a bit "different", less "classical". Technicaly excellent (as usual).--Jebulon (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice symmetry, color and forms; not much you could do about the blurred person on the platform but it was inevitable with the long exposure, and isn't really much of an issue. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well, Christmas Eve is actually a great day for this kind of photography (as most people stay home and don't take the subway...). But don't worry, I did get my share of family time... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2016 at 21:33:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Albert Bierstadt - A Storm in the Rocky Mountains, Mt. Rosalie - Google Art Project.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Albert Bierstadt - A Storm in the Rocky Mountains, Mt. Rosalie - Google Art Project.jpg
Support Aesthetically, maybe a little too busy for my liking. Yet a very nice example of romantic landscape painting and the details are fun to zoom at. As for the document, it's good to see that the significance of value contrasts was not forgotten. --Ximonic (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2016 at 22:19:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jean-Léon Gérôme - The Carpet Merchant - Google Art Project.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jean-Léon Gérôme - The Carpet Merchant - Google Art Project.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2016 at 21:18:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Silesian - Moravian Beskids in winter 2014.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Silesian - Moravian Beskids in winter 2014.JPG
Support I would normally says this was too cluttered for FP, but the winter and the moment made a huge difference there: the snow and the clouds bring a lot of winter's subtleties to the picture (and perhaps my view is influenced by the lack of these conditions thus far this winter here in the northeastern U.S. ). It could be a little better—I get the feeling it was a little too aggressively denoised—but what's there is good enough for me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2016 at 10:56:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lohu mõisa peahoone (1).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lohu mõisa peahoone (1).jpg
Neutral Sorry, but for me, this crop doesn´t reflect the architecural intention of domination and generosity, manor houses usually does. The other picture demonstrates this much better. This crop squeezes this really beautyful building to a simple farmhouse. Maybe with less sky it would be better. --Hubertl11:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case and not ideal processing in my opinion. Overexposure of a few parts looks like it could be saved from a RAW file. — Julian H.✈ 15:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Hubertl. The other image has a much better angle. I wonder if you can find a time of day/year when the lighting is best, as there's quite a lot in shadow on that other one. -- Colin (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2016 at 18:53:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Valtu mõisa -Puraviku- tuuleveski.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Valtu mõisa -Puraviku- tuuleveski.jpg/2
Oppose Per Jebulon, no wow, just an ordinary picture of a windmill very competently done given the circumstances. QI for me but not FP. Daniel Case (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2016 at 14:23:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brighton MMB 34 West Pier.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brighton MMB 34 West Pier.jpg
Support - I like the composition and don't find the poles - which make it much more than "just another sunset [picture]" to me - ugly in context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2016 at 14:15:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:City Hall Antwerp July 2015-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:City Hall Antwerp July 2015-1.jpg
Comment. I would have liked to see at least something of the ceiling. I think you probably could have used HDR to keep the stained glass detail while still getting some detail of the ceiling, but of course the stained glass is a valid subject in isolation too. Diliff (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice image, but not a "wow" photo for me. Perhaps if this was on English Wikipedia and there was an article about this particular ceiling, this photo could be FP there. --Pine✉08:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2016 at 21:39:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cologne Germany Kranhaus-03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cologne Germany Kranhaus-03.jpg
Are we sure about those being "night" colors? Cologne is at 50º N ... certainly far enough north to have short nights that time of year, but not white nights (and even if it does, I doubt they are this bright at 12:30 a.m.) Daniel Case (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info It's Malaysia time in the EXIF. I often forget to switch my cam back to German time when coming back from Asia. For the same reason, I always tag my uploads only with the date and not with the time. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (weak) I think the view (+light) is a bit too ordinary. Also, the sharpness is below Ccefaloin's usual high level. Sorry --A.Savin09:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info The colors are exactly as they are in the new harbour quarter. The crane houses are just concrete grey. Severinsbruecke is in light green as it should be. The photo was taken from a ship after a rain shower when sky was still partly covered with clouds. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good work. Great composition (the architecture, the Rhine, the boat, the cathedral). 70% of the day weather- and lightconditions are like this one. --Hubertl10:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I doubt that the “dull colours” are a shortcoming of the photo; quite the contrary, they are a virtue of the photo for the desired “vivid colours” do not distract attention away from interesting forms. I even think that these “vivid colours” can spoil the photo. Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2016 at 02:57:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Franz Xaver Winterhalter Family of Queen Victoria.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Franz Xaver Winterhalter Family of Queen Victoria.jpg
Do you think that if you exceed 2MP for a painting that you automatically get a gold star. Let's do away with voting then! This is about "finest". We probably have hundreds of thousands of photos of paintings that are 2MP or more. Why is this among our very best? -- Colin (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2016 at 20:00:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sitashma Chand.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sitashma Chand.jpg
Support Beautiful professional portrait used for a cover magazine. Certainly one of our best in this style and category. -- Yann (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{{Neutral}}Oppose Pictures were women are deprived of any personality, I find absolutely unacceptable. But there are certainly a lot of men who will find this just beautiful and also like to have such a presentable girlfriend. In certain circles this may enhance mens social position. Just my 2 cents. --Hubertl 20:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Changed to contra, it´s simply too much photoshopped. --Hubertl11:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll assume good faith for now. A google search shows the magazine cover (with writing) so perhaps it is the photographer's own copy. However, the username suggests it might be the subject's, which is unlikely to be ok. Best result would be OTRS I suppose. -- Colin (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The face looks severely airbrushed to me, though I'm not an expert on airbrushing, and part of what I find to be an unrealistic look could just be makeup. What do the rest of you think? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert either, but from what I've read and seen online, a photo taken to grace the cover of a fashion magazine is likely to have used a hair and makeup artist, studio lighting (you can see a beauty dish, or similar light, reflected in her eyes), carefully chosen clothes and accessories, a fashion photographer and retouching with Photoshop. So it's likely to be a combination and the result isn't really intended to be realistic but conform to the expectations of beauty of the target audience of the magazine. So I think it has to be judged for what it is, rather than as an accurate photo of the subject. The subject is a model / Miss Nepal so the beauty treatment is appropriate (vs a photo of a politician, say). -- Colin (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the reply. I guess that even as a fashion photo, it is not at all to my taste because I don't think people's faces really look like that. I won't oppose featuring it on that basis but don't feel like supporting it, either. I hope that makes sense. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2016 at 21:20:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:14-06-03-Česko-Rakousko-Olomouc-001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:14-06-03-Česko-Rakousko-Olomouc-001.jpg
Oppose Well-done in terms of lighting and shutter speed, a QI for sure. But the conglomeration of players near the ball makes it hard to tell at a glance what's going on. It looks like the Austrian player has kicked it, but I still could read it as No. 5 for the Czechs having just headed it. It might work if it were just those two players, but there's three additional guys behind them to confuse the eye as well. Daniel Case (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Awkward leg position and the eye-lines aren't working. In particular, the guy at the back left appears to be looking into the camera, which ruins it for me. -- Colin (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2016 at 17:22:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Casco antiguo Sevilla.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Casco antiguo Sevilla.JPG
Comment Have a look at my comment, Livio and why I give this image a strong support. It´s not the beauty, it´s a document of misguided political decisions. See the difference to Rome/Firenze/Siena and most of the other ancient italian cities. Therefore it has great evidence, how you should not do it. The picture itself just describes the cultural devastation. And technically, the picture is pretty good. --Hubertl10:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I´m thinking about this picture and found out, that it makes me nervous, I can´t stay apathetical. It shows a situation, far beyond the normal sight and what tourists expect. Completely different to historical city views from towers in Italy , especially tuscanny. A superficial city development concept, which ends exactly at the visible top edge from all the historical buildings, excluding the roofs. Therefore for me a very good fotographic document, how historical sites can be effectively destroyed. This is, why this picture has a strong wow effect for me. Even when it has a negative correlation. --Hubertl09:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, I'm really familiar with this kind of busy cityscape (and the cultural devastation Hubertl describes) like in Athens, and the view from the Acropolis, or Heraklion (where nearly every building built before 1930s has been demolished, to make room for the newer multi-story residential buildings, earthquakes helped too), and this one shows no pattern, no eye-cathing building or other feature, or something to say wow. --C messier (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2016 at 12:51:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ivan Žabota - Portret starca.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ivan Žabota - Portret starca.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2016 at 18:57:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014.03.09.-18-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim-Braune Krabbenspinne-Weibchen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014.03.09.-18-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim-Braune Krabbenspinne-Weibchen.jpg
Oppose Too much going on for the spider to really pop out, more of it outside DoF than one would like, and blown highlights (admittedly small) in the eyes. Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know that ... pictures like this have a high EV for that reason. However, that same trait also makes it difficult (but not impossible) to take in-environment pictures of spiders that have featurable wow. Nothing I can do about it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm sorry; I'd really like to support this picture, but too much of it is blurry for me to do so. Even some of the spider's legs are blurry. I don't know if it would have been possible for you to get more of the spider clear, but I just don't find the image compelling enough to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2016 at 00:24:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:La Sacra ammantata dalla neve.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:La Sacra ammantata dalla neve.jpg
Oppose -- It's extremely washed out, basically has no details; even resizing won't help (unless one goes to stamp size). It's a real shame as the image itself is truly spectacular. KennyOMG (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree the picture deserves a more accurate and careful post-process as denoising has clearly eaten some details away. --Ximonic (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think it's really to the point to argue about to what extent the background is unsharp due to mist or denoising when there's this much mist against a snowy background. For me, it looks enough like a great establishing shot in a movie to !vote for. Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others: the processing is not well done, with a strange colour cast to the mist in places, and posterisation, makes me suspect this has been pushed quite far. Also, no embedded colourspace profile or tag in the JPG. -- Colin (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2016 at 03:18:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sistema de orquestas y coros juveniles e infantiles del Zulia, Venezuela.ogvCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sistema de orquestas y coros juveniles e infantiles del Zulia, Venezuela.ogv
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2016 at 02:00:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I think this cat photo is great. I actually thought the cat is shouting, but it is just yawning instead. When the cat's eyes close, it show another eyes! -- ★Poké9502:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I uploaded this for the smile/laugh factor, and because I have a bit of an obsession with yawning cats. I've switched to a simple description. He's a short-haired tabby of some kind from Frisco, but I haven't gotten out the breed book on this one. With a yawn like that, I wasn't about to be picky about the breed... INeverCry02:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the moment is fine, but on the other hand: Where is the focus really? Somewhere at the forehead? Sorry, as Jebulon, it is not an FP for me.--Hubertl17:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If there's anything the internet has enough of it's probably cat photos. This one certainly captures a nice moment but it doesn't really stand out from the masses and the general sharpness is below usual FP level. --El Grafo (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the sharpness; unfortunately the original photog included a lot of dark extra space in the room in the original for some unknown reason, so I had to crop out half the image. As for the rest, I'd say dick picks, porn, and selfies are what we've got too much of on the internet (and Commons), and this is one of the better yawning cat picks we've got; I don't upload average yawning cats. INeverCry20:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2016 at 12:39:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support This is ok, but I tend to think stuff like this is better covered in a video clip, where the full movement can be shown. I like the kitten on 0x010C's userpage better... INeverCry01:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colin makes good points. The issue I was after is the basic question of what is the person doing? This particular shot doesn't give me much to go on by itself. Is he doing a trick, did he accidentally roll over, etc. INeverCry08:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's a great action shot, and there are still magazines like Sports Illustrated. Videos are not a substitute for action shots like this, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand your point of view, but to do such a trick, a wheel, the paddler has to have his head in the middle of a wave, so it's quite impossible to catch both the action and his face. In addition, it's realy the action that I wanted to show, who is the paddler is not important, contrary to the case of Tony Estanguet — 0x010C~talk~14:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2016 at 09:12:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:American White Pelican (Las Gallinas Wildlife Ponds).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:American White Pelican (Las Gallinas Wildlife Ponds).jpg
This photo was taken with an up-to-date class-leading camera, at ISO 100 in very bright daylight. And still you aren't happy with the "noise". Perhaps it's time to re-calibrate your expectations or even to appreciate a little grain. Photons are particles and the world does not look like Toy Story. I don't want Frank to feel under pressure to blur this photo just to gain another vote, or for us to get only 4MP bird photos like we use to. -- Colin (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, will the world stop rotating for you if I don't support this right off the bat (especially seeing as I am the only one not !voting support)? I don't bully you every time I don't understand your !vote when we disagree (which happens more often than you think); perhaps it is expecting too much of you to reciprocate. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, this is a forum, not a simple popularity vote, and part of that involves discussing reviews. If you're not prepared to justify/defend/explain your criticism of e.g. "background noise => no support from me" then don't make it. It's as simple as that. It isn't "bullying" and you won't shut me up by playing games like that. Your criticisms of tiny amounts of "noise" in otherwise fine photographs (while completely ignoring in others) is quite harmful to this project. That's why I bring it up. You're a very frequent and very vocal reviewer, and some new reviewers might, on seeing your opinions all over the FPC candidates here, think this was an acceptable reason to oppose. That's how a culture forms and before we know it, we're back to the days of JJ Harrison and his 2MP birds. So my advice is if you want to make comments that state your opinions assertively then get a thick skin. -- Colin (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My response was not an emotional one, just an intellectual one ... I really am curious why you do this sometimes, to some users, and not others. If I had a thin skin I'd complain about every single time you've done this to me or someone else—in fact, since you brought this up, I am nothing less than amused and/or baffled trying to reconcile your high-minded self-justification above with this comment of yours in an FPC a month or so ago (And while we're at this, can you explain how this friendly and well-intended advice to another user helps promote a collegial and constructive atmosphere among users not only here at FPC but on Commons generally?
And above and beyond all that, I strongly doubt my reasons for !voting one way or another have influenced anybody in how they themselves !vote. Plenty of pictures have succeeded overwhelmingly where I have been one of few, or even the only, oppose !vote. I think you know that feeling yourself, which is why I'm surprised that you would take it upon yourself to take it to me over that. I reserve the right to oppose images where I feel they're too noisy in some way, just as you (I assume) reserve the right to oppose images when you think they're too close to a "tourist snapshot". While I feel that's not a good reason to oppose, I respect your right to make that a basis for your oppose and I don't try to get under your hood on that one. All I ask is the same respect from you. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to respond in detail to your emotional rant. Daniel, if you can't handle criticism of your opinions that are made on an open forum like this, then don't check the "Watch this page" when you submit them. That's all. "Respect" is not the same as "Don't criticise me" but I suspect you wish it was. The reason your opinions might influence others is because you state them quite verbosely and adamantly whereas others either say little or show some humility. I expect others to challenge my views just the same as I will challenge others. If you leave a lot of opinions around, then expect some of them to be challenged by others. -- Colin (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thanks a lot to both of you. I like getting feedback on my work – that's part of why I'm here. Over the last couple of years, the technical aspects of my photography have improved and I'm tremendously thankful for this opportunity. My perception is that Commons contributors are mostly focused on things like noise, chromatic aberration, file size, etc. whereas aesthetic aspects seem to play a much smaller role. In general I think that's ok – if you're a photographer and your main interest is getting feedback on your images that goes beyond technicalities, you just post them on Flickr or (even better) on 500px. Now, whenever I upload an image here that I consider "high-end", I carefully check all technical aspects of that shot. In the case above, I've checked the noise and thought it was ok. If it turns out that people disagree with me, I usually look at the image again and upload a new version if needed. With all of that said, I would personally be very happy if we as a community of high-end Commons photographers or critics of fellow high-end photographers could re-calibrate our approach to what image quality means. Over the last couple of years I've seen dozens of shots that were of low aesthetic quality but made it through this process because they were technically ok. So, feedback is always welcome (and, to be clear, I fully respect both your input, Colin and Daniel Case), but also let's not forget that outside of our small community here people might care most about the aesthetics (and, in the case of Wikipedia readers, the encyclopedic value) of a shot. All the best and thanks again. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I may not be good at distinguishing noise from bokeh, but I find this a good portrait and like the fact that the pelican is looking at the viewer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, it seems like I gravitate towards a specific sewage pond in January to shoot this species :-) So funny. Thanks a lot for your observation and a Happy New Year! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2016 at 08:24:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chandelier of the eighteenth century in the Museo di Capodimonte (Napoli).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chandelier of the eighteenth century in the Museo di Capodimonte (Napoli).jpg
Support, weak, because of the low DOF (unsharp ceiling paintings). I needed quite a long time to understand this chandellar, just to imagine the light effect in this room (I love italian chandellars!), I presume, its not the 18th, it´s the second half of the 19th century. But I haven´t found any information about. --Hubertl10:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Danke Hubertl,I preferred a less DOF to focus on the lamp (if you want see the paint are here [2] and here [3]). The staff tell me is about 1875 and was later converted to electric by candles.--LivioAndronico(talk)11:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the filename needs to have "nineteenth century" and not "eighteenth century" in it. I understand that in Italian, it's the ottocento, but if you're using English, we call it the 19th and not 18th century (though it's also called the 1800s). I agree with Hubertl's remarks, but since the level of detail in the depiction of the chandelier strikes me as really impressive, I do vote to Support featuring this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2016 at 06:23:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Yes, you are right, @Jebulon. Any time, I visit that wooden water slide tower, the same thoughts surround me. Kind of Zen ... eradiates lots of tranquility. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, Johann, the subject and lighting are nice but the composition isn't quite working. A distant landscape like that is crying out for a wider aspect ratio and I think you've kept it tall because of the reflection. In this format it seems unbalanced. The distant hills on the right aren't contributing and it sort of sags in the middle (though the arrangement would work well in a magazine with writing on the right). The little stick at the bottom keeps catching my eye and should be cloned out. IMO, you've taken a much better picture, though I think it also can be improved with a 16:9 crop. I've uploaded that: File:Poertschach Johannes-Brahms-Promenade Promenadenbad Rutschenturm 25122015 9840 169crop.jpg. You might not want an Alt at this stage, and the the other photo was taken on an different date, so perhaps some would complain. What do you think? -- Colin (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By rules: "Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support, as determined by the closer." Other nomination has 17 support votes and no oppose -- George Chernilevskytalk13:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentGeorge Chernilevsky: In this case it´s different IMO, these two pictures are different, not just the motif, also different days. So there are two different photos, not two different versions of one picture. --Hubertl14:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2016 at 13:50:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cementerio de San Diego, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 56-58 PAN.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cementerio de San Diego, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 56-58 PAN.JPG
Info The cemetery of San Diego, seen from El Panecillo, is located in the Historic Center of Quito, Ecuador. The cemetery was inagurated in 1872 in a location where fallen of the Battle of Pichincha (1822) had been buried. There have been entombed numerous significant people, including 5 presidents of the Republic of Ecuador. All by me, Poco213:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I guess it's seen from El Panecillo? Could you please add this to the file description? Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cayambe (talk • contribs)
Thanks, I now know the exact place from where the picture was taken. Unfortunately the quarter of San Roque, where the entry to the cemetery is located, is rather an unsafe place. --Cayambe (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I quite like this composition. If the shot really doesn't feature the cemetery enough, my solution wouldn't be not to feature it, but to change the description to "Cementerio de San Diego and surrounding areas". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a bizarre sight. Lots of detail. The overall image isn't great from a composition or simplicity pov, but plenty wow. I despair about the "noise" complaint -- I can't see any noise, and this image is 3.5m wide on a 100dpi monitor so, well, for crying out loud, get some perspective. -- Colin (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2016 at 13:15:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Laon Cathedral Interior 360x180, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laon Cathedral Interior 360x180, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpg
Support Currently, since the quality of the 360° panoramic viewer is poor, it is worth checking at least the middle strip of the JPG for any quality issues. I think Vox Humana 8' has a point, that it might be best to start the view facing the opposite way. Currently, one is uncomfortably close to the ornate gate thing. -- Colin (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise problems, because 400 ISO. Support I changed my vote because author explanation and others, it's convincing enough in my humble opinion, could be concluded that due to damage caused because lens quality. It would be great to see WMF (maybe interesting for @WMFOffice: ) helping great photographers as Diliff to buy/rent a fisheye lens. --The Photographer (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any significant noise problem in this image. It's HDR, so in some ways, the ISO is irrelevant (up to a point). HDR is ISO invariant in a similar way that the modern Sony sensors are, so as long as the brackets capture the full dynamic range of the scene (with the histograms of the highlights, mid tones and shadows exposed to the right), there isn't significant noise. ISO 400 is not very high with a full frame camera anyway. I simply disagree that there is a noise problem here. Even if there was, consider the resolution of the image - it's nearly 100 megapixels... Diliff (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, when it´s really dark, you need more than 30 seconds if you use ISO 100, so in this case, you will have within a series of 5 or 7 pictures two, sometimes 3 pictures with 30 seconds. It also depends of the EV-spreading. Or you decide to make the pictures just within half an hour instead of 45 minutes. You can avoid it, when you raise the ISO. In this particular case, there is no noise, even not in the darkest areas. --Hubertl18:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hubertl is exactly right, there are many reasons to use ISO 400. Mostly I use a higher ISO because it means that completing the panorama is much faster. ISO 400 will complete the panorama 8 times faster than ISO 100. These HDR panoramas are quite time consuming already (10-15 minutes of constant shooting with about 100 images), and doing it at ISO 100 also introduces other problems, like people walking in front of the lens during the exposures. The quicker the panorama can be taken, the more likely it will have no problems like this. And as I said, because of the HDR processing, it usually doesn't have worse noise than ISO 100 (non-HDR). Diliff (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hubertl and Diliff, I really appreciate your answers and are quite logical. IMHO, It has enough sense to save time and sacrifice some quality only slightly. However, again (note) Look the door difference between both door sides (right and left), its not just noise problem, it look like a focus, sharp?. Something wrong to assemble the images resulting in a strange blur --The Photographer (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The slight difference in sharpness in some parts of the image is because I use a 14mm rectilinear lens. It's ultra-wide, and the edges are not as sharp as the centre, so when the images are stitched, the sharp parts are sometimes blended with softer parts. If I used a fisheye lens, the result might be slightly better because the edges would not need rectilinear correction, but I don't own one. I could also use my 35mm lens instead of 14mm but instead of 100 images, it would need 250-300 images. Diliff (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Diliff: Don't you own the Sigma 24mm art lens? Don't you consider using it for spherical panoramics? I made some experiments with my 24-70mm zoom lens at 24mm and found the results quite convincing from a technical point of view (see here). With that lens I needed to take ~40 pictures (without HDR) although probably less would have been sufficient, too. However, 24mm seem to be a good compromise between the number of frames you need and the quality you get. Now I'm considering to get myself a 24mm prime lens for such panoramics because the zoom lens is quite large and heavy for the NN3 Mk II and has some barrel distortion at 24mm which can cause more or less unresolvable stitching errors. --Code (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have the Sigma 35mm, not 24mm. The 24mm might be quite useful for 360 panoramics though, as it is high quality and wouldn't require so many images... But I don't need 3 Sigma Art lenses right now. ;-) Diliff (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the problem now, you need brighter lenses. I made a panorama composed of 349 photos with 35 mm. However, I have kept the RAWs in a folder waiting for my grandchildren someday come together these photos. It is technically almost impossible to do that now. I had not seen the result with ToolServer tool, it was really wonderful. --The Photographer (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly, the 'brightness' of the lens has nothing to do with it. To get the maximum depth of field, you need to use f/8 or higher anyway, which nullifies any advantage you might get from a wide aperture lens. It is the slow aperture of f/8 or higher that causes the exposures to be so long. Diliff (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the door is slightly softer than the rest. Perhaps someone bumped it during the exposure. Or the lens edge-softness Diliff mentions. This and the "noise" you see are all pretty insignificant. I can only hope that 4k monitors become standard soon and 5k comes down in price, so these damn pixels become invisible and we can move on to judging the image. -- Colin (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A big big wow for my favorite french gothic cathedral (my grand father and my grand mother married there in the '20s !). Viewer excellent on a tablet with a finger/pencil. All details are visible. By the way, no flares here. Mmmmh ? 🤔--Jebulon (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a small flare around the western rose window. ;-) But yes it's not as much as in the previous nomination. Diliff (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support after looking at in the 360º viewer; perhaps one day we'll be able to have a separate "featured" category for this sort of thing. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2016 at 08:46:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bieszczady - sunrise from Chatka Puchatka (5).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bieszczady - sunrise from Chatka Puchatka (5).JPG
Moderate support Detail could be sharper in the background but it seems to me you decided it was better to avoid clipping instead, and I think that was the better choice. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foreground in shadow. Random people. Ugly/untidy building spoils what could be a nice landscape/weather photo. -- Colin (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2016 at 17:38:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:French archaeologists at work 2015 Pompeii.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:French archaeologists at work 2015 Pompeii.jpg
Support Archaeologists at work in Pompeii excavations sites. I think it is rare here in FPC to have people at work, and photographs of modern archaeologists are very few in "Commons", I suppose it has some EV. The quality is good, I like the dust, and the composition shows well enough objects and tools (modern and traditional). So, let's try something different for the end of this (horrible) year. -- Jebulon (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If this was a shot of archaeologists in the process of actually digging at/uncovering/examining something viewable, I'd be sold. As it is, you've got a couple people in the back, in shadow, not doing anything that the viewer can really discern, and a guy in front picking at the dirt a bit. Overall it looks like they're maybe preparing to do some work. INeverCry19:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sorry of your feeling. It is a picture of people at an unusual work, and I agree it is really unusual here. I did not ask them to pose for you, and I find the mood very interesting and real. Especially the position of the tools. "This" is how archaeologists work, even if it is not how you "imagine" they do. I thank you anyway for your review and your opinion, even if different of mine, but interesting because of that difference !--Jebulon (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2016 at 21:40:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pelícano pardo de las Galápagos (Pelecanus occidentalis urinator), Bahía Tortuga, isla Santa Cruz, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-26, DD 32.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pelícano pardo de las Galápagos (Pelecanus occidentalis urinator), Bahía Tortuga, isla Santa Cruz, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-26, DD 32.JPG
El Grafo, Uwe: I've uploaded a new version with a bit more of space on the right (sorry, El Grafo, cannot offer more on the bottom). I've also cloned out some darker spots in the background. Poco2 16:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC) PD: Colin, new record! :) it is now 45.5 MP of detail Poco216:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2016 at 01:23:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tonle Sap Siem Reap Cambodia Girl-begging-for-money-with-snake-01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tonle Sap Siem Reap Cambodia Girl-begging-for-money-with-snake-01.jpg
Info The girl is sitting in the front of a small boat with a provisional mast. The sails were not used, but the mother was steering the boat alongside my boat and the girl started to beg for money. The rope is part of the sailing canvas. This was a shot from a shaking boat to another shaking boat and I could not make the girl move around to get a better sight on her. What struck me was not the snake, but the eyes of the pitiful child. This is, why I choosed to take a close-up with a somewhat small DoF that got the focus on the eye part. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Has many technical shortcomings that I ordinarily would point to as reasons to oppose ... but being pretty isn't the point here. Great documentary photograph ... I cannot unsee the eyes-and-bridge-of-nose closeup I got when looking at it at full-res. Terrifying—are those bruises under her eyes from what I think they would have come from? Daniel Case (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2016 at 07:13:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Trésor Caelius plat.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trésor Caelius plat.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2016 at 03:42:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jõelähtme jõgi. 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jõelähtme jõgi. 01.jpg
Comment - Happy New Year! That's very pretty, but can a description in an internationally-understood language please be added? I don't think an Estonian-only description is remotely sufficient to inform an international viewership. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too much noise reduction in my opinion, looks painted in some areas (not a big deal given the resolution). Not completely blown away by the composition either (I think the upper 20% don't add anything). — Julian H.✈ 15:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you for adding an English-language description. Per Daniel's remarks: I really like the woody debris, which in my opinion adds a lot to the composition. My only question would be, per Julian's comments: Did the water really look like that? If it did, I will support running this, but please assure us that the "painted" quality is actually the way the water looked, as that might convince some others to support, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To me the real problem with the woody debris is that it's also darker than I would like, although to be fair that does make it less of a distraction. At bottom, it's an inevitable tradeoff of leaving the shutter open for two and a half seconds, perhaps with a polarizer or ND filter, and why I think it would look better cropped to just the water. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak support Very pretty. I'm with those who prefer the water looking more natural, but the long exposure may help with the rich colors here, which I like. --Pine✉08:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2016 at 03:40:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Püsik-seljarohi Muraste looduskaitsealal.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Püsik-seljarohi Muraste looduskaitsealal.jpg
Support Not sure about some of the trees in the background looking normally processed but oh ... that ... green. I feel like falling slowly forward into this one. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Same comment as above: I would gladly vote to feature, but a description in an internationally-understood language is essential. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I strongly disagree with the statement above. What is meant by "internationally-understood" language ? English is recommended, but not a mandatory, as Commons in a multilingual project.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebulon (talk • contribs)
Internationally-understood in this case means understood outside Estonia (and, arguably, Finland), and it is strange for you to assume English is the only such language. Other possibilities include but are not limited to Spanish, French, German, and I would also concede Arabic, Mandarin, Swahili - but not a language spoken by only a few million people and not (like Dutch) related to any language spoken by a large number. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I find this very strange, too. This distortion looks more like it was taken with a fisheye lens. Either the EXIF is wrong or something happened in the postprocessing. --Code (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is normal to have distorted vertical if you tilt the camera too much to the ground, even with a 50mm lens. The main issue is for me the little lacks of quality at the edges (sky a bit burned, blurred areas, strong CAs), all visible even at preview with my eyes. Though there is some visual interest, this not FP IMO. Christian Ferrer(talk)11:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose basically per Julian: I'm still not sure what it is, but something is pretty weird about this. Also the ratio of foreground (green forest floor) vs. mid-ground (forest floor with trees) vs. background (trees only) somehow looks unbalanced to me. --El Grafo (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2016 at 17:22:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Composition doesn't work for me: the horizon is dead center and the bird's back is exactly level with it. I like the bird though. INeverCry19:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing bird. I imagine, it is very shy and thus not easy to take a photograph of that animal. The focal length of 500 mm reveals it. Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the combination of noise and lack of contrast. And I think increasing the contrast would actually hide a lot of the noise. — Julian H.✈ 15:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2016 at 02:59:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Per Daniel. Those beautiful eyes shouldn't be in shadow, and I'd prefer a composition that shows off the coat, as Bengals have one of the best. Nice cat of course; if it's yours, I'm jealous. INeverCry18:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2016 at 10:09:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling of Santa Maria in Vallicella (Rome).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling of Santa Maria in Vallicella (Rome).jpg
Oppose Happy new year! Regarding the image. Sorry, poor colours and wb, not very impressive sharpness, average composition. FP is not just a QI of a nice place, building or landscape. The photographer need to bring something more to the table. It might be very high technical quality and or EV, perfect timing, capturing a special moment or very beautiful light. And we do ask the photographer to bring something more when we review for example landscape and building exteriors. And we should do it even when we review church interiors.--ArildV (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Happy year! why do not you just vote instead of trying to teach what you already know and make suggestions of expensive objective pretending to economics? --LivioAndronico(talk)15:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you're talking about. I think it's a good idea to explain a oppose-vote (I allways do). And I have never proposed any expensive lenses. And composition, wb, exposure and colours has nothing to do with expensive lenses (it's about execution, and post-processing). --ArildV (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
if you have no idea you should read what you write! Say :"FP is not just a QI of a nice place" is for explain? or:"The photographer need to bring something more to the table" is for explain? Are you serious? Don't you write this? [4] 100 euro for a lens that normally the price (in Italy I don't know in your country) is 300! I did not say that the best lenses do better pictures (though honestly so of course) I just told you not to teach and don't give wrong prices, thanks--LivioAndronico(talk)16:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I explain my vote and my thoughts on FP; I dont think you bring something more to the table here and therefore not FP. I found the lens for approximately 113 euros on ebay today, I paid approximately 80. And it was not a suggestion, it was a response to Hubertl's argument --ArildV (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I told you and you do not pretend (?) to understand and that's fine.In Italy we said "to wash your head to the mules you lose water and soap". And then what normal person goes to buy a lens in Japan (from Italy) ??? Anyway, is waste time to talk with you,also because i don't see your nomination here.Goodbay.--LivioAndronico(talk)18:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose some weird processing, maybe be over sharpened in post process? Nothing is beautiful in full size here. -- RTA02:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2016 at 14:36:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Really? While I am aware, that the votes at FPC are often based on highly subjective points of view and the current moods of the voters, this substantiation still was able to surprise me. --Tsui (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry again, if I don't find this picture pleasant to be seen, given the context. "Ugly" subjects can be featured of course, but this one does not work for me. Additionnaly, I don't like the low-angle of the shot. It is technicaly very good, but I agree, "highly subjective points of view" have an important role here in FPC (for technical essessments, see QIC page.)--Jebulon (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just hope, she, if she ever happens to stumble upon the picture, won't find it ugly. One of my top criterions when providing images of people here is to select only those which I could personally show to the ones depicted without remorse. I don't think it's an ugly grimace. She's singing (something like "uuu" I assume) and looks concentrated to me. --Tsui (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2016 at 17:32:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paroi cratère Vésuve.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paroi cratère Vésuve.jpg
Support I think this picture has some value in many ways (historical, geological, geographical...), as I took this photograph inside of the crater of the Mount Vesuvius in Italy. So, I took big risks for you, guys. OK, the last eruption was almost 2000 years ago, but who knows ?-- Jebulon (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I'm afraid I find the three examples of pictures absolutely horrible from all points of view, and I don't understand how they can be compared with the candidate here, but OK, thank you all for reviews. What is funny, is that I was not absolutely convinced myself by this candidacy, but for ther rationales. Very interesting. I'll be back soon ! :)--Jebulon (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulon, those examples weren't intended to be examples of FP-quality alternatives. Merely to illustrate each point. They are horrible in many regards. I suspect your memory of how impressive/large this crater is, hasn't translated onto the JPG. Unfortunately, the best view of this crater is likely to come from the air. -- Colin (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2016 at 10:56:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Qahatika girl 3c12215u.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Qahatika girl 3c12215u.jpg
Oppose Sorry (I am aware of that it may be some kind of overthinking behind my vote) but I have some problem with the images. I have no doubt that it is some EV in Curtis's photos. But it is an excellent portrait? It is a portrait at all? I do not think so, its not about her. Its more about showing that a Qahatika women looks like. And it is a very old-fashioned, exoticist way of portraying people. It's as naive as trying to show that a german malereally looks like. In other words; as a portrait (not very good, especially because the photographer is not interested in her); scientific value (doubtful, naive approach and not particularly useable crop), compared with contemporary images (I don't know); wow (absolutely no wow for me).--ArildV (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Arild. No wow. The linked alternative isn't much better. These don't begin to do this girl justice; the same can be said of most of Edward Sheriff Curtis's images, which are usually more documentary than artistic. INeverCry20:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2016 at 06:52:58 (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 13 Jan 2016 at 13:07:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:30a Sammlung Eybl Großbritannien. Alfred Leete (1882–1933) Britons (Kitchener) wants you (Briten Kitchener braucht Euch). 1914 (Nachdruck), 74 x 50 cm. (Slg.Nr. 552).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:30a Sammlung Eybl Großbritannien. Alfred Leete (1882–1933) Britons (Kitchener) wants you (Briten Kitchener braucht Euch). 1914 (Nachdruck), 74 x 50 cm. (Slg.Nr. 552).jpg
Info Reprint from the initial publishing of the famous graphic with Lord Kitchener in the London Opinion in 1914. There were uncounted different reprints used until the late 1970th for recruiting purposes. This reprint was probably used during the Second World War. This poster has even a better quality as the one which is shown at the Imperial War Museums site
Striking my oppose - more of an emotional response than an appropriate judgement of the image's quality. I'll pass these by in future. INeverCry10:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was not an invitation to a Ronald McDonalds childrens birthday party, INeverCry. That´s how graphics work. War is ugly. BTW: This poster was the original grafic work for this more famous one from 1917, a plagiat IMO from James Montgomery Flagg (1877-1960): --Hubertl09:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2016 at 13:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dokument odpustowy.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dokument odpustowy.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2016 at 14:44:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eurasian tree sparrow at Tennōji Park in Osaka, December 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eurasian tree sparrow at Tennōji Park in Osaka, December 2015.jpg
Support I like the open space on the left, even when the bird (we say "Spatz" in Austria) is watching the photographer IMO. Very sharp, good background, good work. --Hubertl15:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I could imagine a greater composition, but it's a terrific portrait of the bird and the bokeh is fairly pleasant (though maybe darker than I'd prefer in the upper right, as that's tending to cut off my eye movement). Overall, it's good enough for me to support as a sparrow portrait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2016 at 15:23:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Helios, Main figure (Johannes Benk) at the Naturhistorisches Museum, Wien-9958.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Helios, Main figure (Johannes Benk) at the Naturhistorisches Museum, Wien-9958.jpg
Info Helios, Main figure at the Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna. this is the last of three monumental statues Johannes Benk made in the 1870th for the new "Kaiserforum". All by Hubertl15:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Full frontal nudity at FPC. Whatever next! Shame the backside isn't as sharp or you'd have a set. There's a black dot in the image above the crown, and a dust spot in the top left. -- Colin (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDone Thanks for the hint (dustspot/swallow) As with most of my 800mm-tours, I need more than one session for one single object, to get this monumental backside properly ;-) --Hubertl21:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Given that this is Helios, it would be great to have more sunlight on his head, but you can't have everything, and that's a damn good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2016 at 08:08:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paris Notre-Dame East View 02.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paris Notre-Dame East View 02.JPG
Info Fountain of the Virgin (Fontaine de la Vierge) at Square Jean XXIII and apse of the cathedral Notre-Dame de Paris, France. All by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for submitting this. You know what ? I walk here twice a day, as I work very close from there. This wonderful beauty is usual for me, and I tend to see it less and less... Yes, very nice.--Jebulon (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2016 at 20:42:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pühajärve sõjatamm udus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pühajärve sõjatamm udus.jpg
Support I needed some time to let this motif into my inner representation. The problem was, I don´t like foggy, cold weather. --Hubertl15:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is nice enough as is, but I'd like it a bit more with that little stump or whatever it is to the right of the tree removed. INeverCry19:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2016 at 00:20:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Amaryllis (Hippeastrum).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amaryllis (Hippeastrum).JPG
Oppose On the first view it looks spectacular, but ultimately, I miss the typical and for a studio work necessary sharpness. The lightening is much more fishing for effects than balanced. Subjects like this needs more than one light, focus bracketing/stacking would have been the right choice.--Hubertl00:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support Taking Hubert's criticisms into account, I still can't make myself dislike the picture. However, I would agree that its deliberate artsiness makes it just borderline as far as scope goes. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking in detail for an indoor (I presume) photo of flowers. The lighting isn't well controlled, with some parts over-bright and others too much in shadow. I find the horizontal orientation unnatural. -- Colin (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice attempt but the lighted areas are close to the overexposition. And it lacks a small second source of light from the right IMO, to balance a little more the lighting. Christian Ferrer(talk)19:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2016 at 23:13:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panoramic view north from Ben Lomond.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panoramic view north from Ben Lomond.jpg
Info A 180° panoramic view looking north from the summit of Ben Lomond (974m). A hot August day climb but the view was worth it. (The view south is great too). The man on the right-hand edge of the photo has just arrived and is taking in the view. All by me -- Colin (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2016 at 23:37:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Not a traditional encyclopaedic animal portrait by any means, for obvious reasons. However, IMHO it is an attractive "character" shot in which the shallow DoF emphasises the lemur's eyes, its hiding behind the posts implies a natural wariness, and I also really like the colours and overall composition. I think it could add visual impact to an article on Lemurs, or Zoos. Taken at Whipsnade Zoo, UK. All by me, -- Baresi F (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've been to Whipsnade Zoo. The lemurs are quite tame and visitors get to wander through the enclosure and the staff encourage them to mingle about with food treats. They aren't particularly wary. So honestly this is as easy to photograph as one's cat. I disagree that it would be particularly useful for an article on the animal (where's the "ring tail" for a start, and we don't tend to use zoo photos for animal articles if it can be helped) nor particularly useful for an article on zoos (only some wooden post is visible). We have so many photos of these animals in zoos that they are sub-categorised by zoo name! I think a zoo photo needs to be really special, rather than just cute, for they are naturally photogenic. A zoo offers the possibility for family photos with babies, and IMO the most characteristic and endearing pose I saw there was Lemurs sun worshiping like File:Lemurs sunning.jpg, which according to the WP article is normal behaviour in the wild too. -- Colin (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I don't think the fact that it's hiding behind some post is helping the photo. The quality is really nice though. — Julian H.✈ 13:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the support and constructive comments. With regards to usefulness, funnily enough this image was used by a number of local news outlets to illustrate their articles on new baby Lemurs at Whipsnade Zoo last year, e.g. here. No attribution, though :( --Baresi F (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't deny it is cute! Do you think they got it from Commons or did you post it to Flickr/Facebook? I seem to recall they had a social media page/group that looked very much like a request for free photos for them to use for their own publicity. I wonder if ZSL supplied your photo to the newspapers. You know, the reason my Flickr album isn't on Commons is I was told I could not release the photos with a free licence that permitted commercial use, unless I paid a fee (basically an hourly rate to take commercial photos at the zoo). Since they are a charity, I was minded to honour that, but increasingly I'm tempted to ignore it since they don't seem to have much respect for photographers. -- Colin (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They may have got it from Flickr, but as I'm so lazy and never tag anything they might have had a hard job finding it. I've just checked and the only two (auto) tags on it are "animal" and "outdoor"! It was explored on there, though, and it is titled "Ring-tailed lemur", so could be. I can usually tell from the attribution as to whether it was from Flickr or Commons, but as they weren't polite enough to do any I'm stumped :) I did put it on FB, but only in a private album, I think. Yeah, pretty much every zoo I've ever been to has a similar "no commercial use" policy. I'm no legal expert, but most of them seem pretty wooly, and I can't imagine they would ever be enforced for an image taken by an amateur and released under a free licence. Then again, if said image went viral and someone in their commercial dept smelled money, who knows? --Baresi F (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm increasingly sceptical about viral photos. I mean, did the Weasel/Woodpecker guy get paid for all the news photos, never mind all the social media and parody photos. So I suspect if ZSL ever complained that they saw no money from a viral photo taken in their zoo, my response would be "You and me both". Commons won't delete your zoo photos, regardless of any contract terms, because the contract is between you and ZSL so doesn't affect anyone else. The best you can hope for is a courtesy deletion should the lawyers come knocking. Btw, do you realise that Facebook rights-grab your photos for eternity. Flickr's terms are quite reasonable but Facebook is collecting billions, if not trillions, of rights to photos to do whatever they like with, even if you leave, and you can forget about attribution never mind share-alike. -- Colin (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you love to make fotos from a zoo, Baresi F, come to Vienna, the Tiergarten Schönbrunn supports everyone, who wants to make fotos. Without any restrictions, you can work with tripods or not, just as you like. They only ask to be additionally mentioned as Tiergarten Schönbrunn. --Hubertl23:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2016 at 23:13:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:View of the Church of the Savior on Blood.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:View of the Church of the Savior on Blood.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2016 at 15:08:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lichfield Cathedral Exterior from NE, Staffordshire, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lichfield Cathedral Exterior from NE, Staffordshire, UK - Diliff.jpg
I would argue that it's not really. It looks much closer to how it is seen with the eye. The camera's limited dynamic range usually results in white skies in scenes like this, but why should we limit our photography to the limitations of camera sensors? I'm not saying I can't make mistakes, but I always try to keep the processing faithful to how I saw it, rather than overprocess it for dramatic effect. Diliff (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is lovely and sharp. But there's no getting away from the weather/light being dull. And I agree with Jebulon -- looks a bit too much contrast (see the cars on the left for example). Because of the light, and the very varied colour of stone, it is quite hard to make out the form of the building, which is also foreshortened by the wide-angle lens (see this aerial photo that shows how long the building is). I can't help thinking you photographed the weaker side. -- Colin (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit frustrating though, because there's always one group of people saying it's unrealistic to only photograph buildings in lovely sunlight that if the UK typically has a lot of overcast days, it's encyclopaedic to show them in that way, and then another group saying that overcast light is dull. Yes, maybe it's dull, but it also brings out a different character to the building. I don't think it's hard to make out the form of the building, I'm not sure why you think that's so. And yes, the other end of the cathedral is spectacular in its own way, but it is even harder to photograph as you can't get nearly as far back. The foreshortening issue you say is a problem in my image is much worse from the front. Anyway, it wasn't possible when I was visiting as they had a big marquee out the front (just out of view behind it in this image) which spoiled any frontal views of the cathedral. Diliff (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it is naturally quite a red stone and overcast weather will make the colour a bit deeper, but I'd be happy to desaturate it slightly. I do find that increasing contrast sometimes adds too much saturation and maybe I pushed contrast too much. Diliff (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, Diliff you know I'm your biggest fan but in this case I don't see the WOW. It has educational value of course but FP always needs a little bit more. I think I don't like the perspective, too. --Code (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am a huge fan of your photos but I have some problems here. I dont have problems with cloudy days per se. Cloudy days can be really beautiful, but the light and the colors here are not (of course my personal opinion) very beautiful. I agree with the comments about overprocessed and oversaturation, but perharps the problem here is you camera's limited dynamic range and inferior colors. Also, the color of the grass looks strange (looks more like spring / early summer than July). Not bad, some very srong points (sharpness), but I think we can expect a bit more in terms of colors and lights then it comes to a very easy to reach cathedral.--ArildV (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing to do with the camera - this is an HDR image. And the Canon 5D Mk iii doesn't have inferior colours. ;-) Dynamic range, maybe, but the colours are fine. I still think the colours are reasonably faithful, but the contrast may be a bit too high. Anyway, it seems clear that this one won't pass. I'll revisit it one day - it's easy to reach, but a 2 and a half hour drive for me, so we'll see. :-) Diliff (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2016 at 17:34:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurt Motor Show 2015 (15).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurt Motor Show 2015 (15).JPG
Oppose This is a sub-standard product pic. You have it off-center with a woman half hidden talking to a person who's leg can be seen at right. The white square at left doesn't make for much of a composition overall. No reason this should be FP. INeverCry19:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above arguments. Yann (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2016 at 16:42:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I find this scene pretty enough to feature, but just a point on the category: This would be "Mixture" (mixed natural and human-made). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dull means, "lacking interest or excitement". It describes the image perfectly, and the cat's mouth was disgusting—offensive, even. Try to have more respect for other people's opinions. By the way, this view on a clear day is already a featured picture... Firebrace (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks for the translation, but the respect is for wise poeple and it does not seem the case. I repeat: have more respect. Dull or horrible isn't a opinion. thanks.--LivioAndronico(talk)02:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2016 at 20:47:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo January 2016-1a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo January 2016-1a.jpg
Oppose I don't understand the choice of orientation. The sea is interesting and moody; the sky is pretty average and the mood completely spoiled by the jet trail. -- Colin (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am more and more convinced that a talented photographer is someone who can see beauty where the rest of us only see "yet another boring something". Some are born with such talent, others have to patiently learn it with experience and time. Yes, I agree that the sense of depth is one of the key factors of this scene. The other is the contrast between the white of the sea, the dark cliffs and the blue of the sky. Happy New Year! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2016 at 12:39:57 (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 12 Jan 2016 at 00:27:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sonny Bill Williams 2013 (1).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sonny Bill Williams 2013 (1).JPG
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's less than 2 million pixels, too small for FP
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Comment the photo just falls short of the pixel count, but i think it still looks quite detailed and looks like it was taken professionally with good technical skill and composition.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would pass anyway: the blurred micro, and the hidden arm(?) below the watch are not OK for a FP. Yann (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but i don't understand what you mean with good composition. I explain: there's a microphone blurred on the right and the person crop on the left is also worse. And for the last is Small! Sorry if I am crude but is the true for me --LivioAndronico(talk)16:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2016 at 08:05:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Albert Bierstadt - Among the Sierra Nevada, California - Google Art Project.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Albert Bierstadt - Among the Sierra Nevada, California - Google Art Project.jpg
Assuming you're being sarcastic, you should note that despite Google Art Project images having been among the potential PotY nominees for several years running, none of them have ever even been a finalist (another argument, IMO, for treating art digitizations separately). Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not all of them but think about it this way: Which would you like to see introduced among the paintings when you browse through the featured picture pages? Which of the painting documentations do justice to the original work the best, which of the paintings are the finest examples of certain styles or which do you find aesthetically most pleasing (just like the photographs)? If the best document was from Google it doesn't make the work less valuable imo. --Ximonic (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
no problem with Google, and I'm happy we have these pictures in " Commons". But I don't understand the need of the fp star here. So, following the arguments here, let's automatically feature all the GAP pictures, we will waste less time.--Jebulon (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, it will be years, maybe even decades, before a larger photo of this painting is made available to the Commons. Are we really going to wait? Firebrace (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2016 at 11:47:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bieszczady - sunrise from Chatka Puchatka (2).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bieszczady - sunrise from Chatka Puchatka (2).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2016 at 05:41:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Панорама Тобольского кремля с мыса Чукман.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Панорама Тобольского кремля с мыса Чукман.jpg
Oppose Nice work getting this but I'm just not wowed by the composition, plus there are some blown areas on the wall and problematically processed areas in the grass at left. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2016 at 20:06:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Holstentor in Lübeck 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Holstentor in Lübeck 2015.jpg
Info the picture gained perspective correction, it isn't tilt or have perspective problems. Have a look at this picture and u see, that the buidling is lopsided, not the picture (look at the street lamps or other references like the salt store on the right). I just mentioned it, cause after I exhibited this picture on QI and VI, some guys opposed the picture of this reason. It really looks in reality like that. Regards --Dr. Chriss (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'll support this one, too. I could see objections to the presence of some of the people in the photo, like those on the near right, but this photo gives a larger context to the location of the gate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2016 at 20:41:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:MANNapoli 109982 roue de la fortune memento mori.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:MANNapoli 109982 roue de la fortune memento mori.jpg
Support This ancient roman mosaic from Pompeii, now on display in the National Archaeological Museum from Naplesmosaic, shows an allegorical and symbolic approach to the philosophical theme, of Hellenistic origin but still very modern, of the transience of life and the imminence of death which, by eliminating the disparities of social class and wealth, restores equilibrium to the vagaries of fate. The upper part of the composition shows a level with a plumb-line, very well known by the roman builders. The axis of the plumb bob is death (the skull), while below it is a butterfly (the soul) balanced on a wheel (Fortune). Beneath the arms of the level, which are opposed and perfectly balanced, are the symbols of poverty to the right (the knapsack, the beggar’s stick and the cloak) and the symbols of wealth to the left (the sceptre, purple and the crown). It is worth emphasising the care with which the artist uses colour to give greater precision and characterisation to some of the objects such as the skull or the level, where the different shades of colour make it possible to highlight the wooden part of the instrument and the connecting parts in bronze. The size is 47X41 cm. -- Jebulon (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't think this was on display when I visited the museum, or I would have remembered it, because it's a very memorable mosaic. Great art, excellent photograph, terrific info. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a reference with a description for this piece, under the same inventory number, indication for the location in the museum, in the Guide général du Musée National de Naples, by Domenico Monaco, Naples, 1890.--Jebulon (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice job, added an English description based on the French description, which was clear enough that I did not have to resort to Google for more than a few words (pour ce, merci beaucoup). Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, no merit for me, it is an adaptation of the english description readable on the museum's site !
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2016 at 20:14:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Xinghai Bay Bridge Dalian China.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Xinghai Bay Bridge Dalian China.jpg
Comment - The picture looks great at full-page size, with the haze in the distance obviously being due to smog, but at full size, everything, very much including things in the foreground, looks pretty distorted. Please give your thoughts on this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. I would love to support as a beautiful, well-composed image of something ugly and undesirable (especially having experienced Chinese smog myself), but it shows all too well the limitations of P/Ses in this day and age, with severe clipping at the bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2016 at 18:18:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Yawning cat by David Montolio.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Yawning cat by David Montolio.jpg
Weak support OK, this is a different type of cat pic, and for that I'll support, although I wish the tips of the ears had been handled better. Daniel Case (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Eugh. That's not nice, either to look at or technically. The earlier File:Yawning cat portrait (8423278464).jpg was better technically. This is extremely noisy, posterised. There's something like flare over much of the left side of the image and what's with the little triangle on the bottom right? The DoF is poor, and what is in focus isn't really sharp due to the very high ISO. The colour temperature looks off. The whiskers are cropped. Has nobody seen a cat yawn before? This is quite unremarkable and far from FP quality. -- Colin (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2016 at 21:07:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Black and white nude man on toilet.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black and white nude man on toilet.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Poor quality snapshot: poor framing, subject unsharp, blown whites -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2016 at 23:00:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gentile da Fabriano - Coronation of the Virgin.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gentile da Fabriano - Coronation of the Virgin.jpg
Support - I usually don't vote on reproductions of paintings, because if I haven't seen them in the flesh or don't remember exactly what they looked like, I am unlikely to be confident that the colors are precisely right, etc. However, in this case, not only do I believe I saw this work a few years ago at the Getty, but I know this painter and his style well enough to feel confident that this is a fair reproduction. It looks beautiful, and it's a very large file. By the way, it did load properly, so I was able to see that it is perfectly in focus at full size, which as Hubert says, with such a large file, is extraordinary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 100% per Ikan Kekek. But it is, more and more, the beginning of the end of the non professional photography of works of art here in "Commons". I'm happy for "Commons", but not for myself, as I like very much taking photographs in museums... :( --Jebulon (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2016 at 12:32:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Deer of Sunset.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Deer of Sunset.jpg/2
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2016 at 20:11:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Movement of organelles in Tradescantia stamen hair cells.webmCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Movement of organelles in Tradescantia stamen hair cells.webm
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2016 at 05:47:26 (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 16 Jan 2016 at 22:09:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Graphosoma lineatum IMG5232.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Graphosoma lineatum IMG5232.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2016 at 07:20:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Harilik näsiniin (Daphne mezereum) - Keila loomets.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Harilik näsiniin (Daphne mezereum) - Keila loomets.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2016 at 20:54:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Because I know this position very well, it is a different composition for me. In this case, the water sliding tower is the central subjekt (looking to south west) the other is focusing to a wider angle directly to west, to the end of the lake, facing a complete different country side. Therefore, for me are both worth being featured. To let know and avoid misunderstandings: I grew up at this lake but I wasn´t there, when the picture was taken. --Hubertl21:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2016 at 05:52:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zicht op het IJsselmeer. Locatie Mirnser Klif 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zicht op het IJsselmeer. Locatie Mirnser Klif 02.jpg
Oppose I don't see anything special about a tree with a large downed limb, shot against a boring gray sky, with a couple of women sitting talking by it. No wow factor for me. INeverCry02:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2016 at 13:27:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:15. Омов закон.oggCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:15. Омов закон.ogg
Neutral Well-done as a video but it needs some TimedText subtitles to explain what Ohm's Law is and how this is demonstrated by what we see. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The principal idea of all videos recorded to document experiments in physics was to make them available for use in all languages and therefore adding narration was avoided. A possible solution might be to expand the video description with a sentence or two explaining the experiment.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that ... the point of TimedText would be to explain this using subtitles, which can be added in as many languages as desired. Daniel Case (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality video, but I agree with Daniel that subtitles are needed. Timed Text files shouldn't be too hard to add and then they can be translated into other languages over time. INeverCry20:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The thing is that such descriptions can only be useful below, as a whole. Having it in the timed text seems to me quite impractical. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2016 at 17:08:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2015.07.10.-04-Zwochau--Grosser Blaupfeil-Maennchen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015.07.10.-04-Zwochau--Grosser Blaupfeil-Maennchen.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2016 at 20:12:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rimberg-Panorama 2014.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rimberg-Panorama 2014.jpg
Support It's a very good picture and I'll support it as is, BUT it would be even better if there was one version of this without the text or with editable text. That way it could be use in more languages, or if someone would like to extract a part of it for some article. The text thing was solved very elegantly in this file where some of the versions were without text or editable, but there are of course other ways to do this. cart-Talk10:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There is too little sky and too little vertical height, like looking through a letterbox at the world. I would encourage you to take multi-row panoramics (or at least, to hold the camera vertically) to avoid this problem. Invest in a panoramic head if you like taking these pictures. Also, per Cart, there should be a version without labels. -- Colin (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A textless version is possible but much less instruktive. Sorry, I see no value in adding clouds at the top or leaves on the buttom. A higher focal length sometimes requires even more extreme "letterbox"-formats to show the whole possibilities of what is visible on a clear day from a mountain. --Milseburg (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dissagree about a textless version being less instructive, having such a version allows this picture to be translated and used on other language Wikipedias. I'm a translator myself (along with many, many other Wikipedians) and as it is now I could not include this pic on Swedish Wikipedia without translating the names. Some names are the same, but as it is now it would be useless on wikis using another alphabeth, like Russian, Hebrew, Chinese, Greek, Japanese, Arabic, Tamil, Bengal, to name a few. You need to see the "bigger picture" here. What good is such a fantastic photo if it can only be used fully in a few European countries. cart-Talk14:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention "higher focal length" and don't understand how focal length is relevant. It's a stitched image -- you can make it any width and height you like? For this view, I agree the very bottom isn't that interesting, so there isn't much point in expanding it, but for others there may be. The point is that the vertical height here is smaller than the human eye sees when looking from this viewpoint. Whether its because you've oriented your camera in Landscape mode or because you've cropped out some sky, or because your stitch didn't include much sky, the result is a scene that simply has sky removed that a viewer would see. The fact that the sky is featureless or has clouds you don't think add "value" is missing the point. Negative space is an important part of any composition. Subjects need room to breathe, and the lack of sky here isn't natural. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vertical hight is smaller than human eyes are able to see and the horizontal angle is much larger. So this can´t be a criterion. Think you are looking around horizontal with binoculars and low magnification. The point is, weather it makes sense to overcroud the image with volatile contend, that does not belong to the intention of the image: Information what landmarks can be seen from this lookout-tower. With a higher focal length, I can pick up distant things closer, but I need more single images. So a one-row-panorama gets longer and more "letterboxlike". Weather there is on top a second row with nothing but sky necessary, I would deny. --Milseburg (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Having compared against our existing panoramas, I think Alchemist is right. There's just not enough going on in this image to give wow, plus other issues raised above. -- Colin (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who said that Danes are cultural ignorants ?...(anonymous)
Well Mr. "Anonymous" probably located 970 km South-West from my current location :-), I made an obvious error in my analogy, Bruckners symphonies existed in so many editions and versions, and he could not make up his mind which to use - The Bruckner Problem. Here, no alternatives have been nominated. And that is a good thing. Uoaei1: I actually do like Bruckners symphonies, they are just not "FP" for me.Milseburg forgive me for hijacking your nomination to make silly comments. It is not polite. I will stop now. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Colin that it would be nice to see a little more sky to balance out the terrain, and with Cart that the text layer should be editable to allow for translations, but this is well-enough detailed all around that I feel wowed. Daniel Case (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2016 at 07:15:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nutmeg ready.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nutmeg ready.jpg
Oppose - It's a Quality Image, but I don't find anything impressive about it. There's nothing great to me about the composition, and only half of the nutmeg is in focus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this is a great photo with excellent composition. It's one of the Wiki Loves Africa 2014/Winners. The focus is on the interesting half of the nutmeg. The hands are arranged well and it looks like the nutmeg has just been opened and presented so the image tells a story. But a shame that somehow the JPG has been damaged by processing. The file is AdobeRGB colourspace, which isn't ideal but I wonder if someone has tried adjusting the colours using a really naive application. Because the whole image is covered in what looks like a dithering pattern -- not noise at all. Like the whole image has been reduced to 256 colours or something. The colour temperature looks a little yellow too. I hope the original JPG exists so it can be fixed. -- Colin (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2016 at 19:36:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:San Giacomo in Augusta (Rome) - Intern.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Giacomo in Augusta (Rome) - Intern.jpg
Oppose Too distorted. Compare to File:S Giacomo in Augusta - interno 1230637.JPG. The problem here is the vertical angle of view is huge and compounded by the common problem that the point-of-view is very near the floor and taken too far forward. Thus in order to "correct" the vertical perspective, the upper portions get stretched to appear many times larger than they are. There are limits to what a rectilinear projection can comfortably manage, in terms of angle-of-view, and this exceeds it. As Diliff noted in another nom, the composition does not have enough floor-level and is cropped at knee height. Perhaps another time-of-day would produce more even lighting from left/right -- here one side is in shadow and the other side has too much. I suppose, however, we should be grateful you didn't nominate this, though quite what that abomination is doing on Commons I don't know :-). -- Colin (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Apart from the distortion (or perhaps because of it) the processing seems to have mishandled the light on the right side, by pushing a curve too far into midtones (it's almost gray in some areas). Also look at the statue in the alcove high up ... it is very waxy and unreal-looking. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2016 at 19:23:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry, its a nice october images (but we have but we have thousands of quality images taken in October). Composition and quality is not better than a average QI. No wow, just a decent october photo.--ArildV (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2016 at 16:49:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Neuschwanstein Castle (532850).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Neuschwanstein Castle (532850).jpg
Oppose At first sight I was ready to support, but then I noticed that we already have 4 other FPs of this view: 1, 2, 3 and 4. No wonder, as this is certainly one of the most popular shots taken by foreign tourists in Germany. So how does this one hold up against the tough competition? OK, it has slightly punchier colors. It also has a higher resolution than the first 3. But at full resolution, it has some chromatic aberration and looks like there was too much sharpening or local contrast applied. Compare that to Thomas'Schloss_Neuschwanstein_2013.jpg and I think the reason for my oppose should become obvious: despite all efforts, there's a serious lack of actual sharpness. Not a bad image at all, but not among our very best. (Some of the other 3 should probably de-listed as well …) --El Grafo (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per El Grafo. He's right that some of the other images of this view should be delisted at first if we're going to consider promoting this one. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this doesn't quite win some of the other versions of this same angle. The sharpness could be better... BUT I honestly do think that while Thomas Wolf's version was pin sharp looking and indeed a good presentation of the castle, the combo of sharpness and contrast editing might have been a little over the top which had caused some halos in lights on the castle surface. But as this is not the nomination for Thomas' picture... I simply say, this might not be the defining picture among the others. --Ximonic (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the future I'd prefer to see some new angles of this castle and new lighting situations for FP. These are becoming a little too typical while they aren't bad pictures, though. --Ximonic (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2016 at 08:16:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Argynnis adippe auf Centaurea jacea 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Argynnis adippe auf Centaurea jacea 01.jpg
Neutral Nice, but not perfect light on the butterfly. This older FP by Richard Bartz with same species has perfect light conditions. --Ivar (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prior for the really great composition. Under the given premises, the lack of sharpness of the head parts is negligible. --Hubertl11:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info I just noticed that this butterfly is an Argynnis adippe, not an Argynnis paphia. Descriptions and categorization have been corrected, the filename will be changed after this FP voting is finished. --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2016 at 14:05:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Miguel, Jerez de la Frontera, España, 2015-12-07, DD 99-101 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Miguel, Jerez de la Frontera, España, 2015-12-07, DD 99-101 HDR.JPG
Info Central nave of the Church of San Miguel, Jerez de la Frontera, Spain. The church is composed of 3 naves, where the central nave is higher than the lateral ones, with pillars decorated with gothic motifs and very diverse baldachins, whereas the altar is a work from 1609 by Juan Martínez Montañés1609. The construction of the church began in 1484 due to a visit of the Catholic Monarchs to Jerez de la Frontera, but it took several centuries to complete, resulting in a harmonious mixture of elements from the late Gothic, Renaissance and Baroque. Poco214:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Although I would say that some of the highlights at the top seem a little too overexposed (more highlight reduction needed?) and the shadow detail is much noisier than I would expect for a ISO 100 HDR processed image. Perhaps the brightest exposure of the bracket did not 'expose to the right' for the shadows? What bracketing settings did you use? Also, I'd have liked to see a bit more foreground, it seems to have the same issue that many of Livio's church interiors have - lots of ceiling and not much flooring. I try to keep it as near to the rule of thirds as possible. I understand that when you are limited by the focal length of your widest lens, you may have to compromise somewhere though. Perhaps next time you could at least take two frames (one upper and one lower) and stitch them together, if you're not willing to go down the 'full mosaic' route that I take. Diliff (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
David, I have reduced hightlights now a bit more, but this will not get more detail on the upper part of the window on the top right. I just used 3 frames, probably should have used 5 as it was extremely dark there (only the candles in the center and the rays of light through the windows). The brightest frame (30 seconds) was not as bright as I had hoped, so I should have probably set it to bulb and waited for 1 min or increased ISO to 200. Regarding your suggestion about taking 2 frames, I'll try it out. In this case, I can actually offer more crop on the bottom but that results in a worse perspective IMHO. I usually find the ceiling more interesting than the floor and the closer benches distract a bit as there are spaces among them. Poco216:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sharpness is not as crisp as many of the church interiors we usually have but the quality is still very high, the subject is very interesting and the perspective seems ok for me, too. --Code (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2016 at 14:22:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sunflower head 2015 G1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunflower head 2015 G1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2016 at 22:57:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info West facade of the Paul-Löbe-Haus in Berlin-Mitte during the blue hour. The building was designed by architect Stephan Braunfels and built between 1997 and 2002. It's one of the buildings of the German parliament. Same view as this FP but different light situation. I made a picture of the frontal view, too, but personally I like this one more. Behind the building at the right side you can see the Reichstag. On the left side there's the German federal press conference. Can you see the christmas tree? Created, uploaded and nominated by me. -- Code (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2016 at 16:08:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo January 2016-3a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo January 2016-3a.jpg
Comment Nice in thumbnail, a bit disappointing at full size, qualitywise (sharpness of the cape). Isn't it a (very little) bit tilted clockwise ?--Jebulon (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info The horizon is perfectly horizontal now. The problem is that it looks like tilted the other way because of the land on the right. The image was slightly sharpen but the blur caused by haze and spray cannot be fixed. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2016 at 12:17:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Varied tit at Tennōji Park in Osaka, January 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Varied tit at Tennōji Park in Osaka, January 2016.jpg
Support - The tail feathers are a bit blurry at full size, but sheesh, you are taking pictures in which we can see every feather, which is pretty amazing. I still would prefer a less blurred background, but I see the encyclopedic importance of this closeup of the bird. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2016 at 09:49:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Georges Rochegrosse's poster for Jules Massenet's Don Quichotte.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Georges Rochegrosse's poster for Jules Massenet's Don Quichotte.jpg
Comment I like this poster, but it looks very dark to me. I suppose Archaeodontosaurus had the same impression. His version looks much better to me. There is(was?) a bug about PNG rendering which produces this result. Is this the case here? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's obvious. Part of the engraving work disappears under the black tones. One can see from the test had been done, but is also measurable by the weight of the picture. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some things are meant to be dark. The poster is about contrasts. Things in shadow shouldn't look bright as day, or you ruin the artistic intent. The darker image is a wonderful metaphor for Don Quixote. The brighter one is just... meh. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Archaeo's version is already quite dark, but your version is completely dark. The nice blue color is now black, and no details of both personages are visible. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2016 at 23:09:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo January 2016-7a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo January 2016-7a.jpg
WeakSupport. I maintain my comment from before about it being slightly too dark, and I think a rule of thirds crop of the sky could help. But overall good colors and mood. There's some pixel-level unsharpness which is excusable given the high resolution. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like this composition much better than the first two versions. I'm not convinced that with this composition, cropping the sky further would improve the picture (though I'd certainly be open to looking at another version if you want to make one). Anyway, I find this good enough to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2016 at 06:55:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sankt-Martin-Bamberg-1062846hdr.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sankt-Martin-Bamberg-1062846hdr.jpg
Info Altar of St. Martin's Church in Bamberg. I think Ermell does a lot of very interesting photos of bavarian church interiors. This is IMO one of the best and FP in my eyes: Sharpness, details and overall quality are excellent and the subject itself is very interesting, too. Created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Code -- Code (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2016 at 05:42:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:AT 119587 Jesuitenkirche Wien Innenansicht 9059.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:AT 119587 Jesuitenkirche Wien Innenansicht 9059.jpg
Support - Perhaps a touch blurry at full size in the lower left and right corners, but excellent at full screen size and a really good picture of a beautiful scene, nonetheless. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The horizontal perspective is a little off by the way. It is especially visible at the bottom of the image. I think it disturbs a little as the picture is pretty symmetrical otherwise. --Ximonic (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary Oppose, the white balance feels too blue to me, given that the arcs are probably roughtly neutral grey. Also a bit dark but I guess that's ok given the light conditions. Interesting idea with the composition. — Julian H.✈ 08:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDone Interesting effect, changing the white balance and reducing the blueish makes it a bit brighter too. Thanks for reviewing, Julian --Hubertl08:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hubertl: Actually, I just looked at it again and there is something weird going on there. In the top centre, where there are a few small overexposed spots, the clipped areas seem to turn black for some reason. Any idea why this is happening/how to fix this? — Julian H.✈ 08:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Julian I fixed it, I presume, it was a mixture of spot lights, natural lights and HDR-Processing with Photomatix. I don´t really know why. But thanks, so I can avoid it maybe with the next series. --Hubertl09:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hubertl, if you're using Photomatix for the HDR processing, I would recommend that you try Lightroom instead, as it is superior (In my opinion) for HDR processing. You have a lot more control over the result, especially with the use of adjustment brushes. If you only have an older version of Lightroom (4 or 5) and not Lightroom 6 which has built-in HDR merging, you could still merge the images to HDR in Photomatix but instead of doing the tone mapping, you can just save merged but unprocessed HDR file as a 32 bit TIFF and then import that TIFF into Lightroom. Just a suggestion. Diliff (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before I did the tone mapping with PS (I had LR 5.xx at this time), but the results are bad, so I tried Photomatix, with quite good results. I never tried it with LR later (I have 6.xx) because I thought, it´s the same engine as in PS. But thanks for your hint, David, I will try the next one with LR. --Hubertl09:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised you had bad results with Lightroom, even LR5. It's always been superior to Photomatix for me. Photomatix has a bad habit of oversaturating colours and losing the natural tones of a scene. And of course you cannot be selective about the processing - the whole scene must be processed with the same settings - with Lightroom you can process one area in one way and another area in another way, using strong highlight recovery only on specific areas (this is vital for my church interiors where the stained glass is still overexposed even with strong tone mapping in Photomatix). Anyway, I can only recommend that you use the tools that work for you, but I'm surprised by your comments about LR. Perhaps it could be the method used rather than the ability of the tool itself. Diliff (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2016 at 09:43:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:All Saints Church Carshalton Interior 2, Surrey, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:All Saints Church Carshalton Interior 2, Surrey, UK - Diliff.jpg
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. This is a just regular, suburban, slightly run-down parish church, but with a difference. It is home to a beautiful organ case (and rood screen, visible in the corresponding view) by distintive Gothic Revival architect Ninian Comper, who also designed the rood screen of another London church that I photographed a while ago. Although the image contains a wide view, this organ case is the centrepiece of the image and main subject for the nomination. -- Diliff (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support So beautiful. And flawless quality. Do you make appointments with the parishes before taking such photographs? --Code (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Usually no, but in this case I did as many of the 'hidden gem' suburban churches (and there are many that I haven't visited yet) in London are often not open to the public except on Sundays when they're in use. I contacted the Pastor and asked to visit and he opened it up specifically for me on a very dark overcast rainy day. What you can't see so easily in this photo is that because of the weather outside, the lights were very bright and beautiful in person, but the RAW images had very very warm yellow cast, and it took a lot of WB correction and creative selective desaturation of the scene to make it look natural and neutral again. It was a challenging scene to process. Anyway, that shouldn't have any affect on votes, but I thought you might be interested in that. Diliff (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the wide-angle view was a mistake here. The subject, the organ case, is small and distant from the viewer, and the enlarged/distorted arches on the sides completely dominate one's attention. I suggest (on file description) a 2:3 portrait crop that properly focuses attention on the organ while retaining four windows and sufficient surrounds for context. For a photo of the interior, I think File:All Saints Church Carshalton Interior 6, Surrey, UK - Diliff.jpg is the best of the set. With that, the vertical perspective distortion is minimised due to the high view point, and the horizontal view is not extreme. So one feels confident the proportions are realistic, unlike the nomination here. -- Colin (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any object in this scene that is unrealistically stretched out of proportion in a way that you could argue about in other ultrawide images of mine... Maybe you're just more sensitive to the proportions of the arches than I am, I think they look about as you would expect when you're underneath them, looking upwards. Anyway, I agree that a higher vantage point avoids some of the extreme vertical distortions but I don't particularly like the composition from that angle as the off-centred position doesn't create make for nice symmetrical converging lines. I would have loved to have taken it from a central position but of course that's where the organ is. In any case, the subject is the organ in its surroundings here, so the elevated view from the organ isn't really a solution to that problem. The image itself could be cropped to reduce the distortions but then it would suffer compositionally if the window was incomplete. I don't think there's any perfect solution, but I just don't think the distortion is that extreme in this image. Diliff (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well the other picture clearly wasn't intended as a solution for the view of the organ, but is I think suitable as a view of the whole interior, and I don't mind the off-centre view. The crop I suggest doesn't make the window incomplete, and I think is quite a superior image of this organ, which I would support. This just suffers from all the problems of photographing an object with a wide-angle lens -- it makes the subject small and far away and places too much emphasis on the surrounds. I have two eyes and 3D vision so one can't claim this is like being there. With a 2D projection one is left only with perspective clues to figure out depth/size and we all know that a wide-angle rectilinear projection exaggerates perspective (near objects become huge and distant objects become small). From a compositional point of view, this image is simply dominated by some arches and white stone walls, whereas it should be dominated by the organ. -- Colin (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the nature of reality is such that by definition, near objects are larger than distant ones, the only difference is that a wide angle view widens this effect and telephoto compresses it, as compared to our eyes. If we could photograph an interior like this with a 600mm lens from a large distance (hypothetically if the near side wall was removed), we'd find that perspective just as confusing, if not more. As we've discussed many times before, I guess it comes down to how attuned our eyes (or more accurately, our brains) are to different projections and angle of views, and I suppose through working with ultrawide images for many years, understanding the view comes naturally to me but perhaps not to others. Perhaps you're also right though that an organ like this should be more front and centre, but cropping it as heavily as you do reduces the resolution a bit much for my liking. I suppose I'll put it on the list of places to revisit one day. ;-) Diliff (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I do so many of Dave's church interiors, although I will add that Colin's suggested crop is also featurable should that be separately nominated and preferred. Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2016 at 04:51:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brown pelican in flight (Bodega Bay).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brown pelican in flight (Bodega Bay).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2016 at 20:17:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Holstentor Stadtseite.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Holstentor Stadtseite.jpg
Info the picture gained perspective correction, it isn't tilt or have perspective problems. Have a look at this picture and u see, that the buidling is lopsided, not the picture (look at the street lamps or other references). I just mentioned it, cause after I exhibited this picture on QI and VI, some guys opposed the picture of this reason. It really looks in reality like that. Regards --Dr. Chriss (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2016 at 05:45:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jules Massenet by Eugène Pirou.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jules Massenet by Eugène Pirou.jpg
Support - Yeah, it's really fading at the bottom, but it's still a good carte de visite in very good condition, and of obvious historical importance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: And one doesn't want to over-restore - I put a lot of work into the bottom (the lighter patches are selectively darkened a bit, for instance) but past a certain point you're just drawing on the photo. I blame people holding the card and getting greasy fingers on the bottom of the photo. I might poke at it a little more, see if I can mitigate it further, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some red/pink pixellization near the moustache. My kind of work for these pictures is a little different (I desaturate, and I increase the contrast, a bit more), anyway this one is excellent and of great value. For those who are interested by trying by themselves, please upload first the intact original, useful for further restorations (As Adam and I do).--Jebulon (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose thanks Adam Cuerden for your nice work, but sorry, this image is bleached out. This can be also simply digitaly corrected. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC) P.S: a simply additional photoshop tonality correction show me this: [reply]
[unindent]Comment Doesn't that have too much color? It looks a little blue to me, and this is a black & white (OK, sepia toned - I take Jebulon's point) image. Am I seeing something that isn't there? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Alchemist-hp and Livioandronico2013: I can understand your view, but I think it is possible to over-correct, especially with the carte de visit mount. Remember that this is also an example of the photographer's work, so we need to reflect the techniques used. Now, useability is also a criterion, and there will have been some fading over time; I myself darkened the image a bit. But, if this is going to be at all reflective of the photographer's work, it can't mislead as to which techniques were used, and that means greyscaling is definitely inappropriate, I fear. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was not sure for a support, but I strongly disagree with Alchemist-hp. Please remember that this sepia tone was a choice of the photographers, and is not due to the age of the picture. A BW choice is not accurate.--Jebulon (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have seen this claim several times that the sepia tone was an artistic choice. I don't think that is actually true. It may be a technical choice because the sepia tone helps protect pictures over time. I agree with Alchemist that his correction is better. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: who said "artistic" choice ? I just said "choice". I notice that Marville, during the 2nd French Empire, for instance, used mostly B&W, "by choice". And his excellent pictures are still here.--Jebulon (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2016 at 14:48:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:PanoramicaVarese.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:PanoramicaVarese.jpg
Oppose Sorry, this photo has several quality flaws, starting with lack of sharpness, pincushion distortion and dust spot. My opinion for panorama trials would be: Post it first in QIC, rework the flaws if possible and then nominate it in FPC. Cheers, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2016 at 10:35:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:St. Peter and St. Paul's Church 2, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:St. Peter and St. Paul's Church 2, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg
Support - Yet another great church interior by you. Did you find it more challenging to take this photo because of the whiteness of the room? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was a bit challenging, mainly because I was trying to keep it looking very white (as it looks in person) rather than a dull grey that most cameras might auto-expose to, but without overexposing the scene and losing the textures. There was also the issue that because of different light sources, some parts of the interior had slight colour casts (both cool and warm) which I tried to compensate for by slightly desaturating the walls (except where there are coloured decorative elements such as the ceiling paintings and the gold gilding obviously). Some might consider that cheating, but as the colour casts were not visible in person because our eyes are quite adept at automatically compensating for colour casts, I think it is a faithful representation. Diliff (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most in the UK are also much darker too, especially the wood, although the ceilings are often white like this. The closest match that I can think of in the UK is this church in London. Diliff (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love this church in particular ... it would be fun to have a wedding there because you'd feel like you were having it inside the cake. Daniel Case (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Baroque is not usually my favourite either, but in this case, I think the stucco work is amazing and the full-white effect is subtle but impressive. Diliff (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2016 at 19:40:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Supermarine Spitfire MkIIa & North American P-51 Mustang 03 (5968981140).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Supermarine Spitfire MkIIa & North American P-51 Mustang 03 (5968981140).jpg
Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
Comment - Interesting picture which I would think is probably a Quality image and also probably a Valued one, but I'm not sure what makes it a Featured picture. Can you help me understand your reasoning for the nomination? I might be persuadable, but I need to consider an argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree. Despite not being the easiest catch, I would expect a little sharper planes. The white balance seems a little too sepia toned, I'm not sure about the conditions. Too tight crop. --Ximonic (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2016 at 20:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014.07.18.-35-Schwarzbach Woellnau--Kleiner Blaupfeil-Weibchen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014.07.18.-35-Schwarzbach Woellnau--Kleiner Blaupfeil-Weibchen.jpg
Oppose Per Daniel. The leaf or stem coming from the right bottom corner almost looks like it's stuck in the insect's body. INeverCry22:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2016 at 16:40:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Lądek-Zdrój, Zakład przyrodoleczniczy Wojciech 23.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Lądek-Zdrój, Zakład przyrodoleczniczy Wojciech 23.JPG
Oppose No more than a QI. We have lots of perfectly good photos like these at QI but what is it that gives this wow or shows technical excellence? The camera was off-centre so the centre of the arch and the distant pillars is not in line. The crop, cutting the statues, is arbitrary (perhaps it can't be helped, but the result is the crop seems arbitrary). The camera appears to be titled upwards (making the columns converge). -- Colin (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so bothered by the lack of symmetry, and also on the basis of this statement, I'm fine with giving this pretty photo a moderate level of Support. It's pretty enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me this image is trying to show us some of the architectural details, not all of them. Yes, it's unfortunate that the statues at the side are cropped, but without it being pointed out I would not have noticed and frankly to me it just helps focus our attention on the arch, the keystone, the frieze, the capitals and the cornices (Plus I am willing to give Jacek the benefit of the doubt about not being able to position himself the way he'd like to have). I like the color and the lines in the image, and it's done well enough for me to boot. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would have been a borderline case for me even with perfect symmetry. Certainly a QI, but it doesn't really WOW me. Sorry, --El Grafo (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2016 at 20:10:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kaohsiung Taiwan Kaohsiung-Confucius-Temple-01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kaohsiung Taiwan Kaohsiung-Confucius-Temple-01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2016 at 19:56:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lillian Gish-edit2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lillian Gish-edit2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2016 at 16:52:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Not surprisingly (if you've seen my other comments skeptical of bokeh), I agree with Daniel in this case. Your photograph isn't only of a single pumpkin. If you had wanted to photograph only a single pumpkin, you could have chosen to put it by itself in an entirely black or white room. You have every right not to take my view seriously if you prefer not to, but I will further say that I find the background so aggressively blurred that at full size, it tends to make me dizzy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the pumpkins, but the background is heavily blurred, and that maroon structure with the water drainage pipe is especially unattractive. INeverCry20:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2016 at 20:22:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Michelangelo's David 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Michelangelo's David 2015.jpg
Weak oppose I, too, am surprised we've never featured a picture of this one. And I have seen it, and I am aware that there are challenges to photographing it well. And Livio did a lot to try and resolve them. But all the same ... I would prefer to feature a picture with this much attention to detail that reflected more how the statue actually looks when you see it, more like this one (even though I'd oppose that one as an FP due to its noise issues), which shows the softer light on it. As it is, the long exposure Livio seems to have been required to use to capture the level of detail he wanted in the absence of a flash (which IIRC you're not allowed to use on it anyway) has left us with a good deal of clipping. I wouldn't mind the shadows in the rear, but the blown or nearly blown chest is another thing. Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Am I looking at a different photo from the supporters? Or have the technical requirements for FP been overlooked in awe of Michelangelo's work? This looks like it was shot on a mobile phone, it is fuzzy, noisy and not sharp at all. The colour is sickly yellow and there is chroma noise. The face and hair looks like too much Clarity slider and too much overall contrast -- Livio please respect the artworks you photograph by being gentle with the processing. The viewpoint is unflattering -- I can see right up his nose. The lighting/angle isn't highlighting the form properly. Compare the photos here. Look at the torso in the first photo on that web page. The higher angle of view shows David in the correct proportions, rather than foreshortened by looking up. The proportions are rather important for this statue. Look at the lighting on his face on the second photo. Our featured pictures of statues should be sharp, low noise, with accurate colours and proportions. For statues, it is all about how the light interacts with the stone and needs to be as well lit as a studio portrait. Simply pointing a DSLR at the subject isn't enough. This is not even QI. -- Colin (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'll not go as far as Colin, but I see two major flaws: some loss of details on the chest (overexpose ?), and a very visible (sharpening ?) white line along the legs. The background is noisy.--Jebulon (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I do not think you can make comparisons with pictures at different times of day with different lighting, and then I do not dwell on the many stupid things I've read--LivioAndronico(talk)19:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LivioAndronico, you only escaped a ban from FPC because you pretended to retire and sell your camera gear. If I see another insult like this, it will be your last FPC nomination. You have the opportunity here to learn from others and improve your photography but instead you insult and refuse to accept your images could be better. -- Colin (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No Colin,i don't escaped ,I lived. Anyway i come back beacuse we need to people different of you that threaten and say things false and meaningless. Remember this is a community and don't decide nothing without the others! --LivioAndronico(talk)22:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2016 at 09:40:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
InfoBlue-footed booby (Sula nebouxii) in Las Bachas, Baltra Island, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. The blue-footed booby is a long-winged seabird with a wingspan of up to 1.5 m (4.9 ft). The species is 90 cm (35 in) high and is easily recognizable by its distinctive bright blue feet, which is a sexually selected trait, as the males display their feet in an elaborate mating ritual by lifting their feet up and down while strutting before the female. Although the blue-footed boobies are usually associated to the Galápagos Islands (where half of all breedinmg pairs nest), they can be found from the Gulf of California down along the western coasts of Central and South America down to Peru. All by me, Poco209:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not going to be able to support this because the background tends to make me feel dizzy. I'm inclined to oppose it because I think we can find better pictures of this bird, but I don't feel like doing more than leaving this comment, at the moment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question What did you do? Since I'm not comparing the two versions in real time, I can't be positive that you did anything (rather than that I'm reacting differently after a night's sleep), but my subjective reaction is that it seems much better. I still wish the entire rock was clear at full size, but it is clear at full-page size, and though I'd still prefer for the background to be clear, it's no longer making me feel dizzy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek: if you refresh your cache you will realize the differences. As stated in the change history I did some cloning in the background (tip of a white boat, a blue boat and something else on the right. When I looked at the picture that didn't disturb me, but later on, when I looked carefully it did, and, as you mentioned, made me also kind of dizzy. Poco218:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree. I think cropping it that way, or in a way similar to that, would improve the picture, because a bunch of blurry background just detracts from the quality of the photo. Shall that be offered as an alternative? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you convinced me. I have cropped it that way, but kept a bit more on the right to hold the rule of two thirds. Feel free to include as an alternative the version with a tighter crop. Thanks guys. Poco219:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still wish the rocks were clear (or at least less blurry) at full size, but I'm willing to Support this version, which looks good at full-page size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even without the processing issues (take a look at the rock tip to the right of the bird), I find the horizon line behind the bird distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I have to agree with Daniel here, the horizon line behind the bird is too distracting despite impressive resolution and details.--ArildV (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the background I don't see what can I do. To be honest, I am a bit confused, what kind of background do you expect for a seabird? Poco223:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose I'm not sure about that horizon line yet, I think I might actually like it. But the texture of the rock looks pretty strange and blown highlights are leading to loss of detail on (the illuminated sections of) the white feathers. --El Grafo (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2016 at 22:56:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:London District's Sergeant Rupert Frere wins a total of eight categories in the Army Photographic Competition 2015 MOD 45159288.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:London District's Sergeant Rupert Frere wins a total of eight categories in the Army Photographic Competition 2015 MOD 45159288.jpg
Oppose No wow factor here. If the mortar was further along in the process of firing, this might be better/more interesting. INeverCry20:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the intention of this picture, maybe a few seconds before some people get tattered is: War is something romantic, especially with a nice sunset, while kids are going to sleep. It doesn´t change anything for me, that this happens on a training range. --Hubertl08:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't really find that anything helps my eye move around the picture frame, and much of the photo is blurry even at thumbnail size. I don't understand what's special about this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2016 at 22:19:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I could imagine a picture with a bit more natural light, but then that would make part of the image glary, in all likelihood. I like this picture and support it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you. This is an HDR image shot under quite subpar lighting conditions (very dark, cold). I wanted to avoid artificial lighting though. The intention was to depict the interior with as much detail as possible while keeping the overall look still "natural", so there are obvious tradeoffs. --Martin Osen (talk) 09:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please see note about the distortion. I think the crop is unfortunate below, the blur of the furniture at left ist disturbing, and the crop in the right corner below looks busy. I'm sure some would appreciate an english description.--Jebulon (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mostly per Jebulon. It is also rather small at 2.46MP for a FP in 2015, with not really any reason to justify. Interesting room, spoiled rather by the strange fitting on the ceiling. -- Colin (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Osen, you need to ping everyone as soon as possible if you want them to consider changing their votes. I should say that I won't change my vote, though I'm troubled by blurring at the lower right and entire left corner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2016 at 14:57:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose The hedgehog is sharp and more detailed than our other featured hedgehogs. But the image appears too bright and the lighting is quite harsh. The subject isn't isolated from the background. The other FP hedgehogs have nicer backgrounds or lighting (though they are weaker in other areas). This animal/pose isn't particularly cute either. -- Colin (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both other FP hedgehogs is European hedgehog, this one - Northern white-breasted hedgehog. And two promoted too aren't completely isolated from a background - it is typical for the wild nature. Anyway, thanks for your review. -- George Chernilevskytalk20:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On that basis, I am willing to Support this picture. The lighting is strong, but I figure that's how it looked that day (maybe I find it less harsh than Colin does), and I do find the hedgehog cute. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I guess I could live with the "natural environment" argument, but that very harsh lighting just doesn't make a nice looking image, imho – this is Commons FPC after all, not Wikipedia FPC, VI or QI. (Also, Hedgehogs are typically nocturnal, so this one being out in the open at that time of day doesn't really look like typical natural behaviour). --El Grafo (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2016 at 14:55:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:MANNapoli 6705 creation of the man sarcophagus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:MANNapoli 6705 creation of the man sarcophagus.jpg
Support This 4th-century CE ancient roman sarcophagus, showing the "myth of Prometheus creating the man". Laying is the clay figure of the man, and Prometheus, sitting, is thinking about what he is doing (Oh my God-s, what the hell am I doing ?). Two small angels are leading Psyche, the soul, to the head of the man. One can see a lot of the most famous gods of the greco-roman pantheon (Zeus, Hera, Hermes, Poseidon, Vulcan etc...) and some myths about life and death (the Parque, Cerberus, the chariots of Selene and Apollo etc...). The sculpture is simply stunning IMO, it deserves a careful view. Marble, 108 X 256 X 92. -- Jebulon (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2016 at 22:32:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Picture taken during the Top 14 game between the US Oyonnax rugby and Union Bordeaux-Bègles teams. The number 8 of UBB, in white (Peter Saili) has gone beyond the gain line and is trying to outrun the Oyonnax players (number 1 Laurent Deboulbes and number 2 Jody Jenneker). -- Pleclown (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wouldn't mind a tighter crop so as to increase attention on the players, but the fact remains that in this photo we can get what's happening fairly quickly. Daniel Case (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The main quality of this picture is that in contrary of Martin Falbisoner, I have a rather good idea about what is rugby, but for me too, this image conveys a rather vivid impression of this sport. Great picture of sport. Did he run until the try line ?--Jebulon (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Rugby is my favourite sport, and I'm a fan of your rugby images but is not one of your best imo. Its no blood swet and tears here and the side view is not very dynamic and very visible background. You have many much better and more dramatic rugby images, for example 1 and 2.--ArildV (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2016 at 18:10:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Catedral da Sé em São Paulo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Catedral da Sé em São Paulo.jpg
weak support I understand the difficulties here, but at the same time. The combination of wide angle., trees and perspective correction is a little problematic.--ArildV (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wrong time of the day to take this shot, a lot of dark shadows on the main subject, the colour is not quite correct, stretched out in post to fix the tilt, not worked, even people are weird, this should not be even a QI, poor poor quality image. -- RTA07:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary {{o}} when applying the vertical perspective correction you have to compensate the horizontal loss. Therefore it looks so squashed and the people underweighted.--Hubertl08:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2016 at 15:20:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Evzones (winter blue clothing) of the Greek Army, Parade marching at the tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Athens, Greece. How do they manage to stand up so, foot touching foot ? Please see note in image page... -- Jebulon (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2016 at 14:54:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support As already said, It is my favorite gothic cathedral in France. It is one of the very first: one can see many romanesque elements in a gothic ensemble. Excellent technique. --Jebulon (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2016 at 08:19:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Salagou Lake, Liausson 10.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Salagou Lake, Liausson 10.jpg
Comment the white balance is wrong, Yann. You have to get the original scan (it´s a tiff, 44MB), there you find a reference white whithin the grey and colorscale on the right side of the reference picture. It doesn´t matter what they publish, the greyscale is the reference. And please don´t saturate the colors, they are wonderful as they are! I tried all this with Mark. --Hubertl15:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hubertl: I made these from the TIFF, and I didn't change the saturation or the white balance. I only increased the contrast. Now I could change that, but... Regards, Yann (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2016 at 07:00:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Munich subway station Dülferstraße.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Munich subway station Dülferstraße.jpg
Info Munich subway station Dülferstraße with incoming train. This station, opened in 1993, differs in some regards from the other stops along the northern branch of Munich's subway line 2: It is very colorful and has a mezzanine floor that is both cut open to the track level below and also equipped with light openings to the ground level above, providing - to some extend - daylight within the building. All by myself, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, I'm happy to feature any U-Bahn pics that are great, and it doesn't matter to me how many different stations are thus featured. Other cities, including Berlin, have some beautiful U-Bahn stations that could use a great photographic representation on this site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Of course I would already have taken lots of Berlin U-Bahn pictures but unfortunately it's forbidden to take photographs inside the stations. --Code (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Berlin's public transportation network is a rather tough place. It's not impossible to get a photo permit though. Deutsche Bahn is way more relaxed, I had no problems taking this FP --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FoP-Germany doesn't allow interiors. Nice that you document U-Bahn in Munich, but the photos aren't safe on Commons... --A.Savin20:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not being safe on Commons is true of many, many photos here - theoretically. I mean, even most church interiors or pictures taken in zoos are somewhat problematic, considering all legal implications that are summed up by the wonderful German term "Hausrecht"... but this might not be the right place to discuss this issue, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is some difference to your example: a) uploading files to Commons in contrary to someone's Hausrecht does not violate any Commons' policies; b) uploading files not covered by their national FoP rules does. --A.Savin22:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there seems to be an ongoing legal debate in Germany whether public train stations actually qualify as interiors in terms of FoP. Anyway, I'd argue that a mass deletion of thousands of pictures (!) would be a bit premature at the moment. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2016 at 01:34:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:San Carlos Sonora landscape.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Carlos Sonora landscape.jpg
Support. Not quite sharp from edge to edge, but nice view. I would say it feels a bit compositionally unbalanced to me, a bit too much sky, not quite enough foreground. Doesn't need much of an adjustment, but that would improve it for me. Diliff (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2016 at 14:45:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Beinan Township, Taitung, Taiwan: The traditional stilt house of the Beinan people, one of the 16 aboriginal tribes of Taiwan. This big size pillared house was used as a kind of "flat sharing community" for adolescent men before entering the marital status.
Support - I've decided to change my vote to support, mainly because of the photo's encyclopedic and educational value, though the composition is also pretty good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can hardly imagine that a picture of such a house can be done better. Perhaps with a dramatic sunset on the left side, a typhoon from the right side, lightning, which hit into the palm trees. In addition, young, body-painted tribesmen with threatening gestures, which impress with bow and arrow and hand-carved spears imaginary enemies defending their tribesmen. Is this the wow what we need to get entertained? --Hubertl22:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality-wise. Very good and high EV. A bit disappointing because it is a museum object in a cultural park, not a "real" one. But FP, no doubt for me.--Jebulon (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2016 at 15:37:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling of Santa Maria Maddalena (Rome) HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling of Santa Maria Maddalena (Rome) HDR.jpg
Comment - I like this photo, but I don't think I've ever been to this church. If the ceiling is really this colorful and the colors are all correct, I'll be happy to support running it. But I'd like at least your affirmation of this before voting. I hope this seems like a reasonable request to you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had already done a Google image search before I posted. Your picture seems to be the most vivid search result, with others being much duller. That could easily mean that your photograph is simply much better, but that's why I asked. So please address this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the other images, it looks to me like the bright and dark parts of the painting have been brought closer together - the overall contrast in other images seems to be much larger and is almost nonexistent here (which looks fake regardless of context). I Oppose based on that, sorry. — Julian H.✈ 08:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there some chromatic aberrations (especially on the right side)? Or are they some color reflections from else where? Might need a little correction. I still like it. --Ximonic (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2016 at 16:20:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support A nice view that shows us a popular lake can be beautiful in the off-season (I keep thinking though ... aren't there other FPs showing that dock?) Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, you are right, King of Hearts, the bland lighting is the fruit of the harsh inner Alpine climatic conditions of Carinthia. A slight milky veil seems to be cast over any landscape around the Carinthian lakes. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are completely right, Jebulon, I would have preferred the crop you suggested, but unfortunately on the right margin there are two hideous bath cabins, which I had to keep outside the frame. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2016 at 16:45:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Roundhouse wipers.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Roundhouse wipers.jpg
Comment Thank you all for votes and comments. @Yann: I agree from a photographic perspective, but I really like the documentary value here and it also show how women during during World War II was replacing male workers. I am sure that we have more potential FP in our impressive Delano collection. @Ikan Kekek: I dont know but I think Delano had to compromise with the deep of field here, it was no fast colour film in 1943. It also very high resolution.--ArildV (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you for your remarks. So I take it, you're saying that the blurriness is in the original photograph and not the fault of the reproduction? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The center of the image is relatively sharp, while the foreground and the background is less sharp (at least partly due to, unavoidable, limited DOF). But if you talk about the overall sharpness, I'm not sure. Yann probably know much more than I do about images restoration.--ArildV (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find the composition random (woman at right cut, the man(?) in the background left hidden), but this needed a very careful balance between aperture and speed. The place is probably not very well lit, the people may move, and it is not staged. What kind of restoration is needed? Yann (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, all I wanted to know was whether the blurriness was in the original photograph or the fault of the reproduction. Since it was apparently original, I, too, will vote to Support featuring it, because of its historic importance and also its composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2016 at 22:56:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Thank you for the feedback on the head-part. As for the crop: I expected a comment like this. The reason why i didn't crop it is the context. It was taken at the award ceremony, minutes after he recieved the award for his lifetime achievements and so it shows him holding the trophy. That's a unique moment. Portraits, headshots alone, can (theoretically) be taken anytime. --Tsui (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. While the original file has a few more pixels on the right, it is also slightly tilted. Straightening it allowed the crop as it is. --Tsui (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2016 at 16:37:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Buddhist monk in Myanmar (1068571).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Buddhist monk in Myanmar (1068571).jpg
Do we even know that the parents have guardianship of a child in a Buddhist monastery in Burma/Myanmar? The senior monk of the monastery may have guardianship, as monks in Myanmar join monastic orders. INeverCry21:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Jebulon. Every human being has eo ipso personel rights. If there is someone with guardianship or not. This child does not lose his rights, just because the senior monk or his parents are just busy around the corner. --Hubertl22:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel: I was aware about this, but I decided for me, that this was a different situation and included a parents consent as part of the family income. I realized this situations by myself in different ways from my own travels to asia/south asia or south america. --Hubertl08:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cccefalon: I agree that consent was probably implicit in that situation, and since you took the image I defer to your description of the situation. But the larger point is that this issue never came up in that discussion, i.e. no one ever asked you about it to satisfy their concerns (The only way we knew that you and she were both on adjacent boats was because someone asked you about the framing of the image). Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, then, if the DR has been closed. I would have wished for greater DoF, but the unsharp crown of the boy's head is offset by the detail of his dace. !Voters wanting to make the consent of depicted minors' parents a dealbreaker issue at FPC, or even a reason for deletion, would do better to make their case at the policy level rather than in debates over individual files. Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - If it's legally and ethically OK to have this photo on Commons, I could support featuring it. My only caveat, and the reason I feel like I have to be neutral, is that I don't recommend for you to look at the full size of the photo, because then the blurriness of most of it could well bother you and might even make you dizzy. This is essentially a closeup of the young monk's face, and everything behind that (including the ears) gets fuzzier and fuzzier. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's what is boring here sometimes : the vote is no more about the picture, but "pro" or "contra" Daniel Case's opinion. I agree, it a my fault for part, but... --Jebulon (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe, but not in my case. This is my personal reaction to the photo, and it happens to be different in some ways from his, and similar in other ways. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the crop, of the two faces at the top, to be unfortunate. The eyes are perhaps just out of focus. Daniel, policy only decides yes or no for inclusion (and there's a strong tendency for inclusion provided there's no actual law against it). It doesn't decide whether that is desirable or ethical. Views on the ethics of street photography & consent vary and if photographers in general have no consensus on this, then I don't think Commons will arrive at one either. So I think it is valid for Jebulon and others to wish that "our finest" works had the best ethical standards according to their opinion of the necessary ethics. I have however, seen everything now, with an oppose above because the image is too easy to reuse. I should note (because this causes no end of confusion to some), that strictly speaking no media licence on Commons is "viral" -- our images do not infect their host. -- Colin (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If !voters want to register ethical objections to the featuring of an image that would otherwise be featured, they have {{Neutral}} or (better yet) {{Abstain}} to make the point with without affecting the outcome. As for "viral" ... I think Ralf means that the CC-0 license, since it is not SA, does not require reusers to use it. It's a way of saying it's not easy enough to share, rather than too easy. And, frankly, that's a more tenable objection to the image, although one I don't think most of us (ahem) share. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no,if an ethical objection stops it being among our finest, so an oppose is justified. And ethics are imo far more important than some effort to force free-content ideology onto others. I know Ralf means "share-alike" but the problem is using the term "viral" makes many people think our CC images infect the works that contain them, and they actually don't. They don't even infect derivative works. I've seen people write to journals claiming they need to make a whole issue of their journal open/free because it used a CC image. -- Colin (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A license is viral, if every re-use must take the same license. But a picture with CC-0 can be re-used, whoever you want. The next use have no license and this is not viral. Once there was a basic principle here, to disseminate free licenses. CC 0 does not promote the spread of free licenses, it hinders the spread. Therefore, CC 0 is for me outside the project scope of Commons.--Ralf Roleček08:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "viral" term is one rejected by the free-content community (it was coined by Microsoft in the days when it didn't understand) because it is quite misleading and unhelpful. Please avoid it and use "share-alike" or "copyleft". And no, our mission here is to provide free content that can be easily re-used. We aren't here "to disseminate free licenses" and that has never been Commons' mission. Are you going to start opposing PD works from NASA or old photographs just because someone is legally entitled to remix the work and create something non-free. Perhaps you should campaign to extend copyright for 200 years past your death just so your free licence can be perpetuated for even longer, rather than worry someone might create a non-free work in the year 2200. What an upside-down view of our mission. That's quite a disruptive reasons to oppose and one FPC should utterly reject. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it a shame that some oppositions here are not about the technical or artistic merit of the picture, but other personal issues which do not have their place in a FP nomination. :( Yann (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Yann: C'est comme au tribunal: la première chose que regarde le juge, c'est si le requête est recevable dans la forme. Et selon plusieurs d'entre nous ici, cette image n'est pas recevable en l'état, ce qui pour nous justifie son rejet.--Jebulon (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2016 at 20:12:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Catedral de Santa María, Sigüenza, España, 2015-12-28, DD 129-131 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Catedral de Santa María, Sigüenza, España, 2015-12-28, DD 129-131 HDR.JPG
Info Gate of the Annunciation's chapel, Cathedral of Santa María, Sigüenza, Castile-La Mancha, Spain. The chapel was founded in 1515 by the judicial vicar Fernando Montemayor. The rich portal is decorated in Cisneros-style and has images of St Michaeil and St Jacobus in the lower part, mudejar elements in the arch and a scene of the Annunciation in the frieze. The cornice is of arabic-style and over it there are gothic-style arches with a calvary scene in the middle. The iron grille, of gothic style with renaissance ornaments, is a work of Juan Francés. All by me, Poco220:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The object itself is wonderful, with a high value, but the technical achievement is not excellent IMO. The whole is not that sharp, and unsharp from ther Annunciation scene until the top. Some clear parts seems overexposed, and the electric candlestick (?) at right ruins the composition IMO (not your fault).--Jebulon (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2016 at 19:22:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling of San Carlo al Corso (Rome).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling of San Carlo al Corso (Rome).jpg
Comment Is it possible that the color noise reduction is a bit strong? The grey and gold areas seem to bleed into eath other chroma-wise. — Julian H.✈ 07:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just zoom into the lower left. The image ends and there is plain white background looking through. Needs about 5-10 pixels of cropping from the left. — Julian H.✈ 19:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2016 at 06:21:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:1875, Bierstadt, Albert, Mount Adams, Washington.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:1875, Bierstadt, Albert, Mount Adams, Washington.jpg
Oppose Very interesting lights in this landscape. Yet I don't really like the reflection sparkles on the canvas surface. I think the photography conditions weren't optimal for this. --Ximonic (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ximonic. As I've said, for images of paintings like this really all we can pass judgement on here is the digitization, and here this leaves something to be desired. Honestly, I would expect better of Princeton's art museum. Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2016 at 10:22:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above. Yann (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2016 at 13:01:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Milseburg und Fliegerdenkmal.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Milseburg und Fliegerdenkmal.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above. Yann (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2016 at 01:27:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hyacinth (Hyacinthus).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hyacinth (Hyacinthus).JPG
Support - I'm curious to see what you all will think of this photo. It's a Quality Image, and if promoted, it would apparently be our first Featured Picture of a hyacinth (I did a search under Category:Hyacinthus). I love the texture of the petals at full size. I find the clarity of the entire visible portion of the plant excellent. And the background is black, so there is no distracting blurred section and nothing to detract from our focus on the plant. Depending on my mood, I might find this black not to impede my eye's movement around the picture frame or too extreme a color for the background, but on balance, I support this picture, and mainly, I'm just curious what reaction it will get. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love the composition and contrast in this image. Unfortunately, it's just not pixel-sharp at 100%, which is generally a must for any FP under 6 MP. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wasn't aware of that guideline. It's a lot sharper than some images that have been promoted, but I guess they were larger files. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - And not to pick on User:Uoaei1, who is a great photographer, but this photo is currently under consideration for FP and looks likely to be approved. Is the entire flower pixel sharp in that picture? I have abstained from voting on it because I'm not convinced it's clear enough at full size (not to mention that I don't love the bokeh). I understand that it's a much larger file (though still smaller than 6 MB), but is it a better photo than this one? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not mix up MP (Mega-Pixel) and MB (Mega-Byte)! For me, the sharpness of this picture is not bad, but not outstanding for a studio picture. This is one difference to my picture, which shows a flower in its habitat somewhere on alpine pasture (see GPS data). Another one is the size: the size of the flower on my picture is about 10% of this one here. I will not vote for or against this image - it is good, but I am not convinced by composition (is the orientation correct? why is the raceme cropped? why is it shown in this diagonal orientation?), and I do not like the black background. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Uoaei1, I would accept this sharpness for an image in the wild, but this is a studio image, with more of the variables plausibly under the photographer's control. Pity ... I don't mind the black background, and the colors and composition are nice. Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for your explanation. Maybe I should have asked Alexandar before nominating this, but it's been interesting to learn more about the criteria you all use to evaluate photos, so in that respect, I'm not sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2016 at 06:23:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Albert Bierstadt - Seal Rock, California.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Albert Bierstadt - Seal Rock, California.jpg
Comment - I dislike it, too, but I don't know if what I'm disliking is the painting or the reproduction. If the painting really looks like that, in my opinion, it sucks. I don't find it conducive to my eye moving around the picture frame, as everything just seems to sit there, regardless of the theoretically dramatic scene being depicted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I find interesting about this painting is not the composition, but the colors of the water and the light on the water, and the sense of action in the waves. --Pine✉05:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2016 at 14:49:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Japanese white-eye at Tennōji Park in Osaka, January 2016 III.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Japanese white-eye at Tennōji Park in Osaka, January 2016 III.jpg
Support very Japanese photo, I always wonder why we don't have more JP contribution, so many cameras there... -- RTA15:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I wish there were a way for the rose in the lefthand background to be less blurred, but the bird is beautiful and I appreciate that the rosebuds below it are clear. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2016 at 05:37:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Moosburg Pfarrkirche Epitaph Ulrich von Ernau II 05032015 0373.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moosburg Pfarrkirche Epitaph Ulrich von Ernau II 05032015 0373.jpg
Support - I notice there's a de.wikipedia article about this Ulrich II. von Ernau, but no en.wikipedia article. Would it help to include his birth and death date in the description? Was this epitaph built shortly after his death? In any case, the subject is interesting enough and the photo good enough for me to support featuring it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you, Ikan, for your interest and suggestion. Ulrich II. von Ernau was born in 1531 in Moosburg, Carinthia, Austria and he died on November 3rd, 1607 in Klagenfurt, Carinthia, Austria. The Italian Renaissance sculptor Martin Pacobello created this epitaph only two years after von Ernau`s death in 1609. It is considered to be one of the finest Renaissence reliefs in all of Carinthia. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, Ikan, for asking. Yes, both photographs are mine. The previous was made with the church door on the left hand opened, whereas the latter was taken with the shut door and with the camera on top of a tripod. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It seems to me that you have a mix of different light sources (I'd guess at least some warm, artificial light from the right and some colder natural light from the left?), which makes white balance very difficult. If you adjust for the warm light source, the highlights cast by the cold one will look blue; if you adjust for the cold one the rest will look yellow; if you go for something in-between it will still look kind of weird. The composition doesn't really work for me as well, with the corners at the bottom left and right cut like that. Going wider at the sides and top might work better, or cropping closer to the main subject at the sides and bottom. Anyway, to be honest: there's nothing awesome about his image to me. --El Grafo (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low noise and fine detail. I'm not sure about the colour but you were there. Your first version does look too blue but this is really yellow. Is the marble that colour? Your older photo File:Moosburg Pfarrkirche Epitaph Ulrich von Ernau II 21032013 366.jpg seems more neutral and is certainly white not yellow. But the older photo shows the potential for getting side-light whereas this looks like it was taken on a dull day with no directional light. Compare the pattern on his belly to see the difference the side light makes to the form. Here, I think the sculpture is just a bit too hard to make out, though the detail is there when you look closely. -- Colin (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks, Colin, for your in-depth review and specified comments on the issues of that image. I made up my mind and tried to get the best possible result from another edit. Hopefully the outcome is more convenient to your eyes. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2016 at 08:22:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Central Park New York May 2015 007.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Central Park New York May 2015 007.jpg
Support - Beautiful, lovely composition with the buildings, greenery and reflection in the water and clear enough for me, even at full size. To me, this is a FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2016 at 11:20:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Holstentor von der Petrikirche.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Holstentor von der Petrikirche.jpg
Support I think that at least one more of Dr. Chriss' pictures of the Holstentor is outstanding and deserves to be featured. I love the building in the left foreground, the long depth of field and the criss-crossing road that comes to a roundabout. I find this to be a great composition, it shows the gate in a different content, and I definitely consider the picture sufficiently sharp, especially in the foreground, where you can see every brick. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2016 at 12:52:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2016 at 08:22:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Souk Al Milh, Sana, Yemen (4324865585).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Souk Al Milh, Sana, Yemen (4324865585).jpg
Comment - I wish the background were a little less blurry, but we have no featured picture of cayenne pepper yet (I added Category:Cayenne pepper to the categories for this photo), the cayenne peppers in the container themselves are very clear, and the picture is tolerable, overall, at full page size, so I'm tempted to support it. I think it's important to have encyclopedic pictures like this, so it feels to me like it would be fitting for this picture to be approved for a feature. However, I would support it fully if the background were made a little less blurry at full page size (I'm not sure whether anyone else will agree with me or not). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Laitche. I do agree with Ikan that it would have been nice to have more DoF, and per Livio probably some of this could have been cropped out with no loss in quality, but that's not a dealbreaker for me on this one because a) enough that matters is in focus and b) it was taken with a very short shutter speed and higher ISO than you might normally use for a sunny day, perhaps to capture the colors it captured, and any change in those variables might have left the photographer with washed-out colors and/or blown highlights which we don't want to see in an FP. (As an aside, I'm trying to remember what الملح means in Arabic ... it's not pepper; that's filfil. Or is milH the plant and filfil the condiment?). Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2016 at 21:46:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20151208-catalina.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20151208-catalina.jpg
Comment - I think the reason no-one has voted or commented here is that we're spoiled by great astronomical photos by NASA and other such agencies. This photo is a great capture for an Earth-based photographer, but compared to photographs from Hubble, for example, it palls. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I was to support (At least, an astronomical picture taken by a true human photographer), but yes, the technical quality is so-so. Red and blue isolated pixels, and chromatic noise are too much. --Jebulon (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2016 at 21:08:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2016 at 08:57:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:14 Sammlung Eybl Österreich. Alfred Offner (1879-1937). Zeichnet 8. Kriegsanleihe. 1918. 95 x 63 cm. (Slg.Nr. 325).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:14 Sammlung Eybl Österreich. Alfred Offner (1879-1937). Zeichnet 8. Kriegsanleihe. 1918. 95 x 63 cm. (Slg.Nr. 325).jpg
Info Austria. Alfred Offner (1879-1937). 8. Draw war loan. 1918. 95 x 63 cm. (Slg.Nr. 325) No product has been advertised as those, to subscribe war bonds. Graphic designers developed in all countries the essential elements of modern advertising psychology. This involved the use of child images. In addition, Alfred Offner also appointed an text part as a graphic element. The upper part of the "Eight" fills the view of a child laying a coin with a serious facial expression. The hand of the child connects the image parts. If the child should draw attention here merely, it was customary to gather in schools and clubs, even the smallest contributions of children to war bonds. Postprocessed, uploaded, and nominated by Hubertl
Support - I haven't seen this in person, but I feel more confident in judging this than a reproduction of a painting. It looks quite good, and I get the historical importance of this print. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2016 at 05:32:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - I want to like this, as I do like pictures of animals in their natural environments and have no problem with them blending into the background to the extent they actually do, as seen with the naked eye (or its extension with a telephoto lens), but too much of the snake is blurry for me to support this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think, the head is sharp. The photographer made everything right, maybe the background is a little busy, typical for terrarian.--Hubertl16:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As written in the file page, it was taken in Pylos (Peloponnese/Greece). I added relevant categories to the file and asked to the uploader if he can add a geolocation. Thanks, Christian Ferrer(talk)16:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2016 at 09:53:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lincoln Cathedral Rood Screen 3, Lincolnshire, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lincoln Cathedral Rood Screen 3, Lincolnshire, UK - Diliff.jpg
Comment The colour balance of the lower half seems very yellow. See the vegetation. I know there is different light shining but perhaps the balance/vibrance/saturation could be adjusted here? Aside from this, its your usual standard and FP. But I actually prefer File:Lincoln Cathedral Rood Screen 2, Lincolnshire, UK - Diliff.jpg. I know I know I'm inconsistent as that has an extreme vertical angle of view, but the geometric patterns created are outstanding and one can better see in that one the light shining on the rood screen. -- Colin (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a very warm colour cast and I suppose I could try to adjust it. I do vaguely remember it being actually noticeably warm tinted when I was there, so it's a question of whether you should correct all obvious colour casts or try to keep it looking as you remembered it. As for the other image you say you prefer, it's a bit too similar to an existing FP, which incidentally was taken from further back and therefore has a lot less distortion. Diliff (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2016 at 16:00:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Geringde jonge sperwer (Accipiter nisus). Locatie, Natuurterrein De Famberhorst 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Geringde jonge sperwer (Accipiter nisus). Locatie, Natuurterrein De Famberhorst 01.jpg
Oppose The background texture (the material the bird is on) and overall color aren't that good; the whole thing looks brown, and if it weren't for the yellow beak, it would almost be sepia. The bird is beautiful of course, but it looks uncomfortable as well. INeverCry18:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Mildly support. The face is clear and takes up a lot of the picture frame, and I think the young bird may be trying out its tough predator look, rather than necessarily uncomfortable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great macro, all the right features are in focus, exceptional clarity in the eyes, can almost feel the fluff of the feathers. Atsme📞21:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2016 at 14:32:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:William Grant Still by Carl Van Vechten.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:William Grant Still by Carl Van Vechten.jpg
Support - Pretty clear for a reproduction, I think. I find it good enough to feature. For those who might not know, Still was an important African-American classical composer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: Fuck, if that were true I'd have to retire myself, and so would at least 50 or so users I've treated with disrespect over my 7 years... I hope you'll reconsider. I've always liked having you around. I've found that sometimes you have to just do what you enjoy here, even in the face of poor treatment or lack of recognition of your contribs. It helps to tell people to fuck off now and then (you can use a meme too, like this one)... INeverCry03:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@INeverCry: Commons apparently think that wanting there to be one place that people can go to see your work, and having the most unobtruive way of linking that physically psossible on Commons - a category link at the bottom of the page - is too much to ask and that I'm in the wrong for insisting on it. If that's not comprehensively overturned by tomorrow, I quit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: It'll be a shame if you do leave Commons. I agree with you completely about the category not being hidden though FWIW. Your work is a whole lot harder and more time-consuming than Flickr2Commons transfers. I'd back you at VP, but my brand isn't very popular here since my de-sysop; I'd probably do you more harm than good. You've got to do what's right for you in the end of course. I wish you well whichever way it goes. INeverCry05:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support@Adam Cuerden: (I read your talk page) Since I'm here, you already left once (at least), and you came back. And I'm happy you are here. You know that. If you leave again, I'm sure you will come back, sooner or later. Les chiens aboient, et la caravane passe. Just give us other good pictures, and don't consume your time in stupidities.--Jebulon (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2016 at 07:48:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Courtyards of SPB 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Courtyards of SPB 03.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2016 at 23:37:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kihelkonna kiriku kellatorn ja kirik.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kihelkonna kiriku kellatorn ja kirik.jpg
Comment - It's a pretty QI, but what makes it a FP? We are blessed with loads of incredible FPs from Estonia (many [all?] by you). What makes this one? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty good, but no wow factor. Also, I've counted at least 6 or 7 black spots in the sky over the structure on the left and the tree directly to the right of it (one is a rather big blotch). INeverCry03:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per the dust spots noted by INC. If they are dealt with (and they are far from the worst I've ever seen), I will consider it on the merits. Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose somewhat per Yann, also quite dark shadows as a result of the time of day and relatively high contrast. I think the composition is actually really nice. — Julian H.✈ 08:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I repeat my request that nominators consider explaining why they think the image is among our finest. I'm not seeing a spark here that makes it FP, and it looks a bit over-saturated. -- Colin (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2016 at 21:17:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Koneshwarama Temple, détails de la façade (4).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Koneshwarama Temple, détails de la façade (4).jpg
Oppose The composition doesn't work for me. The dark space at right, and the ground, with the stacks of whatever they are, take attention away from the artworks/frames/lights. It just looks a bit messy overall. INeverCry03:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is actually a wall adjacent to the main entrance of the temple, which occupies the dark space on the right. For information on the ground are stacked building elements needed for the restoration in progress, the entrance to the sanctuary.--Pierre André (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2016 at 12:11:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:La Roque, Salagou Lake 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:La Roque, Salagou Lake 01.jpg
Support--Hubertl18:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC) even, when a position, maybe 50 m right, may have been the better choice. Just to isolate the rock from the background.[reply]
Comment - For such a populous country, my experience is that France has quite a lot of countryside, though of course a lot of it, unlike this spot, is cultivated. Actually, it's interesting to me how much that's also true of other populous European countries like Italy and Germany. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: What I meant was that this looks more akin to the "never developed" sense of wildness we see in pictures from outside Europe, where we know there are large areas that have never been cultivated or exploited otherwise and that is part of the landscape's identity. Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2016 at 23:36:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Larus heermanni at Richardson Bay.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Larus heermanni at Richardson Bay.jpg
Support - This is a good one. Excellent portrait of the gull, the bokeh is just a gray background, and I appreciate that most of the rock the gull is perched on is clear, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this. Perhaps a little aggressively sharpened, but not to the point of oversharpening. Nice tight focus on the bird with plenty of detail and no distractions. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2016 at 23:38:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mooste mõisa piirdemüür 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mooste mõisa piirdemüür 2013.jpg
Comment The quality is very good, the colours are nice and the gate is interesting but I'm not convinced by the composition. I think the crop should be symmetrical. --Code (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I don't really have a problem with the composition, but it looks like a GND filter was used for some reason, and as a result the colors, especially at the top, are a little too saturated. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2016 at 14:34:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Naha Okinawa Japan Shuri-Castle-02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Naha Okinawa Japan Shuri-Castle-02.jpg
Info Hoshimmon (Kimihokori-Ujo) Gate to the inner yard of Shuri Castle in Naha, Okinawa, Japan. Shuri Castle was the rulers palace of the former Ryūkyū Kingdom.
Comment I am sorry, that I cannot offer more. I was standing with my back on the opposite wall of the gate and I used all, what I could get with the 24 mm zoom setting of the 24-105 mm lens. It might be more amazing, that I managed to get no border blurs in the leftmost and rightmost parts of the image. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2016 at 11:37:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vincent van Gogh - Irises (1889).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vincent van Gogh - Irises (1889).jpg
Support - I haven't seen this recently enough to be positive about the colors, but I'll trust them on this. The resolution of this picture is remarkable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was tempted to nominate this when uploading it, and only did not because Irises-Vincent van Gogh.jpg, at somewhat higher resolution, is an existing enwiki FP. I actually think think this is a better image.. it seems to my view to be a better focus, though somewhat lower resolution, and a slightly narrower framing. I'd ask people (even those who already 'voted') to critically compare them and reconsider, tho... while I think this is better, it's definitely worth comparing one to the other. Revent (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2016 at 02:48:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Walking reflection.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Walking reflection.jpg
Comment Yes, this is an adequate attitude of a professor, which prohibits any participation in the nomination process, except for the self-nomination. Thank you for so much confidence and trust in us unworthy. Because we all staying in the depths of the photographic being and have just grasped the basics. Yet it would be adequate if you - like so often - not even react to criticism. That would be the social climax and would represent the class distinction correctly. Please punish us with scorn. --Hubertl13:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Hubertl, no need to be sarcastic! The caricature image you made of me is ugly, unfair and not supported by evidence. On the contrary, I have said many times that most of what I know about digital photography, I learned it here, from the comments of many editors, accomplished photographers and otherwise. And I do react to criticism when I feel it is worthy, as you will easily confirm by going through my nominations. There is also a good reason for not participating more intensively in COM:FP, as I used to do in the past, which is the fact that I’m now very busy in the real world. Really, this is a kind of unconstructive comments that we don’t need here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I like your pictures and would like to see more participation from you in the reviewing process. But on the other side, we do have a life outside Wikipedia. --Hubertl17:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2016 at 16:56:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014.03.09.-14-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim-Braune Krabbenspinne-Weibchen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014.03.09.-14-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim-Braune Krabbenspinne-Weibchen.jpg
Comment I'm was lying on the ground to take pictures of this small spider and this is what the background is. The natural environment where it walk and hide from enemies. I do not want to convince you to change your opinion. I respect it. But I have the feel it is a standard to say ... background is distracting ... . This cannot be valid for every picture in generally. It isn't in any way regarding to this picture and for me it is a big nonsense. Even if hundreds of people would say the same as you say. Thanks for your review. --Hockei (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Would it be possible to take this kind of photograph and have the entire visible body of the spider be clear (not blurry)? Some of the legs are very blurry, even at full-page size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've used F11. This series of pictures are really macro shots and was taken at the beginning in 2014. For newer pictures normally I chose F13 and sometimes even more to get more depth of field. But, in this case it is exactly the right choice to get the best balance between sharpness an the desired blurred background. According to my understanding in FPC it is not necessary that all part of the spider have to be sharp. A decreasing sharpness in the back- and/or foreground can be an artistic part of the composition like in this picture for example.. --Hockei (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it can be, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Part of the decision that's being made in FP voting and discussion is whether a picture has "a 'wow factor'". That calls for a subjective determination, and I don't think you can argue that my basis for making that determination is unfair because you disagree with it. I appreciate your detailed response and your consistently diligent efforts to take pictures of small animals and plants, and I hope to support your next nomination, but I will respectfully Oppose featuring this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose As you note, this is literally "another composition of this spider". We already have a featured picture taken 8 minutes later. Please choose your best photo for FPC out of a set you take. And this composition / arrangement is very confusing and the pose enlarges the DoF issues. -- Colin (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2016 at 17:08:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Alte Brennerei Löhning -- 2015 -- 8609-13.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Alte Brennerei Löhning -- 2015 -- 8609-13.jpg
Comment I thought about your wish. IMO it's natural and good as it is. The floor has a polished surface and this surface is reflecting the bright sky. It's like a mirror. --XRaytalk06:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2016 at 14:58:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Hi dear fellow supporters ! Our friend Cccefalon noticed a dust spot in the cloud (in QIC page). I removed it (the dust spot, not Cccefalon). I hope it is goof for you all.--Jebulon (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2016 at 15:25:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Les Pagodes de Beauval - 346.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Les Pagodes de Beauval - 346.jpg
Measured support Under ideal circumstances, I'd wish for a sharper background. But considering the circumstances, I think you got what you wanted. A very calming image, with a nice balance of cool and warm colors ... hotel lobbies are an underappreciated subject; I wish we tried to get more of them. Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me, the green tint on the very left messes up the very nice and clean color scheme of the scene. Do you think you could correct this with local white balance? — Julian H.✈ 07:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm undecided on this photograph, because though I like the scene and find the composition interesting, I'm bothered by the blurring beyond the foreground. I also wonder what the photo would have looked like if it had been wider on the right. The photo does look good at full-page size, though not as much at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Undecided like Ikan. The colours and room have potential, but the lamp shade seems to be partially covering some things that I can't help but want to see. If only the area behind the lamp had been plain, I might be happier supporting. -- Colin (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Boring and uninteresting object? Good God! I'm almost tempted to support this picture in reaction to that remark, but of course I realize we all have different eyes and minds, and therefore differences in taste. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I don't understand this candidacy. I don't see what is featurable here, neither the subject nor the composition, which looks random for me. I'm sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2016 at 21:36:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Koneshwarama Temple, détails de la façade (1).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Koneshwarama Temple, détails de la façade (1).jpg
Support - It's not all completely clear at full size, but it's good enough for me, and as Johann alludes to, it's an excellent composition I enjoy moving my eye around. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose — I think the one section on the right should not be just cut off. I also find the light to have more contrast than it would ideally have to nicely show the colors here. — Julian H.✈ 07:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The open space at right, with a wire/cable at the top, and the dark space at bottom left detract from the composition. The light's a bit harsh as well. INeverCry08:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors and very interesting. Good EV for the eye of a person from the western part of the world. However, I find it not very sharp overall, and I don't understand the crop at right, composition wise.--Jebulon (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2016 at 21:34:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Couple of Blue-footed boobies (Sula nebouxii) during a mating ritual, Lobos Island, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. The blue-footed booby is a long-winged seabird with a wingspan of up to 1.5 m (4.9 ft). The species is 90 cm (35 in) high and is easily recognizable by its distinctive bright blue feet, which is a sexually selected trait, as the males display their feet in an elaborate mating ritual by lifting their feet up and down while strutting before the female. Although the blue-footed boobies are usually associated to the Galápagos Islands (where half of all breedinmg pairs nest), they can be found from the Gulf of California down along the western coasts of Central and South America down to Peru. All by me, Poco221:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't love that part of this photo, including part of the birds' tail feathers, is blurred, but most of the birds' bodies are clear, the photo looks very good at full-page size, and it's a sweet picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Nevertheless, I would crop a thin line on the left side. It's just a feeling when I view the picture. --Hockei (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the lack of contrast bothers me a lot, looking the histogram it's easy to see the lack of blacks and whites, speaking about whites, the white balance seem to be a little bit wrong, I was expecting something like:
Hi RTA, thanks for your feedback and uploaded Version. There is always room for improvement, and I've darkened the shadows a bit, and have retouched the WB slightly, that helped IMHO. The version that you presented goes though further than what I would dare, especially regarding contrast. I hope still that you like the new version, which is somewhere inbetween. Poco218:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per RTA. The similar tones of the beaks and the rocks behind don't make it easy on first glance to distinguish the birds from their background, and the earth tones of the birds and the sand behind them don't help this either—on first glance, I got confused as to which end of the bird was which for a second or two. Daniel Case (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2016 at 12:55:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I hope it works, I demanded it for candidacy at the QI process. For me a clear, simple work, but with high educational value. --Hubertl13:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I respect your opinion, but for me the beauty of this rare flower stands for itself. There are lots of other FPs of flowers like this, without the need for any add-on. --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2016 at 15:54:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chicago 2007-21a.jpg"Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chicago 2007-21a.jpg"
Info Back to urban minimalism. Picture was nominated one year ago (here) but got no feedback. That was a surprise because this is one of my favourits. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2016 at 19:24:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria della Vittoria in Rome - Dome HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria della Vittoria in Rome - Dome HDR.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2016 at 22:43:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Charles Gounod (1890) by Nadar.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Charles Gounod (1890) by Nadar.jpg
Support - What a striking and thoughtful-looking gentleman! I'm glad to see you still here and contributing more high-quality restorations while people work on how best to credit photo restorers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. Not going to try to argue for it being a particularly difficult restoration, but I think the work was worth it, especially the jacket. Darker areas always seem to be "stickier" than lighter areas, at the least, there's often more damage to/dust on them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2016 at 21:25:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Madonna of the Pomegranate (Botticelli).pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Madonna of the Pomegranate (Botticelli).png
Comment - The reproduction is clear, and whatever problems there are with the painting are undoubtedly due to overcleaning by "restorers". However, I find this too dark, overall. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks, Livio. It's clearer to me now, so I think it's better. I am not sure I know how the work looks in the flesh well enough to support, though. Sorry about that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2016 at 18:46:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eurasian Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), Parc du Rouge-Cloître, Brussels (7223349292).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eurasian Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), Parc du Rouge-Cloître, Brussels (7223349292).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2016 at 06:53:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Moderate Support - Surprisingly pretty, but I hesitate a bit because the image is looking a bit hazy to me beyond the foreground at full size. However, it all looks quite adequately clear at full-page size (I figure, a bit of hazy light in the distance is simply the way the light looked on a summer afternoon). I also wonder what including the tree tops would have done to the composition. But overall, I feel like this is quite an interesting motif and merits my support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don´t think that the front view was the best choice, the foreground (the plants), which is gadgetry, is too dominant for me to highlight and separate the subject itself. It´s not clear enough, what the motif ist. --Hubertl18:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2016 at 11:44:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Golden laurel wreath T HL 04 Kerameikos Athens.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Golden laurel wreath T HL 04 Kerameikos Athens.jpg
Yes, better would it be to compose it with a black cloth for a nice structured background. But plain black would be ok too, IMO --Hubertl13:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2016 at 06:56:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bristol Cathedral Lady Chapel, Bristol, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bristol Cathedral Lady Chapel, Bristol, UK - Diliff.jpg
Support. Probably wouldn't have been my first choice of nominations in my backlog of potential nominations, but it's a nice interior and I think it's reasonably faithfully reproduced in this case. Diliff (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2016 at 10:22:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Buzón en Correos y Telégrafos, Lima, Perú, 2015-07-28, DD 106.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Buzón en Correos y Telégrafos, Lima, Perú, 2015-07-28, DD 106.JPG
Moderate Support - The photo is a bit fuzzy at full size, but it's a good composition and an interesting motif, so I find it good enough to support. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2016 at 12:56:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Daurian redstart at Daisen Park in Osaka, January 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Daurian redstart at Daisen Park in Osaka, January 2016.jpg
Support - Very pretty bird, and it's amazing to see an oversized image of it full up my screen in full size. I'd like the picture a little better if the highlights in the bokeh were darkened a bit, though, and since no attempt is being made at realism in the background, I don't see a drawback to doing that. I just think it would make the photo easier and more pleasant to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I struggle to see you keep making the same comment on practically every wildlife photo Ikan. Surely you must understand the way that depth of field works in a camera? Charles (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's the issue here? If the background is blurry, where's the issue in editing it to look more pleasant and less distracting? But in any case, I am a viewer. As I mentioned in another thread, the technical challenges of taking a photo are not my issue; I care only about the finished project. In the same way, I could tell you how hard it is for me to play some notes in tune in a particular dynamic level, but why should you, as a listener, care? Perhaps if you like how I performed, you might find it interesting to ask me how I did it, but otherwise, it's irrelevant to you, isn't it? [Edited to add: Anyway, your characterization is incorrect: This is not the same comment I make all the time. In my supporting vote for the picture of the gull, I praised the bokeh as merely a gray background, and I didn't complain in this case that the bokeh made me dizzy, which happens sometimes in other pictures, nor did I complain about any lack of clarity in the resolution of the bird itself, as opposed to my remarks about the picture of the Persian cat. I just get that feeling that you don't like any kind of comment about bokeh or even partial blurring of the subject that either isn't 100% supportive or doesn't take issues of photographic technique that are irrelevant to me as a viewer into account. But on the whole I am skeptical of bokeh, because I consider it a misrepresentation of what we see in real life, and I feel like if photos don't present things more accurately than paintings, what is their advantage as an art? I mean, yes, I can understand the concept behind a producing super-clear photo of one thing and sacrificing the rest of the picture to more or less unrecognizable blur, but I don't have to prefer it to at least relatively clear representation in the entire photograph.] -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2016 at 06:47:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Earthrise over Compton crater -LRO full res.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Earthrise over Compton crater -LRO full res.jpg
Support I've seen thousands of sunrise and sunset pics here on Commons, but this is the first time I've looked at an Earthrise. INeverCry07:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love it. Obvious encyclopedic and educational value, but it's also really beautiful, with wonderful contrast between the gray lunar surface, the colorful Earth and the black sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Party-poop oppose I admit I can't say that I can differ with this from personal observation, but the colors of the Earth seem oversaturated, way bluer than other such images. Also, the clouds are blown in many places. Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2016 at 10:02:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo July 2011-6.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo July 2011-6.jpg
Support - I wasn't sure at first that this would be special enough to feature, but I think it is. I love the motion that's captured by this picture (captured much better than in that Bierstadt painting, by the way), the exhilaration visible on the boy's face at full size, and I enjoy moving my eyes around the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great juxtaposition of the sea green and the earthy sand. I love the pose ... like he's offering himself to the sea gods or something. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thus nominate the image for deletion instead of opposing the nomination. But before doing so, please read carefully the part of this text, dealing with photographs taken in public places, and also the specific rules applicable to Portugal, where the picture was taken: [7]. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2016 at 16:16:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Skyline Frankfurt am Main 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Skyline Frankfurt am Main 2015.jpg
Oppose Sorry and no offense to the author, but do you honestly believe that this is FP? The resolution might be high, but the light is of a harsh summer day kind and comes from the wrong direction and imho does not do justice to the skyscrapers. I think that a good FP of this view must be taken either in the morning or at night., ideally with the same technical quality. --DXR (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It may have been processed more than one would like in order to get this level of detail with the strong light available, but again that's a tradeoff I can except (Is there some sort of pedestrian walkway along the railroad bridge from which this was taken? It looks like it from Google Maps). Daniel Case (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Bridge is for trains and on the side, there is a walkway only for pedastrians. U can have a look at the location when u click in the discription page on the coordinates. Regards --Dr. Chriss (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2016 at 21:07:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Misvormde nevelzwam (Clitocybe nebularis) in verval. Locatie De Famberhorst 04.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Misvormde nevelzwam (Clitocybe nebularis) in verval. Locatie De Famberhorst 04.JPG
@Ikan Kekek: As for me, it is not very clear if you support or not this picture. You use the template {s}, but your comment makes me have a doubt. Could you please clarify ? Thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I support the picture. I thought it was worth pointing out that another similar view had been featured, but I'm not troubled by featuring two good views. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2016 at 20:43:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Laguna de Mucubají 2012.jpegCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Laguna de Mucubají 2012.jpeg
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 2016 at 14:21:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Moderate Support - I actually find the composition not bad. I find that it's helped by the cat's tail hanging down the way it does. And yes, the cat is cute. It would be good for the composition if the sleeping cat's eyes were in sunlight, but I think we can all understand why the cat didn't want to put itself in such a position that it would be zapped by light while trying to sleep. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Not badly done, and definitely a QI, but a) the leaves at lower right are distracting and b) not only is the cat not looking at the camera, its eyes aren't even open. Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe the cat is asleep. It's interesting that you find the leaves distracting, whereas I find them very helpful to the composition because they create a foreground and also provide a kind of partial framing that's a bit of a counterpart to the cat's shape (see the L shape of the leaves, the related obtuse angle of the cat's body and tail and the larger L shape of the part of the outer wall below the window and the part to the left of the window). I think we two have very different ways of looking at and conceptualizing form. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The field isn't too deep, so we don't IMO need the plant to give us perspective. And as for taking a picture of a sleeping cat, they look better when they're curled up. Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2016 at 11:39:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Khandala-4.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Khandala-4.JPG
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Sorry but the upper part are too overexposed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2016 at 11:23:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Planta de lenteja en una bombilla.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Planta de lenteja en una bombilla.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: nice idea and funny photograph, but the technical quality is not here: noise, overexposed parts, busy background, flares, glass reflection, poor framing (portrait would be better than landscape orientation), thight crop above...--Jebulon (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2016 at 19:31:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Humping Chihuahua.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Humping Chihuahua.jpg
Oppose Thanks for giving us all a good laugh. The expression on the dog's face is excellent. This works well as an internet thumbnail but any larger and the dog is quite blurred all over, and not in a way that can sometimes indicate the direction of movement. The poor dog seems to have some tumours on its face. -- Colin (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2016 at 10:39:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lima mochica headdress Larco musé Rafael Larco.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lima mochica headdress Larco musé Rafael Larco.jpg
Oppose - I regret opposing a feature for this picture, because the object is quite nice. I agree that this is a Valued image, but for the purposes of a feature, I don't like the harsh and inconsistent light on it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: small image; quality rather low (compact camera); bad lighting; crude cut-out of black background. -- Colin (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2016 at 11:02:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Autumn in Caucasus.JPG/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Autumn in Caucasus.JPG/2
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Sorry, but you've trashed your image with the processing since the first version. The sky has gone cyan and is heavily posterised. The snow is now completely blown-out. Generally over-saturated. I think your original image was fine, but just didn't have enough WOW to earn FPC. I recommend you just accept this image isn't FPC. Currently the many flaws mean it shouldn't be QI either. -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
I agree that revert should be done to keep the QI status. But this leaves us with an image that is now the same as one which failed to gather sufficient support last time -- so there's no longer a good reason to re-run the nomination. -- Colin (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info All by Christian Ferrer --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose The tree is pixels away from being cropped, it needs more space in my opinion. I'd rather have more space on top instead of a 50/50 waterline. Light is also only good on the bridge itself. — Julian H.✈ 10:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment More space for spruce would have caused less space for the reflection. "Light is also only good on the bridge itself" - that's why this image is imho outstanding! --Ivar (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Request The description needs to be extended: captive animal, Jurong Bird Park, Singapore. --Cayambe (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Question It looks very dark, also compared with other copies online. I tried a correction: File:Maria Laach Kirche Gnadenbild.jpg. The bright spots should be retouched to be FP. Yann (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Neutral Looks slightly tilted. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
_-_20150801_17h09_(10639).jpg)
.jpg)
_-_First_Left_chapel_ceiling.jpg)
I withdraw my nomination All by LivioAndronico (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Done Yann, thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
_-_97.jpg)
,_Punta_Pitt,_isla_de_San_Crist%C3%B3bal,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_18.JPG)
INeverCry 19:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
INeverCry 02:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
). It could be a little better—I get the feeling it was a little too aggressively denoised—but what's there is good enough for me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC).jpg)
Keep in the deletion request...--Jebulon (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
,_Bah%C3%ADa_Tortuga,_isla_Santa_Cruz,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-26,_DD_32.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_Britons_(Kitchener)_wants_you_(Briten_Kitchener_braucht_Euch)._1914_(Nachdruck),_74_x_50_cm._(Slg.Nr._552).jpg)
--Hubertl 09:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
_I_want_you_for_U.S._Army._1917._101_x_76_cm._(Coll..Nr._3116).jpg){kind=small}
_at_the_Naturhistorisches_Museum,_Wien-9958.jpg)
All by Hubertl 15:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
_-_Keila_loomets.jpg)
Maybe with a slight cut on the right side. --Hubertl 11:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I myself haven't seen it yet. 
--Hockei (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
. So translations can start. Whether there is no climax or quite a lot, depends on if someone is interested in the german middle-ranges or not. Views such as these up to a distance of 100 km aren´t usual. Thanks for your opinion.--Milseburg (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
Featured picture on Arabic Wikipedia.created by Cptguy - uploaded by Cptguy - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)_-_Intern.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_Las_Bachas,_isla_Santa_Cruz,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-23,_DD_18.jpg)
. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_HDR.jpg)
.jpg)
-- Pierre André (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.JPG)
._Zeichnet_8._Kriegsanleihe._1918._95_x_63_cm._(Slg.Nr._325).jpg)
._Locatie,_Natuurterrein_De_Famberhorst_01.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_isla_Lobos,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-25,_DD_35.JPG)
,_isla_Lobos,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-25,_DD_35_edited.jpg)
_-_20150801_17h09_(10639).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_First_Left_chapel_ceiling.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_97.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Punta_Pitt,_isla_de_San_Cristóbal,_islas_Galápagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_18.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Bahía_Tortuga,_isla_Santa_Cruz,_islas_Galápagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-26,_DD_32.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_withdrawn){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_Britons_(Kitchener)_wants_you_(Briten_Kitchener_braucht_Euch)._1914_(Nachdruck),_74_x_50_cm._(Slg.Nr._552).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_at_the_Naturhistorisches_Museum,_Wien-9958.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_withdrawn){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Keila_loomets.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Intern.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Las_Bachas,_isla_Baltra,_islas_Galápagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-23,_DD_18.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_HDR.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
._Zeichnet_8._Kriegsanleihe._1918._95_x_63_cm._(Slg.Nr._325).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
._Locatie,_Natuurterrein_De_Famberhorst_01.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_isla_Lobos,_islas_Galápagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-25,_DD_35.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
_by_Nadar.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.png,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Parc_du_Rouge-Cloître,_Brussels_(7223349292).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_in_verval._Locatie_De_Famberhorst_04.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Katze_--_2013_--_1337.jpg,_withdrawn){kind=link}
_-_20150801_17h09_(10639).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_20150801_17h09_(10639).jpg){kind=link}
_-_20150801_17h09_(10639).jpg,_not_featur){kind=link}
_-_20150801_17h09_(10639).jpg,_not_featur){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_First_Left_chapel_ceiling.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_First_Left_chapel_ceiling.jpg){kind=link}
_-_First_Left_chapel_ceiling.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_First_Left_chapel_ceiling.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_First_Left_chapel_ceiling.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_97.jpg/2&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_97.jpg/2){kind=link}
_-_97.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_97.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Punta_Pitt,_isla_de_San_Crist%C3%B3bal,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_18.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Punta_Pitt,_isla_de_San_Crist%C3%B3bal,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_18.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Decoration_of_Museo_di_Capodimonte_%28Napoli%29.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Decoration_of_Museo_di_Capodimonte_%28Naples%29.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Bah%C3%ADa_Tortuga,_isla_Santa_Cruz,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-26,_DD_32.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Bah%C3%ADa_Tortuga,_isla_Santa_Cruz,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-26,_DD_32.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_withdrawn){kind=link}
.jpg,_withdrawn){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Panorama_of_Trevi_fountain_2015.jpg&diff=183244936&oldid=183231111){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_Britons_(Kitchener)_wants_you_(Briten_Kitchener_braucht_Euch)._1914_(Nachdruck),_74_x_50_cm._(Slg.Nr._552).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Britons_(Kitchener)_wants_you_(Briten_Kitchener_braucht_Euch)._1914_(Nachdruck),_74_x_50_cm._(Slg.Nr._552).jpg){kind=link}
_at_the_Naturhistorisches_Museum,_Wien-9958.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_at_the_Naturhistorisches_Museum,_Wien-9958.jpg){kind=link}
_at_the_Naturhistorisches_Museum,_Wien-8909.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_withdrawn){kind=link}
.jpg,_withdrawn){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Keila_loomets.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Keila_loomets.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Keila_loomets.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Keila_loomets.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Intern.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Intern.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Intern.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Interior.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Intern.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Intern.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Las_Bachas,_isla_Baltra,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-23,_DD_18.JPG){kind=link}
,_Las_Bachas,_isla_Baltra,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-23,_DD_18.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Las_Bachas,_isla_Baltra,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-23,_DD_18.JPG){kind=link}
_HDR.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_HDR.jpg){kind=link}
_HDR.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_HDR.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_HDR.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ulrich_von_Ernau_Epithaph_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
._Zeichnet_8._Kriegsanleihe._1918._95_x_63_cm._(Slg.Nr._325).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
._Zeichnet_8._Kriegsanleihe._1918._95_x_63_cm._(Slg.Nr._325).jpg){kind=link}
._Locatie,_Natuurterrein_De_Famberhorst_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
._Locatie,_Natuurterrein_De_Famberhorst_01.jpg){kind=link}
._Locatie,_Natuurterrein_De_Famberhorst.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://catracalivre.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/fotos-simetricas-01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&oldid=184373965){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_isla_Lobos,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-25,_DD_35.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_isla_Lobos,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-25,_DD_35.JPG){kind=link}
_by_Nadar.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_by_Nadar.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Nadar.jpg)
_by_Nadar.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Nadar.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png)
.png,_not_featured){kind=link}
.png,_not_featured){kind=link}
.png,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Parc_du_Rouge-Clo%C3%AEtre,_Brussels_(7223349292).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Parc_du_Rouge-Clo%C3%AEtre,_Brussels_(7223349292).jpg){kind=link}
,_Parc_du_Rouge-Clo%C3%AEtre,_Brussels_(7223349292).jpg)
_in_verval._Locatie_De_Famberhorst_04.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_in_verval._Locatie_De_Famberhorst_04.JPG){kind=link}
_in_verval._Locatie_De_Famberhorst_04.JPG)
,_Katze_--_2013_--_1337.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Katze_--_2013_--_1337.jpg){kind=link}
,_Katze_--_2013_--_1337.jpg)
,_Katze_--_2013_--_1337.jpg,_withdrawn){kind=link}
,_Katze_--_2013_--_1337.jpg,_withdrawn){kind=link}
_I_want_you_for_U.S._Army_(Ich_brauche_Dich_f%C3%BCr_die_US-Armee)._1917._101_x_76_cm._(Slg.Nr._3116).jpg){kind=link}
_bedekt_met_rijp._Locatie,_Natuurterrein_De_Famberhorst_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_HDR.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
