Jump to content

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2011

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository


[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 15:53:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Head of Nectanebo II
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 20:16:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kleiner Fuchs bei der Eiablage
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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.

Canary Islands Large White
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2011 at 21:45:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

American Goldfinch
  • Yes, compare the bird of both images, the last version is one degree less saturated, it is at the level I usually put my pictures. For the background, of course, I coudln't work out exactly the same modification. --Cephas (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. That image is basically fine. Just compare the two histograms / wave form diagrams with each other: Zonotrichia, Carduelis

    You can clearly see that peak on the far right of the histogram of Cardelius. This peak indicates truncating of the red and green channel, which is clearly visible inside the wave form diagram. Since this does not apply for the blue channel we have oversaturation. Zonotrichia is a little overexposed (all channels) in one part: the white stripe on top of the head. But otherwise it is fine. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 00:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you have a raw with more then 8 bit per channel than you could have imagedata which is not truncated already. I don't know which kind of software you use, but normally you can reduce the saturation while looking at a histogram before saving the raw as JPEG or some other format with only 8 bit per Channel. If this isn't possible you should try to save the image in an format which supports at least 16 bit per Channel (TIFF, EXR, HDR, ...). After that step you should be able to open the image with a graphics software like Photoshop (or the free Blender) that supports more then 8 bit per channel and reduce the saturation until the peak inside the histogram fades out. Ideally histograms have no peak on the left or right side, since that means that some channel(s) is/are cropped, which results in loss of detail. Like the feathers on the front of the bird in this case. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 01:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Gatineau - QC - Museum of Civilisation2.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 09:18:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gatineau, Canada: Museum of Civilisation
  •  Comment --Pretty nice but no color profile embedded (sRGB, AdobeRGB?) and the barrel distortion from the lens, too much visible at the left, could have been corrected. Sting (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Open the image in an editor and attribute a sRGB profile, then attribute (and not convert) an AdobeRGB one and you will understand why it is important to embed one, even if it may not be stated in the FPC Guidelines (I didn't check), because the colors aren't the same. This, of course, if you care about how people will look at your picture... And if there's no lens distortion I don't understand why the left column is curved. Sting (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seem to be a missunderstanding. I know that a color profil is, no need for private lessons. My question targeted on why you are thinking that here is s.th. wrong with the colors. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you know what a color profile is then you know its importance for the display and printing of a photograph and you know too that when an image comes out from your camera it comes in a color space, usually sRGB or Adobe RGB, depending on your camera and settings. If you take a same picture one in a sRGB space and another in an Adobe RGB space, take out the exif data (and so the color profile information) like in yours, open them in Firefox for example and you should notice that the colors displayed are different. EDIT: Which is the good one? We cannot know as we don't know the original profile. It's illustrated in J. Friedl's page, first row of buttons. What if a visitor wants to print your image? He brings the file to a photo labo (because the image is larger than his A4 printer) and if that labo is serious it will ask for the color space. Embarrassing. But, as you wrote, you know all of this. Sorry for trying to explain my first comment. Sting (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, here we get stuck. You did not answer my question for second time. No necessary to go ahead with the discussion. This picture is shot by three single shots and fused by HDR-algorithm together. Therefore you can also not find an EXIF or further informations. I have not set the lights artificial but, they are similar to the natural impression. I see no reason to add the color profil and there is furthermore no need for that. Feel free to oppose the picture. Have a nice day. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was following that topic because I feel concerned : Haven't you ever looked at a printed version of your picture, or even at a picture of yours, but in another screen/soft or whatever ? And been disappointed because it didn't show up the way you intended to ? I believe there's nothing wrong with the colours of the picture, and I understand neither does Sting, but rather with the colours consistency it might not present to the viewer. But the colours I see might not even be the ones you wanted to show. Small detail for you it seems, but maybe not to people who work in graphic or printing. If we want common to be seen as serious, it's natural our featured pics are faultless from a technical point of view. I think like Sting that a color profile should be embedded in every FP (I should review my own...). - Benh (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haven't you ever looked at a printed version of your picture, or even at a picture of yours, but in another screen/soft or whatever ? No, never, and I had developed some of my pictures even in a very large scale. For the rest: I don´t agree. It is not the first time and surly will not be the last time that we have not the same opinion. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't talk about opinion here, but about technical facts : if your pictures don't show up the way you intended to, how could anyone review them ? Sometime, I work on WB, or to add a little touch of blue cast or anything else, and I'm not happy to see this ruined because some other viewer don't see what I spent time to show, because of missing colour profile, non calibered screen... In short : no one can faithfully review this picture in its current state. - Benh (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to explain why there's a need for a color space information in an image. If that wasn't your question I don't know what it was regarding your first comment. You may not accept or see the need of the color profile but I think I've answered to this point, even if you're not convinced. “I look pictures with my eyes and not with an image processing software”: and what does display the image? Your computer has settings which show you the image as you want it to be, but what about mine which has for sure different settings, and what about all the visitors, each one with different settings? An embedded color profile allows everyone to see your image with Firefox (for example, as it handles color management) as YOU see it. Many thanks Benh for these explanations, for sure much clearer as mine (unfortunately it seems not sufficient). And no, I never wrote there's something wrong with the colors; I simply don't know which ones they should be. You're right: there's no need for further discussion. Have a nice day too. Sting (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Without the need for color profile, exif information, pixel count, white balance, ca, micro tilt, dead pixel under the bushes, a little noise, etc., etc. A good picture is a good picture. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, sure... we see so many “good” pictures promoted here with stitching errors in panoramas, white balance off, heavy CA, over-sharpened showing bright fringes, architectural subjects with distortions, etc. I'd like to remember there's also a QI page. People don't have the same perception of quality, even with the guidelines. I only think it's a pity for all those other pictures, almost perfect at least technically, being placed at the same level as the first ones. May be we should create an Outstanding Pictures Candidates page? Just kidding. Sting (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm sorry to see the bad faith some have concerning the comments of Benh and Sting. I think their comments are very helpful and understandable. Reading the comments was really eye-opening for me at least. It is not something I have ever thought of before - that even with a calibrated monitor what look good one place may not look right the other due to the displaying client having to guess what was the intention concerning the colors. Please understand that they are not trying to say that the colors are off, but that there is no consistent way for a browser to show the image with the intended colors from the creator without the embedded color profile. However, requiring a color profile is not something we have in the FPC guidelines today, but maybe we should.... --Slaunger (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)`[reply]
  •  Comment If you refer to my comments, no bad faith here, just a sarcastic comment on the ways pictures are evaluated in FPC, which is more as a result of personal taste and often irrelevant technical issues that have absolutely nothing to do with photography as a whole, not to mention good old cronism. For FPC in Wikipedia, considering its stature in the cyber world, the amount of good, solid photographers out there, pros and amateurs alike, the statistical amount of good photogrpahy is just not in tune with the possibilities out there, ever wonder why? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment -- Agree with Slaunger (no need for a small type...). At first I didn't understand Sting and Benhr's comments, but because I respect and trust their opinion, I waited for some light to shed. I'm still not sure what we should do about it because I don't know how seriously the lack of a color profile can affect an image in a monitor or printing. But there is no doubt in my mind that the requirement to have one (if aproved) should be extended to QI and VI (at least). Thoughts? Should we open a thread about this issue? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because a color is not only defined by its RGB values but also by the color space in which it should be displayed.
To show one more example of the problem of an image without color profile, I created a map under the Adobe RGB color space, saved it then converted it under the smaller sRGB color space, preparing it for the Web, and saved it under an other name. This is also the common process for photographs taken with most of the single-lens reflex cameras for photographers looking for quality and shooting in Raw.
I then deleted the color profile of both maps and uploaded them on WP. Open the following images in new windows and compare them:
The difference is striking, even more if you have a wide gamut/good quality monitor. Which of them displays the correct colors? That's the problem here. And if you see very little difference... well... you must have a very low-end monitor and I must agree in this case (only!) with the amazing points 1 and 2 stated by Niabot below!
Now download these images on your computer and open them with Gimp, telling the software the first is an Adobe RGB one and the second a sRGB. What do you see? The colors of both images match! That's because I told you what was the original color space.
And what if I didn't tell you like in the case of the FP candidate here? You can only guess what I see. And you may be wrong.
For curiosity and comparison you can see that map with the Adobe RGB color profile embedded and with the sRGB profile embedded: they should be equal in your Web browser. Q.E.D. Sting (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are wrong. Color profiles describe a mapping between sRGB and something else. But you will loose quality if you use 24 bit formats with other colorspaces as sRGB, when they are converted to sRGB for display. Read the whole story behind this: User talk:Benh#Colorspace_and_profiles -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 23:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we mention calibrated screens in the guidelines, I think it would be fine to mention color profiles as well. Opening a thread could be a good idea ! - Benh (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There is no need for a color profile if the image is in sRGB. This is the default for all applications that don't support colorprofiles or if an image does not contain a color profile.
  2. Colorprofiles for 8 bit per Channel are bullshit. I don't even know why colorprofiles are embeded inside images with 8 bit per channel. Any software that converts between this colorspaces for display on a screen with 8 bit per channel itself is just stupid. You loose a big portion of possible colors, with even worse results.
  3. Images without any distortion at wide angles are unrealistic.
  4. Nice and sharp image with good colors
-- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose (will certainly change after some explanations by Niabot) You seem to got some points here (I wasn't aware of the issues you mention) but:
  1. What about if the colorspace of the image is actually adobe RGB or something else, and this wasn't recorded in metadata, and the browser reads it as sRGB ?
  2. Can you explain your issue 2. ? you can use my talk page if you don't want to clutter this nom, or stay here if you want to share.
  3. You issue 3 is not quite right. I believe Image without distortions are more realistic, can you prove me wrong ? - Benh (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentVery notable that Benh said he can not review this picture without color profil but suddenly he can when Niabot supports this picture. But it was clearly before that Benh appear at my candidates not for giving objective reviews. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Laisse tomber Benh, le premier a appelé le deuxième au secours. C'est devenu plus que jamais un dialogue de sourds. Bonne soirée malgré tout. Sting (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oui, j'arrête après mon dernier commentaire plus bas. Je pensais avoir loupé un truc (j'aurais reconnu mon erreur), mais apparemment, non. Bonne journée ;-) - Benh (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very notable you still like to troll on the reviewers behaviour instead of the facts about the pics themselves. Anyways, I thank Niabot for his explanations on my talk page. That still doesn't change what we said so I believe my issues 1 still stand. Since software read any value as sRGB when it doesn't find a color profile embedded, if these value were actually AdobeRGB (or anything else), it will render wrong. So I oppose on basis that this pic cannot be reviewed. I'd also like to mention that even with colour profile, it's likely you won't achieve accuracy. A color profile ensures only consistency in properly setup devices. I think I'll stop here on that topic ! - Benh (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get the issue? Are you opposing because you want all QI/FP images to embed a color profile even when they are created in sRGB colorspace? sRGB is default colorspace. Specifying a colorspace because it might not be sRGB seems a little idiotic here. Will you oppose a nomination because the aRGB color profile might have been used by error on an image and that you cannot verify or trust the user who did the job here? Esby (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, It's likely that image is sRGB, and is understood by my soft as sRGB. But what I mean is that there's a possibility that it was something else (like aRGB) and that the color profil was removed during the expo blending process, and the output still had aRGB but is read as sRGB by my soft, since it's the default mode. Niabot mentions on my talk page that the blending soft automatically converts to sRGB (I'm looking for evidence of that for enfuse, the one I use), so that picture would be fine. To summarize, I still have no proof that the colors I see are what Wladyslaw wanted to show (even though I suspect it's fine). In the end, it's easier for everyone that the picture has a color profile, this would give no room for chance or unconsistency. And avoid these endless talks... - Benh (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general you are right. But each image displays a new side of this interesting building; it is not ascertainable with just one image. I know examples of FP from the same object of the same angle at nearly the same time photographed by the same user; I guess this nomination is far away from that. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment --Wow!! Niabot, you're really amazing! You might be a “master” in theory but you're not worth the practical cases. You're assuming all people looking your images are using low end monitors, IE9 or Safari or FF with the color management mode value set to “1”! For those ones I agree with you, they won't see much difference. But what about all the others? Those using monitors of a little better quality with better color capabilities, much more common nowadays, those using earlier versions of IE or using FF in its standard setting because they don't even know the existence of that configuration page (and don't care about)?!? And what about those wanting to print your images? How will the printer handle those files? They're simply out of your target of visitors? And what for all of this? Gaining some kb on the file weight while it is already 2.48MB heavy?!? Well, that is a stupid approach (using your word)! If the image here had its color profile embedded I would have been able to see it strait ahead with the correct colors, instead of this I saw it over-saturated in FF with standard settings on my wide gamut monitor and Adobe RGB workspace. And there's no need of color profile? Stunning.
And what about the distortions as you were responding to my comment? Numerous great painters studying for centuries the perspective problem, all this wiped out by you in a few words?! Because I never never saw a perspective line going curved on a painting, neither in reality. And I don't think that curved column at the left is showing reality because we're not in a panorama or fish-eye case. Amazing again!
So many people putting their images here are much more concerned about getting the label than trying to set their images to a high quality level, sometimes with further improvements, because they are so sure of their perfection, even sometimes for cellphone-like snapshots. Each comment or what wants to be a constructive critic is considered as an attack rather than opening a way to improvement. What a selfish behavior. I don't think Commons and this label deserve this. That auto-satisfaction will give substance to those who are laughing through the Web about the inconsistency of the quality here, burying the really high quality images under the mass of mediocre ones. But keep going on, for my concern this page is all yours, you and your partner Wladyslaw, as the law of the strongest is on the side of the one demonstrating more stubbornness, even if it's not constructive for the project. Sting (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what to say to those words. But you make some big mistakes in your assumptions. Images that are using sRGB are quite as good as others in LDR format. You think a color profile increases quality when you still only have 224 possible colors? Clearly it doesn't. Even worse, that this color profiles only work on linear sources. As soon you use tonemapping (conversion from HDR to LDR) the color profile is obsolete anyways. Programms are suggested to ignore the profile in further steps, producing sRGB as the default. I might ask why your "super system" isn't able to display sRGB as it is? That might be a bug or wrong configuration on your side. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 18:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're attributing to me affirmations I never made or thought. I would just like to remember, for clarification, that FF in its standard settings doesn't manage untagged images. Sting (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then all we would need to do is to add an sRGB profile to the image and anything should be fine. I really don't see the problem. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 20:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you see as not being a problem? Sting (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but it sounds like we are nailing ants with WMD. Let me explain. Who know color profiles? All the average commons re-users? No, only those who are dealing in printing should actually be caring. Will this kind of users be able to differenciate color issues linked to the profile? Probably yes. Will he be able to calibrate his screen correctly? Yes. Will he be able calibrate his printers correctly? we can mostly assume yes. Will he be able to determine if the current image needs to be tweaked/ changed for his needs (which might be differents than our needs)? I assume we can. Esby (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have specifyed the description of the image. On this picture File:Gatineau - QC - Canadian Museum of Civilization8.jpg you can see the plaza from which I have made this shot. If you want I can add also the camera position as geocode. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what I asked for. I meant the exact angle of the lens (FoV) that was used for making the images that were later fused. It is present in the original exifs of each file. Esby (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for misunderstanding. If I have used the focal length of 10 mm (with I guess but I have to look it up to acknowledge) then the FoV seems to be 102,4° (referred to the technical data sheet of my lens) --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here how it would look on the basis the columns are to be straigth (correction made with hugin). Esby (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
look good but for my eyes it seems to fall a bit on the left side, mathematical accuracy is not every time best choice --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, basically I don't know which version should be the proper one and I mostly don't care. Some people might agree on one and not another one, some might not agree on any of the both, some will agree on both versions. There are also a few parts I was forced to remove due to the distorsion correction of hugin, Imo, The question someone seeing the photography should ask himself/herself: Is the column in the right vertical? Are the columns to the left vertical? Is this kind of tilt / distorsion acceptable or not? Not to mention that any image will still be distorded because you can't map a 105° angle on a plane without having some distorsion visible at some point: you'll always find some bended lines when they should not be if there was no distorsion, This is because you cannot map a sphere (or some big part of it) on a plane without inducting distorsion. Esby (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 10:13:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The ridgeline of Wugong Mountain in Jiangxi, China.
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2011 at 21:47:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Formation Flying
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hansons lagoon - laguna hanson.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 17:41:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose  Neutral Out of focus, incredible amounts of grain. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 17:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I'll give points for creativity, but it isn't all that sharp, a lot of noise and I'm not so sure about the EV. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very moody picture with a nice simple composition and lighting. Image is large enough, and it's easily sharpenable so we can forgive the softness IMO. Someone better than me with toshop/gimp can probably get rid of most of the noise. On the cons side, a very strong vignetting...- Benh (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This is a negative scan for printing and display ar 20"x20" print at 300 dpi, which means that the film grain will be invisible. Magnification of either negative film or digital image will eventually yield either grain or pixels, and lose sharpness. So to judge this type of image under those parameters is obviously a wrong approach. This image has to do with the aesthetics of black and white photography, the zone system and craftmanship. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Changed my vote to neutral per Tomascastelazo's comment. I'm actually a fan of the image, it's very secluded (seemingly) and looks almost like a diorama. But anyway, can you explain your comment further, just a little? You said the negative scan would mean the grain is invisible, but then magnification would yield grain. I think I'm misunderstanding you. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment Film is composed of silver halide particles, which is the grain of the film. When struck by light, and then developed, the silver halide crystals turn black, and when printed on paper, the process is reversed, black on the negative turns into white on paper. Anyway, think of those particles as dust on a surface, at normal viewing distance, you cannot distingish the individual particles, but if you zoom in you will start to see the individual specks of dust. Another way of seeing it is with skin, ar normal viewing distance skin appears smooth, but even the most perfect sking, under magnification, becomes a series of cracks, ridges, etc. In this particular case, when you print the image at 20"x20", the grain is invisible to the eye, for the eye cannot distinguish the particles. In here you see the grain because the image is magnified when displayed at full size in pixels, and in this particular case, the pixels are smaller than the film grain. So it is grainy because it is like looking at the image with a microscope... makes sense? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Great explanation, thank you. Please forgive my ignorance. Okay, I still have another question. The image is a reduced size, reduced rez version of a negative scan, but shouldn't there still be a little cleanup involved? The very top left corner of the image is filled with strange white specks. To the right of the trees, about halfway up, is a large black spot (dirt?). There is also a glaring vertical scratch I noticed yesterday: easiest way to explain its location is that it is in the lower segment of the second rock from the left, right in the center of the rock. And it's a shame there's graffiti on the farthest left rock. (One of my favorite rock parks is brimming with the stuff, thanks to high school kids.) "V.v.s. P.M.S." Should this be painted out? Finally, if you zoom in to the bottom left corner, on the bottom edge is a white hair-like thing. I'm not sure if this is damage to the negative or if there is land directly below and this is a blade of grass sticking up. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 13:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment You are and were absolutely right. I retouched dust, graffitti and other elements. For some reason the old version still appears, but the new one is there. I appreciate your observations. They resulted on a better image. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Is that so? That is a pretty intolerant statement, especially coming from you, since the art that you propose is also questioned as far as legitimacy as a form of art. Judge on the merits of the discipline. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support a great analogue photograph. good to see that there's at least one person out there with a decent understanding of film grain. would be great if you could provide additional information on your equipment, film and the technical devices used for the digitasation. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 11:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thanks Peter. Mamiya C330f, 80 mm lens. Exposed according to Zone System. Tmax film, ISO 100. Normal development (but maybe n-1). Tmax developer. Scanner: Epson V700 Photo. Scanned at 4800 dpi, resized to 300dpi for a 20"x20" print. Photo taken about 20 years ago. Scanned May, 2011. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment As far as quality, it would be nice to know the parameters with wich you measure it. If I look at a 2000 year old ceramic piece, and I am a regular person, the ceramic piece is a useless and fragile cooking instrument, for I am ignorant of its archeological value. If on the other hand, I am an archeologist, a 2000 ceramic piece is a treasure of history, etc., etc. The fact that you do not know photographic techniques and materials and how they express themselves within their dimension does not deny the quality that exists inside those dimensions. Same goes for encyclopaedic value. Things have to be measured and evaluated within their parameters. Judge this from Zone System parameters, from there a series of quality parameters will emerge. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia should be universal values ​​and not intended to address has too specialized. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As defined by Webster: a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject. So photography is a branch of knowledge, of the human experience, with a set of values of different types, photography can be judged on different variables, such as art, historical record, scientific record, technique, materials, etc., etc. Not all photographs are the same, as not all bones are the same. For example, paleonthologically speaking (this, btw, is a platform of analysis) a collection of bones of a cat dead 1 year may not be of the same interest as a collection of bones of a cat dead 100,000 years ago to a paleontologist. I doubt that under normal conditions, the new cat would be more interesting. To a vet, however, the story may be different. On one level one can say that bones are bones, and chemically speaking they may be the same, but each set of bones acquires relevance by the context in which they are observed. Same as photography. If you judge this image from the technological perspective, from that platform it will be at a disadvantage on some aspects, but even so, technologically speaking, digital, for example, cannot yet render a dynamic gray scale as found in this photograph. Photography is not reduced to pixels, ca, etc., etc., it is much more complex than that. Again, judge from the appropiate perspective. If, on the other hand, you don´t like b&w photography or this image does not fancy your personal taste, just say so. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you still think that an FP on commons must have EV, which is mentioned nowhere in the guidelines (again, you'd better look on en:FPC in that case. I don't know for the other languages). - Benh (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Benh: I don´t know if your comment is directed at me or even if I understand the question/comment. Regarless, my comment: Images, on a figurative black and white level can be thought of as having value or not having value. If an image has any type of value, then it can be thought of as an encyclopaedic valued picture, let it be aesthetic, historical, documentary, technical, sociological, psychological value, etc., for in the broad understanding of encyclopedia, it contributes to the understanding of a particular subject. So in this sense, if an image has any redeeming quality, in the FP context, it has EV. To what degree, how it is measured, etc., is another matter and an entirely different discussion. The problem here is that people evaluate and oppose images not considering the EV value of an image, but rather on personal opinions, lack of knowledge and understandig of either the subject matter or the discipline or both. It is ok to oppose on personal taste, but personal taste must not be a mask for lack of knowledge or understanding --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Tomas; it wasn't at all for you, but for Archeo...us, who looks to give too much weight to the EV alone. I'm not discussing whether or not ur image has EV, but even it if were not the case, I find it beautiful, and more interesting from a photographic point of view than a museum object. That's enough -for me- for an FP status on Commons - Benh (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose If I understand well, it is a museum object ! I find it grainy, underexposed for parts, and I see a strong vignetting. Nothing to say about educational value in this case, but this image does not fancy my personal taste, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Funny. Now need to answer. Except that that my oppose vote counts for one oppose vote.--Jebulon (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it does, but at least we know where the oppose springs from. You see, an oppose vote is not necessarily a bad thing, for it can point out to ways to make things better. It is an opportunity to improve, unless of course we choose to make it sterile. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Logorrhea. Please stop trying (without success) giving me lessons about "some important technical aspects of photography" you suppose I don't know, I'm a bad pupil when I listen bad teachers. Who is "we know" ? The oppose "springs" from me, only. Any other suggestion ? It is not a bad, dirty and dishonest oppose. The fact is that you don't support, never, during your history as a "Commons" user, any kind of opposition. Then you use and abuse of irony, trying to disrepute adverse comments with despising and patronizing words. Some wrote to me that I am far to be the worst reviewer here... I'm pleased to trust them... I don't understand why you are so agressive with me, as I am not an enemy (I like a lot of your pictures as they are often a bit "different" and inventive). This is only a photograph, and a discussion about. It seems that you like endless conflicts, therefore I'm afraid you should probably answer... But as for me, I stop wasting my time here, sorry. No problem for me to let you the "last word". And sorry for my poor english, but I hope you'll understand. Regards too.--Jebulon (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ Jebulon: First of all I sincerely apologize for the appearance of my replies as a personal attack. That was not my intention. Second, I am not opposed to oppose votes in the general sense, but to oppose votes that are either baseless or that generally do not contribute to improvement. As you checked my regular opposition to opposes, also check my ratio of support/oppose votes. I bet it is at least a 20 to 1 ratio. Why? because support reinforce behaviour while an oppose vote, if issued in a certain way, can lead to improvement. I like to err on the side of caution, and if I have nothing to contribute with a negative vote, I opt to not oppose but rather remain silent. However, lest I be accused of hypocrisy, I have at times let the situation get the better of me and have opposed for the wrong reasons. I am human. My apologies, I guess you just got in the line of fire on an issue that I care about. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know what ? I agree with you about "oppose votes". We all are humans (I hope so...) This early morning, before to go to work (yes, sundays too...) I made some pictures near Place de la Concorde (nice location, nice weather, nice light, no tourists), and I was walking (almost) alone, thinking to this incident, and I thought that photography and "Commons" are really interesting. At least, we are very lucky to be able to discuss through space about this wonderful hobby. No need of "war". Let's disagree peacefully ! By the way: this incident does absolutely not imply that i'll be a structural "opposer" of your pictures in the future ! Have a nice day.--Jebulon (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I will enjoy more film grain in this image.. if this image will get featured I will try to nominate also a black & white image (film photo - with grain etc)! BTW it is a well balanced composition. Ggia (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Louis-Charles de France, Louis XVII, Deseine méridienne Versailles MV8523 .jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 22:44:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Louis XVII

Sorry for this irrelevant and unappropriate attempt.
 I withdraw my nomination--Jebulon (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berliner Olympiastadion night.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2011 at 08:40:11
Berliner Olympiastadion

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral → not delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fishermen - Tamandaré - Brasil pan.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 18:48:42
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral → not delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jakarta slumlife54.JPG, delisted

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 18:33:20
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral → delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Balaeniceps rex - Weltvogelpark Walsrode 09-2010.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2011 at 08:57:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Shoebill (Balaeniceps rex) at Weltvogelpark Walsrode (Walsrode Bird Park, Germany)

Created and uploaded by Fiorellino - nominated by Raghith -- Raghith 08:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 20:59:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Will not, even though it looks not on the path to promotion. This picture is in focus where it matters, is certainly harder to take than the thousands of shells or museum objects on black background we see too much around here, and I think it looks beautiful enough. I admit aperture could have been slightly narrower. - Benh (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 21:04:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sulawesi Wrinkled Hornbill (Aceros cassidix) at Weltvogelpark Walsrode
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2011 at 10:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kiril Lazarov preparing for 7-metre shot
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2011 at 02:02:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Water Turkey in Jacksonville, Florida flying ahead
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Buceros hydrocorax - Weltvogelpark Walsrode 2011-02.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 22:22:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rufous Hornbill at Weltvogelpark Walsrode.
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Elisabethkirche Schneeberg.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2011 at 20:30:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Elisabeth Church on Schneeberg, Lower Austria
Update 2011-05-31. Due to an unforeseen event (my twins were born 10 weeks early just now), I have tocount on the community to edit the image for better noise / tones, so the criticism can be addressed. Please find the CR2 file at [1]. It is available under the same license as the jpg. Thank you very much for your understanding and support. With regards, Hendric Stattmann (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update 2011-06-01:  Hendric Stattmann (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC) I hereby withdraw the candidature. There is a consensus that the image could have the potential to be acceptable as featured image, but it also requires significant amount of post-processing (noise control, tone mapping, contrast, etc.) in order to satisfy the requirements. For the reason mentioned above, I am currently not in a position to execute the necessary improvements. With kind regards, Hendric Stattmann (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update 2011-06-01: I have listed the picture in the Graphic Lab. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked on the noise and uploaded a new version. For your consideration. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked on the noise and uploaded a new version. For your consideration. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't know how this happened, but somehow the noise on the structure, the people around and the grass got worse. Did you sharpen it? This will make the noise come out more. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A very nice image with a good composition, but it need also a tonemapping correction! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Comet-Hale-Bopp-29-03-1997 hires adj.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2011 at 19:33:44
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info Very noisy and very unsharp. (Original nomination)
  •  Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist Agreed with delister's comments, though it's more the lack of sharpness that affects my vote, along with overall poor composition and the intense chromatic aberration. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I know it isn't great by today's standards, but I think that this is part of FPC history, and thus should only be delisted if it is really, really awful. I don't think we should delist unless an image didn't even meet the standards back then. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep keep in mind this is a 1997 digital picture, which is pretty good for the time for such a long exposure. It's not like we're ever going to get another chance to photograph this comet since it's next perihelion is estimated around year 4385. Keep it in prospective here, 14 year old photograph, long exposure, and an event we won't witness again for another two millennia. — raeky (talk | edits) 02:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep No way to take a better picture in the next weeks...--Jebulon (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral → not delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Credit-cards.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2011 at 11:15:53
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral → not delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2011 at 10:25:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dactylorhiza majalis in natural monument Vojovická draha (some spring feeling in FP :)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2011 at 10:24:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Female of Tau Emperor, Czech Republic
Don't need to be sorry, it is life :) I think so it is good to have another opinions about it, cause I or Tlusťa can learn more from it and improve our skills for future shots. Thanks for your vote anyway. Regards --Chmee2 (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2011 at 10:00:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Honour decoration for Merit of the Republic of Austria. Badge of the 1st Class
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2011 at 11:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Varanasi, India as seen from Ganga river.
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Haeckel Calcispongiae.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2011 at 08:57:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Haeckel Calcispongiae

 Citron (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Testudinata Richard Bartz.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 15:33:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tortoises

File:Demonio mercado de guanajuato.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 23:23:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2011 at 19:12:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

360° Hochalppass Panorama
nein mit PTgui --Böhringer (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am very happy if you liked my picture. The snow has fallen during the night and shows one of the rare recordings in the Commons. --Böhringer (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not sharpened the frames nor the Pano - this information. --Böhringer (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 06:02:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Green Heron in Jacksonville, Florida eating a fish for its meal
Changed to neutral, perhaps a different crop would work better. I agree, the composition really isn't great. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 13:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 11:12:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dom Luis I bridge in Porto
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 12:44:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Zebrasoma flavescens, Yellow Tang
My question rephrased would have been, was the fish photographed through a glass aquarium wall? Obviously underwater images can be taken with the camera in a watertight box, and obviously all images are shot "through glass" (the lens), so I think my original question was pretty clear in its meaning. Depending on the aquarium and the thickness of the glass, I would think any light would be overly refracted and the resulting image would not be crystal clear, as I believe the case is here—though I don't know if this was taken at a homemade water tank or a massive city aquarium. Either way, I think the glass is interfering with the light. As for the flash comment, flash photography can sometimes produce a rather unrealistic range of exposure, with slightly blown out foreground and extremely dark backgrounds. If it looks like flash photography, then I think that can be distracting and unprofessional. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 15:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Why do you ask the question above? It is very simple, just read the description. BTW: It is strange. W.S. has dissappeared, at the same time Kerαunoςcopia appears. Nearly the same voting behaviour, the same vacous user-page. Are you an "old friend" with a new identity? --Llez (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For my part, I can tell u almost for sure that Kerαunoςcopia is not W.S., who is by the way one of the most valuable contributor around (which is why criticisms on him annoy me) - Benh (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm W.S. because my user page is vacuous, you found me out. :) Anyway, sorry for missing the "museum" bit and for not putting two-and-two together. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 13:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 04:45:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Two girls protesting child labour 1909
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2011 at 09:04:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Flower of plant Chelidonium majus
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matthias Adl - Stattersdorfer Steg 01.JPG, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 15:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Matthias Adl, deputy mayor of St. Pölten, Austria
  •  Oppose Changed to oppose. Is that someone's forehead above his shoulder? I never even noticed that before. And after looking at the image again a few more times, the concrete block/building in the background is really distracting. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 22:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

[edit]

Matthias Adl, deputy mayor of St. Pölten, Austria

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 07:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 14:28:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Microgravity Burning
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 07:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mosteiro dos Jerónimos 0424 - doors in the arcade.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 17:40:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 07:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 07:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

a male White Ermine (Spilosoma lubricipeda) The White Ermine (Spilosoma lubricipeda) is a moth of the family Arctiidae. It is found in Europe.

The White Ermine (Spilosoma lubricipeda) is a moth of the family Arctiidae. It is found in Europe. -- Raghith 07:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 17:46:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pico de Fogo and a minor summit which formed in an erruption in 1995
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Ximonic -- Ximonic (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Pico de Fogo is a 2,829 metres high stratovolcano in Fogo, Cape Verde. In front of it there is a minor summit which was formed in an eruption in 1995. This volcanic landscape has been taken in 2010 December.
  •  Support -- Ximonic (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like it! Only two hiccups - the composition seems a little off-balance to me, with the volcano so close to the top and the left edge, and the shadows in the foreground on the right seem too dark and imposing. Apart from that, great photo, great volcano. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it seems slightly tilted CCW, or is this just because of the terrain? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is hard for me to say if is the picture really tilted. The sure thing is the terrain certainly wasn't flat and horisontal – hilly every way around. But I have used a water balance thing which is included in my camera. I can fix the seeming tilt if it disturbs too much though. Also the image can easily be cropped every way, but maybe I'd like to wait for more opinions about it so I can be sure where to crop (or clone more sky). Thanks. --Ximonic (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just wanted to add, for the record, that I never saw any tilt, but I know what Whale is referring to. I live near mountains and it can be frustrating when you pictures are level, but the mountains going off into the distance, plus varying heights, make the image look like you can't hold a camera for your life. But in this case, I never saw it and I still don't; but if anyone does see a tilt, it's definitely because of the landscape. If it bothers too many people, obviously it can be fixed. ; ) – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, this terrain can make it very confusing. If you say that the bubble metre said it was level, that's good enough for me. As for the softness around the top, I think that it is just haze. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support  Neutral I think the "tilt" may be the terrain; I don't see anything it can really be judged by. I'm hoping the soft blur at the top is smoke from the volcano? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The soft blur... Atleast it can't be made by me. I don't know, huh? :D I don't remember that kind of stuff so it must have been really hard to notice if there were smoke. Atleast it is an active volcano. --Ximonic (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope, definitely not you, but it looks like a very fine dark cloud of ash or smoke right dead center. I don't think there's anything that can be done about it though. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, maybe it is you. Is this image composed of two images stitched together, and did you use a polarizer filter for these images? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore the panorama is something like 150 degrees wide so I guess the changing of the sky is natural and can't be avoided (unless by digital manipulation). --Ximonic (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if you didn't use a polarizer then that rules that out. I suppose it is just haze. Unfortunately, I find it really distracting and I'm not sure why, so I'm really on the fence. But it's still a nice shot! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 13:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

[edit]

Another crop

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 07:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2011 at 20:26:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Yoke decoration shaped like a horse
This isn't Wikipedia. -- One, please. ( Thank you.) 07:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 11:00:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Joakim Noah and JaVale McGee in a jump ball.
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 06:44:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Quito Historic Center
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Viljo koirarannalla 18.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2011 at 17:03:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dog looking for his ball.
  •  Info created & uploaded by Kallerna - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Looking at this picture by itself, it's a point-and-shoot shot of a dog running through water, nothing I can't find at the local park lake about five minutes away from me. Looking at it as part of a series of images, what I see is someone uploading 20 images of their dog, using the images only on their talk page, and nominating them for "quality images". I find this kind of disturbing, but whatever. These are nothing more than non-educational look-at-my-dog pictures that are absolutely nothing special. Having said that, I do think you picked the best of the bunch. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Albeit I would probably have phrased it a little bit more gentle myself I sadly have to admit that I agree entirely with the review of Kerαunoςcopia. --Slaunger (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I think we should be reviewing the image, not getting sidetracked on user conduct (especially when the image's creator didn't nominate it). Other forums are better suited to that, if it's needed. Getting back to the image, it has some appeal, but IMO the composition isn't ideal - a bit cramped on the left, and quite remote for a fun subject. I think a couple of the others in the series have more impact, if still not quite FP material. --Avenue (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question -- I remember assessing (and supporting?) this picture, or a similar one, before. But I can't find the link. Am I having visions? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weibliche Große Pechlibelle, Ischnura elegans 4.JPG

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2011 at 20:34:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Female Ischnura elegans
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 07:36:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Etropole Monastery, Bulgaria.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2011 at 12:31:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The mysterious and spooky 15th century Shirvan Dynasty mausoleum and graveyard in Shamakhi, Azerbaijan.
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Wladyslaw (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 14:07:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Why not? Is that bad?--Citron (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 07:43:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tungurahua Volcano 2011
 Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image, but only two active nominations per user are allowed and you already have that. – You are welcome to nominate this image again when one of your active nominations is closed. This nomination can’t be re-activated; a new one must be made using the /2. Tomer T (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 22:43:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Purple Finch, male
Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2011 at 21:18:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rosa ‘Gloria Dei’
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pico de Teide.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 13:47:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pico de Teide, Tenerife
  • no much wow or surprising about your vote, but you are definitly wrong with the estimation this picture is a centered composition. where is harsh lighting? there is nothing overexposed, expert Benh. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who said it was overexposed ? If you have time, u could use it to fix ur previous nom instead of judging people over here (obviously, wasn't as easy as you first thought...). - Benh (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The composition doesn't bother me as the pillar on the left makes a nice contrast with the centered mountain, but I have to agree about the lighting. It's uninteresting lighting, and a bit hazy. Can it be re-photographed at sunrise/sunset? The sameness of the colors makes the image seem flat. Maybe a polarizer could cut through the haze. Just my suggestion. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- Flat lighting, uninteresting composition. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • commend Benh says the lightning is harsh, Alvesgaspar thinks it is too flat. What is the truth of this contradict opinions? Maybe non of them. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No contradiction that I see. The light coming from above is strong and flat, a little like a flash aimed directly at the subject. This results in harsh shadows but little structure and detail. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ötlingen - Blick auf den Tüllinger Berg.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2011 at 13:03:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ötlingen: view to the hill "Tüllinger", image is showing the typical hilly landscape of the winegrowing area "Markgräflerland" (South West Germany)
  • Nor should it be grounds for incivility, but we both see it, don't we? Anyway, I do like the image, but I think the sky is a touch overexposed. The framing of the trees and the foreground on the left is a wonderful play on the perspective, but the village is too "tucked" into the leaves. Had the photographer stepped a little more to their right, removing the strange crop of the road on the right and shifting the village over a bit, then the image would be much better. The sky can always be corrected. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 22:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2011 at 15:31:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Small Tortoiseshell on a package of Marlboro cigarettes

Alternative

[edit]

Small Tortoiseshell (Aglais urticae) on an old package of Marlboro cigarettes.

 Comment I posted this figure to my social network and my friend said that it looks like a hidden promotion of the smoking. I don't know. May be he is right :( -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment A promoter would've probably used a shiny new package, not an battered old one, but I see the point. --Quartl (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2011 at 14:02:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

C. Bechstein 1920 advert
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vivien Leigh Gone Wind Restored.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2011 at 21:37:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Two men making a death mask, New York, circa 1908
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2011 at 12:27:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2011 at 15:57:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
* Way soft! Slightly misfocused or suffered from vertical camera shake. Use tripod, mirror lock-up, stop down the aperture to f/8.
* The image is tilted to the left.
* Parts of the sky are overexposed. Maybe 5 minutes later, it would have been better. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 08:09:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Crucita, Ecuador
 Comment The featurable thing: I believe it to be the entire scenery, as such, with its geometry and colours, and with what it tells us about the place. --Cayambe (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 06:28:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ansel Adams - National Archives 79-AA-Q01 restored.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 01:15:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church, Taos Pueblo National Historic Landmark, New Mexico, 1942
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 23:08:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2011 at 19:09:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eruption of Great Geysir, Iceland
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 19:20:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lampropeltis Mexicana Greeri snake
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tarsiger rufilatus - Doi Inthanon.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2011 at 01:33:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Heliconius-hecale.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2011 at 17:27:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tiger Longwing (Heliconius hecale) with cocoon.

File:Ostriches Kuhnert.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2011 at 15:18:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
It's the whole image.--Citron (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, this is not a crop, as user:Citron pointed out.. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, a crop is also a way of presenting an image, not necessarily a cutting technique. Here the crop is not good, to put it gently. W.S. 21:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Citron (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2011 at 06:20:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 22:42:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Purple Finch, female
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 06:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 13:32:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Landscape Herscheid, Germany
Maybe you'd prefer this one.. -- pro2 22:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sky is definitively improved, but you still have the problem that the landscape is underexposed. The main focus of your picture is the blown out sun, that's where the eyes immediately goes to (at least mine). So yes, it's an improvement, but still not FP IMO. But don't take what I say at face value, put it up as an alternative if you want and let people vote. --Murdockcrc (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback ;-) -- pro2 21:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 13:32:16 (UTC)

Landscape Herscheid, Germany
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dornach - Goetheanum4.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2011 at 08:55:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dornach, Switzland: Goetheanum from northwest
I have added the basic data. The dots are stars. Would be better to erase them?! --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the metadata. I did not know of the nice {{Panorama}} beforehand, but now I do. I do not have strong opinion about the stars. I just asked because I was in doubt if it was birds in the far distance - that was when I still did not know the exposure times... --Slaunger (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
your previous vote does not mentioned that you think it is too dark. Strange that the building is good visible although it's dark. Your vote indeed is not strange, it has already tradition and I would miss it if you wouldn´t vote blanket against my pictures :-) --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • U're kidding right ? u're always the one shifting the subject off from photo (as if you don't have argument otherwise, and the above about lighting issue is just evidence of that). Please leave bad faith aside just a few second. But it's true I always fall for that. Not anymore, hopefully ;) - Benh (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canaletto - The Piazza San Marco in Venice - Google Art Project.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2011 at 14:12:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Piazza San Marco in Venice by Canaletto.
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2011 at 15:41:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Spin echo animation
  •  Info created by GavinMorley - uploaded by GavinMorley - nominated by GavinMorley -- GavinMorley (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- GavinMorley (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm not saying this to be rude, but is there a way to have this image represented by a still image somehow? I keep swinging by the FPC page and then my browser will hang for 30 seconds while the gif is trying to load, and I keep forgetting it's here. If this isn't possible, then ignore me : ) – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question 1) What is the meaning of the green arrows at the bottom? 2) If I understand correctly, the pi/2 (90) and pi (180) pulses are something that you apply to the system, while the echo is something that you measure. In this sense, having both in one "graph" is a bit counterintuitive and possibly confusing. Also don't see the reason for having the "graph" in 3D. bamse (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) The green arrows at the bottom show that the time "t" between the 90 and 180 pulses is the same as the time "t" between the 180 pulse and the echo. 2) As you say there is a difference between the applied pulses and the echo. They are the same in the sense that they are all pulses of electromagnetic radiation with the same frequency (generally RF for NMR and microwave for EPR). I like to have them together to show that the two times "t" are the same. Many experiments produce data with the pulses and the echo together such as figure 3a from my recent Phys Rev Lett paper here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0806/0806.3431.pdf . I did the green graph in 3D because I thought it looked nicer. GavinMorley (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the reply and congratulations to the PRL. 1) So the arrows are pointing at the centers of the respective peak/plateaus (hard to see in 3D in my opinion)? I am not sure that these green arrows are the best way to illustrate that it is the same time interval. Initially I thought it was somehow related to the direction of the spins (which are also represented by arrows. Unfortunately I don't have a good idea of how to improve it: maybe some kind of bar instead of the arrows or adding a label "T" or something. 2) OK as for plotting them together. A problem of the 3D graph is that the p/2 pulse does not appear to be half as wide as the pi pulse due to the projection. Can you remind me what determines the shape (width and height) of the echo peak? Well done and very useful illustration btw! bamse (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1) yes. 2) The echo height depends on things like how many spins are in the sample, the relaxation times, the spin polarization etc. The echo width depends on the width of the pulses, the relaxation times, the inhomogeneities in the experiment etc. If people want I could render the animation with all of the green stuff rotated so that you are looking at it head-on. GavinMorley (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I always support animations, because they are best to describe things, that hard to be explained in words. But this animation is need additional explanation in words, so I can't support it. Technically: a) animation does not show, what we "did" and what we "get"; and b) the green arrow of time looks like it is assigned to X axis. -- ☭Acodered (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I uploaded a new version of the animation to solve the concerns raised above. GavinMorley (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Why does it need to be so dark and to have such strong colors? After all it looks a bit after "I didn't know how how to make it better". I would suggest to use a 2D-Graph and a brighter illustration of the angles/vectors on top of it. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 10:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

[edit]

Spin echo animation

Alternative

[edit]

Here is a version without the dark background. GavinMorley (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2011 at 03:15:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Three Thoroughbreds racing
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sweetgum Seed closeup.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 13:11:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sweetgum Seed Capsule DESCRIPTION
 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 quality is much below FP standards: out of focus subject, noise, artifacts, distracting bakground. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:30, 10 June 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.

Image:Rügen Kreidefelsen Kaiserstuhl 2011.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2011 at 19:57:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

White Cliffs of Rügen
 Comment I confirm the image is straight now. :-) I still think you will need to shoot the picture again, with the parameters I mentioned in my earlier comment. Also use ISO 100 with such a good light. And a tripod for maximum stability. And be sure to order such nice weather again... Good luck! Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Thanks again for your friendly help on commons Pe-sa (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SeebrückeGöhren2011.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 20:33:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pier, Göhren, Rügen
  • Great light and colors - you really caught the right moment to shoot the subject
  • Composition - I like the "no frills" approach
  • You got the horizon straight this time :-)
On the other hand, I have a number of possible improvements for this image:
  • Noise - why 800 ISO? There was plenty of light to work with 100 ISO.
  • Sharpness - The EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 II is simply soft wide open (the IS version is better). Stop it down to 5.6 or 8.0 whenever you can.
  • Composition - Let the handrail on the right side "fly in" from the corner. This diagonal leads the viewer's eye and improves the perspective impression.
I hope you understand that for the given reasons I cannot support the candidature. Finally, I also struggle to see the encyclopedic value/signification of this building. With kind regards, Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2011 at 23:45:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wadi Rum
 Comment I think it's not misfocused, that's just the best you can get out of a Canon Powershot A710. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Best possible composition in horizontal 3rds, great afternoon colors on a clear day. Could only be improved through a more advanced camera for better sharpness and resolution, and maybe some little white clouds here and there? Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2011 at 00:31:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An animation of the construction of a 4-dimensional hypercube (tesseract) graph. In my opinion a good way to visualize the fourth dimension, as it starts from squares, goes to cubes, and finally a hypercube. I can upload a larger size if necessary.
 Comment Thank you for the comments. I have extended the last frame. InverseHypercube (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Igrexa parroquial de Doade - Lalín - Galicia-2.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2011 at 22:32:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2011 at 06:10:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Snake eats frog in Panama.
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2011 at 10:04:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portrait of a monk. Japan, 16th century. Lacquered wood with rock crystal incrusts for eyes. On display at the Musée des Confluences exhibit of the Musée gallo-romain de Fourvière
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2011 at 20:50:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A stairway in a Belgium Castle.
  •  Info created by Delay - uploaded by Delay - nominated by Delay -- Delay (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Delay (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I like it, but it's a strange composition. Perhaps it was meant to be a horizontal frame. There almost seems to be too much floor. Otherwise, I like it. I personally would go so far as to paint out the weird fire alarm thingy on the far back wall, I find it to be one of those modern blemishes that appear all too often in beautiful locations. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 05:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I disagree with painting out the fire alarm thing. I think photographs meant to be used in an encyclopedia should not be modified in this manner, because they lose documentary value. InverseHypercube (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Hmm, that's a fair point. I suppose an image on an encyclopedia would have a different raison d'être than a picture hung on a wall of someone's living room (or whatever). Anyway, for the record, the fire alarm thingamabob would not affect my vote. My "neutral" is definitely for the beauty of the staircase, the flow of the wood, but the lack of a fitting composition. : ) – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 09:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I greatly appreciate the composition and B&W generation. On the technical side, I would have recommended to use base ISO, as there is a fair amount of noise. Also, stopping down the lens to f/8 could have improved the sharpness. As you used a tripod, the resulting longer exposure time would not have been a problem, anyway. Therefore, if you have the possibility to shoot the scene again, I would support a new version. Alternatively, a PP for noise control and sharpness would do to get my support. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I really like the composition and light - the way the light reflects on the floor is very nice. Noise seems a little excessive. The file description is insufficient IMO for an FP: Which castle in Belgium? I noticed the dirt on the floor, which gives the impression that it is a deserted castle, but is that right? --Slaunger (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lampropeltis Mexicana Greeri (12).JPG

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 11:22:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lampropeltis Mexicana Greeri snake in private collection of Jakub Seif. Feeding

File:Waldbrand-Bodenfeuer.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2011 at 17:44:25
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral → not delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2011 at 16:46:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The artist's bedroom in Arles, by Vincent van Gogh.
  •  Support forgot the interactive viewer link to avoid downloading it all. A clear support now. - Benh (talk)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media
  • Question for the people who voted here: I plan to upload a cropped version of this image without the frame, but don't want to upload over the original. It seems a couple people here would prefer an image without the frame. Should the featured tag be moved to that image or what? Dcoetzee (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2011 at 09:00:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

McWay Falls in Big Sur, California.
  •  Support If these waterfalls were commonplace I would have to oppose. However, it is a very unusual waterfall that is hard to reach, which I feel outdoes and quality problems. And rocks can be white. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing with google maps it looks like being close to a highway. As far as I understand it is only difficult to get to the bottom of the falls or to the beach. bamse (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2011 at 16:54:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

HOUSE BOAT AT KUTTANAD
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fuji apple.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2011 at 15:04:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Two Fuji apples. In 1992, Washington apple growers harvested about 805,000 boxes of Fujis. Three years later, production had quadrupled to 3.5 million boxes

 I withdraw my nomination

File:Dornach - Goetheanum2a small.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2011 at 10:17:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dornach, Switzland: Goetheanum from northwest at sunset
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 10:41:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Novak Djokovic holding the Norman Brookes trophy after winning the 2011 Australian Open.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2011 at 06:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A thunderstorm piling up over the Southern Black Forest
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:STS-134 EVA4 view to the Russian Orbital Segment.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2011 at 10:15:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Soyuz space capsule attached to the International Space Station above Earth, facing the sun
  •  Comment Okay, no wow factor noted. I did remove the magenta and green fringing. I apologize for the placement of the alternative image, I'm actually not sure how to go about doing that. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Also in the new version a lot of chromatic aberrrations (annotated in the original), unsharp areas and overexposed parts. I wonder, that you nominate a picture that doesn't fulfill in no way the criteria you demand always in the nominations of others! --Llez (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 09:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 16:30:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tas Kopru bridge, Kars, Turkey.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2011 at 22:00:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2011 at 20:41:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alfenzbrücke
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 22:50:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Court one during the Novak Djokovic and Lleyton Hewitt match at Wimbledon 2010.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2011 at 00:35:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rose-breasted Grosbeak, male
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2011 at 00:36:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rose-breasted Grosbeak, female
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2011 at 22:50:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Machinery Hall at Illinois Institute of Technology
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Slaunger (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2011 at 11:08:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

World mirror relief map
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andrea Chénier, Bregenz 01.JPG

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2011 at 21:05:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2011 at 03:37:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Orange Wallflowers.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2011 at 15:18:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Harvest Mouse
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2011 at 03:04:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pink Rose Flower
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2011 at 20:32:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Koude Keuken castle, Bruges
  •  Comment Definitely an improvement. However, I still don't believe the image to be FA quality. The lighting seems warm and end-of-day-ish, but still rather flat; the trees, though framing the shot, are another distraction and they don't frame the shot evenly or help to draw the eye to the center of the frame, and there is a lot of empty space at the top, above the vane. The perspective control looks good though. Are you able to return to this location? Maybe a little more dramatic lighting, possibly a different angle (not that there's anything wrong with this angle, but the location seems to have the unfortunate tendency of having a lot of trees appearing randomly everywhere). The trees may hinder good side-lighting too, you don't want shadows everywhere. So I can't change my vote, sorry. As for the face in the window, the window dead center, closest to the drainage pipe, there definitely does seem to be someone looking out. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment A different angle is not into consideration, as a lot of trees hamper the view. The light is a late afternoon light indeed: it's the best moment to photograph this monument; otherwise there are shadows of the trees on it. About the man's face behind one of the windows: I myself I don't believe in phantoms and other ghosts, but it's always possible of course that this kind of building is haunted. The castle is not occupied at the present time, so everything is imaginable.... -- MJJR (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2011 at 13:35:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
I like the new version, thanks a lot. - A.S. 14:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2011 at 09:28:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Elisabethkirche at Schneeberg, Lower Austria
Well, I didn't bring my tripod so I was not able to take several identical shots. The presence of people around this highly touristic spot is representative for what you usually see when you go there. I am not sure whether the kind of edit you suggest is in agreement with the encyclopedic documentation obligations. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it wouldn't be encyclopedic. I mean, many images nominated here are compiled from many images. I could see cloning the people out to be problematic, since you're effectively altering any actual information and details, but combining several images of the exact same subject at different times, I don't see that as a problem at all. Oh well, too bad for the no-tripod thing, then. People aren't always bad in a shot, they can provide scale. But the "tourism" factor just doesn't sit with me. Sorry :( – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 10:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Well, it's just a church, eh? If you would have the opportunity to go there in a cold morning, I guarantee you would feel the magic! :-) Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, it depends on the hour. If it were too early, I would feel dumb and feel nothing... As for my assessment, it may happen that I'm having higher expectations than I should. Are you acquainted with my opposing rules (especially #8 and #10)? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support your set of rules, which could be valid for any case where other people's work is to be judged. I also try to evaluate the FP candidates in the most objective way and make efforts to give constructive hints about how to improve. By the way, my initial comment above was not entirely serious (see the smiley!) and certainly not intended to seed doubts about your judgement abilities. Kind regards, Hendric Stattmann (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2011 at 07:59:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

STS 134 Endeavour Docked
  • Changed to  Neutral. I was swept away by the motion blur and long exposure lighting, something I hadn't seen in a NASA image before now (um, with the Shuttle—celestial objects excluded). But Llez brings up a good point, it is rather noisy, and I was forgetting myself about the technical appreciation FA desires. One thing that bothered me from the beginning but I forced myself to ignore: the chopped off Shuttle. We get the bay, but no flight deck. Unrepeatable by the Endeavor, sadly. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 10:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

[edit]
NR applied
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2011 at 06:28:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Ok, thank you. The reason I was even looking was because they're such cute air brakes. Or maybe "meager" would be a better word. But I'm not an aeronautical engineer. Thanks for creating something so detailed for the encyclopedia. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBN 5-901668-01-4 Ильдар Бедретдинов Штурмовик Су-25 и его модификации. — Издание 2-е. — Москва: ООО «Издательская группа «Бедретдинов и Ко», 2002. Altoing (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Computer-generated

File:Ibbenbueren Anthracite.JPG

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2011 at 16:46:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

ANTHRACITE COAL
 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: extensive parts out of focus, chromatic aberration, too tight crop, poor framing, bad lighting. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:01, 15 June 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.
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2011 at 04:14:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Kotor and Boka kotorska - view from city wall.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2011 at 20:26:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kotor and Boka kotorska - panorama from city wall
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2011 at 22:21:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Passage inside a old city block in Stockholm. Build in the 1980s and by and designed by renowned Swedish architect Carl Nyrén. The image was taken with analogue camera (Nikon FM)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2011 at 14:36:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2011 at 19:21:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
✓ Done--Citron (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2011 at 19:43:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

360 ° panorama in Lechquellengebirge
mit PTGui --Böhringer (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wie, nicht womit. Irgendeine Automatikfunktion? Apparently your tripod (be it real, be it virtual) is not exactly level, i.e. de:Sulzfluh and de:Valluga (both 2800+x) show at different heights in the image. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2011 at 14:48:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Passenger ship „Celebrity“ on Moskva River in Moscow
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lars Erik Pettersson, Kopparberg, Västmanland, Sweden.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2011 at 20:38:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
 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 too small 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.

. W.S. 05:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Élisabeth Charlotte d'Orléans as Venus about to bind the wings of Cupid by Pierre Gobert.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2011 at 22:35:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Élisabeth Charlotte d'Orléans (future Duchess of Lorraine and later the paternal grandmother of Marie Antoinette) depicted as the goddess Venus about to bind the wings of Cupid painted by Pierre Gobert in 1697
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Image is too small. Read about resolution right at the top of this page. – User:Keraunoscopia 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.
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2011 at 22:52:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A cercle showing pi.
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 16:32:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

North walls of Ani, Turkey
Another view - different angle - less panoramic.. less EV IMO than the one I nominated above for FPC.. Ggia (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Benh: Take a look also to this image.. it is a more closed view.. not so "extreme" ratio.. different angle.. but this image has more EV and it is more illustrative. Ggia (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. But this one looks far better. If only it didn't had this aspect ratio... So you went to Turkey as well ! I hope to complete uploading my bunch of pictures from there too someday ;) - Benh (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was in transit in Turkey traveling from Istanbul to Kars (by Dogu Expresi train) and then continuing to Georgia. Ani is on the border line between Turkey-Armenia and I visited during my short stay in Kars (part of the monuments are not accessible due to the military zone - international border zone - i.e. this bridge belong half in Turkey and half in Armenia - the river is the international zone and the fence is the turkish border). Definitely a nice place to visit.. Ggia (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 04:06:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Abigail Breslin at the Vanity Fair party celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Tribeca Film Festival.
  •  Comment After looking at Mr. Shankbone's other photography, he doesn't seem to tweak the backgrounds at all. Striked-out comment above. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 13:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 20:17:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Clonee Loughs
  • Resolution is on the low side - do you have a full resolution version available by any chance?
  • Blown highlights in the sky - look at the cloud's reflections in the lake, I want to see these clouds in the sky too!
  • Sharpening a tiny bit over the top - look at the slight artefacts between earth and sky on the right side.
I hope you can do something about it! Kind regards, Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 19:33:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mural painting by Elmer E. Garnsey
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2011 at 20:28:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Window in Salim Chishti Tomb, Fatehpur Sikiri, India.
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2011 at 01:05:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info created by Erik Christensen - uploaded by Jrockley -- 99.224.135.218 01:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- 99.224.135.218 01:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)No anon votes please. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Why would they do that? WHY?!? ...Even though they're carnivorous cetaceans and I could see some practical uses in addition to food -- One, please. ( Thank you.) 05:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Why not? The species is abundant (, least concern conservation status, less than 1000 individuals are caught each year from a population of 2-300000) and is used for food and considered a delicacy at the Faroe islands. What is the difference between eating this and other mammals like cows, sheep, pigs? Aren't you just imposing your cultural values on another culture? BTW, due to the high concentration of certain pollutants being built up in the food chain, I recently read that the meat from whales and dolphins are now marked as health-hazards in a similar manner as cigarettes. Yet some people continue smoking and the Faroe people will probably continue eating the meat of the Atlantic white-sided dolphins...--Slaunger (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clearly you failed to note the partial unseriousness of my comment. Secondly I thought I made it clear that, well, they're carnivores; natural killers and consumers of animals also, so... I don't feel too sorry for them when they do this all their lives to other creatures anyway, though it's evolution's fault and not their own. Thirdly, awareness of apparent violence isn't cultural, it's an aspect in most vertebrate nature. Fourthly, I mentioned practicality, such as possible uses for the blubber and the bones could probably make good fertilizer and a source of calcium - I bet they do taste good though..) Lastly, all that aside it's still gory and while not relevant to whether or not this is up to snuff to be a FP I wonder if the slaughter method used is humane (for one thing if they were killed before they were disemboweled), as I still do for cattle and chickens. And it's just kind of sad to see pieces of their fins broken off. While educational it's really IMO quite a tragic and saddening picture and not uplifting in the least (unless maybe you're a school of fish glad there's a few less dolphins roaming the waters late at night). -- One, please. ( Thank you.) 05:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are correct. I failed to put sufficient weight in the last part of your paragraph. The first part was emphasized and partially capitalized, which I interpreted as the part you gave real weight. Sorry for not having perceived your partial unseriousness in the comment. I understand much better what you mean now. --Slaunger (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment !!! --Citron (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A bold nomination and a very valuable photo of a rare sight. Good composition, striking, good DOF, light is a bit boring, resolution is not stunning, but mitigatable. --Slaunger (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- It is shocking to see this kind of pictures because whales are among the most inteligent animals on Earth, capable of feeling and expressing human-like emotions. This should perhaps be enough to forbid their killing for commercial purposes, but I understand how traditional practises may slow down what we consider to be the correct policy. Still we shouldn't be fooled by ethic considerations when assessing a picture, one way or the other. Our evaluation should be focused on the educational, aesthetical and technical value of the picture, taking into consideration the difficulty or rarity associated with the shot. In this case, there is nothing extraordinary justifying the FP status. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Per Slaunger. --Lošmi (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Abderitestatos (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Alvesgaspar, except the last sentence. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Specifically, the crop is not nice. There should have been a way not to have cut animals at every border of the image. W.S. 14:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Wetenschatje. --Stryn (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The composition and techincal quality are enough for FP. Don't let us be fooled to think we only think that way because of what the picture portraits. --Tomer T (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Elements unnecessarily cropped out of the frame unfortunately. Steven Walling 22:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Wetenschatje's comment on the crop. --Avenue (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose high EV but the image crop/composition is not the best possible. Ggia (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Quality is average, but there's a lot of "wow" factor here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why on earth has this nomination turned into some ethical battle, I don't know.  Support wow factor and high quality image. -- Good twins (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see an ethical battle here. Just one semi-jocular comment, with a brief discussion due to it being misinterpreted, and another voter saying that the ethical issues are not relevant. --Avenue (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 10 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parablennius gattorugine 2011.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 22:34:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
It's a picture in an aquarium. :) --Citron (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Citron (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2011 at 17:46:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Polish MiG-29
  •  Comment I wouldn't dodge burn, I would simply mask out the plane, use curves to bring down the sky, then use curves on the plane (reverse masked) very slightly. The effect would be a sort of HDR fix, without the look of HDR. A fix of this type would get my support fo sho. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Central Park Tulsa Oklahoma.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2011 at 01:43:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Central Park of Tulsa, Olkahoma

 I withdraw my nomination--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Konische Garnspulen ungefärbt.jpeg, delisted

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2011 at 14:20:37
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral → delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2011 at 23:06:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Laetiporus sulphureus
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2011 at 20:01:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Soyuz TMA-02M rollout
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grape worker.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2011 at 15:57:30
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info Tight crop, lighting problems, noisy (Original nomination)
  •  Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Tight crop? Define adequate crop. Lighting problems? Define. Noisy? Really! Talk is cheap, ignorance even cheaper. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The cap is cut on the top, from an unclear reason. The face is too bright and the cap too dark. Noise is especially visible in the background on the man's right. I really don't understand why you thought calling me ignorant is fine. Tomer T (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tomer, you take incredible liberties to oppose, which is fine, but without photographic evaluation merit. As recipient of your almost always negative reviews, I feel I too, have the right to call your hand on them, stricktly from the photograpic point of view. I call it critiquing the critique. The face is too bright: well, that is a very subjective appreciation on your part, for it is a daytime exposure, and the contrast is normal with regards to image contrast and light conditions and direction. If you look at the light from the portrait lighting point of view, you will find it to be positioned just about right. Furthermore, if you were to convert it to gray scale and see in which zone the skin falls, you will find that it falls where it should according to convention. Yes, the cap is cropped, must there be a reason? so is the shirt, so is the field. The cap is cropped where I cropped it, according to my photographic criteria. Cap too dark? well, considering that there is a 4 stop light differential between sun lighted areas and shadow areas, I would expect a dark object in the shade to be... dark. So if you must oppose, you are free to do so, if you do on technical grounds, be sure you know what you are talking about. If you judge on your subjective appreciation of aesthetics, you have a right to your opinion, and with that, you will not get an argument from me. An oppose vote based on photographic criteria, and pointing out solutions contributes to all, an oppose vote just to oppose, with no feedback is just a sterile exercise. Cheers --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • First of all, "tightness" and "lighting problems" are both something between technical and subjective matters; they are both technical issues, but are subject to one's point of view. I don't think you have any right to judge that I don't have any proper evaluation merit, or that I don't know what I'm talking about. I prefer not responing any further on your specific responses about the techincal issues - you have your opinion, I have mine, let the others judge whether or not the picture still deserves FP status. I think, from my experience and long years in Wikimedia, that any further dispute between us is a pitfall that will probably lead to unwanted results. I'll just say that bad given conditions aren't IMO a reason to avoid the problems. Although you may think so, I don't "seek" you and I usually don't pay much attention to the creator's identity, as well as in this one, which I found in its FP category page, and I thought to be not standing in today's standards. I don't know why you took it so hard as well, I don't have any harmful intentions and calling me names isn't a solution to anything. If you wanted more detailed critique, you could have just asked. My proposal doesn't mean the FP status will be denied, it is to the community's judgement to decide. Best regards, Tomer T (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist -- Harsh lighting as well -- LeavXC (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist --Citron (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist per nom. W.S. 06:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Other than the subjective appreciations of the delisting nominator, the conditions or the context of the image have not changed. This image, among others of this collection, were good enough to be used in the award winning documentary A Harvest of Loneliness [[3]]. The nominator´s reasons are not based on photographic or proper evaluation criteria, but rather on his own personal taste. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral → not delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2011 at 15:20:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic image of Tbilisi
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2011 at 00:57:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A lit candle burning in the dark. Image taken on 08/27/2011. Image edition with photoshop 7.0, only saturation and cropping.
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2011 at 11:51:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Citron
T'es bien le seul à comprendre la blague! :) --Citron (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No he's not, I understand it too! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lemon of a picture of lemons by a lemon. Esa también es una broma. ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Et pourtant, la FPC page est bien réputée pour le sens de l'humour de certains de ses contributeurs, expérimenté quotidiennement ! --Jebulon (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2011 at 14:58:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cercopis vulnerata
alt version of wb
  • Thanks for the advice. I've upload a new version with a slightly desaturated green channel. I hope this is OK for everybody cause the quality didn`t change and imo the green looks more natural now. So thanks again and best regards mathias K 07:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2011 at 09:29:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mona Lisa
  •  Comment Have you seen the other options, some of which are used on dozens upon dozens of pages? Some people have a seriously messed-up idea of what the colors are supposed to look like. I've seen the ML at the Louvre and I wish I could remember better what it looked like, but I believe it to be truer to the muted versions available. But unless someone has the painting directly in front of them, I'm not sure an exact color reproduction is truly possible. I do find this image to be "realistic" per my own experience. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 22:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2011 at 01:41:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Orinoco river (biggest and largest in Venezuela) at sunset, from Hileros de Parmana
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2011 at 16:41:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alignement, place de la Concorde, Paris.
  •  Info all by Jebulon -- Jebulon (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Jebulon (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral On the technical side, I am quite happy with this image, as it displays good sharpness and all lens defects are well corrected. I might like a bit more of saturation, IMHO. The thing that keeps me from supporting this candidate is the composition. Quite a lot of street in the bottom part, lots of sky on top, neither of them adding anything to the image. I would try to get closer, using a wide angle lens. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for review. I can increase the saturation. I partially agree about the ground (partially, because as a parisian I find the empty and car-free place de la Concorde very nice (very rare !)), but strongly disagree about the sky, which is not empty and adds a lot (my taste). As for a wide angle lens, I'll be happy to give you by email my postal address, the you could send to me another lens as gift Clin...--Jebulon (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like the sky, and dislike the asphalt (this might be subjective though), however what I think is not working is the attempted demonstration of the "alignment". The overlap is too messy, as the distance between the elements is not legible. I believe is also not a characteristic view, as people walk on the side of the street not in the centre.--ELEKHHT 11:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
        • L'utilisateur ELEKHH écrit: "J'aime le ciel, je n'aime pas le bitume (cela peut être subjectif, néanmoins), par contre je pense que ce qui ne "marche" pas c'est la tentative de démontrer l'alignement. Le recouvrement est trop désordonné et la distance entre les éléments est impossible à déterminer. Je pense en outre que ce n'est pas un angle de vue charactéristique, puisque les gens marchent sur le côté de la rue et non pas au centre." -- 22:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, due to my too bad english I'm not sure I understand the last sentence of your comment. Thanks for review anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • En effet, c'est un exploit de prendre cet endroit sans aucune voiture. Le ciel a une structure intéressante en effet et je le laisserais tel quel pour une photo à vocation artistique - mais ici il s'agit d'une documentation encyclopédique et il en découle une nécessité de se concentrer sur le sujet, quitte à négliger certains côtés décoratifs/esthétiques.Hendric Stattmann (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It's a real WOW!-effect. I was in Paris several times, but Concorde without cars (or more correctly: with only one car) ...never seen. --Llez (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Elekhh, quite messy composition.. Also too much sky in the top and too much asphalt in the bottom.. Ggia (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Several issues: DoF is too great, blending just about everything on the same plane. Either a wide angle lens should have been used to exagerate the proportion of the fountain vs the background, or a long telephoto with a wide aperture to blurr the backgroung and separate it from the environment. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Really, nice! It makes quite a statement I think LittleFrog (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nice lighting, but the alignement attempt is not quite successful here in my opinion, as each subject is obstructed and in the end, I only feel frustrated not to see them. I would have stepped on either side. - Benh (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not very good composition, object is too small and lamp in the centre is disturbing. --Karelj (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Tomer T (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose No good composition Joe MiGo (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2011 at 18:31:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A spoon containing breakfast cereal flakes, part of a strawberry, and milk is held in midair against a blue background.
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2011 at 14:54:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Saxonian IV K #99 1542 in Jöhstadt
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2011 at 14:41:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

* Support -- Maredentro (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2011 at 20:49:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gemeine Blutzikade, Cercopis vulnerata

+ Oppose sorry but per Alves. I also don't like the very centered composition. --mathias K 15:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2011 at 14:59:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hütte auf dem Forabühl am Diedamskopf.
probably not too good, but not foggy ;)
  •  Support I tried cropping it in various ways out of curiosity and they all suck. Your image can't be tampered with I guess! And I keep looking at it (sort of reminds me of the huts up in the Alps). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I keep looking at the picture but I have to agree with the below comments about it being too gray. I struggled with this image in the beginning and still do, unfortunately. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 03:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2011 at 20:29:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
 Info Nhobgood takes his pictures in the natural habitat, as the description says, the picture has taken in East Timor, underwater. I think that the photo was not retouched.--Citron (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2011 at 20:41:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ruby-throated Hummingbird
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2011 at 16:16:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Herdo of bos taurus pasturing in Brest (FR)
I'm sorry, but if I found that some of my picture are featurable, I will propose them here. If you are not agree with the quality, just write it, but I think there is no rule, that I cannot propose some images here... --Llorenzi (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I´m sorry too. You haven´t understand the sense of Wikimedia. I agree with Benh: I don't see what's featurable here... random composition... Joe MiGo (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 CommentThe 41 different language versions are automatically generated as a consequence of a single nomination in Commons. Therefore, absolutely nothing wrong with that. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2011 at 18:00:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Asian Lady Beetle moulting
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2011 at 17:59:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Comma
Cropped version
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2011 at 20:53:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mould of a child's face.
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rheinhochwasser Januar 2011 - LEV Flusspromenade Rheindorf.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2011 at 19:12:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rhine flood in Leverkusen in winter 2010/11
There was some misty sky as you can see in the background, but the image is actually not underexposed. - A.S. 15:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2011 at 20:31:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ceiling in Vatican museums
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2011 at 08:57:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of Castel San Pietro from Parco delle Golle della Breggia. The cliff you see is the canyon the makes this park.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2011 at 21:52:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eruption of Puyehue-Cordón Caulle volcano, Chile, 06-08-2011.
  • I think I actually found it, finally. It seems to be surprisingly small compared to the photographed area. It's at the left side. This discovery does not change my previous opinion. --Ximonic (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2011 at 14:35:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Perfect composition, no low sides. Brilliant.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2011 at 16:24:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info created by the evening sun, a copyist of Michelangelo, and by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Once upon a time, on my talk page, after an unfortunate nomination of another museum picture, I found this message: However, as has also been the case previously — the ignorant culture crowd , we are not thrilled by it. Why? I think it is because it is too factual and perhaps "cold". For me a good FP, is a picture which catch the attention of users, which are normally not trained in a subject or not knowledgable about a certain topic, but which wets the appetite by inviting the viewer into the picture. To achieve that I think you need to deviate from the classic museum shot and do something completely different from being very factual. You may want to use a different kind of lightning - one that does not necessarily best catch all painstaking details in the sculpture, but which brings out feelings of drama, anger, power, dispair or whatever characterized the person depicted by the sculpture. Maybe the angle you see it from should be completely different, maybe it should be a zoom on a feature of the sculpture, an eye, the mouth, the texture of the stone, I do not know, but something that brings it to life. Doing that may be at the cost of being factual, all-encompassing detailed or a slight bend of reality. But if you thereby create a photo, which is unusual, eyecatching, with an interesting composition, you may catch the attention of some of us ignorants, who just have not seen the light yet.

Well... It was an interesting lesson, wasn't it ? I found this recent picture in my collection, and I'm happy to offer it to you. Jebulon (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support Yes -- Cephas (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I think it is a nice idea, but qualifies the image not for a featured candidate - we are not judging about "nice" or "creative" pictures. --

Yikrazuul (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version

[edit]

  •  Support I'm generally against alternative versions, but I've tried this one because I'm interested by the challenge, and I think it is funny in this case. Sorry for the digital manipulations (cloning out the banner). Thanks in advance for feedback.--Jebulon (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Oy, I thought the ImageAnnotator would be a simple process, not some crazy code. Anyway, there are cloning artifacts that, even without knowing about the cloning, some would appear somewhat obvious. Still not an FP image in my opinion. It doesn't really illustrate anything. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, "oy", referring to the annotation thing, not your picture. And dude, opposes on FPC aren't anything personal, stop acting like everything is an attack on you and you need to retort. You do this every time, not just with my last two opposes. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 12:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a "dude". Please stop give me orders about what I have to do or not, even if I understand very well that you would prefer to be alone with nobody to "retort" to your (...) and systematic oppositions. --Jebulon (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dudette then? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm truly sorry because in full size this looks quite good! But when I go look at the details the repetitive pattern starts to disturb too much. Though, it is good cloning work and I guess it's very hard to do it better. --Ximonic (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, I meant to say in thumbnail not in full size. My bad. --Ximonic (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment In way to improve, could you please annotate the repetitive pattern you see ? Thanks for review anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added annotations to some spots where the repeating texture catched my eye a little too easily. This might be difficult to solve because the clones always have to be from somewhere. I'm not sure if would it work, but maybe you could try to clone some texture on these spots from somewhere further on the image, so the identical patterns wouldn't be right next to each other. --Ximonic (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Tomer T (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose interesting light, good quality, composition interesting – but I really see no EV here, sorry. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nice idea. But cloning artifacts very obvious and I would prefer a perspective correction. Per Kerαunoςcopia for everything. - Benh (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Agree about perspective correction, but it is simply impossible: as the wall is not parallel to the statue, (nor perpendicular to the ground) a correction should have destroyed the proportions of the shadows, and they are good (=according to the model). Thanks for review.--Jebulon (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This version is an empty fake comparing the previous one. "Just concentrate to the bare wall, an empty spot, and a miracle happens"? Nevertheless, this edit altered the real location, and far from perfect. --HoremWeb Place of Auditions 22:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2011 at 20:21:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Immaculate Conception, by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo
-The painting ? Matter of taste. Not mine, sorry. And I'm not sure with the real colors (see other "official" versions in the file description page).
-The painter ? "Congratulations Mr. Tiepolo, please nominate other pictures of yours" ?
-The photographical technics and settings ? Mr Google-the-robot photographer ? Oh yes, "he" has a better camera than mine, no doubt...
-The size ? Unnecessary detailed IMO. It looks like a moon landscape, or an ethiopian ground in summer, on my screen.--Jebulon (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2011 at 21:29:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Marek Szufa in his Curtiss JN4
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Łukasz [Wolf] Golowanow (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles
The chosen alternative is: File:Marek Szufa Jenny (alt 2).jpg
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2011 at 03:52:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2011 at 03:31:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2011 at 16:51:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Olson Microgravity Flame
  •  Info created by Sandra Olson (NASA aerospace engineer) uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I was really impressed by the image at first, thinking this was an actual flame in space. But it looks like it one single pattern is repeated and the flame looks like it was poorly "cut-out" by a pixel knife near the center of each "petal". So, I'm not sure what to think. This isn't a picture of a flame, but a picture of a flame made to look like a flower: artwork. But I can't tell if it's well done or not. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mellansjön 01.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2011 at 06:57:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Meadow in Sweden
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2011 at 20:57:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Great Stalctite in Doolin Cave
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2011 at 05:47:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Guira Cuckoo in the Bronx Zoo in Bronx Park, New York City
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Netta rufina -Bushy Park, London, England -swimming-8.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2011 at 19:48:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Red-crested Pochard swimming on Heron Lake, Bushy Park,London, England.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2011 at 12:14:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An old woman in traditional clothing in the ancient town of Lahic in Azerbaijan.

 Oppose Nice capture, but the skin tones are way off (too yellow) and probably suffering from channel clipping. Also a lot of high ISO noise, therfore I cannot support the candidature. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sodomkovo Mýto 2011 - 59.JPG, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2011 at 19:56:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aero 50 Dynamik (Sodomka's bodywork)
    • The following 49 pages using this file: Candidatas a imagens especiais - Candidatas a imaxes destacadas - Candidatas a imágenes destacadas - Candidate pentru imagini excelente - Candidates a imáxenes destacaes - Ehdokkaat suositelluiksi kuviksi - Featured picture candidates - Featured picture candidates/candidate list - Javaslatok kiemelt képekre - Kandidate fir exzellent Biller - Kandidate für exzellänti Bilder - Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder - Kandidater til fremragende billeder - Kandidater til utmerkede bilder etc. etc. ... Yes, there is no rule against nominating own pictures - but its ridiculous Joe MiGo (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope you do know that these are all Commons subpages in different languages? That this is due to the multilingual nature of the project? Like this. Łukasz [Wolf] Golowanow (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This pages was made automatically (and are made with any other nomination), so I don't see any problem, and nominate own photo is completely normal, not "ridiculous". You can see many other nominations made by author of picture, so if you don't see any real problems, please refrain from further comments.--Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2011 at 15:11:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Libellula depressa
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2011 at 10:16:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A picture of Wael Khalil
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2011 at 14:05:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Schachbrett, Melanargia galathea

all by -- Böhringer (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2011 at 16:34:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lyngenfjorden, Troms, Norway, in 2011 June
The new version is even better and addresses the small remarks I had in the original version. Strong support from my side! Hendric Stattmann (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit this picture has faced the HDR technique because otherwise the background would have blown up – or the foreground would be black. I don't really get what are people expecting from this landscape... I haven't desaturated the background compared to the original photographs, so I don't know how it's unnaturally grey. I increased the colors of the background a little yet I'm feeling Quite uncomfortable saturating things much. And the foreground: Unfortunately I didn't have the time to plant a nice garden on the slope so that's just what you'll have there on coasts in Norway. Sorry for the foreground. Featured or not, I'm sure this picture deserves it what ever there comes. --Ximonic (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/June_2011&oldid=1122979554"