Jump to content

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2017-1

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 2017 at 13:29:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Capparis spinosa in the Ichkeul National Parc
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ezarateesteban 22:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC) (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 17:39:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Common tern catching a common rudd
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 17:00:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Large red damselflies in the swamps of the Wurzacher Ried (southern Germany) at egg deposition
  •  Oppose Not only per Charles, but the composition is rather chaotic, making it hard for the subject to stand out from the background. A VI likely, but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - excellent capture of a very chaotic event performed by the very skittish. Atsme 📞 03:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A bit messy, but making new life is a messy business and how often do we see this many pairs of these critters in one photo. The red also makes them stand out sufficiently from the background. --cart-Talk 06:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Common picture - no wow. And I don't see a sharp dragonfly. --Hockei (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination I really must admit that I am utterly surprised. It is hard for me to understand how this image can be described as "Common picture"; despite my personal disappointment this is certainly beyond sheer ignorance, @Hockei: . I may agree to the criticism that the image would suffer from some lack of sharpness, which is debatable. It was – as I described – taken in a swamp under adventurous circumstances (not easy to catch twelve ticklish damselflies all at once; who of you wildlife photographers achieved that before?) that is why it looks somewhat „chaotic“ . Sometimes you have to accept that Nature comprises chaos, @Daniel Case: !. And that is exactly what I value regarding this picture. I am, in general, very astonished about the judgement and the respective arguments in an increasing number of instances here at FPC and I am questioning myself whether I should continue contributing. Sorry to hold you up but I cannot hold my temper any more at this point. Cheers --AWeith (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi AWeith, I understand your disappointment as you were a biologist by profession. I'm just an enthusiast but have good experience due to the rich diversity of odonata near my home. I had photographed them ovipositing in heavy monsoon when the streams are very wild (1, 2, 3). Some of them, especially the species who prefer fast flowing water streams are very difficult to capture. The water is flowing and the floating plant is also moving along with the waves. The damselflies are busy serching for the best sites, having the ability to spend more than fifteen minutes under water. And I too in the water upto my neck to get an inline view. I lost one camera during such an expedition!
But we must understand that FPC is not a place where we can expect review by subject experts. He we have photography experts and they may not always able to understand the value of a particular moment in biology. That's why I try to explain things in the nomination and file description as much as possible. It works sometimes. Sometimes I too get disappointed. I had disappointed a lot in my early days here; but now I know I can't expect too much in FPC which makes me feel better.
Hope you too can understand this, control your temper, and enjoy FPC as it is. Please take it light and keep contributing! Jee 03:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration, but that's FPC. Always mostly genuine votes, some ill-informed (pro or con) and a few revenge opposes. I have taken many similar images, but all are blurred like yours. Multiple ovipositing is very common, but inherently impossible to get right as you need high speed and high Depth of Field and cameras can't do that. Using 1/200 sec on a 600mm lens must have been on a tripod, but you're never going to get sharpness. The best you can hope for is perhaps two pairs in focus then it might work, but none of yours have been captured sharp. Charles (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • AWeith, I cannot count how often I tried to get a picture like this in a good or for me acceptable quality. I didn't made it. I'm not sure if I kept one of these hundreds of throw away pictures. To get such a picture in world class quality and composition is hardly possible. Charles said it. So don't be angry but rather be honest to yourself. It has nothing to do with biological worth. --Hockei (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 05:11:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of Mason Street, San Francisco
  •  Support - I doubt my view will be popular here, but I like the shade and find the shade in the foreground and light in the middleground and background refreshing, because the shadow isn't black and I still see the various colors of the houses. I may have a slight bias, because I like San Francisco and this kind of scene, including the shadows, is relaxing to me as a scene that accurately represents San Francisco at a non-foggy time or place. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The more I look at it, the more I like the composition. Normally you'd end up with an unbalanced image in pointing your camera at a scene in this way, but the taller buildings on the left actually make it quite nicely balanced. And we could argue about the contrast being overdone but I think it's tasteful as it is. But @KennyOMG: please add a category. -- Thennicke (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile. Would like hear more opinions on how to consider this types of old works prior to vote. Jee 15:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nothing really makes this stand out from other San Francisco cityscapes, and the color looks a little off to me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I like the idea that someone has attempted to take a panoramic image of San Francisco from one of its hills, but this shot is definitely not exceptional enough out of what can be really done. The composition is too busy and the captured buildings are uninteresting except for the houses on the right side depicting the city's traditional and recognisable architectural style. For example, one can get to Telegraph Hill for a nice shot of the Transamerica Pyramid with its surrounding buildings. From the description, I suppose the idea was to depict Mason Street, which could have been captured in a variety of better ways (e.g. the intersection between Mason Street and Washington Street with the Cable Car Museum in the corner), but it seems like there is not much of it. I also tend to agree that the sky is a bit blown, especially with the clouds above the top of the buildings on the right side.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the comment, @Kiril Simeonovski: , however I think there's some misunderstanding here. Sometimes a picture is just a picture with whatever happens to be in on, and not the be-all and end-all of a given subject. This was never meant to be the definitive visual representation of SF, nor of Mason St. It just happened to be taken in SF/on Mason St, therefore the name. Obv if I wanted to take a pic of the TransAm Pyramid or something else I would have. Similarly the northern part of Mason is a completely different beast. As for what makes SF SF: I think if you take away the immediately recognizable landmarks (Pyramid, Bridge, Cable car) then it's the hills, the houses, the Bay and the fog. This pic actually covers 3 of those 4. Having said that I always liked this because I considered it a pretty pic, nothing else. ;) As for the sky being blown, I'm not a fan of compressing the whole dynamics into the midtones, you can see it on my other photos too. (eta: panorama it is not, 35mm on full frame with top&bottom cropped) -- KennyOMG (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KennyOMG: With all due respect, you were definitely trying to capture an interesting view of the city; unfortunately, it did not end into something that wows me enough for an FP. I don't intend to see the things mentioned in my previous comment in order to support an image from San Francisco, but they are just a sort of things that could make a featurable composition in my humble opinion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 09:56:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Village of Saint-Jean-de-Buèges and the surrounding valley
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Larrun - Arroyo 01.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 18:14:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stream in the Larrun area, Basque Country, France
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 04:20:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016.09.24.-05-Felsenberg-Berntal Leistadt--Mauerfuchs-Weibchen.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 15:41:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wall brown - Lasiommata megera, female.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 17:04:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Common kingfisher at Tennōji Park in Osaka.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 02:19:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2017 at 05:59:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2017 at 19:43:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

 I withdraw my nomination --Cvmontuy (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Young beech in spruce forest.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2017 at 10:28:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Young beech in spruce forest
  • Sorry, I'm not allowed to cut it down. :) Anyway, it was the green glow of the sapling that guided me to the clearing. I like how the soft, green young leaves contrast against the dark spruces with all their spiky branches surrounding the sapling. --cart-Talk 17:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ofc I didn't mean you should have. :) Was just thinking out loud that even if the salping was the reason to take this picture, it might have been more without the sapling in the end, and how weird that is. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2017 at 03:10:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Yacht Astor May 17th 2017 D Ramey Logan
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 11:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 06:59:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lycidae with a Cunaxidae
  • Yes; both the experts commented in that Facebook link (Michael Geiser and Jayaram Devang) are subject experts of Coleoptera and Trombidiformes respectively. It is difficult to find the ID for a lower level, especially for a female or larva of such a small subjects. I added Category:Cunaxidae too as four people already confirmed that ID. Jee 08:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC) BTW, this picture has 146 likes, mostly from subject experts in a subject specific group. [reply]
So mite makes right? Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alrite, you mite be rite, if a bit trite. Jee found a good no-bite, flash-lite site at the rite hite at nite without much of a fite. Quite. Charles (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sifflote Jee 09:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /XRay talk 16:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Order_:_Coleoptera_.28Beetles.29
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2017 at 18:11:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
✓ Done I'm sorry for the spanish description, however, now we need a english native --The Photographer 20:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 07:48, 3 June 2017 (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 6 Jun 2017 at 20:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the ancient houses of Machu Picchu houses, Urubamba Province, Cusco Region, today Peru.
Kenny is Colin right, it look now much better than the cut version --The Photographer 13:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry KennyOMG I fixed the comment. Thanks for the Clarification --The Photographer 13:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Glad it also improved the crop, with the stairs leading in from the corner. -- Colin (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The funny think is that it was leveled as I took it, and then I applied a tilt (and therefore lost a piece of image), now there is more image and it isn't tilted. Good point :) Poco2 16:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 07:52, 3 June 2017 (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 2 Jun 2017 at 20:30:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wood sorrel after rain
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 10:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Fünf Höfe - Hanging Gardens, Munich, April 2017.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 12:33:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fünf Höfe - Hanging Gardens, Munich
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Others
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 07:20:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Heteropoda venatoria
  • The adult has a flat, brown body 2 to 2.5 cm (0.8 to 1 inch) long, 7 to 10 cm (3 to 4 inches) wide, including the legs. I saw once it paralyzed a Common house gecko with a single bite. Will bite us too if taken in hand. Supposed to be painful; but harmless. Jee 09:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 17:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Merops apiaster (European Bee-eater) at Ichkeul National Park
Confirmed results:
Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 02:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Abtei, Kreuzgang, Kapelle -- 2017 -- 7218-24.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 15:09:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church chapel at the cloister in the abbey, Monastery Endowment of the Holy Grave, Heiligengrabe, Brandenburg, Germany
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 02:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2017 at 19:19:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Private Zeno W. Muhl serving with the 429th Engineers as a truck driver
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 02:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2017 at 21:36:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Exemplar of a Saddlebags glider (Tramea sp.), Cerro Brujo, San Cristobal Island, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador.
  • Hmmm, after comparing both images several times I decided to  Support this though the end segment (S10) is out of focus which is very important in identification purposes. As KoH and Cart commented the light is far better here. The other one seems in backlit. Jee 14:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, exactly what I was thinking, just stated more clearly. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 06:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 02:29:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 06:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Winterswijk, Woold, Berenschot's Watermolen -- 2017 -- 0250.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 05:25:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Berenschot's Watermolen in Woold, Winterswijk, Netherlands
  • I like the composition. It like every photograph: There are different views and opinions. If the photograph is not OK as FPC, I'll withdraw it within the next days. In my opinion, it is worth a try to nominate it. --XRay talk 08:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 14:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 16:03:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Jee 03:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 19:00:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A composite of common blue damselflies (Enallagma cyathigerum) mating, Whitecross Green Wood, Buckinghamshire, UK
  • Oh. But you captured some wonderful moments! (Sometimes, it takes a lot of time to get coupled. Sometimes the male needs to change the perch and try again.) Jee 13:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata

File:Duomo (Montefiascone) - Dome Interior.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 20:22:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Duomo (Montefiascone) - Dome Interior
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 17:41:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mercado Municipal of São Paulo, Brazil
W.carter Very nice recomendation in a while now I think that it look better, please, let me know if I did a good work. Thanks! --The Photographer 00:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 18:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Winter landscape on the peak Pelister (2,601 m)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 03:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 19:28:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rio Tagus (ship, 1979)
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 21:34:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Palace in Wojanów
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Jee 08:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Abtei, Appartement im Dormitorium -- 2017 -- 7254-60.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2017 at 03:49:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Interior of the Abbey, Monastery Endowment of the Holy Grave, Heiligengrabe, Brandenburg, Germany
  •  Comment - You all have a point. I'd be interested to see XRay's thoughts on this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen your comment about the lens and I was thinking about the optimal lens. The ultra-wide lens has disadvantages, yes. But IMO the distortion is only a minor problem in this case. With more focal length the furniture wouldn't be seen completely. A problem - as you said - of a small room. Another solution would be to reduce to windows, table and chairs or windows and wardrobe or parts of the furniture in the foreground which cause other problems. IMO this kind of view is the best way to show the room. Other views of kitchen and bathroom were much more problematic. --XRay talk 04:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A US real estate photographer, who used to do lots of Sony lens reviews, recommended not really going much below 20mm (full frame), as the distortions get too weird for people to accept. I think the distortion here is really quite extreme actually, but the overall scene is pleasing enough. The chairs and table look really odd, but since the effect is rather artistic, it nearly works. It may be "the best way to show the room" but that doesn't mean it is the best kind of image photographically. There's a real temptation (especially with stitched photos) to try to cram everything in. The famous painters also knew that taking an ultra-wide perspective looked unsettling. Of course, I like my fish-eye lens too :-) -- Colin (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW: I think my next camera will be a full frame camera. The camera used for this photograph is part of equipment of Wikimedia Austria (Thanks to Austria). The result of all the photographs taken in Heiligengrabe is, that a lens with a focal length of 11 mm may be very useful for small rooms, but the photographs should taken carefully. Sometimes there was too much not acceptable distortion. So I agree to your explanation. I think I'll buy another wide angle lens, may be at least 14 or 20 mm. --XRay talk 19:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 4 neutral → featured. /Jee 08:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 22:14:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 08:52, 5 June 2017 (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 2017 at 03:32:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Atlesh, 3 km south of the village of Olenevka, Black Sea region, Crimea
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 08:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Numida meleagris - Heidelberg.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2017 at 06:06:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Flower field with a Helmeted guineafowl
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 13:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Church of Saint Marie Interior 3, Palanga, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2017 at 15:15:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The interior of the church of Saint Marie, Palanga, Lithuania. Picture of the view to the main altar is already featured. I believe the organ view is also worth featuring.
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2017 at 17:36:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portrait of Margaret Hamilton
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2017 at 15:30:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Šiševo Monastery in the Matka Canyon, Macedonia
Basotxerri, while the quality here is certainly borderline, QIC is not a requirement for FP and has its own standards which permit "incredible scenery" to compensate for technical shortcomings. -- Colin (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2017 at 11:56:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 17:39:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nelumbo Nucifera
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2017 at 06:32:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

North wing of the cloister at Zwettl Abbey, Lower Austria

(UTC)

  •  Info The left wall is indeed not vertical in reality, it is leaning outwards due to the weight of the vault, which pushes it outwards. But no problem, it is still stable after hundreds of years --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 09:15:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Brown-lipped snail (Cepaea nemoralis)
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 12:00:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Branch of the Seebach stream near Mallnitz, High Tauern National Park, Carinthia, Austria
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:100 Lire - Citta del Vaticano - Giovanni XXIII.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 15:04:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

100 Lire - Citta del Vaticano - Giovanni XXIII
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 07:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016.09.24.-06-Felsenberg-Berntal Leistadt--Mauerfuchs-Weibchen.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 15:43:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wall brown - Lasiommata megera, female.
You should take the same measure for estimating your own pictures as other people's pictures. --Hockei (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I disagree. The head is always vital for this sort of insect photo. Just look at all the successful FPs. Charles (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Jee 02:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 21:28:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A natural rock formation in Arches National Park in Moab, UT
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 02:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 14:57:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Horseshoe Bend, Arizona, USA
  • I think the foreground does add to the image, even if it is unsharp (since the foreground is not the subject that should be irrelevant anyway. Also, per Peulle below, it's impossible without focus stacking). The reason the inclusion of the foreground is important IMO that it allows the curve of the river and rocks to be uninterrupted. One of the hardest things to do is avoiding those kinds of "cuts" in an image and I suspect that's what Thomas was going for here -- Thennicke (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/United States
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2017 at 18:19:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Islamic geometric patterns (Aydar kadi mosque, Bitola, Macedonia)
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 02:08, 8 June 2017 (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 7 Jun 2017 at 15:24:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the small village of Reine in Lofoten, Norway
Thennicke, I don't think the composition is "arbitrary". Just as wide as the photographer could get. The photo is uncropped and the focal length is 18mm from an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens on an APS-C camera. I agree it would be nice to have a little more width, but not a deal breaker. The weather and colours are great, if it was a more modern photo with more detail than 6MP, it might still be a winner for me. -- Colin (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The crop is fine, IMO, but Ximonic's picture is better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: Moving backwards to find a new angle (zooming with feet), or even creating a panorama (as it appears Ximonic did), are almost always possibilities. I see no reason why that couldn't have been done here, and I would have supported if the composition was better. And of course I don't mean to be harsh with my choice of words; it is otherwise a great image. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well we don't know. Moving backwards isn't always possible or introduces other unwanted elements into the scene (like some huge road sign). And rather fewer people have the equipment and know-how to make panoramas that are good enough for FP. So again I think "I see no reason why that couldn't be done here" is rather supposing quite a lot. We can wish the scene was wider, that's all. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. My vote is only because of the "best of the best" criterion -- Thennicke (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Jee 02:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2017 at 13:41:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eucomatocera vittata
Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 12:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Cerambycidae_.28Longhorned_Beetles.29

File:2016.08.23.-01-Vogelstangsee Mannheim--Weidenjungfer-Maennchen.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 10:51:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Western willow spreadwing - Lestes viridis, male.
  • Of course the sharpness in this image is better than my composite. As it says in the FP guidelines " For featured pictures, many voters legitimately believe that a technically ordinary picture of an extraordinary subject can be perceived as a more valuable picture than a technically excellent picture of an ordinary subject." Charles (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One main drawback of this images is the eye is a bit out of focus. A Lestes species has eyes very projected from their body. Also the caudal appendages are a bit more sharp in Quartl's photo. While looking carefully, we can see he used the focal plane as the left eye to left caudal appendage whereas you used center-line of the damselfly body. The body center-line will work in most cases; but not for a subject having projected body parts. Jee 02:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Jee 14:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2017 at 08:19:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Very rusty chain
  • Thanks. :) This one took me several days to get right. I shot it in rain, direct sunlight, reflected light, shadow and finally on an overcast evening to get the light on the texture right. That is, to make it appear as I saw it with my eyes. I could probably do a book on it about how light and humidity changes a subject's appearance. ;) --cart-Talk 20:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would be eager to read it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Michael Freeman's "Capturing Light" goes in that direction as well and I liked it very much, so … --El Grafo (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 14:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Diamonds Thudufushi Beach and Water Villas, May 2017 -04.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2017 at 15:16:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Diamonds Thudufushi Beach & Water Villas, a luxury resort on Thudufushi, Ari Atoll, Maldives.
  • Haha, thanks! :-) I only wish I could have enjoyed excellent conditions a little bit more intensive... To be honest, the weather during my stay in the Maldives was predominantly hideous challenging ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 01:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places#Maldives

File:Eastern great egret landing at Tennōji Park in Osaka, December 2016 - 753.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 13:46:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eastern great egret landing at Tennōji Park in Osaka.
  • PumpkinSky I don't think your comments are fair. Opinions expressed on what constitutes an image being among "the finest on Commons" are not restricted to a bounded set of "rules". The nomination, particularly when it had a dark background, was rather similar to the previous one. That's not an uncommon complaint at FP, over the years, and sometimes the complaint is echoed and sometimes there are times we support anyway. It is also common to compare a nomination to its peers. -- Colin (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colin You seem to not be realizing that when I wrote that the ONLY objection Charles had posted was "We already have another FP image of this bird landing by User:Laitche. I don't think we want two." So I feel my comment was completely fair because there is no rule about how many similar photos one user can have. I do not consider such an objection valid. Charles had not commented on the photo's merits at that point. Note below that Ikan pretty much agrees with me. It was only later that Charles made comments on the merits of the photo. Now if you're going to still say a nominator can't have more than one similar photo, we'll just have to agree to disagree. PumpkinSky talk 12:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PumpkinSky, no I didn't make a mistake. Your assumption "there is no rule" => "invalid objection" is simply false. Or, to use your argument, where is the rule that says all oppose reasons must come from one of the following community agreed options:....." I'm not saying a nominator can't have more than one similar photo. Please do not put words in my mouth. I explained to you that objections such as this occur not uncommonly over the years at FP, and sometime there is agreement and sometimes disagreement. You and Ikan were free to suggest we can have any number of egrets landing in Osaka with a dark background (as it was then) and others are free to say that we have one already and this no better. By all means disagree with Charles, but his oppose isn't invalid on any FPC-rules grounds. -- Colin (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colin We'll just have to disagree. I'm not changing your mind and you're not changing mine. I see no reason to belabor the point beyond this. PumpkinSky talk 13:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PumpkinSky Wrt to your "inventing rules again" complaint, this isn't something you can just "agree to disagree" on, but an argument you would do well to avoid in future. Vigorously disagree with someone if you like, but the "rules and standards" are open, not closed. -- Colin (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, YOO HOO. It was all quiet for days until YOU started rattling your sabre here today, so it is in "your" hands, not mine. Now since you didn't understand my prior two requests, I'll put it in plain English, leave me alone, drop it, now. PumpkinSky talk 15:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PumpkinSky, please relax a bit. My perception (though I could be wrong) is that Colin functions in part as a kind of elder statesman at FPC. There is much that anyone can learn from him. It's great that you're passionate, but when things work well at FPC (and also at VIC and so forth), the discussions are based rather more on dispassionate discourse than personal attacks or refusal to engage in good-faith dialogue or concede the possibility that you could be wrong. I think it's fair to assume that anyone taking part here is passionate about photography or at least has views about what is or is not a good photo to them - that's all to the good. But dialing back one's personal feelings so as to work well with others is basic to all Wikis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ikan, the "elder" bit is sadly becoming more apparent every day. Well, I'm no angel when it comes to sometimes being a big too passionate in a disagreement, though nothing was ever achieved by folk who simply sit and watch the world go by. Let's put this disagreement behind us. -- Colin (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  QuestionI'm a bit new to FP, so I have a follow-up to this question; the Guidelines say: "Normally there should never be two featured pictures that are just different versions of the same image, so if a better version exists the original version should be delisted". My question is how similar two images have to be before they are considered "different versions of the same image"?--Peulle (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peulle, delisting where a superior replacement is promoted instead occurs a handful of times a year. It typically happens when someone takes or uploads a better copy of an artwork or historical (restored) photo, but can also occur if a user re-processes their own photo (either with more resolution or better processing technique) and where they had not simply overwritten the old file. We try to discourage people overwriting files for artworks that have a different source for the JPG (though some users still persist in doing so against policy) so we can end up with several files for the same artwork that are of different quality (and often different colour/contrast/etc). It may also occur for illustrations improvements such as if someone creates an SVG to replace a PNG. For a photo of a natural subject, I guess if someone retook a photo that really was a superior direct equivalent then a delist/replace might be justified. But otherwise we tend to retain the old one. -- Colin (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peulle: I think that same image means "the same image", not similar image. --Laitche (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Different versions of the same image" means a different processing of the same image. It can include images taken in the same set with same composition too. But a different composition like dorsal and ventral view of same animal is considered different even though taken at same time. Same view taken in a different day is usually considered distinct as the other components in the composition will be different. Though the reviewers have a tendency not to promote so many images of the same subject, they usually allow two or three FPs of famous places or buildings. So the judging factor is usually a combination of how much difference in the composition and how important the subject is. Jee 11:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so there can be several different FPs of the same species of bird or the same building if there are several such images taken from the same angle and same conditions? Obviously, a night shot of a church will be different from a day shot, but if two photographers stand in the same place and photograph the same object, can both their images be FP?--Peulle (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little chances as the reviewers evaluate every images of a subject and vote in favor of the best. The difficulty is when a better image uploaded later. Such new images will be featured when nominated. We've a process to delist previous FPs; but it is rarely used and is intended for very low quality FPs, not to delist the second best. The "delist and replace" is a new process which is only used for replacing a newly processed image of previous FP. All these procedures are a bit complicated and we don't have a strong concept like only one FP as in VI. But reviewers are free to oppose a nomination if better images is available or whatever another reason they feel fit. Jee 01:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one of them is much better than the other, I think so. But looking at them, they both appear to be of similarly high quality, so my question was simply: "should there be only 1 FP of that species of bird landing?" As I understand the Guidelines and , there can be more than one FP of the same subject ... however, if there are many photos of the same subject (e.g. 10.000 images of the Eiffel Tower) on Commons, I would say only very few of those can be FP, since the Guideline states: "The purpose of featured picture status is to recognize that an image is currently among the most valuable images—the top fraction of a percent.". Assuming I'm interpreting this correctly, I will  Support this image for FP but with the caveat that if you keep uploading these photos of egrets landing, the old images of them could be delisted as the new ones take over as FPs. Does that sound reasonable?--Peulle (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - This is IMO an FP photo. Charles, how many great paintings of cranes were done by classic Japanese painters? Would you also limit how many of those paintings to feature, independent of determinations of quality? Laitche has 6 FPs under Category:Ardea alba modesta. Perhaps that's a large number, to your estimation, but is it really too many? Too many for what? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If these were significantly different types of images or of especially quality, then I wouldn't have opposed. The sharpness is OKish but the water is strange and the contrast/composition nothing special. It's also too dark. Charles (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, so I changed my vote. Still weak because of the water, but the Bird is great. --Hockei (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hockei, the background is water reflection of the woods. --Laitche (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 01:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2017 at 13:05:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 01:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2017 at 18:16:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Road to Oukaimden village, High Atlas mountains, Morocco.
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 01:32, 9 June 2017 (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 8 Jun 2017 at 16:51:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Pir Panjal Range on a stormy day
  • Can you show me were I introduced banding so I try to correct it? In the original, almost the whole bottom is already full black or level 1 (of 255). Sting (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I removed undesirable color information (color noise), I didn't modify the luminance noise (~grain). Sting (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where I saw it most noticeably is below the hills but above the tree line. Load both versions and just tab back and forth, you'll see what I mean. Or 2 layers in PS. -- KennyOMG (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's how I checked it but sorry, can't see anything like banding, at least nothing more that already exist in the original image. My monitor is fine and calibrated. Sting (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 01:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valašské muzeum v přírodě - Mlýnská dolina. Hamr.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2017 at 13:06:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wallachian Open Air Museum, Mlýnská valley - smithy
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 01:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Industry
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2017 at 08:57:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of one of the "Monks of the Pacana", huge rock formations created by the erosion of the wind and located near the Salar de Aguascalientes, Los Flamencos National Reserve, northern Chile.
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 20:19, 9 June 2017 (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 2017 at 15:47:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Doing the laundry, Mai Chau, Vietnam
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 03:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2017 at 20:58:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Variegated grasshopper (Zonocerus variegatus) from Ghana
Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 03:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Wandeling over het Hulshorsterzand-Hulshorsterheide 19.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 18:05:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

 I withdraw my nomination Thanks to all --Famberhorst (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, another version

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination Thanks to all --Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 01:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2017 at 21:59:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bust to Manuel Belgrano, Tandil, Argentina
@Ikan Kekek: I tried from RAW to improve the sharpenning and the lightning Ezarateesteban 22:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it's darker. I liked it better before. Now, it looks like there's less contrast and everything is gray. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination Thanks to all Ezarateesteban 11:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 07:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Areál československého opevnění - Hlučín-Darkovičky 04.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2017 at 13:03:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Museum of the fortifications in Hlučín-Darkovičky, Czech Silesia
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2017 at 15:50:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tomb of Karl Drais, main cemetery, Karlsruhe

Tomb of Karl Drais. Exactly 200 years ago, in 1817, Karl Drais (born in Karlsruhe, Germany, April 29, 1785) made the first ride with his new invention. The bike celebrates its 200th birthday this year!

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2017 at 01:20:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vancouver BC
  •  Neutral Cool idea but there's very little detail in the city part of the image - looks completely washed out. -- KennyOMG (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Per Kenny. That the problem with high contrast here. Maybe there could have been a bit less of the green frame, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - If I had to choose between supporting or opposing, I'd oppose. And it's not because of anything you did. I love the compositional idea you had, and it's very well executed. OK, maybe the view of the city itself is a bit bright, but that's not my real problem with it; rather, it's that the small opening in the trees shows boring buildings. If the view had been more enchanting, or if this view had been enhanced with very unusual light and clouds or something, this could have been a contender. As it is, it's quite good, but not an FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I think the tree/view ratio is too low, and a crop would reveal too much the technical issues with the view (unsharpness, overexposure, posterization), I'd reshoot it with that in mind if you have access to the spot. Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your comments, I cannot save this one. I may reshoot it in the future. --Xicotencatl (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2017 at 12:39:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mallorca Cala Figuera

I withdraw my nomination. Thanks for your comments.

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2017 at 12:59:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of Holy Mother of God Narthex within the Sanahin Monastery complex, Lori Province, Armenia.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 10:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rail tracks - high-key light.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2017 at 18:38:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rail tracks - high-key light
  • Since I'm not a pro take this with a grain of salt, but to me high key is all about forms and shapes while low key is about silhouettes and endges. To me it's helpful to think of high key as "high fill" and low key as "low fill", as in: imagine a classic 3 or 4 light setup; high key will be with high fill when you blast the subject from both sides to make the shadows disappear and for low key just take away the fill and dial down the key (or even take that away as well, and rely on backlight like here). Also while high key usually comes with overexposure it shouldn't burn, preferably. Anyhow, the way this specific picture could work as high key, imho, is if 1) it was blanketed with snot SNOW! SNOW! and only the crown of the tracks would show or 2) in very thick fog where the vanishing point iss only meters away. My $0.02.
eta: maybe google high key landscape to get a better idea of what I'm saying.-- KennyOMG (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...blanketed with snot"... Ew! I'm trying to get rid of that picture in my head! Thanks for the info and the laugh (I know it's a dreadful typo). --cart-Talk 18:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, you won't escape my tests and ideas. :) Just to make it clear: This is not an active railway. In spite of that I have put no less than two caution texts on the file's page. --cart-Talk 08:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose cool effect but the tracks are...well...not exciting. If it was one infinite track...uh huh. Blowing out the whites is fun, so can we also use a tea stain effect or are color adjustments like that a no-no? Atsme 📞 03:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure actually, but we've had some interesting photographic techniques here from time to time. This is just me testing, you can't blame a girl for trying. --cart-Talk 14:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2017 at 14:54:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Abandoned bus in Chile.

UTC)

Peulle, please consider that this is a 22Mp image. The noise isn't nearly so apparent at 8MP. Also the sky is a continuous tone, and a little grain there helps avoid posterisation in our 8-bit JPGs. While most Commons FPC regulars would have masked the sky to avoid increasing noise when sharpening the image, elsewhere people seem to not be so bothered what the image looks like if magnified 1.5 metres wide and viewed from 50cm (100% view). While we are used to seeing less noisy images pass FPC, I'm not convinced such pixel-level "defects" are so important any more with the future being high-DPI displays on desktop, tablet and phone, and the noise here being completely invisible if printed 300DPI. -- Colin (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Considered. My opinion remains.--Peulle (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2017 at 17:44:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kitesurfer at sunset, Workum, may 2017
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Lizarraga - Hayas y sima 01.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2017 at 20:19:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Beeches (Fagus sylvatica) over a karst cave and clouds near the Lizarraga mountain pass, Navarre, Spai
  •  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question - I'd like anyone to please explain to me what I'm missing that you saw in this photo. Of course it's a well-taken photo, the light is interesting and the rocky landforms are interesting, but I don't see anything great that would make me want to feature this photo. I'm not voting against consensus and don't think there's anything wrong with the photo; I'd just love to read any analysis that gives me some inkling of what's great in it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't talk for the others but for me it's about the light, colors, serenity. I guess I'm like you, just on the other side of the fence: I can't find any reason not to support this nom. It doesn't really have flaws (the crop Colin mentioned comes closest) and is pleasing to look at. Evidenced by me coming back here to look at it and seeing your question! ;) -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Spain
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2017 at 22:11:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Five cents of U.S.A of the 1964
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 08:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2017 at 05:08:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Leaping humpback whale
My comment: This is not a whale portrait but an exciting image of a whale in action, with attendant flying spray. I don't consider the fact that we can't see the whales' faces a detriment, let alone a disqualifying detriment, nor is the spray a detriment - they're all part of a depiction of an event, a specific act by a mother whale, protecting her child. Also, for the record, this was judged in Consensual Review on QIC, but ultimately passed 6-0. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - That's very nice of you to say, considering that you have taken "lucky" photos of marine life that are better than this one. :-) Of course I was wowed, too, which is why I nominated this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 13:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2017 at 04:56:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eligma narcissus larva
Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2017 at 11:13:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hosta two-tone
  • User:Jkadavoor This page and This page tell us that H. montana is synonym of H. sieboldiana. Way at the bottom, this page tells us that the yellow rimmed hostas are H. montana. Of the yellow rim-type cultivars, I don't think this is a 'Francis Williams' nor 'Yellow Splash' (so we agree on that one). It appears to me to be a 'Yellow Splash Rim', though if someone said it was a 'Aureomarginata' cultivar I couldn't argue as they're very hard to tell apart. While I'm fairly comfortable with this being in the sieboldiana group based on the links I've provided; I have no problem asking for WP:Plant project verification. I will go do that now. Thank you for your comments and interest. PS, I really enjoy looking at the photos you upload. PumpkinSky talk 10:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 13:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asparagales
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2017 at 10:31:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Main portal of the mediaeval Skeidi church, with double chevron arch and columns.
Thanks for your review. Do you think the other image could make it to FP or is that also too disturbed by the background? I wouldn't want to edit it out or hang a sheet in the doorway to obscure the modern lamps and signs since I don't like manipulating reality.--Peulle (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peulle, I suggest you ping me (as I'm doing here) otherwise I might not see any reply to an FP. I think the other one is better but not FP either. I'm not suggesting you alter the view through the door (though standing at a different angle may give a better view). The problem really is one of wow, rather than any technical flaw. -- Colin (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 13:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Margaret Hamilton - restoration.jpg, delisted & replaced

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2017 at 15:07:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
I thought you did something else. I'm sorry --The Photographer 17:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Photographer: Mind you, my definition of "Simple" is "does not involve reconstruction of missing elements, just fixing dust and scratches." The actual work was a fair bit, but you can't document every scratch, just say you removed them. In other words, "simple" and "easy" aren't the same thing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 12 delist & replace, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted & replaced. Jee 10:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:NHYC One Design Offshore race 4 by D Ramey Logan.jpg, not featuted

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2017 at 00:42:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pac 52 One Design Yachts off Newport Beach CA 6/10/2017
 Comment Alchemist-hp I fixed the spot, regarding the mast head how are you with photoshop? This is a series of 6 photos in really rough and windy seas..--Don (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 16:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2017 at 21:55:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gray heron with a viperine snake at
@Ikan Kekek: thanks for your question, I will ask the photographer to do it @El Golli Mohamed: --Touzrimounir (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC) I tried to sharpen it a little more but it damaged a little bit the photo so I prefer it like that. Thank you El Golli Mohamed 13:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The bird has captured the snake. The photographer has captured the capture. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:47, 12 June 2017 (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 12 Jun 2017 at 10:29:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of Yahuarcocha lagoon, near Ibarra, Ecuador.
  • I said backlit, not blown (in that regard it was fine I think but is obv better now). Sadly you can't do anything about the sun when it's in the wrong place... -- KennyOMG (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oldenburg - Schlossgarten 02.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2017 at 12:11:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Window at Schlossgarten (palace garden) in Oldenburg. Lower Saxony, Germany
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2017 at 06:08:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Warwick Castle south-east facade
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2017 at 06:16:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 19:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016.10.02.-01-Fuerth-Odenwald--Gelbling-Colias sp.-Maennchen.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2017 at 16:24:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Colias sp., male.
Definitely no. Not possible. Read this discussion (in German). I had to take back my first species identification. Former Version. --Hockei (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Identification does seem to be very tricky with this butterfly. Charles (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Well, I  Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand what you mean. ... much easier to focus ... than what? I use the Panasonic GH-series from the beginning on. So I cannot compare with other camera systems. Mostly I use autofocus and adjust by hand if time is enough. But it's not always better than only autofocus. I hope I could answer your question. BTW, My guess is clouded yellow ... believing does not mean knowing. --Hockei (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hockei, I didn't mean to confuse you. I was referring to MLU on SLRs. As for species ID, I included a link in my comment above. The link also shows pictures, and you can also Google "clouded yellow" which brings up lots of scientific data as well. There's no doubt your image is of a common clouded yellow. Atsme 📞 15:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 23:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2017 at 14:52:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Marsh fritillary butterflies (Euphydryas aurinia) mating

here the second * Support per Basotxerri :) Neptuul (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support Certainly a good catch. But there is too much contrast. Maybe you can reproduce it so that the blackness for example around heads and abdomen of the right one is brightened? --Hockei (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very happy for someone to have a go, but not something I have the skills to do... 17:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 23:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2017 at 17:04:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 23:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2017 at 03:23:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Comment - It may be tough to confront, but she was 90 and alive, and perhaps she was really enjoying her life. I spent 2 years living in what Americans would call a "shack", with electricity only at night and no running water, and they were 2 of the best years of my life! My neighbors all worked very hard and very few had much money for luxuries, but almost all of them had enough food, and they were by no means unhappy all the time. And very few of them made it to 90. (Rural East-Coast Malaysia in the mid 70s.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2017 at 08:36:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Comment - What a cool song! I think you're a few years older than me, perhaps my brother's age (b. 1958) but maybe born in the early 60s. However, I share some of your taste (for example, I've liked pre-commercial Yes and Chicago since the early 70s). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2017 at 08:04:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Egretta garzetta
 Comment My comment still stands and I don't think it would be FP even if the bird was sharp and not looking away from us. Charles (talk)
  •  Comment - I like the composition very much, and ripply water is fine with me. I would consider voting for a feature if you'd redefine the photo as a land-and-waterscape with an egret, rather than a photo of an egret. As a photo of an egret, it's not sharp enough, but as a composition with an egret, I think you have a much better argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: I don't understand "redefine". Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In another words, change the filename and description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll live with this photo for a while. Arguably, the plants could also be sharper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitated to upload a downsampled image, with a size still reasonable for wildlife photo, but after this dicussion and the comments made by Colin, I uploaded the bigger resolution... @Colin: , you're right, there are inconsistencies, or upload the biggest version, or we prefer to content the little buddies... Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point - it's a very large photo. You could have addressed this a little less harshly, though. I'm not sure if you meant to be very harsh, but "prefer to content the little buddies" comes off as very harsh. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, here's the thing: I would like to regard this as a land-and-waterscape with a bird in it, but you are either defining it as a bird picture or a picture of a particular species of plant. The size of this particular photo aside, I think that pictures that are expressly of particular plants or birds, not of landscape that includes them, should be expected to be sharper. Do you see what I mean when I say that "Landscape with Egret and [Name of Plant]" has a very different feeling than "[Latin name of plant] with [Latin name of bird]"? The first photo is being presented as artistic; the second is being presented as an encyclopedic or scientific illustration. We are currently having a debate about this issue in Consensual Review on QIC, and I've been arguing there for disregarding the stated intention of the photographer and just looking at the photograph and judging it to be a cityscape with pigeons, not a photo expressly of pigeons. However, on FPC, I think that the way a photograph is presented can be an important consideration. And even on QIC, my view is losing and the stated intent of the photographer seems to be carrying the day (causing the photo to fail CR). Please note that I am not saying I will vote against this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to study the photo better later, but Ikan, you mention the "stated intent of the photographer" and "the way a photograph is presented". I do often suggest that nominators say something when they nominate the image. If you recall from the Tower of London ravens, I tried to offer it " not as a plain species identification photo but as a fun portrait of two characters". But I said that in the nomination, not in the file description nor filename. I don't think that "As a photographer, this is how I want you to judge my photo" belongs in either the filename or file description. Nor does our file renaming policy permit changes merely to suit the interests of FPC/QIC. Different people will take different things from a work of art/literature. I'm no student of such things, but my understanding is that art/literature criticism rejects the idea that the artist has priority or the final say in how their work is viewed. That aside, I think the mistake Christian made here is to suggest his reason for thinking this is FP standard is the "mood/composition" only after two negative reviews. Of course, my comments on the Ravens photo didn't stop some judging it as with all our other species identification photos, so no approach works reliably. We are still at the mercy of how reviewers wish to judge, whether they are in a good mood, or inclined one way or the other, and all the more so at QI where a single reviewer typically has the only say, and there little scope of influencing them prior to review. I think wrt to file resolution, filename, file description, one should aim to deliver the best one can for our educational mission and wide publication usage, and not shape any of those just in order to gain FP/QI to the detriment or confusion of some other educational aim. Nominating here and at QI is always a roulette wheel. -- Colin (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your points. And not that it's a reply to anything you said, but I think I need to live with the photo a little more, spend a few more periods of time moving my eyes around it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Jee, without wishing to offend anyone, it is by far, for the moment the most interesting and most relevant review. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support after retitling. Daniel Case (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Whether this is one of the very best photos on Commons is a difficult question, and I don't know the answer, so the question I instead deal with is, now that I've contended with this composition for several days, do I want a wider public to have the chance to do so when it's featured? And to that, I answer Yes. It's an interesting composition which is good for someone who wants to spend some quiet time in contemplation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2017 at 01:02:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wreck of HMS Justice W140, known as "St. Christopher" in Ushuaia, Argentina.
Fixed - Daphne Lantier & Thennicke, thanks for the suggestions. I used a different RAW that had more space at the top. Got more of the reflection in the water but unfortunately I could not get the whole reflex, there is a formation of sand and stone on the right side and a bastard duck on the left side, adding them would create distraction on the foreground. GABS (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - In fact, I did not even try to work on a better composition. I shot it just to illustrate the article in the Wikipedia about the boat, so I put it dead center and very tight, my bad. GABS (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh sorry, by composition, I just meant the crop, which cut off the mast - I'd assumed you took the image like that, but since you've updated the image, it's fine. Putting it dead center and very tight is often a perfectly appropriate way to compose a photo, especially of an object such as a boat -- Thennicke (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I would oppose if the crop cannot be sorted. I would like more space at the top and the whole of the reflection at the bottom. And I think it's tilted. Charles (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - Charles, thanks for the suggestions. Crop was fixed. I also used the LR Straighten tool to correct the tilt according to the horizon line. GABS (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose too tight, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment - Martin Falbisoner, thanks for your vote. Since I updated the image, would you reconsider? GABS (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
better, (weak)  Support now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - Daniel Case, thanks for your vote. Since I updated the image, would you reconsider? GABS (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Support now. Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - Daphne Lantier, thanks for your vote. Since I updated the image, would you reconsider? GABS (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Water transport

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Abtei, Fenster im Dormitorium -- 2017 -- 9972.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2017 at 05:08:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View through a window of the Abbey, Monastery Endowment of the Holy Grave, Heiligengrabe, Brandenburg, Germany
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /XRay talk 18:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2017 at 04:39:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of Cañapa Lake, Bolivia.
Sting per consensus at talk FPC, please don't nominate an alt here without the nominator/creator's permission. Colour balance issues are best fixed on the raw files, rather than trying to alter JPGs, so I'm sure Poco could apply a fix if required. I don't know what the rock colours are here, so perhaps the mountains are somewhat coloured. Perhaps best approach would be to upload your suggestion to Dropbox for others to comment on whether it is an improvement. -- Colin (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sting, Colin: I've no problem with alt versions but surely agree with Colin that creating one of the RAW file would be more suitable. I find a oppose really harsh as I was there and cannot confirm that we are actually facing a WB problem. Still, I can give it a try and upload an alt but it will have to wait till tomorrow. This weekend I'm attending a Wikimedia event away from home. Poco2 09:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clear what can be a misunderstanding, the color balance is not wrong on the whole image but on the distant mountains here. That’s a characteristic I noticed there in Atacama: red/brown mountains with blue sky reflection/haze turns them in purple, while on close range the salt, slightly yellow/orange from dust, with cyan/light blue reflection turns it green. Add a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer, pushing to 100% the green and magenta saturation and you will see what I mean. And there’s no way to make a one-step global correction: add a Color Balance adjustment layer, trying to correct the magenta cast (keep the Hue/Saturation layer on for illustration) and you will get a too green foreground.
The Raw is useful for bringing back darks and highlights but there’s no need to go back that far in the post-processing to correct a local color balance and I doubt anyone would do that for a panorama. Working on a 16 bits file is perfectly fine for that task, as well as easier. Sting (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colour balance is exactly the sort of thing that gets fixed in a raw file, as the raw file doesn't yet have one assigned. But what do you mean by "local colour balance". If you mean fixing small areas of the image you think are the wrong colour, then I'm not sure that is justified here. -- Colin (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Add a Color Balance layer to the upper part of the mountains with +20 of red and +20 of yellow in the midtones (approximate values just for a rapid check) and you will see their colors pop up again and that there's a magenta cast on the original file. Sting (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth would Poco want to fix 2 hills on the sides with "purple cast" while the middle hills, that are also further out, are not "affected"? Maybe shooting with an UV filter would've helped, maybe not (not sure if it's an issue at 2400m) but point is: if it affects only part of the image, isn't it just a natural phenomenon? Then why would anyone want to "fix" it? -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Digital cameras don't need UV filters (other than as a protective filter if desired). -- Colin (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
clear glass filters provide better quality at a lower cost... Clin --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, my information comes from LensRentals Blog and other writers. It seems the most important factor is the quality of the multi-coating, which can mean transmission is >99% or as poor as 90%, which will affect flare/sharpness as well as exposure. I have not found it easy to buy just a "protector" filter compared to buying a UV filter. Just in case anyone interprets your comment wrongly, "clear glass" on its own, with no coatings, would be a very bad choice, as would a really cheap ebay filter. The point about colours is that I understand that digital sensors are not affected by UV light in the same way as film was. I don't know if altitude has an effect, other than making the sky deeper blue. Another factor that can alter colours in subtle ways is the calibration profile chosen in Lightroom/ACR such as "Adobe Standard" or "Camera Standard". -- Colin (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, I totally agree! Of course the quality of lenses' coating is absolutely essential. I do use high quality "clear glass" protectors (if need be... in the desert or on the beach, e.g. Most of the time I don't use protectors at all). It never ceases to amaze me, though, why people keep buying even more expensive UV-lenses in the digital age. As you correctly point out, sensors don't need UV filters - unlike photographic film. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I've uploaded a new version (not a alt) with a reduction of the purple tones in the background mountains. To be honest I didn't upload a new alt because the differences are subtle to me and, Sting, I'm still astonish that this topic is a reason to decline. Declines should not be used to ensure that an issue somebody points out is actually addressed but should rather reflect whether the picture overall deserves or doesn't the FP star. I always adress all issues in my pictures. Sorry for not uploading it yesterday, I got too late when I came back home. Poco2 17:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A very conservative edit ;-D, but you tried. I would have done it also for the left and right mountains which present as well that color shift, but it’s your image and choice.
Don’t be astonished because I opposed: a vote can be changed (and I’m doing it right now, as I did before for an other of your panoramas) and doesn’t have any side effect for the result as it will remain a 100% support. If I did so: first, yes, it’s to catch the attention of the author about what I think is a problem in the image because, second, several authors don’t care trying to improve their image when someone points out an issue in a “simple” comment, and some don’t even care having some justified opposing votes as long as they reach the FP label. Just my 2 cents, because I think this FPC area can also be an exchange of experience. Sting (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Poco that an oppose here is unfriendly, Sting. It happened to me on another nomination because the horizon as <0.3° tilted, as if that 0.3° is the difference between featured and not, or a slight purple hue on the mountains is the difference between featured or not. Like the other opposer, you claim to do that in order to get your way, citing past example where nominator didn't make the change. Well this is not COM:AGF as most people are accommodating if there an improvement that can be made, but you should also respect the creator's opinion as to whether a suggested change is actually an improvement. I've seen FPC's damaged because someone opposed over noise and the image then ends up soft plastic, for example. And although here your oppose was not joined by anyone else opposing, it also killed off the supports too, so I think it was actually harmful to the nomination and you should reconsider your approach to be more trusting and respectful of the photographer who was there. -- Colin (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 18:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:2016.08.19.-04-Waldsee Viernheim--Nilgans.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2017 at 15:08:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Egyptian goose - Alopochen aegyptiaca
I won't do that. It's not my decision. --Hockei (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Anseriformes

File:Ilsenburg, Ilsetal, Ilsefälle -- 2017 -- 0143.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2017 at 15:18:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ilse falls in the Ilse valley in Harz National Park near Ilsenburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
@XRay: It just feels like a headache bar. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Germany
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2017 at 16:48:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kalidasa lanata

Alt

[edit]
Kalidasa lanata
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:35, 14 June 2017 (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 13 Jun 2017 at 15:26:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A South America sea lion yawns at L'Oceanogràfic of Valencia
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/June_2017-1&oldid=1156019342"