Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2011 at 05:37:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cypraea tigris 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cypraea tigris 01.JPG
Cowries are incredibly naturally glossy and it's not motion blur, the spots actually look like that, some smudgy, some very distinct. For contrast look really close to the shell on your bottom right, you should see some very distinct-looking lines with that sharp eye of yours. -- One, please.( Thank you.)16:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ?? Movement blur? Dear Snaevar, have you ever seen an original specimen or have you compared with other photos of this species? This are the original colour spots! In addition, the specimens have a high glance surface like a mirror, it is impossible to make photos withoout reflections. Theses photos were made in daylight (in the shadow) without any additional lightning! --Llez (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have one of these specimens and I understand the difficulty, but the reflections are really distracting. I'd suggest an umbrella with the softest of light possible. theMONO20:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think, some reflections give a better impression of the special surface as to try to avoid any reflections at any rate (see also Alchemists photos of metals, e.g the recently featured Zirconium crystal bar). In addition, there are some differences in the glance of the specimens (due to age, conservation state etc.). Concerning umbrella: I made these photos in the shadow, as already said. Wheter you use an umbrella for producing shadow or other things, doesn't matter. Why an umbrella should reduce reflections, whereas other shadow-producing things don't? I tried different lightnings, this is very soft ligtning, the only situation without reflections was nearly complete darkness, impossible to make photos. --Llez (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for own high qualities. Regarding the nominator's explanations, they sound obvious to me : "Movement blur" is here simply impossible for one who knows how are technically taken these pictures. The gloss is natural and show exactly how the shell is. Reflections are not distracting, but necessary in this case, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question How would you arrrange the pictures? I'm waiting for your proposal. You are free to overwork this picture and to load up a version in another arrangement to show what you mean. I' very interested and I would be glad to learn more about good arrangements --Llez (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Good quality, no movement blur, lovely subject. My main concern is with the reflections; not that there are some (in fact they help show how glossy the surface is), but that they seem distractingly complex (at least in the two views on the left). --Avenue (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support My issue is that I don't think the black looks good with these shells, and they could've maybe been spaced out more (though they might've seems bigger..). The grey, smudged spots do seem blurred comparatively and could be more contrast. Maybe red or a lite green would've been better? -- One, please.( Thank you.)01:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I always try several backgrounds and I look, which is the best (in my opinion). Perhaps you remember my last pictures, there was always a dicussion. When the backgound was grey, some wanted it greenish or black, when it was brown, some wanted it yellowish or black, now it is black, some want it... It is very difficult (or impossible?) to affect the taste of all. --Llez (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Black (or white) are obviously the only possible choices for such a shiny shell. You'd expect background reflection on the shell and with a colored BG it would spoil the image, while a fake colored BG would not show the reflection rendering an impossible artificial combination. The black background here is spot on. W.S.11:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Movement blur would be a bit ridiculous in such a fixed setup, wouldn't it? But still I don't like the compo, the reflections, and the too sharp masking here and there. Stick to the black background however (or even white would do) as the fancy colored ones detract from the subject.W.S.11:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2011 at 19:08:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Thistle April 2010-4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thistle April 2010-4.jpg
Yes, that is the framing which better suits this subject. The rule of the thirds only partially applies to this case. Please image the "thing" closer to one of the margins. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 23:23:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Opanci-ante josifovski.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Opanci-ante josifovski.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of the snapshot-style with harsh flash for a still object in studio conditions. Sting (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2011 (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 8 May 2011 at 16:45:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Ochsenburg.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Ochsenburg.jpg
Oppose Doesn't seem to be the best framing/angle with those wires in the lower right corner, the bottom crop of the wall, and the tree obscuring the left edge of the building. --ELEKHHT01:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 01:36:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Farmer, Nicaragua.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Farmer, Nicaragua.jpg
Support I uploaded this because I think it's an engaging portrait of an important subject: a full 29% of the 2.3 million people in Nicaragua work in agriculture. There are some blown parts of the clouds, but I think the subject matter, perspective, and overall composition make up for this. -- Steven Walling01:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In general the composition is ok (maybe a bit too centered for me). But besides the blown clouds, the left side of the farmers face is nearly too dark and the photo is tilted. --AngMoKio(座谈)08:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The portrait is great, but the photo is indeed a bit tilted. If it would be fixed, I would support. Tomer T11:26, 30 April 2011 (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: most part of the clouds is burned, it is tilted and there is no mitigating reason to counter these problems. Sting (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2011 (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 8 May 2011 at 18:05:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2011-04-24-ouv-g-8.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2011-04-24-ouv-g-8.jpg
Neutral It isn't beautiful, but is special for the lines which go to the dorr -- Angel (talk) 10:37 29 aprilie 2011
Oppose Interesting dilapidated space, but weak composition, unclear what's happening whit those gratifies on the sides, or where is the rust / mould thing starting or ending. File name is also less than suggestive. --ELEKHHT01:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing wrong with the picture, but I am opposing due to the description and file name. Lightpainting is when a camera has a long exposure and lights are used to create patterns. Graffiti, however is the word for the markings on the walls. About the name of the picture, it does not imply at all what the picture demonstrates.--Snaevar (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 18:06:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2011-04-25-lepidoptera-hunawihr-7.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2011-04-25-lepidoptera-hunawihr-7.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2011 at 12:09:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Narcisa 0012.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Narcisa 0012.JPG
Info Narcissus, one of my favourite flowers, a symbole of spring; created, uploaded and nominated by me -- Angel
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2011 at 19:20:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry, but the quality here is really poor. It was taken with a pretty good camera (as good as Canons get :P) but I assume thus was taken through glass or plexiglass, explaining the smudges and blurry spots. Good try though. --TheHighFinSpermWhale20:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral everyone else opposed so no need for me to pile on with another. I like the subjects in this (except the cut piece of tail in the upper right), that is what an aquarium looks like so I don't oppose for background, but as others the quality could be higher. A different composition might be nicer though I think you did it like this so as not to get a bigger, more noticeable piece of that other fish. -- One, please.( Thank you.)03:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2011 at 06:53:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Women giving birth, terra cotta statuette from Southern America. On display at the Gallo-Roman Museum of Lyon, Musée des Confluences exhibition. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do like very much the subject, the object, and the picture. Needs maybe more explanations in the file description page (date ? location ?)--Jebulon (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request I disagree that the composition is boring and I know this would probably get a lot of opposes for having a museum shelf or casing around it, but the edges are a bit sharp. Think they could be blurred? -- One, please.( Thank you.)02:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 20:14:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Arhiv na RM - Staro Skopje - Centar.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Arhiv na RM - Staro Skopje - Centar.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is below size requirements.
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 May 2011 at 09:34:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Candles in ortodox church.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Candles in ortodox church.jpg
Oppose Quality is good, but I would prefer a composition in which the focused lights in the foreground are not directly in front of the bright light circles in the background (=presumably other out of focus candles). bamse (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support (since that template seems to have been fixed) Oh, no-no-no. I like the subject, I love how the candles look, I love the contrast in this of the candlelight against the darkness. It's all beautiful, dramatic and has a sacred, spiritual mood. My only problem is the slight noise. -- One, please.( Thank you.)02:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- Please note that the concepts of 'Weak and 'Strong' Support or Oppose are not part of our voting system (see rules above). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, yeah, it's always black and white or neutral to avoid vote count squabbles, I know. We've been through that a dozen times. It's just symbolic of my issues with the pic ok? -- One, please.( Thank you.)03:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put hidden meanings where they don't exist. It it this way since the beginnning and I was not even involved. Last time the subject was discussed was long ago and I remember the symbols for strong support (a heart) and strong oppose (a red cross) being erased. But we could change that, of course. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2011 at 08:02:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Leopard frog in green surrounding.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Leopard frog in green surrounding.jpg
And also , if I wanted to show the "Species Leopard Frog" , I would put him in a white background and take a snap.But thats not what I meant . -- Raghith (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not about camouflage, but about size (of the frog) and crop. There is too much unused space in this image. W.S.11:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info alternative version made by Ximonic. I'm giving it a try with another version. Crop is now a little different and I also fixed some lighting by using layers in PS. --Ximonic (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2011 at 14:49:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Monumento a Miguel de Cervantes.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monumento a Miguel de Cervantes.jpg
Comment I don't think it's overexposed and sharpness could be arguable. The goal of this picture is showing the two main objects of the monument: the writer and his most famous characters. Kadellar (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what i understood, too. Then, i suggest to get rid of everything not relevant : the tree on the left, the capitals of the columns, the building in the background, the other statues on both sides. This would lead to a much tighter crop, like the suggested one on the right. BTW, i also attempted to reduce the harshness of the contrast. --MAURILBERT(discuter)02:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice crop. However, I wanted to show a little bit more of the monument. Perhaps that's coming back against me, as the main objects are "smaller" in the whole image. Does anyone support the new cropped version?? Kadellar (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 18:34:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:炫彩津门103奉化桥白色灯光.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:炫彩津门103奉化桥白色灯光.jpg
Oppose Generally nice photo, but too small, there are lighting problem, and again: uninternational name - I don't have an idea what the picture title means, and there is no description in the file's page. Tomer T (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2011 (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: it needs a resoultion of minimum 2 MP --kaʁstnDisk/Cat19:58, 1 May 2011 (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 May 2011 at 06:48:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Busycon contrarium 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Busycon contrarium 01.JPG
This shell produced no a single reflection within the past 2 Million years. Therefore I hope it will get a better acceptance!
Oppose For the same reason as stated below. Simply no wow. It's educational, no question about it. But it does not make a good picture you want to have in a frame. Some way of creative arrangement would be needed. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係08:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about an arrangement around a cube/prism, that illustrates from which side the images where taken? This would give much more opportunities to arrange the images in a creative and illustrative way. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係09:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The information, from which side the images are taken, are given in the description, please read there. Could you please show me an example of arrangement of shells (or other things) in a cube, I don't understand exactly what you mean. --Llez (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One week! Obviously you are not able to present a better arrangement. Why then "Kontra" because of arrangement??? --Llez (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear Benh, if you vote per Niabot, you can certainly propose a better arrangement or explain, what he means. I'm still waiting... --Llez (talk) 05:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear W.S., if you vote per Niabot, you can certainly propose a better arrangement. Otherwise I don't understand your vote. --Llez (talk) 05:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2011 at 13:21:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Oncorhynchus nerka.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oncorhynchus nerka.jpg
Comment I'm willing to support this excellent drawing, but: The geographic origin of the animal should be added to the file description (this is a very important info). --Cayambe (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree. First, if you check out the usage example in English Wikipedia, you'll see that the text isn't really visible, so it's not having a detrimental effect on reuse on the projects. Second, this a drawing. Just like a painting, it is normal and acceptable for educational reuse for there to be a signature and such on the image. Steven Walling00:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The name of the fish doesnt really need to be in the image. I think the signature can be retained. But when you look more closely at the signature you'll see a copyright symbol. I strongly feel this should be removed. --Jovian Eyetalk03:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2011 at 06:45:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Trithemis arteriosa qtl3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trithemis arteriosa qtl3.jpg
Oppose Sorry, but Quartl has produced much better macros than this. I find the background much too distracting. I think a shorter DOF would have done this image good. Maybe if the background is given a large Gaussian blur, it would be OK. --TheHighFinSpermWhale16:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's OK, but nothing more. Not screaming FP as some of the other insect pictures we have in our collection. W.S.11:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 19:27:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Carrion crow 20090612.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carrion crow 20090612.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: overexposure and too much noise
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 13:55:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Liberty arrabe.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Liberty arrabe.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 18:07:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:炫彩津门97武德殿.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:炫彩津门97武德殿.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the size is insufficient
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 10 May 2011 at 12:18:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sundeck MS Romantika 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sundeck MS Romantika 01.jpg
Oppose A nice atmospheric picture but... There seems to be chromatic aberrations at both sides of the picture. It could be fixed but, I think, the overexposed areas in the sky, on the chimney and on the water would be more difficult to fix. --Ximonic (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 15:37:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Windmill harbour Rhodes.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Windmill harbour Rhodes.jpg
Oppose I'm afraid this image has several problems. First of all, why is the top so dark? Unless it is in the morning of evening (which it is not), that should be the brightest part. The sky, especially near the top, is noisy, and the spokes of the windmill are overexposed. The composition is really nice, but the quality is not. What I don't understand is how a Sony A550 at ISO 200 could produce this much noise. --TheHighFinSpermWhale18:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I beg to disagree. The highest point in a blue sky is almost always darker/bluer. Just google sky pictures to notice that. The physical explanation is that when you look at the horizon, you see a larger thickness of atmosphere, whereas when looking directly vertically above you, you see the "black" background of the universe through the thinest thickness of atmosphere. When such an effect is desired, it can be emphasized with a polarizing filter. I don't have an idea whether such a device has been used there. --MAURILBERT(discuter)00:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never noticed what you claim and I've been looking at the sky much of my life. Also, the Sun must've been behind the photographer to their left and about 45 or degrees above the horizon judging from the shadows. Unless polarizing was done as you say I have an inkling this might be accidental vignetting caused by the camera or the lens. -- One, please.( Thank you.)02:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As one can see, I'm not a specialist of technics, and I often use wrong settings, but when I read some peremptory assertions, I think I'm not alone in this case... I confirm the use of a polarizing filter, the effect was my choice, and furthermore I think this picture is not sooooo noisy, even in the (dark ?) sky.--Jebulon (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review. White is white, especially in Greece, and no details are lost... If the sails are unsharp, then the wooden parts of the wings must be too, but they are sharp, in my opinion...--Jebulon (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination because I was wrong and uploaded a wrong file. My mistake, and my apologize to the reviewers, they were right. Sorry. --Jebulon (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2011 at 20:17:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Khajuraho Dulhadeo 2010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Khajuraho Dulhadeo 2010.jpg
Neutral nice straight forward composition. I give my support when the white balance gets tweaked a bit, right now the colour of the sky is imho not optimal. I can upload such a version, if you want. --AngMoKio(座谈)09:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2011 at 11:30:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lörrach-St. Peter - Nordostansicht.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lörrach-St. Peter - Nordostansicht.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2011 at 17:24:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral The subject is interesting I suppose in historical context, also as sort of a then-and-now-ish thing. It is what it is, but it's really not a fun picture/scenery to look at. I wonder if these abandoned ruins would've seem more interesting at twilight... =\ -- One, please.( Thank you.)02:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2011 at 14:13:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Torre-Mozza Toscana.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Torre-Mozza Toscana.jpg
Weak support Over enhanced, but nice shot. Could we tone down the vibrancy and contrast a little? Not completely sure of the educational value...would it fit in some other articles? theMONO18:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Thanks for your suggestion, I have turned down a little vibrance and contrast. About educational value, this is one of the best preserved coastal guard towers (XVI century) in Tuscany (Italy), it has its own page on Italian Wikipedia. Digitalsignal19:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Thanks for your support, but which weak points do you see technically (exposure, dof, composition, distortions, color rendition..)? Thanks for your answer/Danke für deine Antwort Digitalsignal10:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sunshade and the sky above are a little noisy, same on the top roof of the tower and there is a little distortion over the whole picture what is OK with 14 mm lens. Still it is a very good photograph due to your really nice composition. --Mbdortmund12:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Thanks for your suggestion, I have re-developed the RAW file by means of a different software, so I have got better noise reduction (without introducing loss of details) and better lens distortion correction. Vielen Dank! Digitalsignal13:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good composition, noise much improved. Is the white spot in the sky between the umbrella and the tower due to a stuck pixel or something real (e.g. a plane)? --Avenue (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks for your appreciation. The white spot is a white bird in direct sunlight. Accurate inspection on the original RAW file shows no presence of any artifact. Digitalsignal19:04, 01 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks for your critic, it gives me the opportunity to clarify that this picture portraits not just the building (torre) but also its present-day context (as stated in the caption, too). The contrast between its ancient origins and current use/location is intentionally underlined. Digitalsignal19:08, 01 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As you already has seen in FPC.. I don't oppose because the image is a little noisy or because the user don't have the latest technology camera etc.. neither I make comments like "no wow for me" etc. Aesthetically all this composition doesn't seem nice (Formalism). If I was there I was trying to make a close photograph of the "torre" which has most encyclopedic value in this composition. Ggia (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks again for your reply, I appreciate your openness. I just can confirm what already explained: I wanted to render the "old" building in its "new" environment (a Blue Flag beach). I could have made the umbrella smaller, but I would get an unbalanced picture. Excluding the umbrella and supports would give me a huge tower smothering the surrondings. Digitalsignal11:05, 01 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2011 at 03:13:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/image:Adolfocordova.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/image:Adolfocordova.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2011 at 20:33:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/image:Osterbrunnen Niederalbertsdorf.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/image:Osterbrunnen Niederalbertsdorf.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 09:17:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2011 at 12:51:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:SNCF TGV Duplex Viaduc de Cize - Bolozon.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:SNCF TGV Duplex Viaduc de Cize - Bolozon.jpg
Info A TGV Duplex trainset crossing the Ain river near Cize. This viaduct is part of the Haut-Bugey line, which was reopened in December 2010 for TGV services between Geneva and Paris.
I just uploaded a new version with less CA (colors/crop/brightness may also differ slightly). Regarding sharpness: This is the 1:1 resolution from the camera plus parts of the picture are stretched because of the perspective correction. I don't think you'll ever get a perfectly sharp result under these circumstances (or at least not with gear that I can afford...). Of course I could have scaled it down to make it look better at 1:1, but that would have been a bit pointless. --Kabelleger (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't want to be grinch but I guess that the community miss to look exactly at the technical side of this picture. Sure: this is great picture with a very nice view over the bridge and the train and I would it support strongly if the noise is not so conspicuously. But with this noise and the muddy impression I am not sure it this picture can even get a QI. Because this picture was shoot with ISO 200 I guess the lens has not much luminous intensity or is otherwise simply bad. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Imho, if we criticise the technical quality here (which is in my opinion for a landscape wide-angle shot quite good), it will encourage people to reduce their 12mpx images to 3mpx images before uploading them. --AngMoKio(座谈)10:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to reduce a 12 MP picture to 3 MP when the parameters are chosen well. We have other examples of great landscape images and with those one this picture has to compare. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me such a landscape photo? I think that we all (me included) are pretty much spoiled by the often stunning stitched panorama pictures, which mostly consist of several resolution-reduced pictures. I rarely saw a non-stitched wide-angle landscape shot with a stunning sharpness. Do you think that the whole photo here is quality-wise questionable or just parts of it? --AngMoKio(座谈)11:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
e.g. this one File:HŽ 2044 between Turcin and Sveti Ilija.jpg is much better in technical view, I have chosen also an image of a train, a non-stitched panorama and even the same photographer. The whole image of this candidate has for me a muddy impresion, not only some parts at the edge. In my view this light/landscape-situation has to be take with a much lower exposure time than 1/640s so that it become a bit underexposed to be brighten later by digital image editing. So there would be a chance to conservate a bit more of the structure of the bridge and the train itself. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:HŽ 2044 between Turcin and Sveti Ilija.jpg has been scaled down (I don't remember to what extent; I can upload a 1:1 version if you want). No surprise it is much sharper. @structure of the bridge: The bridge is not overexposed (I think), so there are no details lost - I don't understand what would be gained by a lower exposure and making it brighter afterwards. But I'm not sure, maybe this image is generally a bit too bright? --Kabelleger (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ISO 100 won't cut it here. Something like 1/640 s exposure is necessary to keep the moving (!) train sharp, and I don't want to go below F6.3 or so because the image quality gets worse at larger apertures. --Kabelleger (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will do (in a few hours when I'm back at home). When I uploaded that picture, I was lazy and took the scaled down version from my web site, since I never intended to nominate it for FP... Lens was the very same 17-55 F2.8 IS (no that's not the kit ;) ) and 50D as this picture was taken with. --Kabelleger (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the EXIF data, the picture was taken at 17mm, which is already quite wide-angled. I don't know with which lens it was taken, but if it was not something like Canon's 10-22mm, the lens used here is probably at its shortest focal length and will thus exhibit technical imperfections, specially at the corners. The lens was correctly stopped down to f/6.3 to a) increase DoF and b) improve quality at the corners. These are limitations of the equipment itself, and the picture should not be penalized for this. Otherwise, ALL wide-angle photography taken with a FF (which is even more problematic at the corners) would never be able to make FP, which would be ridiculous.
Color saturation and contrast look very natural to me.
Looking at the histogram, I don't see any overexposure to be concerned about. In fact, there are only 5 pixels at the 255 level. --Murdockcrc (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 21:40:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Butorides virescens 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Butorides virescens 01.jpg
Comment Reloaded file, the over-exposure was probably the result of having corrected levels. Leggs are now withing dynamic range. It also corrected CA. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overexposed on the legs and a bit noisy, but I love the crop. Gives you feeling the bird is watching for the perfect moment to strike its unfortunate prey... --TheHighFinSpermWhale04:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 10:34:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tombeau de Louis XII et d’Anne de Bretagne, Basilique St.-Denis.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tombeau de Louis XII et d’Anne de Bretagne, Basilique St.-Denis.jpg
Oppose Per others. + tilt and bad framing and unfortunate crops: I miss the whole monument, which is extraordinary indeed. --Jebulon (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- It's not quite perfect, but it's not terrible. I don't find it very unsharp and do like the composition with the exception of some problems already mentioned, namely the tilt (easily fixed in GIMP) and the right part. -- One, please.( Thank you.)05:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 11:08:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Dama dama 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Dama dama 02.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of the issues mentionned above, + probable tilt. Far below from FP minimum standards.--Jebulon (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2011 at 21:28:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Compass rose Cantino.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Compass rose Cantino.svg
Info Replica of the major wind-rose of the Cantino planisphere (1502). To celebrate my fifth anniversary in Commons. All by Alvesgaspar (talk)
Support Only a minor flaw, as the line in the cross at the top is supposed to angle downwards from left to right. Otherwise, really good.--Snaevar (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colours and balanced composition -- Angel (talk} 16:45 28 April 2011
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2011 at 11:07:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Il campanile del Duomo di San Leo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Il campanile del Duomo di San Leo.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2011 at 06:13:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Plough or plow.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Plough or plow.JPG
Info People plowing with cows; created, uploaded and nominated by Angel
Support It is my last chance to have a featured image so i am pro -- Angel
Why your last chance? Yes, you could indeed become a photo pro but, as with most valuable things in life, it will take time and lots of work. In the meantime, please stay with us (you will learn a lot here) and start saving money for a better camera. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "last chance" i refer that I can't put a lot of image. Or I can ? -- Angel (talk)
You can nominate up to two at a time. When they are closed, you can nominate two more. But most photographers don't have anywhere near that many images of extraordinary value anyway. So concentrate on uploading lots of valuable photos, and only nominate the very best of the best for featured picture. --99of9 (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral almost oppose. Firstly it's "plow" ;-) Next my real issue with this is the angle taken. I did like the image more in full scale than thumbnail but a different angle, like maybe a few degrees more to the left toward the side of the cattle and cropped differently to include more pasture around them would've made for a better composition, I think. -- One, please.( Thank you.)22:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info alternative version made by Carschten. But I think that the light was too harsh at the day and that the quality is just not good enough; nonetheless I upload a better exposed version by way of comparison. I abstain though. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat21:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2011 at 06:22:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose per Snaevar. Possibly you should have used a tripod and/or a smaller f than f16 in view of the diffraction limit. bamse08:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2011 at 17:49:37 (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 10 May 2011 at 09:51:46 (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 May 2011 at 15:05:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cochlearius cochlearius stages.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cochlearius cochlearius stages.jpg
Comment I think collages reduce the usability of images; what if somebody wanted to use just one or two of the three? I would much prefer to support all three images as a set. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 09:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question My question was not about the set.. if the images should be present as seperate images or inside a collage as this image here.. Ggia (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentResolution: each image can be reproduced at 300 dpi in 8x10 format, which is letter size, plenty of resolution if someone breaks it up. Image set: Collages are common in FPC, and this particular one is presented as a set (or collage) because all three represent the development stages of this species, the eggs, the nest, the chick and the adult in its natural habitat. A lot can be learned from all three images.
Comment I like it, but it's the photo quality that made me iffy. Plus some leaves in front of the eggs. I like this better than the vertical version. -- One, please.( Thank you.)06:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2011 at 12:37:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Croc conclave.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Croc conclave.jpg
Neutral Good action shot, but I have mixed feelings about the composition (it's jumbled sort of, but it's an action shot so maybe it's ok?) DOF in front's a bit low. -- One, please.( Thank you.)22:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very impressive, considering this is taken in the wild with only 200mm lens, but agree with Llorenzi that composition-wise it is confusing, mostly the back of the fourth crock makes it too busy for me. --ELEKHHT01:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do protest against the anti-clerical name of the file !! Are there Cardinals electing a new Pope ? . The apparently confusing compo adds to the mood IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2011 at 14:48:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Foundation nail IMG 0073-black.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foundation nail IMG 0073-black.jpg
InfoFoundation nail dedicated by Gudea to Ningirsu for the building of his temple, the E-ninnu: "For Ningirsu, the powerful hero of Enlil, his king, Gudea, prince of Lagash, accomplished what had to be; his temple of E-innu, the shining thunder-bird, he built and restaured." 2120 BCE. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 09:27:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.Tomer T (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 03:58:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:TawaramotoRiceField.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:TawaramotoRiceField.png
Support -- Firstly, the title and the choice of focus show what the subject is and this is a true support because I find this image interesting. And the people look like ants lol -- One, please.( Thank you.)14:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --Did you really look the image at full size? And you're not surprised by the fact only the center of the body is in focus while the head is completely blurred knowing the whole body is in the same focus plane, as well as the fact the bottom of the image is again less blurred? This is not a « choice of focus » but was photoshoped! Pathetic. Sting (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah it's pretty clear this has been altered digitally. But I'm not so sure how one could photograph this type of scenery in an interesting way; It's not an object that could be isolated and masked. -- One, please.( Thank you.)04:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem for me to use a blur mask but in this case it has been made so badly that this photograph lost any value it may had and is unpleasant to look at. Sting (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentOppose --lol. Good idea to try highlight the two farmers using a blur mask, but unfortunately not the minimum precaution has been taken during the process. Sting (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2011 at 09:13:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Weil am Rhein - Dreiländerbrücke9.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Weil am Rhein - Dreiländerbrücke9.jpg
Weak support Although prefer the 2007 version which is warmer, less symmetric, better illustration of human scale and does not have the latest high-rise on the left overlapping with the cables. In any case your sustained effort to illustrate this bridge is much appreciated. --ELEKHHT01:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you explain why ? It is not a mandatory, but in case of "oppose" votes, it is very appreciated and useful for others. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support not per Tomer and Benh, personal aversion for a theme should not be the reason for opposing, but real facts --Llez (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 16:18:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Laridae Larus in Saint-Malo (France).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laridae Larus in Saint-Malo (France).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 03:43:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:3Ring release animation.gifCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:3Ring release animation.gif
Comment (looking at every frame) First of all, at frame nr. 28 the parachute riser and the grommet on it lengthens instead of going upwards like it should do. Secondly, there is not really anything that supports the yellow cable, so it should drop all the way out of the picture.--Snaevar13:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small for me (200x400). Otherwise I like it, and I certainly appreciate animations that teach me things. --99of9 (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done 1.5x upsized (300x600 px) The image almost hit 12.5 MPx limit, it's the maximum size for animations at Commons. ~ ☭Acodered (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question At the beginning of the animation, I don't understand how the yellow spaghetti is attached to the blue thing. If there is a hole, it is not visible... This is a bit confusing to me and therefore I cannot support--Jebulon (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supports and advices. 2x slower, 1.5x upsized, first and last frame stays for 1 sec, removed black border on the rings, yellow teflon cable turned left, animation at frame 28 corrected, loop slightly rotated. ~ ☭Acodered (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 23:17:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support -- Adorable and IMO somehow the angle we see of the bird justifies the lead room and makes it almost unnoticeable, maybe because the eye is drawn to the bird's head. -- One, please.( Thank you.)05:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The tail is not sharp. I'm sure an anonymous picture should have been more discussed for this reason...--Jebulon (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been pondering the same as Jebulon. The blurred tail side is the only thing the has bothered me in this picture. Otherwise, the picture is really nice. --Ximonic (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes the tail is lost, but the background looks like it would have been very distracting had it been stopped down further. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 19:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 20:40:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Laguna Llanganuco 29042011.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laguna Llanganuco 29042011.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 05:07:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 03:49:33 (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 7 May 2011 at 18:24:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Werkstatt eines Schiffszimmerers im Altonaer Museum IMG 5128 edit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Werkstatt eines Schiffszimmerers im Altonaer Museum IMG 5128 edit.jpg
Neutral nearly oppose. Jumbled, less-than mildly interesting scenery and harsh lighting, though these aren't the photographers fault and all objects and scenery deserves a chance here I guess (though I guess the consensus is generally against sunsets so that's the one exception). I wonder if the lighting can be helped digitally. -- One, please.( Thank you.)01:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info you may want to notice the retouched picture tag on the image page. in addition this scenery is an indoor shot of a ship's carpenter's workshop. the whole construction reminded me of a shack missing a wall so people could look into it. sadly they put a rather harsh spotlight on the location, instead of a more smooth light solution. the digital altering already performed contained increasing visibility of the shadows and decreasing the effects of that spotlight. i tried to create an hdri but was not satisfied with the results of tonemapping for this particular scenery. regards, PETER WEISTALK08:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2011 at 17:24:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Winter baby 10-months-old.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Winter baby 10-months-old.jpg
Oppose -- Sorry but I see nothing featurable here, starting with the poor lighting and framing (babies are all beautiful to me though). Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, you aren't offending me at all! It looks like the picture was taken in 'contre-jour' (against the light) making the face somber. The ugly highlights are probably caused by a flash. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2011 at 08:29:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vlg shop.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vlg shop.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Unnatural perspective due to fisheye lens, noise, poor technical image quality (blown out parts, strange filter in post-processing?) --bamse (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2011 (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 12 May 2011 at 13:00:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support -- Let's celebrate love and color! It could be excellent if it weren't for the unfocused flower in the foreground. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 09:42:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment An appealing diagram. I don't know much about roller chains, but the en wiki roller chain article says they can be "bushingless", with a tube stamped onto the inner plate instead of a separate bushing. This diagram confuses me, because the inner plate on the left has a bushing tube attached (suggesting this chain is bushingless), but the one on the right does not (suggesting the opposite). Is the diagram trying to show one type, the other, or some hybrid? It would be useful if the image description explained this. --Avenue (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 06:31:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tobacco Hornworm 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tobacco Hornworm 1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 20:03:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Breeding Indian Pond Heron.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Breeding Indian Pond Heron.jpg
Comment I just spent 2 days in a swamp photographig wildlife. Birds are very hard to photograph, for they don´t like humans encroaching on them. This photograph is a good photograph in general terms, and while it lacks sharpness at 100%, when viewd at smaller size, which is how it will be reproduced anyway, it is definitely acceptable. To expect things to be razor sharp all the time is not necessrily neither good policy nor good photography. Just as enlarging film negatives eventually produce grain and degraded quality, so do digital images. It is all about reproduction size and viewing distance. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 20:50:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Claudius Lavergne - Saint Louis - Senlis.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Claudius Lavergne - Saint Louis - Senlis.jpg
Oppose Of course stained glass itself is really nice, but I don't like the dark statue (?) in front. we have better FPs of stained glass. ■ MMXX talk22:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 08:34:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Havne udsigt fra dokken.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Havne udsigt fra dokken.jpg
Comment sorry, but this image is really a QI? A lot of dust spots and strange color lines in the sky, the image is soft (no wonder with f/22) and it's tilted. I've to say, it's a nice motive, composition and lighting. I made an alternative version at File:Havne udsigt fra dokken-CN.jpg, and I think it's better. Maybe you will nominate it as an alternative, but I'm not sure if it could be featured... --kaʁstnDisk/Cat15:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 17:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pyrrhosoma nymphula qtl4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pyrrhosoma nymphula qtl4.jpg
Support -- Very nice critter and photo. A pity that dof is not a bit wider (was it really needed the high shutter speed?) and the creature doesn't have more space above to breathe... Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 10:50:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Knotweed 1r.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Knotweed 1r.jpg
Info Japanese knotweed is widely considered an invasive species or weed. It is listed by the World Conservation Union as one of the world's 100 worst invasive species. Created by flickr user liz west - uploaded and nominated by raghith -- aghith10:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportJapanese knotweed ; (Species: Fallopia japonica) is a large, herbaceous perennial plant, native to eastern Asia in Japan, China and Korea. -- aghith10:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 23:54:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:BMW 840 Ci Sport front.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:BMW 840 Ci Sport front.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 09:34:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Muskellunge USFWS.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Muskellunge USFWS.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 14:33:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sempervivum x funckii, RBGE 2010, 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sempervivum x funckii, RBGE 2010, 2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 15:08:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spinning Dancer.gifCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spinning Dancer.gif
Support Technically flawless, very high encyclopedic value, done in an aesthetically pleasing way (compared to other optical illusions). Great visualization of an optical effect in an artistic way. Looks like the perfect FP for an encyclopedia to me. --Nikopol (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unrealistic (how can one jump with keeping foot/leg in this position? and if it does not show the movement, what's the purpose?) --Coyau (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The occasional reflection of the upraised foot works against the illusion for me (i.e. it gives exactly the sort of depth cue that indicates one direction of rotation). The image is also quite small, even for an animation, . --Avenue (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point wasn't about how easy or difficult it might be for me personally to see the illusion. It was that the illusion (which according to the article relies on the absence of depth cues) would be stronger without the depth cue given by the reflection of the raised foot. Since I think the animation could easily be significantly improved, I don't see this version as an FP. --Avenue (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support After reading the article I was to oppose because I did'nt see anything special as optical illusion, but... It works now! it works! A miracle ! The young lady is really going ccw, now !--Jebulon (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 09:46:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Still life fleamarket amk.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Still life fleamarket amk.jpg
Support I know that I'll be the probable responsible of the promotion of this picture, and I'm truely sorry for that, but I like the idea, the mood, and the pictures, which really speaks to me... Maybe I'm an artist, who knows ?...--Jebulon (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 21:09:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tibellus sp qtl4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tibellus sp qtl4.jpg
Comment As long as others understand what I am talking about then it does not matter how what words I choose to express what I think.--Snaevar (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weakSupport the background is a bit disturbing and the sunlight is also very harsh, but the overall quality for such an "action-shot" is pretty good. Overall a good capture! --mathiasK09:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Background could be easily blurred a bit more, but it is very good, interesting and eye catching. --Jebulon (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)FP in my opinion.[reply]
Support -- Quite good but it is a shame that the zone of the "chelicerae" (the mouth parts injecting the venom) is not sharper. Benh, the spider isn't eating the fly, at least yet. Later on she will inject digestive fluids into the prey and suck the resulting liquified tissues. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 18:30:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Trifolium pratenseRed cloverLamiotF5580.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trifolium pratenseRed cloverLamiotF5580.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 17:26:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Overexposed from the left waistline to the left leg. A few noise spots: two in the neckline, a few on both breasts, a few around the umbilical cord and a few on the left leg.--Snaevar (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 23:46:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Senior ladies German Champion in Figure Skating 2010 Sarah Hecken Coach Peter Sczypa in Mannheim Deutsche Meisterschaften im Eiskunstlauf SAP Arena.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Senior ladies German Champion in Figure Skating 2010 Sarah Hecken Coach Peter Sczypa in Mannheim Deutsche Meisterschaften im Eiskunstlauf SAP Arena.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 09:06:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Four Evangelists in Mont Saint-Michel.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Four Evangelists in Mont Saint-Michel.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 17:34:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support -- I wonder if it can pass here. Might have at chance in QI for DOF. I like the lighting and how the low DOF to one side passively draws attention to the foreground feature, the lights and toward the back whether it was accidental or not. -- One, please.( Thank you.)01:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed. The blurriness isn't really a problem since it is the column that the coat of arms is engraved into that is the main subject but not the whole bridge.--Snaevar (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not clear. -- Angel (talk) 16:26 3 May 2011
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 16:34:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paragliding high above Queenstown.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paragliding high above Queenstown.jpg
Oppose per Jebulon and no wow here for me --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC), above all: for illustrating paragliding there is not enough paragliding (too small), for illustrating Queenstown not enough of the town to see, the combination is neither fish nor fowl --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it doesn't show much detail about Queenstown or paragliding. My aim was more to convey an aspect of how people experience the grandeur of the landscape there. But I respect your opinion. --Avenue (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've uploaded a new version, with softened highlights and lifted shadows, which might address some of the concerns expressed. --Avenue (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2011 at 09:55:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lynx in forest.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lynx in forest.jpg
Info The Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) is a medium-sized cat native to European and Siberian forests, where it is one of the predators. Created by flickr user Tim Sträter - uploaded and nominated by Raghith -- aghith09:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too obvious zoo picture with a bad crop. Even if the legs are hidden by vegetation, the image should include that part where the hidden paws would have been visible when not hidden (IYKWIM). W.S.19:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 05:50:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:UA Flight 175 hits WTC south tower 9-11 edit.jpegCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:UA Flight 175 hits WTC south tower 9-11 edit.jpeg
Support If it fits the limits by FP nominations then I support. Well in 2001 there were no 15 mpix digital cameras and this attack was nothink like "I take 15 shots of this frog and I can choose the best then". --Aktron (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read FPX carefully, it is only to be used when there are no support votes other than the nominator. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 08:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the guidlines mention that "rules can be broken", and Aktron specified above some reasonable arguments of why the formal guidlines don't fit this case. Also, note that you have already made a vote about the discussed picture above. Tomer T (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1) That the resolution is under 1 MP I realized after my vote (2) I am surprised that the rules here are so easygoing. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Valuable, and deserves some leeway as a historical action shot. But its shortfalls on size and composition are still too severe to be an FP IMO. --Avenue (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2011 at 18:18:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/removal/FileFloare de piersic 012.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/removal/FileFloare de piersic 012.JPG
Info Peach flower; created, uploaded and nominated by Angel (talk) 21:19 7 May 2011
Oppose It is a nice photo of a beautiful flower, but not up to the quite high standards expected for a featured picture. But I think it is cool to see a 13 year old nominate own contributions here. The centralized composition is not so interesting and there is quite some chromatic abberation seen at the edge of the petals. For a plant picture I would recommend adding the latin name of the plant as well, and consider geocoding it. --Slaunger (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can take photograph in a way that could only be called poetic. It is up to the viewer to engage them or not as they wish.-- aghith17:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 23:16:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 19:23:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Sun sets on Ohrid Lake.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Sun sets on Ohrid Lake.jpg
Oppose. All sunsets are inherently beautiful. In order to be an FP, it needs to have really nice clouds or something in the foreground (e.g. silhouette if backlit, or a notable structure in "golden hour" light if frontlit). -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 19:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 19:05:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Estremoz April 2011-3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Estremoz April 2011-3.jpg
Info Minimalism again. The tower and roof of a little church in Estremoz, Portugal, in a rainy day. All by Alvesgaspar (talk)
Support More of the tower (or even the church itself) could have been captured from another angle or position of the camera, but however this is a minimalism picture and that does not make it any worse than any other picture, IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that the church is not the main subject of the composition, and I find this one deserving the FP label (colors, light, sky, shot, etc...).--Jebulon (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low EV (the main subject is cropped), aesthetically this "minimalistic" does not convince me.. with all the clouds, texture etc I cannot say that this image is minimalistic rather that it is a formalistic image. Also several images has been rejected in FPC because of the cropping of the main subject. Also it is quite centered composition that it is not nice also aesthetically. Sorry.. Ggia (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose art for arts sake relevance for Gods sake ... GerardM (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC) This picture tells no story, it does not illustrate anything.[reply]
Oppose wow... composition (no wow; what's the subject? a lot of an unsharp roof, a little bit of a church tower; mural at the bottom right), quality (main motive is blurry and has lots of artifacts), EV (is there any EV at all?), file page (very little description with no information about what we can see; no geocode; no EXIF data; poor categorization). Very far away from FP standards... --kaʁstnDisk/Cat19:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lacking sharpness, lacking dof, lacking bokeh, uninspring composition, no ev, misleadingly deleted metadata, deficient metadata - you did better, get back to your roots. regards, PETER WEISTALK22:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Just a minor remark to your review: the concept of bokeh does not apply here. Anyway we need more of these exhaustive, accurate and objective criticisms, focused on the flaws of the image rather than on the merits of the creator. Please carry on with the good work. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 16:37:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cheena Vala Uyarthiyathu.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cheena Vala Uyarthiyathu.jpg
Oppose Overexposed. Looks like a printed photograph that has been discoloured by the sun, although there might be other reasons for that.--Snaevar (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sepia-only reduces the educational value of the image, and I don't see enough compelling me to overlook this. --99of9 (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 16:33:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fort de La Latte.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fort de La Latte.jpg
Info --I've uploaded above it a new version, trying to correct the horizon, lightning, sharpness and dust spots. Sting (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 16:17:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kiril Lazarov 07.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kiril Lazarov 07.jpg
Oppose Good facial expression and the subject is well isolated from the background... but the bottom crop spoils it. The ball, the left arm and the right hand, which are important here, are only partly shown. --Cayambe (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The handball player looks unsharp (precisely the edges of his face and the shirt) and unfortunate crop at the bottom.--Snaevar (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 15:08:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Narcissus reality and painting.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Narcissus reality and painting.JPG
Info A transposition on paper of narcissus. created, uploaded and nominated by Angel.
Support It's one of my paintings and i want to see if the image is good.
Oppose I don't see how this comparison/collage adds any encyclopedic value to the actual flower's picture. In addition, it's too small and the flower on the left seems distorted. Tomer T (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the image is far bellow the 2MPx requirements, the bad crop, low quality and apparent distortion of the left photograph. Sting (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeToo small picture - 0.83 Mp only, but at least 2 Mp request. Bad crop and distorted proportion photo (compare with uploaded before photo). Idea and painting is nice, but this candidate has no chance. -- George Chernilevskytalk19:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 15:09:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Nymphenburg in München.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Nymphenburg in München.JPG
Oppose unfortunately not so sharp as could be, the ratio of the diagonals are not that harmonic in my eyes, moreover. the building on the right is sadly truncated --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 09:30:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lörrach-St. Peter - Nordostansicht-2010-08-09.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lörrach-St. Peter - Nordostansicht-2010-08-09.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 01:01:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wehranlage Grosshesselohe XL.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wehranlage Grosshesselohe XL.jpg
Oppose --Sharpening over-processed, leaving a bright fringe along the top of the trees on the half-right of the image. This specific area should be corrected first. Sting (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, it provides a very nice overview of the area, well framed, interesting. (And we should apply same standards to all :)--ELEKHHT07:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice mood, composition and lighting, but per Sting. I don't think it's oversharpened, but I think sky was processed separately (I tried this several times, so I know how it ends up) - Benh (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 11:19:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Cuba Bus 2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Cuba Bus 2.JPG
Oppose -- Per above. I don't understand the point of Thelmadatter. We do need culturally relevant pictures in Commons, as well as bug and flower pictures. But FPC has nothing to do with it. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 15:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Neve Sha'anan - bus boarding platforms to Tel Aviv Central Bus Station.jpg 2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Neve Sha'anan - bus boarding platforms to Tel Aviv Central Bus Station.jpg 2
Oppose -- Surely not nice. Sometimes the uglyness of the subject transmits interesting aesthetical and/or social messages, but I see nothing of that sort here. As for the distortion of the building, I agree with Jebulon. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the picture was geolocated, one could locate the building on a satellite view and that would settle the case of "is the building really curved or is it distorted". Unfortunately, I didn't manage to locate this building nearby the Bus Station... --MAURILBERT(discuter)12:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 00:15:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20110419 Church of Redeemer Collage Ani Turkey.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20110419 Church of Redeemer Collage Ani Turkey.jpg
Info I made a collage of two images (different view) for higher EV when it is used in wikipedia. This image is from Ani. Ggia (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad collage. I don't like big black borders and it's disturbing because the hozions are on different heights, so imo it's more disturbing. Imo it would be better in two single images, in an article you can use e.g. Template:Double image or make two thumbs. I understand you idea with two images in a candidature of one subject, I think it's a good idea. Maybe a featured picture set nomination is better. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat13:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I like the borders, I like the clean division they make. Anyone with mspaint and an ounce of computer know-how could throw two pictures together but here it suggests to me that an effort was really made to ensure than everything is even and proportionate. I think it looks professional, it reminds me of a postcard. Also when looking at one picture the eye is definitely not confused or disturbed by a sudden seam in the sky. -- One, please.( Thank you.)06:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question can I nominate as FPC two images using the template that you mentioned? I didn't know about that. If it is ok to upload two different version and nominate them I could do it. Ggia (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info the same two images using double image template. Is it possible to nominate at FPC images in this way, avoiding making a collage of them? Ggia (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose – I thought about it a long time. Now I oppose again, sorry. Lighting is very good, quality is good, too. The idea is also superb with makes high EV. My problem is the composition: the framing is too tight to me. And I'm really sorry that I have to oppose here :( --kaʁstnDisk/Cat18:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think with the current system it would be possible to nominate a set, IMO try to nominate both of them separately and maybe upload a slightly wider crop if available. ■ MMXX talk20:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, set nominations are allowed. They're even discussed in detail in the rules directly above (at FPC). --99of9 (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 12:04:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Scheibenschlagen in Zams.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Scheibenschlagen in Zams.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2011 at 10:45:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tabanid July 2010-2b.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tabanid July 2010-2b.jpg
Info Tabanid fly (Haematopota pseudolusitanica) in a mountaneous area of Portugal. The females are voraceous blood-suckers, attacking large mammals, including men. Notice the scissor-like mouth parts, used to cut the skin and draw blood. Second try, after some image improvement (here). Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk)
Oppose It's only half the battle. I like the illumination, but I'am not pleased by the quality (dof, crispness, composition) compared to the very small image size. • Richard • [®] •
Oppose Maybe I am spoiled, but I have to agree with Richard. The eyes have an intriguing coloration though - they look scary. --Slaunger (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are spoiled, especially by that newbie who voted after me! Instead of playing the role of bad guy he should come back and try to show how to do better. But maybe he can't do it any more ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2011 at 19:29:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Museo sobre prehistoria.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Museo sobre prehistoria.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the resolutiuon is well below 2Mpixels. --Slaunger (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2011 (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 12 May 2011 at 18:58:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2011-04-25-lepidoptera-hunawihr-14.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2011-04-25-lepidoptera-hunawihr-14.jpg
I disagree that the background is bad. The insect could be drinking (that's how they do it, through moist earth) so it might be showing the creatures natural behavior. -- One, please.( Thank you.)14:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 18:57:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2011-04-25-lepidoptera-hunawihr-11.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2011-04-25-lepidoptera-hunawihr-11.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 17:06:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sundial 2r.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sundial 2r.jpg
Support This sundial ,located at "The Healing Garden" which is an organization in Harvard, Massachusetts, that provides a variety of services to families touched by cancer. -- aghith (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 17:00:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kaja (Corvus monedula).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kaja (Corvus monedula).jpg
Oppose Even if I accept that this is now its natural habitat, the background is a clear aesthetic distraction here: too many things coincide and clash right near the bird's head. --99of9 (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 09:12:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Don Edwards Refuge April 2011 panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Don Edwards Refuge April 2011 panorama.jpg
Dust spots removed. (I uploaded directly over the old file since there's no point in comparing which one is superior.) If any more remain, please annotate, because I can't find any more. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 19:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice pano, but I don't see the FP component of this image. On a side note, the image is generally soft. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 21:10:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lünersee Saulakopf.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lünersee Saulakopf.jpg
Support Is there any official rule saying that a current FP candidate has to be better than an already promoted image of the same subject? I agree that the aforementioned image is better than this candidate, but this one looks FP to me too. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons." (my emphasis). It depends on how you interpret this: if the other image is the finest for this subject, than this one is not the finest IMO. It is also a question if is worth highlighting two (or more) very similar images of the same subject or not. --ELEKHHT10:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 09:34:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aerosol spray top luxrender (with numbers).pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aerosol spray top luxrender (with numbers).png
As it is not possible to me to present a better arrangement within an appropriate time, I change to *Support and hope, that other voters will do the same in similar circumstances ;-) --Llez (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 16:04:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Oberaargletscher from Oberaar, 2010 07.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oberaargletscher from Oberaar, 2010 07.JPG
Oppose --Very nice and dramatic mood, but the manual color balance is off, much too yellow. I propose here an edited version which reveals also a photograph richer in colors for the rocks. Sting (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A good point and also the edited picture is quite good, but... For real, the color in the moment wasn't so blueish. Actually the sunlight made the glacier and snow more like a little light brownish because of the cloud layers and the angle of light through humid air. Other fact is that the light in the landscape was a little brighter, so on purpose I took the photograph with somewhat darker exposure (to give it the mood). In any case, I won't oppose the edited version either if people took it easier with that one. --Ximonic (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm... I tried some changes with the light. Might it be better or worse? One can revert if it was better before. --Ximonic (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hehe. Well, i started to make it all over again from the original file. It's a little (or quite a) different from the previous version. If you people think, it has only gotten worse, please revert. Otherwise, let's try this way. --Ximonic (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be honest, I agree with you about the colors. But it looks like the majority would sleep better if the colors were these. It may be quite important =) --Ximonic (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Traduction dans quelle langue ? En français ? Oberaargletscher and Oberaarsee are related to names of categories in "Commons"...--Jebulon (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done – sort of, atleast. I didn't quickly find the other names for the lake so I just add (lake). And so I add the English translation for the glacier itself. --Ximonic (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 19:38:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Poeke Kasteel R02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poeke Kasteel R02.jpg
Comment Nice image, but I find a perspective showing more of the surrounding landscape would be more impressive (1, 2). --ELEKHHT01:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 10:52:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Strumyk w dolinie Tatrzanskiej.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Strumyk w dolinie Tatrzanskiej.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 09:15:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sundial in Dinand.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sundial in Dinand.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 10:06:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Funivia rifugio Torino - P.ta Helbronner (2).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Funivia rifugio Torino - P.ta Helbronner (2).JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 16:21:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:CarnivalHuejotzingo2011early.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:CarnivalHuejotzingo2011early.JPG
Info created and uploaded by Thelmadatter - nominated and...
Oppose unfortunately well below FP quality: framing is poor (look at the sky, the lower left corner, or random right edge). --ELEKHHT23:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you provide more information on the description? What are zapadores, why are they special, why do they symbolize Mexican culture? The picture is OK but has no meaning to me because of the lack of background information. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 09:14:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Weil am Rhein - Dreiländerbrücke10.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Weil am Rhein - Dreiländerbrücke10.jpg
I can't see that this picture is very noisy. It was shoot with ISO 100 and the size was reduced. But I will look if I could optimize it. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2011 at 18:30:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tornato 11.09.05 003.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tornato 11.09.05 003.jpg
Oppose as an FP. It's grainy and unclear, but of course given the conditions this is practically unavoidable. The image has significant educational value, illustrating an amazingly well-formed waterspout unobscured by rain. For that reason, I would rather see this as a valued picture, since it's probably the best shot of a waterspout we have. That said, the composition is unsatisfactory, at least for an FP. The horizon is highlighted oddly, and awkwardly intersects the top of the boat. Also, the wake of the boat funnels the eye's attention toward the vessel, detracting from the waterspout itself. As an aside, the title should be made less cryptic, but that's an easy fix. Overall, not a bad nom, but just not the right venue for this particular file. –Juliancolton | Talk22:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. Wise comments from Juliancolton, and all in all I trust him enough that I think I'll take his suggestion and retry this at valued pictures if I can get valued image criteria 5 sorted out (which may be very problematic). Ks0stm(T•C•G)17:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what, since it seems that at least you would support (meaning others might too), after I attempt VI, I'll bring it back here and notify you when I re-nominate it. Ks0stm(T•C•G)23:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2011 at 03:48:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2011 at 02:33:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iguana iguana in la manzanilla.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iguana iguana in la manzanilla.jpg
Oppose the cutted of tail and the disturbing foregound spoils it imo... But a nice photograph for such a difficult motive and maybe a QI. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat15:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ kaʁstn & Llorenzi: I find your oppose votes rather "curious". This image is about the iguana and its habitat. Iguanas live in mangroves, and mangroves are very thick vegetation, that provide cover and camouflage for many species [[2]]. To make out the iguanas in this case, and distinguish them from their environment is the objective, easily done by taking advantage of shallow dof of telephoto lenses, however, finding the iguanas is another thing. They hide! So to say that either the foreground is disturbing is odd, for the foreground is part of the natural scene, you will have plants before, alongside and behind the subject. In the case, it gives the image depth. To say that parts of the body are covered, well, of course! Some parts will always be! If I wanted a picture of an uncovered iguana, a studio shot would be called for, but alas! No habitat! This link will take you to the mangrove where this iguana lives… find it! [[3]]. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) It's funny you got the notion the problem is in my monitor. If it was the problem, I'd have to oppose every other picture as well for being too bright, wouldn't I? 2) The compostion issues were elaborated before, and you even cared to provied a long explanation to contradict these comments. I think FP should be something special. I don't find this one illustrative enough, because of the cut off and covered parts, and I don't find it impressive enough, as for the distracting motives. It' a great picture otherwise (can be QI and maybe even VI imo), but not enough for FP imo. Tomer T (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) Brightness: well, download the image into photoshop or any program that will give you a histogram. Data is data, and data wise, it is not a bright image. Zone-system wise, the gray scale is nicely distributed. This is a quantitative issue. 2) Composition wise, if you don´t like it, you don´t like it, with that, I am ok. And thanks for your review! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Natural colours, sharp (especially the head), captured within the natural environment. I know how difficult it is to frame these 'long' reptiles. --Cayambe (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2011 at 11:38:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pedagogical College of Da Lat.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pedagogical College of Da Lat.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is much too small, has watermark, the building is completely deformed and is HDR-style far too over-processed. Sting (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2011 (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 21 May 2011 at 20:27:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spider on the flower.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spider on the flower.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 --Tomer T (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2011 (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 14 May 2011 at 07:44:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bainingsfiredancer.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bainingsfiredancer.jpg
A histogram often lies. Just because it's not suitable to show all defects inside images. It's a very strong simplification that misses some important facts. Try to create a plot with a vectorscope or a waveform diagram. Both are able to tell you the story of an image in a much better way. But in this case even the histogram shows the issue. You will find a strong peak on the right. The result of clipping higher values, creating many #ffffff. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係18:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...The histogram also showed clipping in the image you claim is superior to this one also, and it should. Half of what fire is is light, it doesn't make sense to claim that a fire in a picture is overexposed more than it would make sense to say the Sun is too hot or water is too wet - it's seems to me just to be an excuse for an oppose. Anyway, you can look at the image and clearly see that many different temperature regions in the fire are shown. If it was really overexposed I might expect to see the entire thing as a ball of yellowish white. A different filter might've masked some of the brightness of the light though and I wonder if perhaps you're seeing white because of the auto white balance. -- One, please.( Thank you.)03:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The color value #ffffff is pure white. How should it be something else? Even the sun can be filmed without overexposure. That is not an argument. Did i also mention the harsh flashlight shadows? Oh, yes i did. That are two good reason to oppose. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係09:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2011 at 20:17:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Crocodylus acutus in La Manzanilla.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crocodylus acutus in La Manzanilla.jpg
Support In an ideal world I think the light and colours could have been more vivid, but I find it strongly mitigating that this photo is taken in the wild. Surely, one of your best croc photos. I like the simple composition. I enjoyed following the teeth in full resolution and how they nicely fit together. I also enjoyed noticing the small damages to some of the teeth and other imperfections from use in a harsh world. Well done! I would recommend geocoding it, adds value. --Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Slaunger, thanks for your support and comments. Regarding colors, there were not many. There were two light conditions, the background was the mangrove and the top branches made it a dark area. The crocs go into the water as soon as they feel the boat approach (you can see one in the dark background, and I got this one just outside the tree cover, hence the dark background, for exposure was done for the near croc, we are talking about 3 stops difference. Otherwise the greens would have come out nicely. On the other hand, the crocs are basically b&w! So in short, two light conditions and a naturally occuring scene without colors. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 00:51:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Unsharp (specially the flower on the left) and the very dark background kills the FP potential of this image IMO. I see you stopped down the lens to f/11, but still the DoF is not enough for the subject. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 20:05:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mittenwalder Höhenweg.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mittenwalder Höhenweg.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 16:28:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mono Lake from Mount Dana.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mono Lake from Mount Dana.jpg
Support I hope that slight blur and hardly noticeable vignetting is are not a problem. The lake is notable because of arsenic extremophile bacterias en:GFAJ-1. Ain92 (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- It is a fine photo but not good enough for FP. Atmospheric conditions were not the best making the piture hazy and undetailed. I don't like the too symmetrical composition either. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me the biggest reason to oppose is the crop of the lake. If only the lake had more space both on its left and right side I would probably support. --Ximonic (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 22:42:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Parc de Versailles, Bassin de Flore, Jean-Baptiste Tuby (1672-79) 07.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parc de Versailles, Bassin de Flore, Jean-Baptiste Tuby (1672-79) 07.jpg
Support, although I would have preferred a more symmetric prospective. The droppings on the eye aren't a problem. [[User:Elfix] 16:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 18:46:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Split - Harbormaster's office and boats.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Split - Harbormaster's office and boats.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 13:12:26 (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 13 May 2011 at 21:48:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Dedizione religiosa.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Dedizione religiosa.jpg
Oppose Distracting elements (flowers and a hand) and a bad compostion (the whole statue of Jesus on the cross is more useful).--Snaevar (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But the hand is the subject (with feet), not a distracting element. Flowers covering, adorning, but not distracting. Is technically excellent and imho very artistic. Good crop, too. --Micione (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2011 at 14:38:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:View from Meteora.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:View from Meteora.JPG
Oppose Lacking sharpness along with some flaws discovered trough the histogram, Overexposed and lacking contrast.--Snaevar (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image contains several stitching errors (see annotations on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Belfort-Pano-1.jpg), some of them obvious, which spoil the general quality of this panorama and make that imo it doesn't deserve the label until these problems are corrected. I previously contacted the author asking him to make the corrections but he answered he couldn't. I'm also surprised that in the nomination votes nobody noticed those errors.
Delist I really, really like this pic and would immediately vote for it, but the stitching problems (errors, curved horizon) are arguing against my positive vote. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat19:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2011 at 12:06:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Beilstein BW 0.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beilstein BW 0.JPG
Oppose I'm sorry, but the focus error around the middle part of the picture is unfortunate. A little if not so disturbing things are those ... ”things” on the left and right lower corners which could be cropped out. The view itself is quite awesome! --Ximonic (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2011 at 15:03:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gadmental, 2010 July 2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gadmental, 2010 July 2.JPG
Info Yet another panoramic landscape. This time of a valley called Gadmental in the vicinity of Sustenpass, Bern, Switzerland, taken in 2010 July. The weather brought by lowered air pressure gives its own interesting impression. Still, I would be happy when I saw a similar panorama of the same place with a sunny weather. Created, uploaded and nominated by Ximonic -- Ximonic (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good as thumb, but details are lacking in full size (especially in the front), possibly due to overprocessing. W.S.11:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, it did not happen from the processing though. It was because of the lack of light right there (compared to the somewhat bright albeit cloudy sky). And because the photos of the panorama were exposed keeping an eye on to not to overexpose the sky, the foreground obviously got darker, and has now somewhat less information than the actual bright parts (This is not a HDR picture!). Later the lightness has been fixed a little. I'm not sure if there is anything that can be done about it, even if it doesn't disturb me that much. --Ximonic (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2011 at 20:12:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Libellula quadrimaculata qtl2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Libellula quadrimaculata qtl2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2011 at 11:07:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment I strongly dislike the GFDL-1.2 only license, which makes image reuse very unpractical. Decreases the practical value of an otherwise excellent photo. What a shame. --Slaunger (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2011 at 23:40:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Belfry monastery Panormitis.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Belfry monastery Panormitis.jpg
Support the painted belfry of the orthodox monastery (18th century) dedicated to the archangel Michaël in Panormitis, on the Dodecanese island of Symi, Greece.-- Jebulon (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Already done before uploading, more would deform the subject. Please notice that the photographer was not in front of the tower bell.--Jebulon (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice overall quality, interesting subject, but I think the light is too dull/flat, and I do not like the white cloud background. They give an odd color mixture in the photo in my opinion. I am not too convinced about the composition either - here we are again - it does not really catch my eye as a feature-worthy photo. --Slaunger (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2011 at 21:14:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pyrus hrušeň 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pyrus hrušeň 1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2011 at 18:38:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
The early bird gets the worm :-) Look at the dew. I dare say he went there with rubber boots at 06.00 o'clock in the morning (blue hour), tripod, remote trigger, mirror lockup, focus rail ... just to name a few. • Richard • [®] • 00:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What should I say? The guy knows what he's talking about! ;-) Everything's right, except the focus rail, sadly I don't have one yet! EXIF: f/9 at ISO400 and 1/15 sec --mathiasK08:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BarelySupport Good quality & illumination. Background -> imo there is to much space for rent :-) Comp.Angle -> backward tilt mostly looks awkward. Regards • Richard • [®] • 00:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I'm really, really sorry, but the ID of this fly was wrong! It is a fly from the Therevidae family. Known as stiletto flies. The only thing I was right with was the sex. I've allready ask for a renaming. Please be sorry for this fault of mine, it won't happen again. I promise! Regards mathiasK13:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2011 at 09:26:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Crown of King Ferdinand I de Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen,Carol I and King Mihai.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crown of King Ferdinand I de Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen,Carol I and King Mihai.JPG
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Angel -- Angel (talk
Support The original crown of Carol I of Romania. The next kings who wore it are Ferdinand I de Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen and Michael of Romania. The crown was created in 1881 and it is made of steel. Now, the crown is in the National Museum of Romanian History. -- Angel (talk
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: low quality: too dark at places, too bright at places, grainy all over Tomer T (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2011 at 12:53:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ncolae Grigorescu (1860).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ncolae Grigorescu (1860).JPG
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Angel (talk)
Support Nicolae Grigorescu - one of the most famous painters of Romania - at age 22. -- Angel (talk)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: It is a very low quality scan Tomer T (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2011 (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 19 May 2011 at 14:48:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nymphaea from Balchik Palace 2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nymphaea from Balchik Palace 2.JPG
Info created, uploded and nominated by Angel -- ANgel (talk)
Support Nymphaea from Balchik Palace. -- Angel (talk)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2011 at 14:28:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Canadair (27).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Canadair (27).JPG
Oppose The fire and plain should have occupied a much larger fraction of the photo for this to catch the eye. This one has point-and-shoot character. The topic in itself is interesting. --Slaunger (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2011 at 15:04:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tintoretto - La Resurrezione.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tintoretto - La Resurrezione.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Very low quality Tomer T (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2011 (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.
Comment Why low quality ? This picture is in high resolution and the colors are realist. I dont understand. --M0tty (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 06:55:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose The mouth of the shell lacks sharpness, as seen both on the picture in the top line-up to the right and the bottom line-up to the right.--Snaevar (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you mean the border of the mouth, I think it is sharp, or do you mean the the inner side? Inside the mouth the outer colours shine through and you have the impression of unsharpness, but it is the reality, which is depicted (this often occurs in thin shells). As the shell outside the mouth is sharp at the same level, it can't be unsharpness in the inner side. Sorry, that nature not always shows clear, sharp lines. --Llez (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2011 at 12:53:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Canadair (18).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Canadair (18).JPG
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2011 at 22:00:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mumified head IMG 0515.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mumified head IMG 0515.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2011 at 20:29:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pink salmon FWS.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pink salmon FWS.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2011 at 19:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Robinhunicke 240x160 August2009.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Robinhunicke 240x160 August2009.jpg
Neutral A pretty good portrait of a notable female game designer/producer. Refreshing topic. I like the expression on her face, which is caught in a good moment. Good light. A tad too soft for my taste, and I think a portrait format may have been more adequate (but I am not sure) — the crop of the hair seems a little awkward. --Slaunger (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Maybe a bit too extreme for my taste (the shallow dof and framing) but a very attractive portrait anyway. We need good photos of people as FP. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why we need more FP of people? Because there are too few imo. I remember discussing this subject here some time ago and the idea was that the assessments are much harsher on people photos than on the other themes. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering. Maybe you're right about much harsher assessments, but I'm not convinced by the need of more people pictures...--Jebulon (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad background because of an akin hair color and it's disturbing in general, very noisy, too short DOF, head poorly cut off at top (--> limited EV), ... I'm surprised about so many supports --kaʁstnDisk/Cat19:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not sure if this image needs some white balancing or these colors are natural.. but the portrait is nice aesthetically. Ggia (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight crop on both sides, really busy and distracting foreground / background, strange glowing essence (or maybe it's just unsharpness) and clockwise tilt. Sorry. --Ximonic (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Agreed - especially concerning the size and somewhat the tight crop, although a tightly cropped version on white background can be of value when embedded online in, e.g., a wikipedia article. --Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 12:50:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hakaniemen metroasema 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hakaniemen metroasema 2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 13:40:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rosa rosa-rossa.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rosa rosa-rossa.JPG
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 19:08:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zonotrichia albicollis CT1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zonotrichia albicollis CT1.jpg
Support and Done Per some others the branch was a little disturbing. I removed the poor evil from the picture, I hope no one is going to attack me for this. If the nominator disagrees, please revert! :DD Okay, I'm going to support it now. Cheers! --Ximonic (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2011 at 10:29:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:RoyalPalaceGarden Sofia 4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:RoyalPalaceGarden Sofia 4.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2011 at 11:02:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Falco naumanni back.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Falco naumanni back.jpg
Info The Common Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) is a bird of prey species belonging to the kestrel group of the falcon family Falconidae. created by Flickr user Tim Sträter - uploaded and nominated by Raghith -- aghith11:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice resolution, but the focuspoint is at the wrong place (should be on the eyes) and the centered composition is also a little boring... --mathiasK16:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, the DOF is too short, making the head blurry. Also, composition is not ideal - it needs to follow the rule of thirds; give it less space behind and and more in front. --TheHighFinSpermWhale21:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 21:43:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Römerberg Frankfurt abends.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Römerberg Frankfurt abends.jpg
Support Photography is an art . As art forms, each is a product of the artist's imagination and taste . I support. -- aghith06:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ein sehr, sehr ordentliches Bild. Schärfe ist gut, kein nennenswertes Rauschen. Licht, na ja, blaue Stunde natürlich perfekt abgepasst. Aber dennoch vielleicht etwas spät, einige überbelichtete/aufgefressene Stellen und vor allem an den Dächern unterbelichtete Bereiche sind vorhanden. Der Himmel hat natürlich auch was, mit seiner deutlichen Bewegungsunschärfe, dennoch ist es ein bisschen viel obenherum, da würde ich persönlich etwas abschneiden. Ganz gerade stehen die Gebäude auch nicht, da sind noch minimale stürzende Linien vorhanden. Größtenteils beruht mein Contra jedoch auf den Geistern. Ja, ich weiß, du kannst da nur unwesentlich etwas dafür und an für sich stören mich diese Ghosts fast nie; in diesem Bild sind sie ziemlich extrem und auch ziemlich störend sowie verwirrend, sorry. Aber ich bin mir sicher, dass dieses Bild hier auch trotz meines Contras exzellent wird... --kaʁstnDisk/Cat14:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWas ist above geschrieben is very interessant, because it is a very careful review. Aber ich bin nicht sicher that everybody is able to verstehen. Vielleicht something in english could help other reviewers, Vielen Dank in advance... !--Jebulon (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The review by kaʁstn is exemplary: detailed, balanced and correct - but perhaps a little bit too severe though. For me, only the two persons in front of the fountain are really disturbing: they are spoiling the image. Nevertheless, for the general quality I'd like to support this FP candidate. -- MJJR (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2011 at 11:35:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pedagogical College of Da Lat 12.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pedagogical College of Da Lat 12.JPG
Oppose Too much light, particularly on the tower, on the same side as the rest of the building and oh, bad crop on the left aswell.--Snaevar (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Several problems: Needs perspective correction, the texture on the roof and walls look odd - as if excessive noise reduction or smoothing has been done to reduce noise after trying to postcorrect a too low exposure (it appears to be confirmed by the file upload history)? On top of that I do not find the photo particularly eye-catching. --Slaunger (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Noisy sky, over-processed building, the deformations look to me coming from the lens 9or from post-processing). Plus boring picture. Sting (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2011 at 11:30:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Eclairs2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Eclairs2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2011 at 19:34:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brugge Pottenmakersstraat R02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brugge Pottenmakersstraat R02.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2011 at 19:42:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Slavia-litex-13-5-2011.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Slavia-litex-13-5-2011.JPG
Weak oppose It is a good action shot caught in a good moment. There is some color noise and a little motion blur, but I think that is acceptable and OK for this kind of shot. I like how the tattoos on both players are seen. However, I do not think landscape is the right format for what is going on here — should have been portrait in my opinion. In landscape, there is a lot of space "wasted" and as a consequence the composition gets centered, which I do not like in this case. --Slaunger (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2011 at 04:34:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Esquadrilha da fumaça em evolucao 2007.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Esquadrilha da fumaça em evolucao 2007.JPG
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the original image has been upscaled beyond reason, leading to a very very low picture quality. Sting (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2011 (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 May 2011 at 13:00:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:GrannyNearTheRiver'10.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:GrannyNearTheRiver'10.jpg
Comment Thanks for submitting your holiday snapshots. Unfortunately, such a picture has no chance to be promoted as a Featured Picture, for a variety of reasons : subject too dark, blown sky, strong chromatic aberration leading to purple or blue fringing, tilted horizon, bad crop (too tight at the top and bottom)... Sorry if that sounds harsh. --MAURILBERT(discuter)13:14, 18 May 2011 (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: For the reasons Maurilbert stated. In addition, no ev... Tomer T (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2011 (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 19 May 2011 at 18:40:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Nice illumination & good stacking. For my taste the background is a tad to distracting. Keep up the good work. Regards • Richard • [®] • 00:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've corrected the colours a little by desaturating the green chanel a bit. Please check the new version. --mathiasK08:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Alves: The picture is a result of 7 singelshots taken with f/8 at ISO100 and 1/2sec exposure time for every single picture. The lighting was, as always at my macros, just available light. Greetings mathiasK08:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sudden blurriness in the left foreground seems unpleasant. This afflicts the the end of one leg, too. Most of the fly itself is very nice, though. --Avenue (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I'm really, really sorry, but the ID of this fly was wrong! It is a fly from the Therevidae family. Known as stiletto flies. The only thing I was right with was the sex. I've allready ask for a renaming. Please be sorry for this fault of mine, it won't happen again. I promise! Regards mathiasK13:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2011 at 18:21:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:VLT Cerro Paranal Total Lunar Eclipse 21 December 2010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:VLT Cerro Paranal Total Lunar Eclipse 21 December 2010.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2011 at 14:50:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Eurasian Spoonbill.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Eurasian Spoonbill.jpg
Comment I was to support, but I've seen some (minor)issues visible at high resolution, all correctible. Please see annotations. Not far from FP, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The result looks OK, but there are some weird things going on in the histogram. What noise reduction did you use (if any)? I would have liked to see the whole reflection as well. And also per ELEKHHT. W.S.11:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2011 at 09:10:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gorilla gorilla gorilla on a rock.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gorilla gorilla gorilla on a rock.jpg
Info This picture was taken at Rotterdam Zoo in Rotterdam(Netherlands) . The western lowland gorilla is the smallest subspecies of gorilla. created by Flickr user Tim Sträter - uploaded and nominated by Raghith -- aghith09:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing spectacular about an animal in an unnatural environment in a Rotterdam zoo (should be indicated on the description anyway). 23:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)W.S.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2011 at 12:09:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2K12 KUB radiolocator.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2K12 KUB radiolocator.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2011 at 18:22:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Braunauer Eisenbahnbrücke.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Braunauer Eisenbahnbrücke.jpg
Oppose Good sharpness and exposure, but the perspective and compostion are not upto standards IMO. I would like to see both ends of the bridge on this pic.--Snaevar (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2011 at 18:15:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Plioplatecarpus 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Plioplatecarpus 01.jpg
Oppose Technically good, but no "wow effect". --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係21:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC) PS: Please use dithering for such gradients. Otherwise you will have banding with 24 bit colors. Dithering can easily be achieved with a spread filter (GIMP) or something similar in PS or other software, if applied to the background.[reply]
Oppose My vote won't change anything, but the subject is very dark on the head, and the background is "posterized" (banding issue mentioned). Nothing that can't be fixed I think. - Benh (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2011 at 21:21:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Maersk Elba.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Maersk Elba.JPG
Comment I did notice that we have very few FPs of big ships (and two of those are wrecks...), so I uploaded this picture, taken today. I don't think it's perfect (there is a very slight loss of sharpness towards the stern of the ship), but after comparing it with other maritime FPs I believe it lives up to our standards. If I omitted something, please, do let me know. Additional information: this is the biggest vessel ever to have entered the Baltic Sea. Wolf (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture. Very informative, especially for an extremely landlocked person such as myself. Could use a geocode. -- Sdgjake (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Am I the only one then who sees the slight CC tilt, the CA and the fuzziness (especially at the right side)? Also the crop is too tight. A static object like this should be better. W.S.14:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the image fot tilt. It's about 0,1 degrees, but clockwise, not counterclockwise as Wetenschatje suggests. And as for the tight crop - it is not tight, it is just too tight as for the Commons bias in this respect. There is for example a style of cropping called the aircraft spotters' crop (see here, website in Polish, but you will surely recognize the word spotterski). According to this school the crop of this picture would be... to loose. Wolf (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As above it is of course not just the tilt (which, BTW I measured at .78°), but the combination of tilt, crop, blurriness and indeed a slight CA. W.S.15:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Space. Crop should ideally be proportionate to the size of the main object (which is fairly large here). And even with a non moving vessel (or car or plane or train or anything movable), space ahead should ideally be larger than space behind. W.S.15:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2011 at 23:27:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pheucticus ludovicianus CT.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pheucticus ludovicianus CT.jpg
Oppose color noise, eye definitely not in focus, head a bit blurry, blown out white. This one is obvious not featured, sorry --kaʁstnDisk/Cat13:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2011 at 21:48:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ringelnatter, Natrix natrix mit Teichmolch 3.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ringelnatter, Natrix natrix mit Teichmolch 3.JPG
Oppose too much light. The main subject is the salamander, so the lack of focus on the snake is a minor reason, IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this one. The part which was out of focus is not so much a problem anymore in my opinion. The subject catches my eye better in this crop. --Ximonic (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- An interesting and possibly valuable picture, though no explanation is provided on what is going on. But not good enough, especially on the technical side (lighting, framing, focus), to reach FP level. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2011 at 03:51:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
It's a bit flat IMO. I don't know how it was processed because it believe I see drop shadow, but on the other hand, areas lit, and areas in the shadow appear even, hence my comment on lighting. Anyways, Luca did good job, but he has better than that in his gallery (most of them featured a long tile ago) ). Also, most other = not me. Don't be ashamed not to think like most. - Benh (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 11:27:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Newtons cradle animation.ogvCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Newtons cradle animation.ogv
OpposeThis one is better. I don't see a reason for two animations that describe the exact same thing, to be featured. (In addition, this animation stuck my computer twice) Tomer T (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The FP picture that Tomer T mentioned is better than this one IMO, as the shadow of the frame is seen better and the book it stands on does help to make it look visually better.--Snaevar (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Impossible. As energy is lost, each oscillation should be a bit smaller than the previous until the system comes to rest. In this animation all oscillations are equal. A perfect Perpetuum mobile! --Llez (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it illustrates a simplified model, which is good. Having dissipation in this movie would unnecessarily complicate things and after all, quoting wikipedia: "Newton's cradle ... is a device that demonstrates conservation of momentum and energy", which this movie does. Not sure about the quality of the animation, and I would also like to see animations with 2, 3 or 4 balls moving at any time. Especially the case of 3 and 4 balls could be interesting as it is a bit surprising at first and could make the watcher want to learn more about it. bamse (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 12:25:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Taj-Mahal-Mosquee-Cooper.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Taj-Mahal-Mosquee-Cooper.jpg
Neutral Great composition, earthy colors, misty feel about it, but I think that "mistiness" is more a strange softness of the temple, like it's ever so slightly out of focus. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies13:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 07:01:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Veiled head woman Rhodes.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Veiled head woman Rhodes.jpg
Support Veiled head for insertion in a female statue. The nose, the back of the head and a section near the right ear were affixed. Marble. 2nd century BCE. Archaeological museum of Rhodes, Greece. -- aghith07:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2011 at 03:29:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
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 29 May 2011 at 20:46:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hawthorn Building2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hawthorn Building2.jpg
Oppose Only 0,78 Megapixels in resolution which is too small given the minium resolution for FPC pictures of 2 Megapixels.--Snaevar (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition isn't great, there's too much sky, could use perspective control, if at least a little, doesn't have any wow factor. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies02:29, 21 May 2011 (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: does not meet the 2 Mpixel size guideline and has point and shoot composition. --Slaunger (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2011 (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 22 May 2011 at 14:08:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Australasian Gannet (Morus serrator) in flight, from above.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Australasian Gannet (Morus serrator) in flight, from above.jpg
Oppose omg... too small (didn't even pass the 2 MP minimum size requirement), poor white balance, centered composition, poor details (e.g. at some feathers; does this poor bird has eyes?), soft, ... Yeah, it's a nice image, but really not featured --kaʁstnDisk/Cat16:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Concerning the size requirement, it is 2030730 pixels, which implies it does not fall below the recommended minimum resolution. --Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I actually tend to agree with your overall conclusion, although I have not completely made up my mind.... --Slaunger (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The head is tilted so that the dark part is not at all prominent, but I can see it. The eyes do not protrude, so it's not surprising to me that they're not visible here. Compare e.g. File:Australasian Gannet greeting mate.jpg, where out of seven birds, it is difficult to see the eyes of three or four of them (although admittedly one is hiding its eye behind another bird). --Avenue (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cool! "Small?" No, it is 2MP and, uh, looks like the thing's got enough space to breath to me. ;-) -- One, please.( Thank you.)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2011 at 09:48:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment I do not like the somewhat hard shadow due to the photo being taken at 2.30 pm. How about doing such a shot later in the evening, or will other shadows interfere? I like how the contrails, which are there by coincidence help frame the subject. --Slaunger (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was a short business trip to Berlin and I used the time too get some pictures. So I don't know if there are better times to get photographs of the Kongresshalle. I looked for the best view at the given time. --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thanks for the honest reply. For me an FP of buildings has a lot to do with timing to get the right light, and I do not think that is achieved here - it is too harsh. The good thing about buildings is that they tend to stay there for some time, which gives lots of possibilities to get near-optimal shots. --Slaunger (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2011 at 21:11:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Curved wrench.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Curved wrench.jpg
Support DOF could have been better. But I really like the unusual subject, the no nonsense composition, which is very eye-catching. The light helps illustrating the structure of the surface of the tool. I do not mind the somewhat noisy background, which have been noticed by other reviewers as well. In this case — for me — it adds a feeling of texture and roughness to the photo, well fitting for a worn tool. For me this photo transforms an everyday object, which I would normally see as "boring" into something very interesting. --Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm also a little disappointed by the DOF, but aesthetically it's excellent, and I love the lighting. --99of9 (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2011 at 08:46:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dowel-animation.ogvCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dowel-animation.ogv
Oppose Die Bohrung ist zu groß, so ein Plastedübel wird erheblich stärker verformt. Auch die Wirkung des Verdrehschutzes wird nicht ganz deutlich. Ansonsten sehr anschaulich gemacht. -- smial (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Schade, wesentliche Mängel nicht beseitigt, deshalb jetzt kontra. -- smial (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are many kinds of wall plugs, but I think that for most kinds (at least the ones i use at home :-)) there is an additional point in the fixture - that as you continue turning the screw the plug is contracting forming a bulge, which further helps fix it in the wall. I think the animation could be improved by adding that aspect of the process. --Slaunger (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are speaking of a different type of dowel and therefore should be made another animation, as it works different. -- smial (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah, yes. But in that case I really think the animation should show more clearly that a tight fit in the hole is typically needed for this kind of wall plug, as otherwise it will simply not mount properly as noted by Sting and Prolineserver below. It is a very illustrative and instructive photo montage of the multipurpose plug you have there by the way, smial. --Slaunger (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment –Very well made and fluid but some points are disturbing me: the end of the hole doesn't have an ogive shape but is conic, secondly and for the efficiency of the mounting, the dowel should enter the hole slightly by force while we see that there's space between both, so when the screw enters the dewclaws (is it the correct term?) are deformed. Here we see they enter in contact with the wall but we don't feel the force applied. Sting (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I used Blender for this animation (modelling, animation and rendering). For still images i used Blender for modelling and YafaRay or LuxRender for rendering. (LuxRender is best, but to slow for animations with no/low budget) --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係23:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, certainly a very illustrative animation. However, everybody who ever tried to tighten a screw into a dowel with a too big hole know that the dowel will just turn. In the animation the only part touching the wall are the two side anchors. However, those will only have enough force to hold the dowel at around 0:13 in the animation, but the dowel will start turning already at around 0:11s. The hole usually has the best size if one barely manages to push the dowel into the hole with the fingers. Try it out :) --Prolineserver (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice animation, but I think a tighter fit in the hole is needed to make it more realistic. I would be happy to support if such an adjustment is made. --Slaunger (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2011 at 18:35:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Haflinger Hengstfohlen 1.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Haflinger Hengstfohlen 1.JPG
Oppose Indeed. The butt seems to be positioned by following the golden rule of thirds. Nice horse in front of it though. --Ximonic (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2011 at 18:24:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Henry Clay Lafosse2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Henry Clay Lafosse2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2011 at 08:35:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ON - Algonquin Provincial Park - Blüte.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ON - Algonquin Provincial Park - Blüte.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2011 at 12:43:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sadhu at Muktinath.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sadhu at Muktinath.jpg
Oppose The image is a legal problem. Can't see the permission from the depicted person itself to be photographed and published. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係14:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2011 at 15:02:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:České Budějovice (Budweis) - footbridge over railway tracks.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:České Budějovice (Budweis) - footbridge over railway tracks.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2011 at 12:09:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2011 Egyptian Protests Cardboard in the Chinese Language.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2011 Egyptian Protests Cardboard in the Chinese Language.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Too tight crop. Tomer T (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2011 at 20:44:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Isn't this the equivalent of a "sunset"? They all look the same, so something really needs to make it stand out. The image itself is fine, but nothing outstanding. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies13:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2011 at 23:37:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bug January 2008-2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bug January 2008-2.jpg
Oppose I feel like the back of the beetle is in focus, but the eyes, and the main areas of the image aren't. Incorrect DOF. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies12:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination because of the comments here and after realising that the bar for bug images is higher than I thought following the nomination here. Tomer T (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2011 at 17:20:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
I'd guess that the camera was aimed about 60 degrees upwards, but right now I can only guess. So the plane would have its wings aligned roughly vertically at the moment. Wolf (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That's not a polarized sky... did you see the original upload? Someone really tweaked the heck out of this image. Cool picture, but overkill on the saturated colors. Make it a little more realistic, and I could easily make my vote a support : ) – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies18:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2011 at 15:15:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mariovska Nosija.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mariovska Nosija.jpg
Comment Wonderful group portrait. Will support if you put description on image page. Since it is an ethnic-related photograph, the information is important. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2011 at 14:11:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment This is the reason why I already suggested 3 different crops. The widest version I can make is the original one (Alternative 2 in this case). From that one, anyone can suggest and tell about better crops that one has in mind. --Ximonic (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Should I reduce the overall brightness in the image or just some parts? I think, the light should not be reduced too much but maybe just a little(?) --Ximonic (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this image a result of HDR-processing? I am asking because there is a bright band in the sky following the mountain contour. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done Good point. I've thought about it but you „picked the cat up on the table” (as we used to say here in Finland :D ). I carefully tried to darken the band, I hope it doesn't look so aggresssive now. The panorama stitch consists of ordinary single shots so It hasn't met any true HDR processing. --Ximonic (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the sky may get brighter towards the horizon, there may be haze over the hills, but this bright band from post processing looks/looked unnatural to me.--KlausFoehl (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too cluttered (tree at left, herbiage obscuring reflections of mountains in centre). Also some quality issues as above. --Avenue (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The road on the right adds a special value to this picture, like a 'nature and mankind coexistence'. Azeri (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I deslike the extreme panoramas and this one is no exception. The road also seems a foreign element in this bucolic scene. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Usually the road leads into the center as a way of drawing the viewer's eyes, so I'm not sure why I like this composition, but I do. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 11:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yup, the composition is a bit audacious. Yet in this case the main priority, why I took it like this, is the information value. This picture tells all that's essential of the place. The crops are more like just aesthetic. --Ximonic (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is the best. I dont know really why, because the road isnt leading into the picture. But maybe because the road adds a sense of scale to the picture. --Simonizer (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support The road "into" the landscape is cliché—albeit a very nice kind of cliché. But here, the road was leading you into the landscape, and now real life hits, and hits you hard, and you're swept away from it. This version, of the ones available here, is by far the best and actually tells a story. Brilliant photography, great job. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies18:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2011 at 17:05:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Attacus atlas qtl1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Attacus atlas qtl1.jpg
Well, it might look like it, but it's not a studio shot. The butterfly happened to be hanging at that wall and I happened to pass under it (admittedly, looking for butterflies) ;-). I climbed onto a bench and held my camera above my head to capture it that way. --Quartl (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the background is neutral and I'm not going to color it. But I've uploaded a slightly brighter version in which the background is maybe less disturbing to File:Attacus atlas qtl1b.jpg. Would this version be acceptable to you? --Quartl (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would like the brighter background more. This greyish white / lavender wall makes the picture feel somewhat coldish. --Ximonic (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but the background is a boring, ugly shade of grey to me which clashes with most of the animal and only matches the same bland grey in it and the other one looks very similar. Furthermore if I hadn't read that it was still alive I would've thought it was mounted; looks like something from an insect collector's shelf. -- One, please.( Thank you.)04:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand your concerns and the background is a bit bland, but that makes the beauty of the moth stand out even more ;-). Nevertheless, I replaced the image with the brighter version, which I also think is better. --Quartl (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2011 at 14:10:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Azerbajiani landscape - Another version.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Azerbajiani landscape - Another version.jpg
Could you please say what is wrong with the quality (e.g. white balance is wrong, noisy, etc.)? Saying, "bad quality, it cannot be featured" is no more helpful than saying, "I hate it". --TheHighFinSpermWhale16:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PartlyDone: I add a couple of summits and coordinates after a while of searching. If you know there is something to correct, please do so. --Ximonic (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question I would like to know in which rayon this valley is situated. The coordinates don't help me finding it, but its needed for a categorization by rayon. --Don-kun (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2011 at 09:23:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fishing Lake Ohrid.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fishing Lake Ohrid.jpg
Oppose I see this all the time in a drive through town past the river. Regarding technique, it's almost a textbook shot of the Rule of Thirds, but the subject material isn't anything I've never seen before. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies12:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2011 at 12:34:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Bad composition (for FP) IMO. I think you have to buy a truffle next time, and choose a better background in order to get a FP.--Ankara (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't tell where the focus is, the whole image seems kind of soft. I agree with Ankara, next time a truffle or two should be "modeled" on a nice background. The styrofoam is not a pleasant presentation for food. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies17:36, 22 May 2011 (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: of poor image quality and composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2011 (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 1 Jun 2011 at 11:35:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Composition of three green bourgeois .jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Composition of three green bourgeois .jpg
Oppose This image may or may not be useful in a fir (?) article, but the house/greenhouse/manmade wall in the background is not a nice backdrop. The image description is "pleasant picture... because of nice, green color", which makes me think you're looking for critique, not really trying to add anything to the actual encyclopedia. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies13:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not looking for a critic, but I think the combination of pleasant and useful is good. This is good image and can surely contribute to the Wikipedia, and therefore I've inserted in the article about fir. Aleksa Lukic (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you update the description in the image so it's less of an opinion and more about what's going on in the image? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies15:15, 23 May 2011 (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: the composition is confusing and the background distracting. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2011 (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 25 May 2011 at 03:25:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Canada Goose Standing.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Canada Goose Standing.jpg
Oppose As Benh. And commenting on your comment: I might support your last example as it has good light and interesting DOF, while the other two would not pass today any more for the same reasons as this current nom. W.S.13:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - composition is very good (from non-artictic (kitsch)-but-must-be-realistically-useful-for-an-educational-purpose POV), but legs... Przykuta → [edit]15:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness and the picture should be eather with good DOF or blurry background. Going midway, like this picture does is not working IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- A good, but somewhat basic image. I think the lighting's a bit off, the bird seems a tad greyer where it should likely be white. -- One, please.( Thank you.)04:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry, it is a good picture of the bird but somehow I don't find it special enough. The composition is good for me, quality is good in full size. But as a whole, it kind of keeps me feeling like it's ”just another picture of a bird in a garden”. There are many great pictures of different animals and in this kind of case, I think I would have liked more if the background was more blurred – not so focused. --Ximonic (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 06:29:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Beuggen Gesamtansicht2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Beuggen Gesamtansicht2.jpg
Oppose Sky lacks contrast and lighting is a bit harsh. I think it's a bit overexposed. I'm not thrilled overall. - Benh (talk)
We already know that you nearly find your own pictures thrilling. The time of constructive contibuting of Benh seems to be completed. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how when I talk about the picture itself, you only talk about the reviewER himself. Is this how much you have to say abour the pic ? - Benh (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny to realize that your type of giving feedback to my images here at FPC is following every time the same meaningless argument of "no wow". But this behavior attracted attention also by other users. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do I care about my behaviour getting attracted by some users ? As long as I say what I think, and I don't insult others. I'm justifying enough my point of view. It's clear most of your pictures are properly taken, but that isn't enough. If you submit ur pics in the hope to get only positive reviews, then you should leave. I stop here on that topic. Let's get back to the pics. - Benh (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't submit picture to get only positive reviews - contary many negative reviews was more usefull than positive for me. Of course they has to be constructive. I have already remarked to the quality of your reviews. Have a nice day. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There is a little dustspot at the top left corner - would be easily removed. Otherwise, I'm sorry, but the time of the day makes it have too much contrast. The shadows are really dark compared to the bright surfaces. The picture has a really good quality but that only makes it a quality image which it already is and deserve to be. I'm not really sure if the contrast could be helped by working with layers in photoshop and carefully adjust the lightning that way. --Ximonic (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2011 at 08:45:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2011. День Победы в Донецке 030.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2011. День Победы в Донецке 030.jpg
Oppose Poor DOF: the people in the background are much too prominent rendering the whole image cluttered. W.S.11:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think crowd is needed in this photograph, (as it is a Victory Day celebration), to explain the mood. -- Raghith17:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have no idea who this is or what he's doing. I think in this case, the image definitely fails the foreground/background separation. Although the actual composition of the man is fine, I'm not a fan of the noisy and distracting "border": the barriers, the people, the trees sprouting from his hat, etc. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies12:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 18:53:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Antarctica Nathaniel B Palmer.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Antarctica Nathaniel B Palmer.jpg
Oppose Agree, the lighting conditions are excellent and WB is alright. However, the subject is very unsharp, especially the front of the vessel. Could there be a problem with the camera/lens? I mention this because the left part of the image is much softer than the rest of it. Fantastic composition, but the unsharpness kills it for me as a FP candidate. --Murdockcrc (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Murdock, the ship is soft. I also feel like the composition is a little too reliant on the reflection. Back of the ship gets busy with the background. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies13:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice and good composition but the technical quality is not good enough. I do not think you can get it so much better with a 8MP point-and-shoot camera.--Ankara (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 20:07:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lacerta agilis male 2011 G2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lacerta agilis male 2011 G2.jpg
Oppose Wonderful colors, but my issues are the soft eyes, the slightly awkward composition, and there isn't enough separation between the head and the rock. The nose of the lizard gets confused with the shape of the rock. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies13:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 21:38:27
Info Of quite doubtful educational value. It is not obvious why a "figure in manga style" has to be a naked woman with naive/suggestive face, tightly closed legs and big breasts and what she has to do with fictional landscape. Also don't think that image subject is totally irrelevant here and great usage of GIMP, Inkscape and Blender can be used to justify keeping it. If I were to make a photo of, say, hanged Mary the Elephant while taking care of smallest photographic intricacies, I don't think my image could get featured based on the "great camera work, subject irrelevant" argument. Ari Linn (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC) (Original nomination)[reply]
No way my fault - the delisting template automatically lists nominator's voice for "Delist". And I think it's logical. I've proposed it for delisting after all, should my voice be excluded for the sole reason I've been not greatly interested in working with images all done not in my native language but at the same time managed to stay active in wikipedia for 5 years and write articles? Ari Linn (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but nothing in the rules refers to the 'time of the delist proposal'. What if Ari Linn had voted now for th first time? I have restored the vote, which is obvioulsy valid. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? The General rules simply state, "Only registered contributors whose Commons' accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." Ari Linn fulfils that requirement. She has been a registered contributor in Commons since 2008, and she has more than 50 edits. --JN46623:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm male. And yeah, I also don't find anything in the rules that prevents me from voting once I've reached 50 edits while voting period is not over. So restoring my vote for the 3rd time: Delist . Ari Linn (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist . It's not among the best work in Commons. As some editors pointed out at the FPC, the textures and perspective (especially the waterfall and its backdrop) are not top-notch; while the sky and light are well done, the overall composition is poor, and the content of the scene is too specific to be useful as a generic illustration of Manga style. If it's not illustrative, then it isn't educational, but a work of art in its own right, and as a work of art -- a work of art that is completely unknown outside Commons, by a non-notable artist -- it is too weak. In my view it is even doubtful if the image is within project scope. Commons is not a repository for self-created artwork without obvious educational value. --JN46613:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This is borderline even with COM:SCOPE (and IMHO on the outside side). Generally, I fail to see the reasons why this should be featured (and the nomination discussion does not help with that, the support vote comments are: “Kawaii”, “I like it”, “Superb work”, “i like her big tits :-)”, “i know that it was very much of work for the user”, “very good work”, “I have seen this work evolve and it is brilliant”, that’s all). Not that the picture isn’t nice, but – is that really all it takes for a FP? --Mormegil (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaving aside quality issues, this image is in use on the technology portal of the Chinese Wikipedia and the Anime and Manga portal of the Tagalog Wikipedia. It is also in use on several featured picture pages, but I cannot reliably tell if these are locally selected pictures or the same selection made on Commons. As it is in use on a Wikimedia project it is explicitly within the scope of Commons, "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose". It's use on the technology portal of the Chinese Wikipedia (based on Google translate I think it's being used as an example of what can be done with Gimp) suggests that its quality as an example of manga art is not the only consideration that should be made. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I come from Chinese Wikipedia, may be can solve some questions(我刚好来自中文维基，或许可以解释一些问题).I see"this image is in use on the Chinese Wikipedia".This may be a mistake(这可能是个误会),we don't know why "this image has been assessed using the Quality image guidelines and is considered a Quality image",in the name of done with Gimp(因为中文维基人也不清楚为何这图以GIMP制作的名义获得优质图像的). Use it, simply because the word "Quality image"(只是看到“优质图像”这词就使用了). for myself,it's not among the best work in Commons."the overall composition is poor, and the content of the scene is too specific to be useful as a generic illustration of Manga style"(只是堆砌技术，画面内容很多但像拼凑而成，找不到重点，并没有丰富的艺术表现) 即使用推荐开源软件(generalizing Open Source Software)的名义，单论画工也不如这些图 GIMPたん on pixiv("Real good works").--Cirnonine (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo. It looks to me like the image was added in this edit two days ago, as part of a periodic image change, probably because it was on the Chinese Wikipedia main page (which copies the Commons picture of the day). That portal is transcluded into the other portal, hence the file usage listing shows the image as being in use on two Chinese Wikipedia portals. --JN46620:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That canvassing needs to end. Some people didn't liked to see that image in main page and now are creating all that crusade against it. That people needs to understand that Commons is not censored and get over that. Béria Limamsg15:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there has not been any canvassing. Secondly, it is not "some people", but rather a lot of people who objected to this image. The discussions that sprang up on the Russian Wikipedia's main page talk, on the Gendergap and Commons lists, and during the Wikimedia presentation of the Commons project to librarians and curators, were quite independent of each other. Perhaps it just isn't a particularly good image. --JN46616:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not offended by your image, nor were many others among those who commented. I just don't think it is a particularly good image. This image by you deserves to be featured, and I've argued for its use in en:WP. This one doesn't. You didn't create it to illustrate something educational for Commons, you created is as a piece of art. That's fine, but it doesn't meet FP criteria in my book. --JN46616:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Please, don't take this as an insult or any kind of venomous jeremiad! I'm trying to give an objective opinion. It is a colorful and nice looking picture as an artwork! But in my opinion it just fails to have the real value among other featured pictures as a documentation of the world. I think, in the future it would be quite problematic if every artist were nominating their most recent paintings of fictional stuff from their cool imagination. This is still not like Deviant Art kind of website. --Ximonic (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to Feature picture policy: "our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures ... beautiful does not always mean valuable." --JN46617:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. But I meant that artistic merit is more important than usefulness or encyclopedic value here. And I don't see much better and similar pictures than this one on Commons, which makes it valuable. - Benh (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, but then you have to be prepared to host any halfway decent original art in Commons -- any water-colour, oil painting, charcoal drawing, portrait, drawings of fictitious buildings, fantasy landscapes, etc., as well as garage bands' unpublished songs and other electronic media, each of which will be in a particular style it could conceivably illustrate. That's not what Commons is about, according to the present definition of project scope, where original art is expressly excluded.
There is more that could be said about the painting's quality; the waterfall has an involuntary MC Escher quality about it—it just does not make geometric sense; the shadows on the girl are off—considering where the sun is, her right shoulder and the right side of her face and nose should be shaded; her foot and toes look unreal—she is missing a big toe; the water cascading down the cliff should be in the shade, but instead has the same colour as the water at the lip of the fall that is in the sun, etc. While the image is obviously better than what most Wikimedians could produce, the artistic merit judged by professional art world standards is simply nowhere near outstanding. It's amateur art. And we don't have better or similar pictures of this style in Commons because amateur art has traditionally been outside scope, and most professional-quality contemporary artwork and music, even when Creative Commons-licensed, has some restrictions (usually non-commercial) that excludes it from Commons. --JN46619:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments show a big lack of knowledge. The shading of the girl is right, because it is flat shading. (See literature about Super flat, the article is crap) Same goes for the anatomy, which is not human anatomy. The water does not need to be in shade, it actually gets light from the fog in the lower background and additionally from the wall to the left and something like a rainbow due to fine particles. You could also observer this effect in real nature. Just be at the right spot at the right time. You describe it as a fantasy world. But at the same time you want accurate physics and a real world scenario. Think about it. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係10:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's natural for you to defend your own work, but I suggest you have a few blind spots in assessing your work objectively. Some of the same objections were raised in the failed featured candidacy at de:WP, notably by Blutgretchen. The foot is just poorly drawn; even in manga people have big toes. The composition and perspective (see comments below) are well below featured quality. --JN46611:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Für Dich scheint dafür was ganz anderes natürlich zu sein: du bist seit Monaten auf Commons nicht sonderlich aktiv und erwachtest plötzlich aus deinem "Schlaf" seitdem Du dieses Bild auf der Titelseite gesehen hast und es mit allen Mitteln versuchst los zu werden. Nachdem Du es nicht geschafft hast, Beria zu überzeugen, das Bild von der Titelseite zu entfernen weil es angeblich den enzyklopädischen Ansprüchen widerspricht kommt als weiteres Argümentchen "die Qualität reicht für FP nicht aus". Ein weiterer wegen offensichtlichem Dummfug sofort wieder geschlossener Löschantrag von Dir auf ein anderes Bild, was dieses hier einbindet und weitere Aktionen zeigen schön auf: dein durchsichtiges Verhalten changiert zwar immer wieder aber zielt letztlich doch nur auf Störmassnahmen ab. Du bist unter Beobachtung, mein Freundchen. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think personal threats will get you very far in the long term. I'm not sure which deletion request you're referring to; the only one that fits your description is Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Paleis_lange_voorhout.jpg, which looks like a blatant and deceptive promotion of this same image, making it appear as though it had been displayed on the Escher museum. That deletion request is open. --JN46611:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dir wurde nicht gedroht; vielmehr stellt es eine sachliche Zusammenfassung deines Verhaltens der letzten Tage dar. Bitte zerfranse zudem keine Diskussionen sondern halt Dich an die hier üblichen Regeln. Danke für Beachtung. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate being called "Freundchen", which is typical bullying behaviour. It's uncivil, and certainly not "mellow". I would welcome it if you would discuss the image, rather than launching attacks against people who disagree with you. --JN46611:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Freundchen: "unhöflich" sind hier - und das ist noch eine sehr milde Beschreibung - lediglich Deine Aktivitäten. Ziellose Diskussionen um der Diskussion Willen. Wir können uns auch darüber unterhalten, warum der Joghurt keine Gräten hat. Dem Projekt bringt es nichts, so wie auch alles, was sich aus deinem Dunstkreis der letzten Tage erhoben hat. Ende der Durchsage. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your are proving yourself wrong again. Do you need some good examples? Asako Nishida, Sakura Asakura, etc. What you still don't understand is perspective and emphasis (see first example). Who cares about the toes, if they aren't important. Or better said: It's the same as with the nose. Small up to invisible when not needed. Exaggerated if of importance. You better read some books about the topic instead making wrong statements based upon insufficient knowledge. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係12:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what did you intend me to glean from these images? They have big toes. The shading is consistent. They are images of single figures, where issues of composition don't even arise. I don't recall complaining about your girl having a small nose. So – what? --JN46621:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then you completely misunderstood. But i'm not wondering that you did. But i'm also not willed to give you a lecture about art in anime and manga style and its essentials. At least not after your canvassing and dishonest comments. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係22:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ClearlyDelist . It does not appear to be a valuable picture, nor does it have any particular context, given that it is not used in any Wikipedia articles as best as I can tell (although a derivative File:Censorship in anime.jpg is used in a single English Wikipedia article). If its value can be demonstrated in other ways, then I'm not aware of it. It has a lot of composition issues - each element appears to be very disjointed and don't link well to each other (e.g. the tree looks very odd being so high up on the right, I've no clue what that wooden thing to the left of the tree is, there's a random pot in the background, the waterfall looks very awkward). The half-naked appearance of the girl appears to be gratuitous rather than intrinsically part of the style of image. There are much higher quality images available from the same Wikimedian (including several that are deservedly featured pictures: File:Mahuri.svg and File:Anime Girl.svg) I'm stunned that this became a featured picture at all, to be honest - I thought the standards here were much higher than this. Mike Peel (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, it is in use in the portal namespace on at least two Wikipedias, so by the Commons policy it has an educational purpose (the Portal namespace is, like the article namespace, reader facing). Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't view use in portals as a sufficient indication of value. Portal content is transient by nature, which means that it will most likely be removed from the portals at some point in the (near?) future (irrespective of this discussion). On the other hand, article use tends to be much more long term. If something really has high enough value to be a featured picture, then it should be used --Karelj (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)in a mainspace Wikipedia article somewhere, or have some other clear demonstration of its value. Mike Peel (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, note that I'm arguing that the image lacks sufficient value, not that it lacks any educational value. I'm happy for the image to continue being hosted on Wikimedia Commons; I just don't think it's sufficiently important to be a featured picture. Mike Peel (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a lately elected featured picture (December 2010) should be now, a half year later, not featured because it was "Picture of the Day" and some persons have problems with topless women in art? Nothing but a farce. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I (and apparently a dozen people from Commons mailing list) have great problems with images of topless women that are contemporary art of an unknown artist and have been elected on Commons (not on Deviantart, mind you) with voices like "Kawaii" and "I like her big tits", quite literally. Ari Linn (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And? The fact these people spoke against keeping the pic in question in the mailing list and not here somehow makes them lesser individuals that shouldn't be listened to? Not that I don't understand their voices won't be counted here, but as far as I know nomination in wiki projects is mostly about explaining reasons and not simply stating "Pro" or "Contra" and then counting voices. In fact, existing rules openly encourage participants to "explain their reasoning". Aye, almost forgot: have a nice day too. Ari Linn (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On a side note — while those who are for delisting this pic tend to go into exhaustive detail why exactly it has some problems, why it can seem objectionable and why it's probably not the best idea to have media like that appear on the main page, many voices for keeping it sound like "huh?", "farce", "stop canvassing" and "it's totally your problem and problem of several other freaks like you, you're a minority and we won't deal with you, shush and bear it". I mean, if someone says "This pic is X, Y and Z, delist it", shouldn't opponents say something like "Well it maybe X, Y or even Z, but it is also A, B and C which prevails, keep it". The only real arguments that I see here is "it is used in some wikis" and "commons is not censored". Don't see how the fact it is used affects its being featured though (really, there are thousands of pics that are used in wikis without being featured). As for commons not being censored, all of us agree it's quite useful to have a handful of pics and photos displaying, say, breasts and pelvises of living or recently deceased people belonging to Western culture, but will any of them ever make it to the front page of an educational project without provoking a heated discussion? No. Why? Because pretty much everyone knows these are NOT something generic that you routinely see at the streets (or at home) of cities/towns in Europe or NA. Ari Linn (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As this image and its selection as picture of the day on Commons and, therefore, the Bengali, Chinese, Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Bulgarian Wikipedias has been extensively discussed in largely unflattering terms on the Commons, Foundation and Gendergap mailing lists, some editors have expressed concern that these mailing list discussions may have had a canvassing effect. At present I see no indication whatever that this is so, but regardless would ask any editors voting one way or the other to please indicate whether they indeed did become aware of this delist request through one of the mailing list discussions, so the community and closing admin can take this into account. Thank you. --JN46614:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I did become aware of this image through this post on the Gendergap list, and the resulting discussions on the Commons list, which started with this crossposting of that post. --JN46614:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I didn't think it was Featured quality when it was up for nomination in the first place. If you just compare it to other similar Featured media -- such as this and this -- you can see what I mean about technical and aesthetic quality not being up to snuff. The fact that we had an amateurish piece of anime with naked tits on the Main Page is just insult to injury, as far as I'm concerned, and the fact that we have a ton of people supporting such a crappy, uneducational file for mere sake of being against canvassing is not really applicable to this forum. The question is: is the file Featured quality or not? That's all that matters. There are plenty of Featured or potentially Featured artworks with toplessness in them that would be fine for the Main Page (Good example of what I mean). This file is not one of them. Steven Walling18:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Probably out of scope and artistically not very special and amateurish. I see no reason why this picture should be featured. Adornix (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ist futured quality, its Art. We dont have to censored Commons. Its a drawing of a topless woman, no more. Would you delete Rubens? --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, the argument for delisting is not that it has breasts, but that it is several orders of magnitude below the quality of Rubens. Yes, Rubens has breasts, and this image has breasts, but that does not make them the same, nor does it mean that we should ignore all other aspects of this image, such as its artistic quality and educational value. The reasoning "Rubens has breasts, and is featured; this image has breasts, so it should be featured too" ignores the fact that entire books have been written about Rubens, whereas this is a non-notable image by a non-notable artist. Its only claim to fame is that it is here. And has breasts, which seem to be all some people are able to see. --JN46620:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Were you born in the wrong Century? I guess yes. I also think that Wikipedia is the wrong place for you. -- Pro2 (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if outstanding art was produced yesterday or centuries ago. This, however, is just not outstanding contemporary art, which is reflected in the fact that you only find it in Commons, and need a Photoshop trick to produce this. --JN46612:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist : the art isn't very high-quality. In particular, the styles of the the foreground and background clash, the shading on the woman's face is poor, and the angles of things feel wrong. --Carnildo (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see any reason for removal, author is a well-known drawer of excellent images and the image in question has received three different awards (Commons Quality Image, Picture of the Day at en:wp, Featured Image) and is highly used both on Commons and on many Wikipedias. --Manuel Schneider(bla)(+/-) 06:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
It only seems to be used in Wikipedia portals, rather than being included in any articles. The uses here on Commons appear to be due to it being featured on the main page, because it's currently classed as a featured picture, and also as a quality picture - it is e.g. not used in any gallery pages. It has never been "Picture of the Day at en:wp" - I'm not sure where you got that from (possibly from the Commons Picture of the Day template, which has an English translation attached?). Mike Peel (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the portal use in Chinese Wikipedia is recent and transient (see my post 20:23, 18 May 2011 above). --JN46613:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not necessary and desired to question and commend every vote. Votings can have personal reasons and no one can be obligated to tell us his personal thoughts. Moreover this undeviating drilling behavior disturbs the atmosphere and good form of use. Thank you for respecting this. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Votings can have personal reasons and no one can be obligated to tell us his personal thought.
Strongly disagree. If X's personal thoughts are "keep, I like her big tits" and Y's personal thoughts are "delist, I'll now explain why I think this way [goes into an extensive explanation where "project rules", "quality rating" and other words of that kind are present]", X's and Y's voices are not equal and we should know that. I'm in fact astonished that here people can jump in and say "Keep" or "Delist" without any explanation. There is no such thing in my native wiki when it comes to voting, especially when something is nominated for deletion or status removal. People get reprimanded and their voices can be excluded from counting of the votes if they fail to clearly explain why they think the way they do. Ari Linn (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you disagree, but reasons for a voting pro or contra must not be given here. Beside: this is a democratic basic right. And maybe some users don't give a reason because they see how some users question and commend them in a way that displays a lack of respect and they are not in the mood to suffer that. It is notable that you tolerate delist-votes with no or not clear reason but hunting proper those who vote for keeping. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable that you tolerate delist-votes with no or not clear reason but hunting proper those who vote for keeping.
vs
I'm in fact astonished that here people can jump in and say "Keep" or "Delist" without any explanation.
I'm now even more astonished to find out that when I say it may be not quite okay to vote either way without explaining any reasons it means I tolerate those who vote like me and hunt opposing views. Ari Linn (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interest. However, you need to have at least 50 Commons edits and an account registered more than 10 days ago to vote. As this is your first edit to Commons, you don't fulfil that requirement. --JN46613:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That vote is invalid anyway. I won't remove it anymore, but it won't be counted in the end. Another thousand posts and he can stand for president ;-) W.S.14:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ari Linn has been registered since 2008, and surpassed 50 edits while this discussion was ongoing. I am sorry, but with respect, that's different from someone who made their first edit today. --JN46615:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a great interest in my native wiki, writing articles since 2006 and illustrating them using pictures from Commons, having had ~12000 edits total in ru-wiki. If anyone here is not going to count my voice, be sure I'll protest with every means I have. Ari Linn (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist . This image has no significant artistic, cultural, or historic importance. It's just run-of-the-mill anime porn. I don't see any reason we would want to feature it. Kaldari (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDelist I avoided this discussion for a long time, but honestly, I'm not offended by it, I'm not registering any artistic euphemism, and the artwork is better than anything I could do (since that seems to be a question/argument thrown around every so often). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies21:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to consider that "better than anything you (or I) could do" does not equal "outstanding artistic and educational value." I daresay many people draw better than either of us; that doesn't make them outstanding artists, or their works outstanding art examples for educational purposes. --JN46622:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't at all, I agree, and my only reason for bringing it up was out of slight sarcasm for when it's mentioned at other candidates' lists. Anyway, I don't think I was fully prepared to vote; up until this point, I kept changing my mind, and now I'm still doing that, but I'm going to change my vote per Steven Walling, and also due to the background of the image. The water looks like it's flowing up to the falls, which I wouldn't be able to defend, cartoon or not. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies23:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2011 at 21:57:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Green Fairy [5] at Balelec 2011: Julien Waroux (bass), with Manu Tarabay (guitar, singing) in the background. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The ceiling is grainy. Generally unsharp. The leg of the guitarist, the hand of the drummer and the base-box are all overexposed. Since the drummer is in the back and his face hidden that leaves a bad composition. Generally bad contrast. Bad crop on the right side. That´s all I can see wrong with this picture. And, oh, music festival pictures are hard to take, so don´t worry.--Snaevar (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grainy, and the leg's overexposure in the foreground really makes it scream "leg!". Good clear shot of the face, but image isn't wowing me. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies02:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good timing of the shot concerning the foreground musician, but plenty of quality problems as mentioned by the two previous reviewers. --Slaunger (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2011 at 09:03:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I would have drawn this picture differently. There is an unnecessary line to the right in the background, the holes in the rocks look unrealistic to me and it looks like the fish has two dorsal fins.--Snaevar (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The shadow of the rock(s) stretching up under the fish's jaw is a huge error, in my opinion. I would have given this a solid support otherwise, but that area literally draws the eye down and away from the fish. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies13:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the ”shadow” between the jaws of the fish is still just part of the mouth which might be visible from this angle, not supposed to be a continuum for the rock shadow. Or, I'm not sure if you just mean that there should be a little extra place for a small shadow of the rocks between the jaws. --Ximonic (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No no, it's the dark shadow between the rocks just below its lower jawline is too dark, too distracting. I've lightened it in this reduced-size example: Imageshack. I think that looks far better, and that would get my support vote. It's just a flaw of the artist's, I believe, but nothing that can't be fixed as a derivative work : ) Note: I also changed my vote to neutral, above. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies10:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I got your point. I think you're right, the lighter background there would highlight the head of the fish a little more. So I would definitely support that alternative too – yet I wont oppose this if is this remains as the only proposal. --Ximonic (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 21:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Suspension of a superconductor by a magnet.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Suspension of a superconductor by a magnet.jpg
Oppose The physics is impressive, but the DOF is too shallow. I don't care so much about details of the hands and magnet, but I do wish more detail was there on the superconductor. --Avenue (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, but the fingers allow to get the proper scale of the effect and understand that the levitation/suspension is effective here at about 1 cm --User:Jubobroff
Oppose DOF too shallow. Only one thin "layer" of the object is in focus. Interesting (more or less, since many of us have seen this effect allready), but not up to the current level. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係21:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The composition is what bothers me. The lower hand is just weird looking and I feel the image cropping was forced around the lower hand. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies13:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2011 at 14:46:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Skull-cane-IMG3404-3407.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Skull-cane-IMG3404-3407.jpg
Comment Rama, thank you for your pictures, they are valuable. Now, on to the critique: The object itself is great, and the image is of great value. However, going with a full photoshop black background looks a bit phony. I would experiment with a very dark gray background and soften the edges of the object so they diffuse toward the back. And question, how do you know it is masonic? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It being on display during a temporary exhibition titled «L'art de la franc-maçonnerie» was a bit of a clue. Rama (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree on the dark lightning on the clock, but I can´t see how that can be improved without changing the lightning of the cane.--Snaevar (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The original light background is not suited for rendering the image afterwards on a black one. The masking shows. W.S.11:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I thought it was the head of a cane on a black reflective surface until I saw the original upload. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies13:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2011 at 13:59:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tsarevets Veliko Tarnovo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tsarevets Veliko Tarnovo.jpg
Oppose I feel like the camera is looking too high. Far too much headspace, but a crop would not fix this as I almost want to see a little more of the wall at the bottom. Overall contrast and lighting is kind of standard fare, though. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies13:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2011 at 11:10:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bishounen Oranges.jpegCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bishounen Oranges.jpeg
Info created by KishiShiotani on Animexx and brougth to us through a contest for free images there. I think it's of high artistic merit and also high illustrative merit, since there are not much free images to illustrate that subject. And, since there were many complaints about that on commons only pictures with manga-style girls get featured, it may be a strong reason for support that - surprise - it's a boy. - uploaded by Don-kun - nominated by Don-kun -- Don-kun (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I really don't think this is the right place to assess a work of art, and the argument that it is just an illustration of a certain artistic style is not convincing. Using the same argument, could I make a painting "in the style" of Picasso or Rembrant (or some modern artist/school whose works are not yet free) and submit it to FPC? The only legitimate way I find to assess this work is through my personal taste. And, frankly, I don't like it at all. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Its less about style than it is about the subject it shows. Bishounen is no style, but a genre or theme which can be used. Of cause there is a certain "anime/manga"-style, but thats not really a well-defined style and this image clearly shows some of that "style"s elements. So thats different from painting an image in the style of some famous artist. --Don-kun (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You read what you want but I'm becoming annoyed with the disrespect some editors express towards other people's opinions. Maybe it would be more clear if I said simply that I found the illustration kitschy and of little value, clearly not among the best Commons has to offer? --Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should also emphasize that I'm just a regular user and that my opinions have exactly the same weight as any other's, as well as my right to express them. I wonder why votes with no rationale, or with hollow ones, like all the supports in this nomination, are not questioned. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the nomination says it all, so the pro-voters don't have to add anything when they just agree. An if the theme is bishounen, a "kitschy" illustration may be appropriate. --Don-kun (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I might nominate as a Valued Image. The nominator makes a good point about gender and subject matter, and I agree it has illustrative value about the subject, but I'm not sure it's quite of the level of quality as previously featured manga/anime style images. Steven Walling01:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For original artwork, I don't find it outstanding. For educational value, I haven't learnt much from it. --99of9 (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2011 at 18:56:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Martinac bukovy.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Martinac bukovy.jpg
It is questionable for me, if the crop is bad cause the main focus of image is detail of head with antennae (and they are captured well) and not whole butterfly... Anyway, thank you for vote --Chmee2 (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The crop isn't entirely conventional, but I think it focuses the viewer's attention nicely on the head. A slightly over-central composition is outweighed by all the interesting angles. --Avenue (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks to be a close up on the head, but at same time, there's a lot of room around it. In the end, I feel like looking at random shot. Average quality with focus on the eye, but only the eyes sharp. - Benh (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the back legs of the butterfly are out of focus and yes, the crop is a bit of an issue, well, unless the attenae on the the butterfly would be described as the main feature of the picture.--Snaevar (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yeah, the composition really irks me as well. I'm also not a fan of the brown on brown on brown, I'm reminded of a Rorschach test. But my final vote is because of the framing. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies13:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2011 at 22:40:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A surfer in the air 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A surfer in the air 2.jpg
Oppose As far as rainbows go (as it's on the rainbow article), this isn't very impressive. The composition is intriguing, and the avant-garde slosh of the waves is interesting to look at, but the surfer isn't really surfing (he's falling) and there's a distracting surfer hanging (but not hanging ten) in the background. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies17:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 23:11:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ripe fruits by Common Dandelion.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ripe fruits by Common Dandelion.jpg
Comment -- Yes I have, but not the ones people expect from me :) Two comments: first, this is not a good candidate for focus stacking (especially with such a large aperture and so many frames) because the different planes (depths) overlap in the image. Better use a much larger F number and take the picture further away, to increase dof; second, the image is clearly overexposed and the lighting is flat. I would have underexposed the shot and bring the highlights back later in the 'lab', to increase contrast and emphasize the delicate structrure of the subject, like in here (sorry to use my own pic as an example). I have also tried to use focus stacking with similar subjects, but it didn't work... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2011 at 05:28:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Benjamingenocchio.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Benjamingenocchio.jpg
Oppose Obviously a clean portrait, but I agree, the cropping of the elbow is really distracting. Also, the file is a derivative (the original is also cropping the elbow), but there's no mention anywhere of what work was done that altered the derivative image. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies17:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination It would only pass with 6 votes in favor and no additional oppose vote, and I don't see it happens. --Tomer T (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2011 at 09:36:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aerestempel gammeltorv 1749.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aerestempel gammeltorv 1749.jpg
Comment This is the version that the Royal Library has provided. There is no version available superior to this one and I doubt that the library will provide a better version in the near future. It is also a question of restoration philosophy - maybe they decided to leave the patina. Should all old prints and books look like they come straight from the printing press? ----Urbandweller (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2011 at 16:27:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Micropterus dolomieu2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Micropterus dolomieu2.jpg
You find that Commons has a lot of paint that represent simultaneously three different sides of a fish, in their natural habitat?--Citron (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The illustrative value of the image (which is high) is not the problem. Magic (or the lack of it) is. I still believe we should struggle to promote only the very best Commons has to offer. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, this is just a demonstration of your belief. It's regrettable, I think. It's hard to make a "magic" painting of ... fishes, while keeping the encyclopedic value. --Citron (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Citron & Juliancolton: Yes, my vote is just a demonstration of my conviction, just like any other vote. It would indeed be regrettable if people were not allowed to express it freely, especially when it does not agree with the opinion of others. Or maybe I should have just used "Support" or "Oppose"? "Magic" is just another way of referring to the subjective component of our assessments, which makes a substancial part of people's votes here. What we should, or should not, emphasize when voting in FPC is a question of personal choice. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree on the substance, but not on form. I know very well that you find there is a reduced quality of FP, currently. But you have a clear idea of a "magic" photo that I would understand...--Citron (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The argument of Alvesgaspar reflects what I think : is interesting work which has high encyclopedic value but does not exceptional. We do not know is that we reward. The painter's work, or work from that which has thepicture taken? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2011 at 20:36:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mystic River Bascule Bridge 3.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mystic River Bascule Bridge 3.JPG
Neutral I'd say the point of view is not optimal. On the right hand side of the picture, the post for the red signal, the frame of the bridge, the raised gates, everything appears stacked. Conversely, the asphalt on the foreground takes too much space. I think a reshoot showing the bridge from the side would better demonstrate its structure and work principle (showing for instance the huge concrete slam counterweighting it). My 2 ¢, --MAURILBERT(discuter)13:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have tons of pictures from the side (both of them), and many similar ones are already on Commons, but I find them boring. I like this shot because it illustrates not only the bridge, but also the highway, and I believe it puts them both into the context of the village. Thanks for the comments. –Juliancolton | Talk22:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Maurilbert's comment about "stacked" objects. The eye is drawn to the right drop gate, and the foreground is a lot of asphalt and concrete. When I looked at the image in the article, I feel like I'm not really seeing a bridge. It needs to focus more on the actual structure. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies13:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 20:58:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pieris cheiranthi qtl1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pieris cheiranthi qtl1.jpg
OpposeNeutral Despite the cropping, I still think there is too much empty space on the left. I'm also struggling with the DOF, which I think is a little too close to use, and it looks like the blur just begins where the eye is at. The right antenna looks great, but that shouldn't be drawing my attention. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies09:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to your suggestion, I slightly cropped the image a bit more. Unfortunately, there's nothin I can do about the DOF, though. --Quartl (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mmm, I think it helps. I'm having a difficult time with the image caching issue, so at the moment I can't really see the image in full size. But did you tweak the colors? They look really dark now. The colors were fine the way they were when I commented earlier. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies11:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's difficult to tell, but looking at the thumbnails, it almost seems like the image is getting darker/more saturated with each upload. Is this intentional? I can't compare the images (I can't see a damned thing) because of the caching problem, unfortunately. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies11:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons server seems to have problems at the moment and displays wrong images in the current version and the thumbnails. Probably we have to wait until the bug is resolved. --Quartl (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Changed to support. Finally got around to comparing images. The crop definitely works better; I still wish there were a touch more room on the right, less on the left. And I really liked the original colors of the wings and flower, they were less saturated. Otherwise, looks good. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies22:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 16:49:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zonotrichia leucophrys CT2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zonotrichia leucophrys CT2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2011 at 17:02:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Big air Québec 2011(3).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Big air Québec 2011(3).jpg
Support I like how the showboard is almost perfectly horizontal aligned facing right at the camera, and I like the white letters, which are eye-catcing. For some time you are confused as an observer until you figure out what happens. I also like how the snowboarder has his head directed straight down. --Slaunger (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is too difficult to figure out. I'm the opposite feeling of Slaunger—I stared at the image thinking for a short while that I was looking at a billboard or someone climbing on a weird balcony. I would consider this a foreground/background issue, since the background is interfering with the foreground. It's a nice shot, but it doesn't stand-out on its own. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies02:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2011 at 19:22:38
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral It is a good shot in a well-caught moment. I am not entirely convinced it is sufficiently crisp and have a sufficiently interesting composition to obtain FP status, as the bar for birds is high. The light is good, but could also have been better. Could I have done better myself? Probably not... --Slaunger (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2011 at 21:14:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Metz Cathedral 003.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Metz Cathedral 003.JPG
NeutralSupport Image seems soft. There's also something about it that's bugging me, like the image isn't straight but really wants to be. If some perspective control was applied, there should be a {{Retouched picture}} template added to the image. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies02:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I didn't use a special program for perspective control. I corrected manually the angles, which were not 100% rectangular - due the fact, that the window was not at the same level as the camera - with photoshop. This were minor corections as you can see, if you compare with the previous version. --Llez (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, the image caching problem still exists (at least for me), so I can't compare the two images, but from the thumbnails, it looks like the corrections were pretty minor. You have my support! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies10:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for supporting! I think, it's a general problem, it's a medieval window in the cathedral of metz and obviously not all angles have exactly 90 degrees. If you correct the one to 90 degrees, you change others. I corrected the four corners, so that the outline is rectangular, but that doesn't matter that all crossbars are exactly horizontal. --Llez (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per Guidelines "Resolution – Images (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons"". This one has 0.36 Mpx, and don't have any strong reason for be featured - This one is not the last coyote in world, for sure. Béria Limamsg08:32, 29 May 2011 (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: Too small. --Tomer T (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2011 (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 Jun 2011 at 21:07:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dornach - Goetheanum4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dornach - Goetheanum4.jpg
Oppose I believe exposures blending shows up on the leftmost tree edge and white flowers. Must not only be wind because I also notice that on the windows (still on left side). Stitching errors on the top part of the roof. Only a fractional part of the building is lit, and you are kind of saved by exposures blending. I'm being stubborn, but u may try to embed a color profile... - Benh (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lacking sharpness on the left and minor stitching error on the roof are easily to improve, I will do this in the evening --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's lacking sharpness. I think the different source pics don't overlap perfectly, thus resulting in the patterns being "shift-repeated" (but with some transparency due to blending). - Benh (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They don't overlap perfectly, right, but this brings the lacking sharpness in the result. I have made multiple shots and can choose an other one to rearrange this image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2011 at 10:08:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Magnifying glass with focus on paper.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Magnifying glass with focus on paper.png
Infinite DOF (unrealistic, you wont see this in nature)
DOF with focus on glass itself (realistic, blurry content, still rendering)
Info created, uploaded, nominated by Niabot Note: This image is part of a series. This uses DOF with focus on the content (realistic, since DOF needs to be further away then the glass itself). It does not contain EXIF data nor a color profile. It assumes sRGB as the default color space for 24 bit graphics. It has no lens distortion.
Support -- A superb illustration of the subject and a good example of what the modern rendering techniques can do. Some other categories related to the technique (and 'dof' ?) should be added though. A minor criticism: the handle of the glass is a little too short imo. Alternatively, the image could be cropped a bit at left and right. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No, I think the background is inconvenient, and the focus of the magnifying glas is too small in comparison to the rest. --Yikrazuul (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The depth of field seems unnaturally shallow to me. I don't know what the DOF of the human eye is, but I'm guessing it's deeper than this. If I were reading a piece of paper like this, I'd certainly see both the magnifying glass and the magnified words to be nearly sharp. --99of9 (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vision unphysiological. A magnifying glass is held parallel to the plane of the object that you want to see. art installation that has no encyclopedic value. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this of any importance if i read my paper from bottom to top and right to left or even mirrored? Does it not illustrate the DOF anymore? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係14:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2011 at 09:32:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sardinian Warbler.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sardinian Warbler.jpg
Support Absolutely, very nice image. I'm curious about the halo effect, but it doesn't affect what I think of the image. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies09:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice detail level, colors and light. Yes, it would have been better without the blurred foreground element in the lower right corner, but luckily it is not close to overlapping with the Warbler. --Slaunger (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question I don't understand, yesterday I upload a modified version of this picture and everything was find. Today it is back as it was, while there has been no revertion of the image! --Cephas (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's somekind of a server problem (?). I have had and even currently have a picture which I can't properly update with a new one in any way. It just keeps showing the ugly old one instead of fixed version... --Ximonic (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2011 at 12:23:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:"Colored" drinking fountain from mid-20th century with african-american drinking.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:"Colored" drinking fountain from mid-20th century with african-american drinking.jpg
Weak supportOppose I think this falls into the "high historic merit" category. Othewise, I dislike the composition so greatly, I'm tempted to oppose. Sign is cropped on the left, there's far too much headroom, a lot of empty space on the right. Image itself is grainy; I can't tell if that's from a scan or the actual image, plus he's very out of focus. But the issue of segregation is blatant, and there's more than one "message" being exposed here. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies17:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Keraunoscopia, but I disagree about the "high historic merit." Racial segregation was so common that these kinds of photos should not be rare. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't really sure, and I should've placed emphasis on "think" (which I've just added). Changed my vote to oppose. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies06:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture is grainy and has an unfortunate crop to the left. All other flaws are acceptable IMO becouse of it´s age. Also I´d like to point out that the picture is overcategorized.--Snaevar (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2011 at 14:48:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Muumimaailman noita 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Muumimaailman noita 1.jpg
Oppose Woman's face isn't sharp and there's a boy and his torso sitting in her hair. Sort of a point-and-shoot shot. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies17:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2011 at 11:57:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info A sleeping cocoo beeMelecta luctuosa. Very good to see is how these bees mostly sleep while "biting" in a part of a plant with their mandibles. And as an extra also the proboscis is visible. Picture was taken 06:30 in the morning and is a focusstack of 2 images taken at ISO 400 f/10 and 1/15 sec exp. c/u/n by mathiasK11:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I'm happy to be the first to support. This is a superb macro, clearly among the best Commons has to offer. The only criticism I have is to get up so early in the morning, which is a mortal sin! Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNeutral Guilty of Blue-Channel distortion. Clearly visible in histogram. Blue peak at low values, maximum moved to left.[6]. That would be most likely the actual colors: [7] --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係14:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Niabot, thank's for your review. I will have a look at the tif file. But I think in your version the bee looks to cold/blue. Please remember that it is illuminated by the very warm morning light. But I will look what I can do. Regards mathiasK15:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The colors are better now. Not perfectly what i would have expected, but ok. What prevents me from a support is lack of sharpness at an important part of the image. It's the "mouth" with which that bee holds itself. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係12:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've uploaded a new version where I've corrected the blue channel a little bit. But I won't go any further cause everything more looks to cold for my taste and my memory of the scene in natura. Regards mathiasK16:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know if you cropped it, but the composition is so carefully done, it's fantastic. And apparently bees sleep with their eyes open. Good job! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies17:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Green color cast? Noisy? Short dof? Come on guys, are we talking about the same picture? The fact that there is more bright green than bright blue in the picture doesn't mean that the natural colors are not well reproduced. As a matter of fact, when we try to increase the brightness in the blue channel we quickly obtain a bluish white in the insect's hair. There is no green color cast in the picture that I see; there is no apparent noise in the subject, even in the darker parts; and the dof is more than generous for a macro shot. Fair is fair and this picture is among the very best in our macro FP gallery ! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 22:14:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tintern Abbey South.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tintern Abbey South.jpg
Comment I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something that bothers me in the "texture" of this image, esp. in the stone walls. Maybe it's been exceedingly sharpened or contrast-enhanced ? --MAURILBERT(discuter)01:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is definitely some strange image processing taking place. The abbey and especially the cow in the foreground almost look "blue screened" into the scene, it's weird. My biggest issue, though, is lack of focused subject: are we suppose to look at the abbey? Or the cow? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies04:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 09:47:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Veneto Venezia4 tango7174.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Veneto Venezia4 tango7174.jpg
Oppose Size half the minimum required for FP, unless strong mitigating reasons, which i don't see here. Heavy distortion, even for a panoramic picture. Poor composition, at first i thought it was 2 separate pics stuck together in the middle. Would have been way nicer if the white palazzio had been straight in front of the camera, i think. --MAURILBERT(discuter)13:33, 30 May 2011 (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: it is too small. Please read the guidelines before nominating --Jebulon (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2011 (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.
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Movement blur and reflected light on all of the shells.--Snaevar (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment ?? Movement blur? Dear Snaevar, have you ever seen an original specimen or have you compared with other photos of this species? This are the original colour spots! In addition, the specimens have a high glance surface like a mirror, it is impossible to make photos withoout reflections. Theses photos were made in daylight (in the shadow) without any additional lightning! --Llez (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Question How would you arrrange the pictures? I'm waiting for your proposal. You are free to overwork this picture and to load up a version in another arrangement to show what you mean. I' very interested and I would be glad to learn more about good arrangements --Llez (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Neutral -- Yes, but not special enough to get my support vote. A tough subject due to the high reflective surface. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Weak support My issue is that I don't think the black looks good with these shells, and they could've maybe been spaced out more (though they might've seems bigger..). The grey, smudged spots do seem blurred comparatively and could be more contrast. Maybe red or a lite green would've been better? -- One, please. ( Thank you.) 01:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 19:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Your right, I was there today and should find some better angle. Thanks for your hints!
Weak oppose The portrait is great, but the photo is indeed a bit tilted. If it would be fixed, I would support. Tomer T 11:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Request I disagree that the composition is boring and I know this would probably get a lot of opposes for having a museum shelf or casing around it, but the edges are a bit sharp. Think they could be blurred? -- One, please. ( Thank you.) 02:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
chromatic aberration at the funnel.--Snaevar (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Fixed Thanks for your suggestion, I have turned down a little vibrance and contrast. About educational value, this is one of the best preserved coastal guard towers (XVI century) in Tuscany (Italy), it has its own page on Italian Wikipedia. Digitalsignal 19:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
aghith 05:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC).jpg)
.jpg)
. The apparently confusing compo adds to the mood IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
Done corrected, 2x slower ~ ☭Acodered (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
.png)
aghith 17:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
. excellent :) Angel (talk) 23:31 May 2011
.jpg)
.png)
.JPG)
_11.09.05.jpg)
_07.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.jpg)
_in_flight,_from_above.jpg)
_-_footbridge_over_railway_tracks.jpg)
.jpg)
Strong support The road "into" the landscape is cliché—albeit a very nice kind of cliché. But here, the road was leading you into the landscape, and now real life hits, and hits you hard, and you're swept away from it. This version, of the ones available here, is by far the best and actually tells a story. Brilliant photography, great job. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep --Paddy (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Delist Probably out of scope and artistically not very special and amateurish. I see no reason why this picture should be featured. Adornix (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
_flying,_side-on_-_edit.jpg)
Strong oppose per Guidelines "Resolution – Images (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons"". This one has 0.36 Mpx, and don't have any strong reason for be featured - This one is not the last coyote in world, for sure. Béria Lima msg 08:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Infinite DOF (unrealistic, you wont see this in nature)
DOF with focus on glass itself (realistic, blurry content, still rendering)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.png,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.png,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_07.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_in_flight,_from_above.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_footbridge_over_railway_tracks.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_flying,_side-on_-_edit.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
![220 File:"Colored" drinking fountain from mid-20th century with african-american drinking.jpg, not featured](#File:"Colored"_drinking_fountain_from_mid-20th_century_with_african-american_drinking.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.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}
![[1]](http://parissculptures.p.a.pic.centerblog.net/muc3dzfb.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png,_featured){kind=link}
.png,_featured){kind=link}
_204,_fly_in_a_column_formation_over_southern_Louisiana%27s_wetlands_during_a_photo_exercise.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}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png,_featured){kind=link}
.png,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Kasteel_van_Poeke.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mangrove_in_la_manzanilla.jpg){kind=link}
_07.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_07.jpg){kind=link}
_07.jpg,_f){kind=link}
_07.jpg,_f){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){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
-CN.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG&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}
_in_flight,_from_above.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_in_flight,_from_above.jpg){kind=link}
_in_flight,_from_above.jpg,_not_feature){kind=link}
_in_flight,_from_above.jpg,_not_feature){kind=link}
_-_footbridge_over_railway_tracks.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_footbridge_over_railway_tracks.jpg){kind=link}
_-_footbridge_over_railway_tracks.jpg,_not_fea){kind=link}
_-_footbridge_over_railway_tracks.jpg,_not_fea){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_flying,_side-on_-_edit.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_flying,_side-on_-_edit.jpg){kind=link}
_flying,_side-on_-_edit.jpg,_not_featur){kind=link}
_flying,_side-on_-_edit.jpg,_not_featur){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://www7.pic-upload.de/22.05.11/7e27b9eqdyto.png){kind=link}
![[7]](http://www7.pic-upload.de/22.05.11/fyguwosqkbmg.png){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
