Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2015

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2015 at 22:05:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Scott Thwaites during 2014 Tour of Britain stage 8a
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 08:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2015 at 12:13:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A bird near the ocean
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 08:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2015 at 12:34:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Skopje, Macedonia
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 20:30:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bees (Lasioglossum calceatum) on a Kniphofia caulescens, Munich Botanical Garden, Germany.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2015 at 10:50:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A abandoned car in an Belgium Car graveyard.
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2015 at 16:54:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Monument to Alexander Ball in Lower Barrakka Gardens in Valletta, Malta
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2015 at 11:43:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Roman Capitol of Timgad

Alternative

[edit]
edited Version of Christian Ferrer
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2015 at 13:03:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wojciech Sanatorium in Lądek-Zdrój
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 01:39:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of St-Gervais-et-St-Protais Interior
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2015 at 09:37:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of St. Teresa Interior. Vilnius, Lithuania.
  • The altar (and decorations around it, especially top) is captured perfectly here. That's why I've nominated this one. Certainly, not best Diliff interior picture, but without doubt best picture of this church in Commons. This church interior looks so dark in all other photos and this one has that warm gold gloss and lovely detail. There is another version taken from further, however I prefer this one altar-only over it. -- Pofka (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, as a suggestion, maybe I could crop this image so that the distortion is minimised. There isn't a lot of visual interest beyond the altar anyway. What do you think Pofka / Wladyslaw? Diliff (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really believe this photo has a chance to be FP. Not only because it is "best picture of a topic/scope", but because it is a really good capture of altar. As Diliff said, there really isn't a lot interesting before the altar (interior paintings requires restoration, IMO). Altar definitely is the main figure in this church. Previously I saw when some windows or doors became FP. Why altar alone can't? Try cropping it, Diliff, if that is really required. :) -- Pofka (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Pofka. Wladyslaw, Colin, Benh, I've reprocessed the image from the original files. I've been able to crop it so that the altar comprises most of the frame, while maintaining the original resolution (actually the horizontal resolution of 6000px is the same, but the vertical res is actually higher now - 4764px vs 4388px previously - due to the aspect ratio change). I've also made some minor changes to the exposure too (slightly brighter, more neutral WB, less overexposure in bright areas) which I hope is a slight improvement. There is still some distortion on the top corners of the altar, but this is still an ultrawide view and can't really be helped. You can decide whether it's enough of a change to support, but I believe the changes are significant enough to justify a second look at least. ;-) Diliff (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2015 at 01:37:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Au contraire, this is about what I would have done. We can still tell he's on a boat, and this draws more attention to his paddling. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right to say that it's washed out but note that it doesn't look that wrong to me since the sky over here is often weird—for example, I rarely can see the blue sky during the day, and thus even though there doesn't seem to be any clouds around. It's like if the sky was never clear and that the whole atmosphere was always misty. This tends to provide some interesting/strange ambiances during the golden hours. Note also that I'm referring to the skies that I know from Da Nang, and am not sure if it's also the case for where I took this photo as I didn't stay long over there. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I have greatly lowered the highlights so it's also possible that it's washed out due to the post-processing :) -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2015 at 20:09:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Intern of Church of San Francesco in Amelia
  • In these photos you have to find a middle ground, both among the lights of the altar (very clear and the rest of the church dark) and between the roof and the base of the church, if I put more in evidence the benches I would not take well roof, or vice versa, a little bit of all, thanks --LivioAndronico talk 23:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i.e. better or worse than before?--LivioAndronico talk 12:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
neither both ... try to rework your image without "blur", for more sharpness. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LivioAndronico, the overall softness is not fixed by cranking the sharpening/clarity filter over to the max, nor is a completely blown window recovered by reducing white so that the bright-outside is merely off-white. The adjustment you made is terrible. The original picture was only QI but now it wouldn't even merit that. -- Colin (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to the first version Alchemist-hp,thanks --LivioAndronico talk 19:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2015 at 09:32:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vytautas The Great Church Interior.
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2015 at 13:03:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Salems church
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2015 at 14:12:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lookout Tower on Borówkowa

* Oppose The image has been deformed to put back the result of perspective, but the effects are to striking. --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Jan Arkesteijn. Perspective looks wrong, especially at the top of the tower → overcorrected? Otherwise a great image, of course. --El Grafo (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jan Arkesteijn, El Grafo - Perspective correction is in order, see the notes. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jacek Halicki: forcing straight verticals is not always a good idea. It only works if you have something like a reasonably flat wall. As soon as you have three-dimensional features that tell the beholder that the image was actually taken at an angle (here: upward), the whole idea of being able to "correct" a perspective falls apart. In this case, I'm looking at the underside of the tower's roof, while from the (apparent) perspective I would expect to be able to see much less of the underside – maybe even a bit of the upper side and the tip. Or in other words: Imagine the tower as a cylinder and the roof as a cone. Then the cone would not be lying flat on the top of the cylinder. Its vertical axis would be angled (to the back and a bit to the right at the top) relative to the cone's vertical axis. If not bolted into place, it would just slide off and fall to the ground. Sorry, but that just looks very wrong.
    Tuning down the "perspective correction" to allow the verticals of the tower to slightly converge at the top would probably take care of that problem. (Note that it's perfectly normal to have lines converging in the distance.) --El Grafo (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Hubertl (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Jan Arkesteijn. Perspective straightening does not work on an extreme low-angle shot. So the tower appears to be viewed from the side while still showing the roof’s underside. This looks entirely askew. --Kreuzschnabel 18:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jan Arkesteijn, El Grafo, Kreuzschnabel - Look again. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment You have corrected the roof falling to the right, which indeed looks much better, but the main issue remains unresolved. You still have two different perspectives (camera positions) in one image. 1) one (true) perspective, where the camera is looking up under the roof. 2) one simulated perspective, where the camera is located further back and orientated horizontally, looking straight at the rest of the tower without looking up. That's why the roof still seems to slide off the tower (backwards, away from the camera). The only way to fix this is to step away from the illusion that one can change the perspective a picture of a 3D object like this was taken from in post processing and allow those verticals to converge at the top. --El Grafo (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Towers

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2015 at 00:18:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2015 at 16:30:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tour de la Lanterne, échafaudée
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Towers

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2015 at 18:08:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Geranium wallichianum 'Buxton’s Blue’
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2015 at 15:12:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2015 at 15:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ijen Volcano, Banyuwangi Regency, East Java, Indonesia: A indonesian sulfur miner carrying two baskests with his 90-kg-load of sulfur.
Every miner can do the trip maximum 2 times a day. They get a total of 13 $ for 180 kg Sulfur. Older miners only can shoulder 75 kg per walk. Sometimes they have no revenue because the crater is emitting poisonous gases and is closed for mining. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2015 at 17:08:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Italy, Paestum, Temple of Hera II (sometimes called the Temple of Neptune)
I took intentionally this picture, the tourists make it possible to compare the size of the temple --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Benh, yes I was aware of that photo when saying this, and by your smilie I think you are aware there's a world of a difference. If this photo had a photogenic couple staring at the monument, perhaps, or if it was so crowded with tourists that they were an interesting feature, but we've just got a random assortment of tourists looking every which way. Makes it look like the unfortunate photos everyone gets when going with a tour group, rather than a featured picture where the photographer has gone at a special time of day or captured a special moment, or simply avoided the crowd. -- Colin (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2015 at 08:43:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mike Dirnt, singer and bassist of Green Day, stands on the Centerstage during Rock im Park-Festival 2013.
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2015 at 07:36:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vincent van Gogh - Dr Paul Gachet
It is a great scan of a famous painting. What more you want?--Claus (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2015 (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 8 Mar 2015 at 23:09:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Historical building surrounded by modern offices
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2015 at 09:09:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Swallowtail (Papilio machaon)
Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 21:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2015 at 20:39:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jesus Christ of Gian Lorenzo Bernini in San Sebastiano fuori le mura (Rome)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2015 at 17:33:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Photograph of a replica of a claw of the first digit of Megaraptor namunhuaiquii with a ruler for scale.
Just to note KTC, I have now straightened the image as well as cropped it. How is the image too common Jan Arkesteijn? IJReid (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks better, now that you have tidied it, but for a featured picture it misses the wow-effect. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it may be a better FPC for Wikipedia. -- KTC (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2015 at 05:39:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Space ISS NASA
Imho this is a somewhat confused argument. I'm fine with opposing due to wow or stuff like that but your reason is a bit odd. Firstly, the quality is perfectly fine, shot with a slightly older pro DSLR. NASA need to rely on what the camera manufacturers offer in the rugged and reliable class and at the end of the day such cameras don't have 36 or 50 MP as of now. Also the entire point is that the image is in space, the fact that I can shoot the house next door in higher resolution is totally irrelevant, isn't it? --DXR (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that we don't have to make every NASA photo FP just because it is taken in space. Zoom in the satellite. It is unsharp and some details are really poorly visible. I'm not telling that this picture is a crap, but I think the rules should be same for all and there shouldn't be exceptions just because they don't have better cameras up there. In my opinion, it should fit perfectly as valued image, not FP. -- Pofka (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The space station might not be highly detailed but I definitely cannot see anything unsharp or blurred in it. As for the wow factor, that’s a thing we all see different of course. Objects or places unfamiliar to us bring a wow factor along that biases us into featuring the image while others shake their heads, as I did in this nomination (buy any issue of any flying magazine, and you’ll get dozens of perfectly sharp in-flight shots, so this kind of pictures is not unfamiliar to me, so the image in question hadn’t enough wow in my eyes to compensate for the blurred wing.) Others, having a different approach from a different experience, granted the image lots of wow to support. That’s why we have majority votes here. --Kreuzschnabel 07:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image is of similar quality to other featured space images. It's not just some space image, it's an image of an extremely significant event (completion of USOS, final Space Shuttle mission).--Craigboy (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --The technical quality of this shot is very nice. The lens is well sharp at 100% on the subject and the photograph hasn't been over-sharpened. Nikon's camera shines with no noise in the dark areas. The background has been brushed, not very nicely in some areas, to get rid of the compression artefacts. An issue which can be easily cleaned. Sting (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2015 at 11:53:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Salins de Frontignan, Hérault, France
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 07:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 16:09:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tajines in a pottery shop in Morocco
btw: no metadata, no color profile. Sting (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 14:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 00:59:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Basilica of Saint Clotilde Pulpit
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 07:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 19:09:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A highly decorated bracket on the ceiling near the south window at the Greenwich Hospital chapel.
I didn't have too much to work with if I wanted this to be good. I actually cropped some more off the right yesterday before nominating because that had some distracting light there. There isn't much more on those upper left corners. Daniel Case (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually Daniel, coincidentally I also visited the chapel and Painted Hall at Greenwich Hospital yesterday but unfortunately wasn't able to take any of the kind of quality photos you'd expect of me. The problem with visiting randomly is that you're at the mercy of whatever event is going on at the time - the chapel had choir singing practice for the entire afternoon until closure, taking over the front of one whole side aisle with quite a big group so although it was really beautiful singing, it wasn't really conducive to photography. I took a few photos of details such as this but nothing that I was happy with. The tonality was very different though, as the interior lighting was stronger and the light from outside was fairly dark and overcast. I won't link to any of my images of it here as I don't want to distract from your nomination but I'll post something on your talk page. And the Painted Hall was a bit busy with lots of volunteers buzzing around. I was specifically told not to use my tripod in there too, which is pretty much essential for high quality photography. I took a few hand-held panoramas to get an idea of what I could expect, but hand-held indoors usually results in stitching errors and mine were no exception so nothing I took was publishable on Commons. I'm hoping to visit another time and see if I have more luck with finding the two interiors a bit quieter. Apologies for spamming your nomination. ;-) Diliff (

talk) 23:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Looking forward to seeing your images. Daniel Case (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 16:18:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Egyptian food Koshary
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 07:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 22:06:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

restored version of a scene of film La Mary
Excuse me, La Mary is considered a cult film and all the actors are well known actors in Argentina and other countries, furthermore Carlos Monzón is a best known boxer in the world, it isn't a random photo Ezarateesteban 22:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support, relevant for Argentinian film history. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
¬¬ Could be a historical moment, but as a photo, nothing here. => Esto puede ser un momento histórico, pero la imagen en sí, no tiene nada que alegre los ojos.
And this is a voting for a Featured picture, I'm not even close said that's random, but, this is not a appealing photo
One important thing, Ezarate, could pleas fix the date? This is important, because this is a historical moment, and the license have a direct relation with the date. -- RTA 04:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Ezarateesteban 04:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, , but could be more precise? -- RTA 09:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was released on 8 August 1974 but I think it was filmed months before that date but I don,t know exactly the date Ezarateesteban 13:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate version

[edit]

See my argument below, please Ezarateesteban 22:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2015 at 00:18:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2015 at 09:58:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Trakai Island Castle Chapel interior.
  • Yes, this is a simple chapel, but it is the chapel of a very important castle in Lithuania, as Pofka mentions, and dates to the 14th or early 15th century. I don't think it's that plain though. There is a lot of character in the stones and bricks. :-) I find whitewashed churches much more plain. Diliff (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 07:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2015 at 07:55:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Étang of Ingril, Frontignan, France
  •  Comment I myself even thinking about it a long time, however it is a straight river bank, the right of the image is at a distance of aproximately 1.5 km and the left at 6km so it is a horizontal line taken in perspective. Of course I tried to correct that with the raw file, but when I did it all the buildings in the background were leaning to the left, and when all the verticals are leaning to the same direction the image is tilted. Here I did my best I think : all the verticals are straight and of more the real horizon (not the river bank) but the horizontal line just above the buidings seems straight. -- Christian Ferrer 09:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment this image is tilted. I tried to straightened it. My result: yes it is possible without leaning buildings. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, no issues :) I was maybe a bit too optimistic with this image, there is however some potential with the sky reflection and the colors. A pity that I was not better photographer :) I think now to withdraw -- Christian Ferrer 20:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is only my opinion! Please wait for some another opinions too. It is also interesting for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral It's a nice moody image. I think I can be improved with a little cheating like selectively brightening the bottom part of the image. As it is, the dark greenish bottom breaks the symmetry. Not sure what to think of the band of sand from a compositional point of view. It sure brings something into the frame, but I miss something. Can't decide. Neutral! - Benh (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Benh, you're right for the bottom part, I brighten it and it's better :). I know exactly we miss : a good framing! the transverse direction of the cloud breaks the dynamics of the image that normally goes from right to left (what brings the central band). I so wanted to highlight this cloud, it became disturbing IMO, in fact a kind of paradox :). -- Christian Ferrer 14:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I keep coming back to this. Alchemist-hp is right that it's a whole lot of nothing but for some reason I like it! -- KTC (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination thanks for the support :) -- Christian Ferrer 12:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 07:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jan-Erik „Nag“ Romøren of Tsjuder at Party.San Metal Open Air 2013
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 17:35:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Siberian Blue Robin
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 20:04:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sunset view from the back of the Seljalandsfoss waterfall, Suðurland, Iceland. The waterfall of the river Seljalandsá drops 60 metres (200 ft) over the cliffs of the former coastline.
  •  Info Sunset view from the back of the Seljalandsfoss waterfall, Suðurland, Iceland. The waterfall of the river Seljalandsá drops 60 metres (200 ft) over the cliffs of the former coastline. All by me, Poco2 20:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Poco2 20:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --LivioAndronico talk 21:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Lucien (es·m·com) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The composition is great. Not the processing. Oversaturated, shadow too heavily recovered on the right (strange that it's only on the right). Some blue fringing. Maybe this can be fixed - Benh (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Benh: I have finetuned the luminosity of the shadowed areas and reduced the frindge. I haven't touched the saturation because I believe that the picture is pretty realistic and I have applied the standard configuration that I have been using for years. Btw, I think that this one is probably the most solid FP candidate I had, ever. That makes me sadly believe that I will always get your opposing votes. It is fine to challenge other FP-experienced photographers, but if this picture is not an FP then I got lost... Poco2 20:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A configuration doesn't work the same for all sources of picture. I still maintain the processing screwed up (a little) the otherwise great scene. Now for my voting scheme : you flood FPC with candidates and it doesn't appear to me that you apply a strict filtering before ur pic gets the candidate label (and ur very own "solid FP candidate" comment seems to confirm that). FPC has to be special, and I hope it remains so. Don't be surprised to get opposes from me as I'm the kind of demanding nitpicking guy (I try to remain "fair" though). As for why I oppose this one vs neutral the stair nom. which had issues as well, I consider they may have forbid you from getting ur tripod out which I consider a mitigating reason (but u didn't share), while a processing can be done again and again. No mitigating reason : much higher expectations. - Benh (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Benh:::I think that you misunderstood my comment. This picture is probably one of my best pictures, ever, and will stay as my desktop image for a while. You cannot expect that I nominate only those pictures that, I believe, are the best picture have ever I shot. In that case I'd show up here every 2 years at most. I have made some numbers and checked all FPCs initiated by me in Commons and checked the result of them: 162 out of 289 were successful (56% success rate). It may be poor for you, but I'm satisfied with that. You may call that flooding, that's a tough word. Flooding would be 2 nominations per day but there are rules, that I agree with, to avoid that. I see it from a different point of view, out of my last 5 nominations 0% were successful and that is not normal, and no, I don't think that I have lowered the bar for FPCs. Regarding your comment about "mitigating reasons", that surprised me, especially after your statement in a recent nomination saying "only the result counts". Finally, I'd like to remind you again that comments like "cheap", "trivial", "randomed" are out of place when you judge the work of others (not the case in this nominations, but in others). I find that kind of comments unrespectful and discouraging. You can be a nitpicking guy but stay respectful Poco2 14:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what Benh meant is that if this is the best FP image you've ever taken (and was taken in August last year), why have you nominated so many inferior images recently? I know you probably have quite a large backlog of images that you haven't had time to process and upload and I can see this was uploaded just prior to nomination, but I think his point is still fair - it's probably better to nominate your best images as a priority. Anyway, of course it's your choice, but I have noticed that many of your nomination images have not been as consistently good recently. Diliff (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I have a big backlog, that is getting smaller now due to missing equipment, but still go around 2000 pictures from December/January. Sometimes I also wait for contests like WLE or WLM. Poco2 16:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on Poco... yes the result counts. But I still do know when it's impossible to do otherwise (and I still don't know for the stairs, just out of curiosity). Regarding the result counts nom, it would be just a matter of waiting spring or summer, but I thought it was clear to all... And yes I may be a bit too sincere, and that's because I don't play game or whatever. None of my negative comments are free. If there's any (there must be some which has slipped), then I'm very sorry. - Benh (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 26 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2015 at 12:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Egyptian Grains.jpg
  •  InfoSome Egyptian Grains: Top (orange)= lentil (Lens culinaris), Second (vinous)= bean, Third (brownish)= lentil, Forth (dark yellow)= maize, last one (light yellow)= wheat. This photo won the second prize at Wiki Loves Africa 2014. - created and uploaded by Dinapriv - nominated by لا روسا.--لا روسا (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support.--لا روسا (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nice idea, well done! --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Will support as soon as the cyan chromatic aberration is fixed (visible on the outer edges, even in preview!) --Kreuzschnabel 14:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment We need a better description, this is essential, why on Earth you approved a winning contest with a bad description? I do not know the first grain, the rest a put in order there. And some one needs to fix the weird light hits the beans. And is delightful photo. -- RTA 18:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Conditional support Now this is how to shoot food. But I would like to see the CA removed and the description improved. Daniel Case (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Uoaei1. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It is a good photo but I would like if it could be fixed before we accept it at FP. The CA is really quite visible and there's also very visible JPG blocking (see kidney beans) which suggests a low quality output at some stage. The author is using Photoshop so there's no reason this can't be fixed. Additionally, it has been saved as AdobeRGB rather than sRGB, which is unsuitable for web images. -- Colin (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Like very much the idea but per above. Colin, just curious to know why AdobeRGB is less suitable than sRGB for web images ? (What's a "web" image ?). - Benh (talk) 10:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A "web image" is an image that is nearly always going to be viewed on a computer using a web browser or mobile app. I keep meaning to write a Commons guideline on it. AdobeRGB is really only good for sending an image directly to a professional printer or magazine, for everyone else it is very likely to result in many people seeing the wrong colours and an increased risk of banding in smooth colour gradients. -- Colin (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Colin... this is not a "web" image, this a image in the web, a web image are the ones cropped and lower the quality/size at FB, i.e., to became viral, images here must have a superb quality, and high resolution in order to have more uses than just web, having the possibility to be printed, that's why we do not accept "720p" or "480p" as FP, very suitable for web images, but not even close to be a printable image.
So ProPhoto should be the choice, and more, some day every device and web browser will see prophoto, and what you gonna do when that happen? You will magically change all images from your poor sRBG to ProPhoto?
Same s as DNG, part of the community only see all media here as made to Wikipedia, and is not even close to the why this exists. -- RTA 10:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RTA our Commons images are largely used on the internet via the web. I'm not talking about "resized for web" which is another factor, just colourspace. No, thinking ProPhoto is a good choice is extremely naive. Even if we had displays and operating systems that supported this, it would be utterly stupid to try to squeeze that into 8-bit's of a JPG. You'd waste many of those 256 levels on colours the eye can't even see and have really terrible posterisation for the colours you can see. ProPhoto is really an intermediate format for use while manipulating images, to give one plenty flexibility to shift colours around without ever losing information, but it isn't really a destination. Sorry, but while we rely on JPG for photo image sharing, sRGB is really the only option. AdobeRGB is an extremely bad choice for sharing unless you know exactly what your recipient is capable of (hence only really for giving to a printer/magazine). I don't see Wikipedia as the only target, but 90% of the other target uses are going to be on the internet too. This is a dead argument anyway -- just Google and you'll see the same advice I give. Now, I really must write that guideline... -- Colin (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Colin you also forgot that free means that we must be able to edit, and by your text you can see another good reason to use adobe/prophoto... so calling a "dead argument", is rude for nothing. -- RTA 13:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Em, you can edit JPGs but don't expect to be able to seriously manipulate the levels or colours or colour temperature or any other thing we take for granted from a raw file. If you want to take some kind for "upload the source code" angle to "free content" then you'd require us to upload the raw files, our Lightroom adjustment settings, our Hugin projects, etc, etc. We're judging JPGs here. It is simply incorrect to think that AdobeRGB or ProPhoto in JPG somehow has more colours and so more editable -- it has exactly 256 shades of red x 256 shades of green x 256 shades of blue just as with sRGB. Which isn't a whole lot to do anything much with edit-wise. It's just that the shade at #256 red is a deeper red in AdobeRGB than sRGB. But since you've only got a measly 256 levels, those levels are further apart. So you get posterisation. You've simply exchanged one problem (limited gamut) for another (quantisation error). And added another huge problem - incompatibility with nearly every viewer of your image. The limited gamut of sRGB isn't a huge problem as it corresponds fairly well to the gamut present in nearly all photographic subjects and to the limitations of many displays. Only once you start using a file format with sufficient bits (e.g., 16-bit TIFF or raw) does it make much sense to think of AdobeRGB or ProPhoto as a superior image colourspace and only then if your recipient is fully clued-up and has the relevant software/hardware to appreciate it. By all means upload 16-bit tiffs in AdobeRGB or ProPhoto in addition to JPGs but really for FP we should be judging JPGs that people actually see in the correct colours and without bands all over their sky. -- Colin (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raw never gonna happen, all raw formats are under a proprietary license, so DNG should be necessary to have here... and I even don't know why we do not insisted in implement it again. Anyway, I'm not enter deeper on this. PNGs made better results in most cases vs JPEGs, also TIFFs, but you are always trying to push JPEGs + sRGB, the worst one to see, and edit. V -- RTA 14:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely pragmatic that JPG+sRGB is chosen. Virtually nobody edits our photographs (other than cropping, denoising) and virtually nobody has a correctly-set-up calibrated wide-gamut monitor with which to review these AdobeRGB files in their glory. And the vast majority of our photographs are entirely within the sRGB colourspace anyway (this photograph here almost certainly) -- only deeply saturated colours give any issues. I'd much rather several million viewers saw correct skin tones (vs "skin that looks like a corpse" or "skin that looks like sunburn") on their browsers or tablets than a few hundred with specialist equipment saw a ski jacket in the absolutely correct Pantone shade of fuchsia. -- Colin (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2015 at 19:27:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
"The picture seems somehow very plastic and at the same time very abstract". That, at least, is what Google Translate comes up with, although I suspect "plastic" is not quite what you meant (But I'm not able right now to run upstairs and find other meanings in my German-English dictionary). Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "three-dimensional" is the word you’re looking for, or, if it’s not meant that literally, "vivid". --Kreuzschnabel 10:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Mysterious support I shouldn't like this, but I do. I think it's two things: the unexpectedly bright blues on these disused industrial objects, and the strong contrasts of the rusty orange and the deep blues. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2015 at 00:55:31
SHORT DESCRIPTION SHORT DESCRIPTION

Result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted and replaced. KTC (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2015 at 14:56:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Titanium crystal bars
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks and Minerals

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2015 at 15:15:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Le « temple de la montagne »Site de Vat_Phou Champassak, Laos
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2015 at 22:40:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Views of Wieliczka Salt Mines by Willem Hondius
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2015 at 09:14:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Haarlem-NL, windmill
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2015 at 11:14:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bull leaping in Crete
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2015 at 11:28:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jump from a MV-22 Osprey at Morón Air Base, Spain
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2015 at 11:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Model healthy village Salavan Province Laos.
He is smoking.--Paris 16 (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This man,(Akha Peoples), prepares his large water pipe called "Bang Yan" for smoking tobacco.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I really wish I could support a shot from Laos, but I don't really like the centered composition, harsh behind light and "high" point of view (I probably would have crouched down for a more dramatic composition). - Benh (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose centered composition, too tight crop, and only little wow; Sorry. --P e z i (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like it. --Hubertl (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be frank, I really get tired of these "I like it" reasons given. This is not Facebook – an FPC is not featured because of enough users "liking" it. The suitable approach for your review is not "do I like it" but "do I think it’s among the very best images Commons has to offer". This one isn’t, though I really do like it, I like its atmosphere and lighting, but then there’s a huge loss of detail (hair, ear, stockings) and an unfavourable upside-down perspective, making the man appear smaller than he is and hiding every surrounding. Though I like it, I think it could have been taken much better, that’s why I do not think it deserves to be featured.  Oppose --Kreuzschnabel 09:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Na, @Kreuzschnabel: , möchtest du dir wieder einmal in deiner grenzenlosen Selbstüberschätzung ein zumindest temporäres Denkmal setzen? Kleiner Tipp: Ersetze hier einfach Musik durch Bild. Passt bestens zu dir. Zu deiner Beruhigung, du bist in gleichartiger Gesellschaft.--Hubertl (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I cut this image to hide the misery of these poor people. The man who prepares his pipe, waiting for the rat (which will make its meals), cooks the misery blaze, which is his right. The photo is cropped and less sad to see. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2015 at 15:22:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Anthus richardi
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2015 at 23:05:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Yep, sorry, missing part: "...but no technical or artistic reason given for keeping the noise." Because you "explained" this point to Kreuzschnabel with a laconic "It is how it is..." Sting (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I´ll explain... pic taken at f8, why? needed dof. pic taken at 1/30 that corresponded to least hand held exposure by me, and fast enough to sort of not have moving people... so iso 1,600 was the corresponding setting in order to use such settings, thinking in the photo scene... if I reduced iso, longer exporuse time would result which I could not do without tripod... the range was large and large areas in deep shadow which are bound to be noisy, tunnels are dark by nature, and noise amid lots of texture and rythm don´t bother me too much, I wanted the general effect and one has to sacrifice some things. I did some adjustment, but after a while image becames unreal. I push it to just this side of normal or acceptable. Contrary to popular beliefs and expectations, neither noise nor grain are necessarily bad things, in fact, they can be good too. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2015 at 18:05:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2015 at 21:16:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Leccinum variicolor
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2015 at 23:02:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Regulus regulus
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2015 at 05:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

 Info Two gram high quality red threads of saffron from Lower Austria. All by Hubertl, Focus stacking by Alchemist -- Hubertl (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2015 at 08:14:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Der Busant, in medieval tapestry
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2015 at 08:34:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Avalokiteśvara in Construction in Da Nang, Vietnam
  •  Support In my opinion there's nothing wrong about showing the world in its current state. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose @Frank Schulenburg: Nothing being wrong about that, on the other hand, does not necessarily mean the image in question is among our finest. This one isn’t IMHO. Sunlit side of the statue is blown, contrast in the rest is rather poor, level of detail is by no means outstanding. Not a bad pic but still well below FP threshold for me. --Kreuzschnabel 09:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The subject is fascinating and the sharpness and resolution are really good. Really interesting to see all the phases of construction, as you said. Sadly, some areas are clipped and the image would benefit from some editing to improve the contrast. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 18:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not so much bothered by the idea of it being under renovation, but here it isn't photographed creatively enough to add something to the image. Worse than that, though, is the lighting as noted by Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are the second one referring to it being under renovation when this photo shows a statue being built from the ground up. Are my file name and description that bad? Isn't it obvious enough when looking at the photo in full size? -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much. OK, so I mistyped—it's being built, not rebuilt. But that doesn't substantively change my opposition. Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2015 at 09:13:58
Mulberry Street NYC Mulberry Street NYC

Result: 2 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. KTC (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2015 at 09:51:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Moravian-Silesian Beskids in winter
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2015 at 13:26:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Spanish metal band Noctem at Asaco Metal Fest 2013, Parla, Spain.

 I withdraw my nomination Thank for the comments. --Kadellar (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2015 at 18:02:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

School Festival at Ipiranga, by Agustín Salinas y Teruel

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2015 at 20:29:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of the north coast of the Snæfellsnes peninsula, situated to the west of Borgarfjörður, in western Iceland.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2015 at 16:10:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Our Lady of the Rosary church in Kłodzko
Most of those other images are of entire stained glass windows, not portions as this one is. That's what I like about it. I don't see why we can't have a nice one at small scale. And yes, I'm wowed by it. I would not have indicated my support if I didn't feel that way—as I think one could deduce from my oppose votes explicitly saying an image has no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Σπάρτακος, the Featured Pictures are those judged against strict rules to be among the finest on Commons. "I like" really isn't a factor at all. It isn't even a factor for QI, which must meed certain quality standards. Keep "I like" for Flickr/Facebook or your own personal favourites collection. You ask "what else?". A lot else. Please, if you aren't prepared to research whether this image is among our finest, then don't vote. It just devalues FP to become images some people like. If you want to show some appreciation, then send a message to the photographer. -- Colin (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colin"I Like" means many things. I like the colors, I like the composition, I like the light etc .... Who are you? The "God" of photography? everything is chosen by you? If so, buy commons and do as you think. Until then I will do the same,keep this opinions for you. Greetings.--Σπάρτακος (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might I as who are you who is above criticism? This is a forum where we decide the best pictures on Commons. Nobody cares what images you Favourite or Like on Flickr of Facebook and your opinion there affects nothing. If you judge this image to be FP then there are perhaps 1000 other stained glass windows images that are equally as good and worth of FP. How about a grown-up discussion on what makes a FP stained glass window, rather than acting like a teenager who's been told by his dad that his taste in music is poor. -- Colin (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2015 at 16:37:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lookout tower on Borówkowa, exposure from SW

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2015 at 19:08:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Montpellier Cathedral, France.
  • It is a rule I set for myself and only my opinion : if I am convinced by the arguments of an opposition, I withdraw, what is logical. Thank you. -- Christian Ferrer 06:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is noble of you, but I wasn't that convinced by Benh's argument personally. I don't think his image's composition is better. The right side of his image is angled so strongly (I measured the corner of the tallest part as 65°) that the building almost feels like it's entering the frame sideways. I think if the angle of lean is more than 45 degrees inwards, it is too much. These compositions are always difficult, but I think you did the best you could, if getting further back was not an option. Diliff (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2015 at 23:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

 I withdraw my nomination Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2015 at 19:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of Lögberg (icelandic for Law Rock), Þingvellir National Park, Southern Region, Iceland. The Lögberg was the place on which the Lawspeaker (lögsögumaður) took his seat as the presiding official of the assembly of the Althing, the national parliament, from 930 until 1262 (when Iceland took allegiance to Norway). Speeches and announcements were made from the spot and anyone attending could make their argument from the Lögberg.
  •  Info Panoramic view of Lögberg (icelandic for Law Rock), Þingvellir National Park, Southern Region, Iceland. The Lögberg was the place on which the Lawspeaker (lögsögumaður) took his seat as the presiding official of the assembly of the Althing, the national parliament, from 930 until 1262 (when Iceland took allegiance to Norway). Speeches and announcements were made from the spot and anyone attending could make their argument from the Lögberg. All by me, Poco2 19:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Poco2 19:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose In a way I actually do like the picture itself: it's informative and has an interesting natural topic with very pleasant light situation. But I can't get away with the fact that the composition makes me feel uneasy mostly because of the road on the right side. As I'm viewing the entire picture at once it's difficult for me to find a balance for the road in the picture. I think, cropping the road wouldn't be good either because the natural features in the background would cut oddly. --Ximonic (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Uninteresting composition. Perhaps the rock could be made interesting, but any subtle compositional details are lost in a 180-degree panorama. --King of 03:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. Agree with above, it's compositionally very weak, and the subject is fairly unidentifiable at thumbnail view / sized to fit screen. It's only when viewed at 100% that it's possible for me to understand what it is I'm looking at. I'm not suggesting that we should judge it at thumbnail view, I'm just saying if it's uninteresting or unidentifiable at thumbnail view, it's a good sign that it's compositionally weak. Diliff (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination I can live with opposes, but planting the FPX template here (for the first time in any of my noms) is offensive. I do know the guidelines, thank you, Daniel. Poco2 19:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 17:43:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Alternative version

[edit]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /King of 03:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2015 at 00:30:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Soldiers of C Company 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment are silhouetted against the setting sun during operations in Afghanistan in June 2014.

* Neutral the photo is not localized. Is actually taken in Afghanistan? if not it's an advertising--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2015 at 21:12:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sympetrum vulgatum
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2015 at 01:29:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

American Steinway & Sons uproght piano
  • Please judge the photo and not the number of nominations. The quality of the photo is much higher this time. At the first nomination it was 1.29 MB, which was too low, so it was withdrawn by the nominator. At the second nomination it was 4.47 MB big and supported by all who participated in the election, but unfortunately too few participated in the election. Therefore this third nomination is like the second nomination - but I hope more will participate this time. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please judge the photo and not the nominator. The quality of the photo is much higher this time. At the first nomination it was 1.29 MB, which was too low, so it was withdrawn by the nominator. At the second nomination it was 4.47 MB big and supported by all who participated in the election, but unfortunately too few participated in the election. Therefore this third nomination is like the second nomination - but I hope more will participate this time. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes much higher, but still looks like an upscale. And can't really tell if artifacts are from bad compression or from artifacts so I maintain my oppose, until someone proves me wrong. Have tried to check on a quick googling, but nothing to prove either point. - Benh (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Quite poor sharpness for a studio shot of such a high-class product. The sharpness and level of detail might be sufficient on an outdoor scenery shot but isn’t here. Also, there are certain traces of noise visible on the black surface. Nice shot but in this case I expect a distinctly higher quality. Steinway’s art director would most certainly not be satisfied with this file to be printed on their glossy brochures. It’s simply not "crisp" enough. --Kreuzschnabel 05:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why you think the photo doesn't have sharpness and a great level of detail. Would you please specify what you mean by "certain traces of noise visible on the black surface"?, because I am almost sure you are wrong. You are aware that this photo shows a piano with a "satin lustre lacquer finish" (and NOT the usual "high polish polyester finish")??? --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I added some annotations regarding the noise traces. I am quite aware this is not a polished shiny surface because it’s got a somewhat "brushed" look, maybe I am mistaken here. Then there’s the sharpness/resolution issue. Of course there is some detail but it’s still not sharp enough for a studio shot. The brass screws, the Steinway logo, they’re just not perfectly in focus. Have a look at this image of me which is being discussed on QIC. It has been taken outside, no tripod, handheld camera at a 35-mm-equivalent focal length of 104 mm. Still you see every surface detail on the statue crisp sharp, the level of detail is way better than in this studio shot, at comparable resolutions (16.1 resp. 14.6 mpix). By the way, there’s some bad cutout at the bottom, see notes. Things visible in the reflection that certainly are not part of the piano. --Kreuzschnabel 07:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2015 at 02:10:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2015 at 11:05:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rederos of St Cuthbert's Church, London
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2015 at 14:06:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of Vrata valley with Triglav in Triglav national park, Slovenia.
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2015 at 16:26:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tytuvėnai Monastery Church Interior.
  •  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Never before saw this church decorated like that. Some important mass must have been held at that time or something. -- Pofka (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really, Pofka? I hadn't seen it before either until I visited Lithania. I saw maybe 3 or 4 churches decorated in this way (this one was in Šiluva, I took only a hand-held pano very quickly, because a service was about to begin and I couldn't photograph it properly, so it has stitching faults and can't really be used on Wiki), so I thought it was a special Lithuanian thing. ;-) Since then, I have a few other Eastern European churches with similar decorations but I don't know exactly what the significance is or what it is called. Diliff (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious why they were decorated like that in your pictures as well. At first, I thought that it might be connected with the wedding ceremonies or something, but that is not quite likely as there are way too much churches looking like that at the same time (St. Anne's Church in Vilnius is a frequent site of weddings, however I doubt that Tytuvėnai is frequently used for that as well). As I understand, you took all these pictures in a very short duration. Due to that, I think it is possible that some important Catholic events or days commemorations were taking place. I believe there should have been some advertisement sheets about it somewhere. Though, I'm surprised that you saw other Eastern European churches decorated in the same way (at similar period?) because Lithuania and Poland are the only Catholic countries in the region. Belarus, Ukraine, Russia are Orthodox, Latvia, Estonia are Lutheran (and Orthodox due to the Russian minorities as well). All these decorated churches and monasteries in your pictures are Catholic, so if the other churches you saw in the another Eastern Europe countries were Catholic as well, I think it must have been some religiously important days/period. It seems my religious knowledge isn't high enough to sort it out. =D -- Pofka (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're right, it was a Polish church I saw. I can't recall where it was, maybe Commons or maybe Flickr. I searched for "Polish church interior" on Flickr and found four churches with the same decorations, but no explanation about why. We can just call it a Polish-Lithuanian tradition for now. :-) Diliff (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • These pictures in Flickr are taken at completely different dates: July 12, June 1, May 22, August 14 and yours photos are from September. That's really difficult to identify the exact decorating reason. Maybe some other more religious person will tell us why. =) -- Pofka (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. Thanks again for the nomination. Eventually you will get through all my Lithuanian photos! The ones worth nominating anyway. Again, not a perfect interior for me, but I think the beauty of the interior is enough. Diliff (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is my aim for now. =D Later I'm planning to move on your Latvian churches. Some of them looks just terrific in your shots as well. It looks even better in your shots than in reality as I previously had a chance to visit some of these and they weren't that impressive. Maybe that's because I'm used to the luxurious Catholic churches in Vilnius, which is a complete opposition of Lutheranism. =D -- Pofka (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate all the different architectural styles really, but I must admit, the Lithuanian churches were much more impressive overall. ;-) I was a bit disappointed with the Lutheran churches in Latvia. Riga Cathedral and St Peter's were quite big, but also cold, uninviting and not so interesting inside. And unlike in Lithuania, they almost all required 'donations' (it's not a donation if you insist!) to visit. Diliff (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought just the same when I saw huge Riga Cathedral for the first time, however its interior was quite empty and disappointing. Though that's how Lutheranism exactly works. They want to keep everything simple when the Catholics wants to show God's greatness and humans weakness with the luxurious interiors full of saints frescoes. There are so many luxurious churches in Lithuania (especially in Vilnius and Kaunas) because this territory was the heart of the huge Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Many nobles financed expensive constructions of monasteries and churches there and that is why there are so many of them, compared with Latvia and Estonia. Latvia, Estonia always were quite tiny and military-based territories (that's why they have many castles). Klaipėda often was captured by other states and because of that there really is no such Catholic objects. It even reminds Riga a bit but sadly its main huge Lutheran church with vast tower haven't survived the World War II when it was completely exploded and the restoration project is kind of stuck to this day. Actually, I'm surprised how these churches in Vilnius nowadays are able to survive and even reconstruct themselves. There are way too many of them for a 0.5 million inhabitants city of nowadays and relying solely on donations should be just impossible. Though, I'm happy they are able to keep our heritage in a good condition. =) -- Pofka (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's nice to hear your point of view as a local. There was only one church that was in quite bad condition inside. I was always seeing the roof and towers when I was walking around, so went down some small streets and found its entrance in a courtyard. I can't remember the name of it, I never stayed to take a photo of it because there wasn't too much to see and it felt like a construction site! Maybe I should have taken a photo so we could have a high quality 'before' picture to match a new restored picture if it ever happens. Ah yes, on Google Maps, it's called "Bazilijonų bažnyčia", near the Church of St Theresa. Do you know it? Diliff (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The restoration works are under-way in the Trinity church and that is why it looks like a construction site. =) As far as I remember, it was stuck for a while because the church belongs to Uniate monastery and there were discussions between the monastery and the city municipality on how much each side should invest. They already reached an agreement and the restoration works began in September (I guess just in the time of your visit to Lithuania). It was in a poor condition due to the barbaric Lithuania occupations. Many Catholic churches were despoiled, converted into warehouses or even stables (including the Vilnius Cathedral). Russia even recolored some of them later into more poorly visible colors (light yellow, white) to distinguish the Orthodox churches. Some were even demolished. Many churches in Vilnius currently are recolored back to their historic colors (pink, red). Kaunas cathedral interior (perfectly captured in your photo after the restoration) previously was converted into Orthodox church by destroying its historic Catholic interior. The Grand Dukes Palace was completely abandoned and at times it even was the shelter to the homeless people, later it was used in other ways and even was almost completely demolished by trying to delete the glorious Grand Duchy history from the people's minds. Another heavily damaged object is the Sapieha Palace in Antakalnis (Vilnius). It is a huge baroque palace complex previously built by one of the wealthiest Grand Duchy families, however the Russians transformed it into hospital and damaged its luxurious interiors and even the exterior (all the frescoes were painted over, huge windows, halls were reduced). Some complex buildings served as psychiatry. Gladly, it remained standing and is under-reconstruction as well. It doesn't look that ugly anymore, yet there is a lot of work to be done. St. Peter and St. Paul's church is considered as a part of this complex. Another luxurious palace from the Grand Duchy history - Slushko Palace was converted into even crazier object - a jail. Sadly, it is not under-reconstruction yet as all the financing is focused on the Sapieha and the Grand Dukes palaces. Vilnius historical heritage will probably look quite different after the following decade. =) -- Pofka (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2015 at 17:15:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

1849 family portrait painting of Pietro Stanislao Parisi with family
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2015 at 16:09:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Laughing Dove at Tel Aviv zoo
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2015 at 20:21:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Snorkeling in the Silfra canyon, a continental drift between the tectonic plates (North American and Eurasian), Þingvellir National Park, Southern Region, Iceland.
Slightly off-topic discussion of lens problems relating to this and other images
  • Are you sure about the lack of sharnpess? For the edge of a 12 MPix wide angle shot, that's great sharpness. To be honest, it would even be fine for that area to be out of focus imo. — Julian H. 07:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's kind of right. The borders, particularly the left one, are not that sharp. It's something that I've observed on many of Poco's photos taken with the 24-105mm f/4L lens, and it's also something that happened on my 24-105mm lens. But yeah, I think the problem is not too bad in this photo. In other photos taken with the lens it is much more of a problem. Diliff (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some pictures get promoted here being much softer in the centre (centre!) of the image. I see it quite sharp.  Support ¡Muy bonita! --Kadellar (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Knowing the image passed through Lightroom, that issue at the left could have been corrected. The 24-105mm is an excellent lens for its versatility but crap for its optical quality (except around 70mm) imo, even more for landscape or FPC where quality at 100% matters.
Out of focus borders? It would be ok (= natural) if their distance were closer than the divers, but here it's clearly a lack of sharpness due to the lens.
"...it's more than good enough for FP for me...": that's the "problem" with the FPC page as it depends on the greatly different levels of appreciation of the voters. Imho FP shouldn't be "good enough" but among the best on the composition and technically, something special, because there's also QI. Sting (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, the 24-105mm f/4L is not the best optically, but it is usually acceptable. What I found in my experience with the lens is that it occasionally will severely blur one side of the image. It was very difficult to replicate the problem every time, which makes me think it is related to the image stabilisation. A perfect example of how bad it can be is one of Poco's recent nominations. This is well outside of what would be considered acceptable corner sharpness and is a fault with the lens IMO. Although this image's edge sharpness is a lot better than that one I linked to, it is a manifestation of the same problem, I think. Diliff (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The linked example doesn't look like a sharpness problem to me though, it's almost exclusively vertical, the vertical lines are quite sharp even on the left side. In some areas, you can even discern two reproductions of some detail on top of each other. I can't think of a way that a lens can do such a thing and would therefore expect that to be camera shake. — Julian H. 22:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the image isn't sharp, then it is a sharpness problem, regardless of what is the actual cause of it. That's what I was saying earlier though, I believe it is the image stabilisation of the lens that is causing the problem rather than camera shake. If it was camera shake, the entire image would be blurry equally, not just the left side. But when IS shifts the lens elements, it does so in three dimensions. This the only way you could get motion blur only on one side. I suspect the IS has pivoted one of the lens elements such that the middle and right side remained relatively stable, but the left side shifted considerably. Diliff (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean it's not a sharpness problem, I meant it's not a lens sharpness problem. Rotational camera shake can easily cause blurryness in a part of the frame. If the IS corrects the translation of the camera shake, what is left is the rotation. So if you rotate around your right hand, the result can look somewhat like this. — Julian H. 23:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow Julian! You should change monitor or wear glasses (no offence)! That Montenegro picture is an optical quality masterpiece! @ Poco a poco: I'm not happy with my 24-105 but in your case you should process Canon because you got a lemon! In that image, the left 2/3 are totally unusable. No post-processing will recover it. I hate advertisement (and the company) selling you at gold price the heaven while they push you into hell. Imagine showing that photograph to your Montenegro's gov client: you'll get burned on public place at once, with some oil to help. If you allow me a friendly advice: next time you change your camera, sell that lens together as a bundle, as fast as possible and get an other one if you want it again (I'm already sorry for the buyer). Sting (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've got a similar and even worse problem on a fixed lens, a TS-E (sold at gold price, remember?): setting it at 0°, one side is blurred, more than in the Montenegros's one. Setting it at 1/4 or 1/3 of a degree, it's perfect. I know it and I can change these settings on that lens, so that's ok for me, but not acceptable as a customer. That 24-105 may have a lens paralellism problem.
Julian, perhaps but remember the blur direction seems vertical so a horizontal rotation around the right hand couldn't cause that. Also, I can confirm that I've had similar problems with my Canon 24-105mm and there was no camera movement/shake at the time. It is the lens itself malfunctioning IMO. Sting, you don't have to worry about Poco's lens now though, he sadly had all his camera gear stolen in Argentina a few months ago, and these photos were from August 2014. I hope for the sake of the photos that he doesn't get the 24-105mm again though. Sigma make a lens with exactly the same focal length range and their lens is supposed to be sharper. If I had the chance again, I would buy the Sigma. Diliff (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry for Poco a poco. Harsh and sad times. Sting (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vertical is the only blur direction that could be caused by a rotation around the direction of light. — Julian H. 13:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really what you mean by that. Vertical blur usually occurs when the camera rotates around a horizontal axis vertically, perpendicular to the direction of the camera. I originally understood "rotate around your right hand" to mean a horizontal rotation around the vertical axis, but I now think you mean a vertical rotation around the optical axis of the lens. Horizontal blur usually occurs when the camera rotates around a vertical axis horizontally, perpendicular to the direction of the camera. Are you saying that you think Poco twisted the camera along the axis of the lens as he took the photo, pivoting around his right hand so much that he had blur only on one side of the frame?? I suppose it's possible, but that would be very difficult to achieve unless you were trying to do it deliberately. I can't imagine Poco could do it by accident as it would require quite a significant movement in 1/80th of a second. I think it's far more likely that the IS shifted the lens element incorrectly in that moment than Poco physically rotating the entire camera. Diliff (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. And yes, it's not the most common kind of camera shake. But the image is rotated. A vertical blur on the left and none on the right means a rotation along the optical axis, no matter how you look at it. And I can't come up with a way that an IS can rotate the image, ever. I don't think that's possible. At least not with spherical lenses. — Julian H. 15:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it appears to be vertical blur and the most logical explanation for that is a rotation along the optical axis, but it would require an extreme rotational movement in a fairly awkward way and I'm still not convinced that's what actually happened here. This fault occurred in my 24-105mm lens fairly regularly and I am positive that I didn't rotate it, and to the best of my knowledge, it only happened when IS was enabled. It has never happened in any of my photos with any other lens. In any case, it could be that the perceived vertical blur is a red herring and not what we think it is. Diliff (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, maybe it's extreme coma. I've never really seen coma half as strong as this, but I hadn't thought of that before and I guess that would be an optical way of achieving verticals in a part of the frame. — Julian H. 17:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen motion blur resulting from a rotation around the optical axis as strong as that either... Perhaps Poco can give us some comments about it. I've tried to mention it a few times in previous nominations but he hasn't commented on it so I'm not sure what his experience of the problem is, or even if he noticed it before, given his nomination of the image in question... I suppose we should collapse this discussion though as it's quite a digression from the nomination here. Diliff (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although all this is off-topic to this FPC I can just tell you that I haven't intentionally tried out any twist / rotation or similar things. My experience with that camera is that most of the time the quality was good and sometimes it wasn't. I cannot explain why, and I wouldn' call it a lemon, but is gone anywhow. Poco2 21:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Poco. Well I have to say, I would consider the lens a lemon if even one of my photos turned out like the one taken in Montenegro (if it wasn't a user issue anyway). But thanks for your point of view. I guess we won't get to the bottom of the problem since the lens is gone. I'll collapse the off-topic discussion. Sorry about that. Diliff (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2015 at 12:56:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Moravian-Silesian Beskids in winter
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2015 at 23:52:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bridge, crossing the river Drava seen from from Köttmannsdorf, South Carinthia. The mountain in front is the Rauth. This bridge was build in the middle of the 1960s, after a big flooding destroyed the old one.
Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2015 at 06:26:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Semporna, Sabah: Semporna City Mosque
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2015 at 13:43:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Harris's Hawk (Parabuteo unicinctus) in the Community of Madrid, Spain.
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2015 at 04:52:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2015 at 15:53:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A view of Ålesund, Norway
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2015 at 19:52:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Catamaran's capstan
  • I just think that a FP candidate of sailing equipment show the equipment being used properly. A winch (it's a winch not a capstan) is dangerous if not used properly, also a yacht skipper should not leave sheets (ropes) lying around on the deck - you can see a red sheet or halyard in the background. Also, should FP be advertising a commercial enterprise (Mundomarino's boat trips). FP of a winch should specify type and use (e.g. main halyard or whatever)? --Charles (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or... just playing Devil's Advocate here... photos should show reality, even if they don't show best practice. I don't see this image as being intended for a technical how-to guide to sailing, but even if it were to be used that way, the onus would be on the re-user to determine whether it's best practice and suitable for that intended use. I also don't see this being advertising for a commercial enterprise at all and there is absolutely nothing in the image that identifies the company or encourages people to use its services, only a reference to it in the file description. In any case, using that logic, perhaps we shouldn't feature photos of a city in case it inadvertently encourages tourism? We wouldn't want any commercial enterprise to benefit from an image in any way, shape or form, would we? ;-) It seems clear that you are knowledgeable about sailing and perhaps you're right that it would be nice to have more information about what kind of winch it is, but I don't think it's absolutely essential for the image to be useful in some way. Diliff (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have plenty of FP of commercial products, whether that be car, planes or whatever, or scenes featuring giant advertisment of particular organisation such as logo on their HQ buildings. This particular photo isn't exactly much advertising given you don't see logos or names etc. Their name is in the description because it gives context to what it's part of. As you can tell, I have no knowledge of watercraft other than being able to say which way's port and starboard. I thought it looked nice, so I took a photo. If I could describe the catamran in more specific terms than "it's a catamaran that has sails and motor", I probably wouldn't need the organisation name to give context in the description. If you can help with more accurate categorisation and filename, please do. Thanks for your comments anyhow. -- KTC (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2015 at 23:05:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Goosenecks State Park
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Satellite images

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2015 at 14:17:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Peterborough Cathedral Sanctuary
  • For POTY voters: Animals >>> Anything else. And I agree that unusualness in thumb is king as well. Consistently amazing work is not really rewarded by the concept. --DXR (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2015 at 23:49:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

In this historical photograph, "USS Essex (CVA-9) takes spray over the bow while steaming in heavy seas. Essex, with assigned Carrier Air Group 10 (CVG-10), was deployed to the Mediterranean Sea from 7 August 1959 to 26 February 1960."
  • So what? Color films were common 50 years ago. Good moment but wrong film type choice, or PoV if we keep the B&W. May be post-processing could correct this keeping the picture natural, trying to change the brightness and/or contrast of the sea. Sting (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colour photography were of course available in 1960, but to say they were common is quite misleading. Of course, that doesn't mean it's invalid to oppose based on contrast, brightness or whatever other technical reason, just take into account when the photo was taken. -- KTC (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There might not have been colour film with sufficient speed to shoot from a moving and vibrating vehicle in dim light. — Julian H. 17:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have, as a proposal, uploaded a version with brighter water. In the long term, this is probably better as a separate file, if we actually want to keep this, but for the moment I just added a new version. Is this better? — Julian H. 23:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, yes. Thx Julian. I didn't check the picture in detail but I won't oppose any more about the carrier that doesn't pop out of the picture. Sting (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Very nice, I like B&W photos and this is great -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 16:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2015 at 23:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2015 at 21:06:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hamadryas baboon
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2015 at 21:10:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Doctor Denis Mukwege, specializes in the treatment of women who have been gang-raped by rebel forces in Congo.
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Audi e-tron (Edit1).jpg (delist), not delisted

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2015 at 00:40:55
Red car

  •  Info There is a lot of noise [distracting/irrelevant elements] in this picture. Many lamp lights are reflected in the red surface of the car and the windows. The background is noisy in the up left corner with that big blue thing. The big blue thing is reflected in the windows in the left side of the car (and also on the floor). I think many men and boys like the photo because of the great car, but that is not a valid reason for having the photo listed as a featured picture. (Original nomination)
  •  Delist -- Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I have another opinion. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look to the original. I think your noise are a true color or pattern at the wall. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and you don't think these elements/noise are irrelevant to a plain photo of a car. I don't see lamp lights reflecting in the surface of the car and the blue light do anything good to the photo. --Nobelpeopleuploader
@Nobelpeopleuploader  Question Sorry, but I think you never saw a real camera RAW file and its properties? Otherwise you wouldn't talk nonsense here. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Alchemist-hp  Comment I don't think I understand your question and I don't see why your question is relevant to judging a photo... By the way "noise" and "irrelevant elements/reflections" are the same to me. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaceable or not replaceable is irrelevant when judging featured pictures. And regarding the noise: You didn't see the many reflecting lamp lights and the big blue thing in the left corners and in the left windows? --Nobelpeopleuploader
  • Sure, I agree with you regarding judging each FPC on its merit, but here you have nominated one for delist, which can be done if the pic doesn't satisfy the FPC standards any more. But this pic is still of high quality, has nice aesthetic feel to it and shows the subject in a way different to others in its category. As for the noise, I don't think what you said qualifies as noise IMHO. May be it could be glare, but considering that it was taken in an expo, surely there would be some reflections. Nikhil (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You think these irrelevant elements/noise that I described in my nomination above are okay to have in featured pictures? You think the picture is "some of the finest on Commons." --Nobelpeopleuploader
First of all, I think we should remove the fp template from the original, because it was delisted, in what we nowadays would do as a delist and replace.Edit: I should learn to read Back then, the consensus was that the edited version is better, and we should respect that. Then anyone who thinks the original was better can start a delist and replace back to the original. — Julian H. 09:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I don't see any significant noise anywhere, and the LED screen on the top left doesn't worry me. It's not a studio shot, but when it comes to car show photos, this is probably as clean as those get. — Julian H. 09:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You think these irrelevant elements/noise that I described in my nomination above are okay to have in featured pictures? You think the picture is "some of the finest on Commons." --Nobelpeopleuploader
  • As I said, I don't see anything that worries me. And yes, I think the picture is among the finest on Commons, otherwise I wouldn't vote "keep". Btw, I think something is wrong with your signatures. — Julian H. 09:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you don't think these elements/noise are irrelevant to a plain photo of a car. I don't see lamp lights reflecting in the surface of the car and the blue light do anything good to the photo, esspecially not a featured one which should be "some of the finest on Commons." --Nobelpeopleuploader
  • Have you ever been to a car show like the IAA? Shooting conditions are not easy there and normally there is an insane number of people standing around everything. We should take into account that this is not exactly the kind of car we see driving around every day. And no, I don't mind seeing the lights too much. --DXR (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That it is a car show is irrelevant. If it is difficult to take very good pictures at a car show, then you shouldn't take pictures at car shows. It is that simpel. (And by the way, it is very easy to go in to an Audi store and take much better pictures of cars). --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 delist, 6 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. KTC (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2015 at 01:09:51
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Keep I've uploaded a version with a higher resolution, but please keep in mind that this images is nearly 10 years old ;-) -- aka 08:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is nearly 10 years old, and it doesn't meet today's standards. That is why I am delisting. --Nobelpeopleuploader

 I withdraw my nomination Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2015 at 10:42:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

P-38 Lightning "Glacier Girl"
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2015 at 14:52:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Head of Boxer of Quirinal (Mys from Taranto)

Ops...I don't read mobile...anyway in the museums is impossible do it because there's very people and must ask a permission (often is negative). --LivioAndronico talk 15:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not impossible. Just bring in a small piece of white (or black) cloth. You need someone to hold the cloth while you take the picture. Nothing extraordinary. I have seen a tutorial about this on the web, but I can't find it back. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do it in a italian museum and I can beleive it,thanks --LivioAndronico talk 09:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Try this technique !--Jebulon (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot with whom I was talking about. Next time I will be more observant and do not bother, even when you ask for suggestions. Arrivederci! -- RTA 04:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2015 at 17:37:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2015 at 20:47:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

BPMN portuguese sample
  •  Info Nice portuguese sample that how work bpmn -- The_Photographer (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Seems specific to a pharmacy logistics system owner (when specific and owner loses some value), there are some codes that are not explained, there is no description in English or in Portuguese, do not think the xml text should be in this field . Obs .: there are some fields that not have responsible (are out of the area and one that is superimposed on a flowchart, I believe should not have this lay-out) and are Medic/Nurse conflict on the initial task description field.(IMO) -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 13:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Portuguese description added. Area conflict is important here to show the process superpotition --The_Photographer (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 17:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review --The_Photographer (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Why would we want this as FP on English-language Wikimedia? --Charles (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Hi @Charlesjsharp: , It's because Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia English. Commons is a multilanguage project. This argument might be valid in FP section of WP on English, however, certain things can not be explained generically excluding language. Wikimedia and its servers are in the United States and files are subject to the laws of that country. Most gringos are unaware of other countries, other languages. Thanks for your question--The_Photographer (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked a genuine question. I'm surprised you choose to use the term gringo, implying I am 'unaware of other countries, other languages'. --Charles (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gringo is a friendly term used by Latin countries, to refer to foreigners, usually from the United States. I don't know if you remember the movie Get the Gringo (also known as How I Spent My Summer Vacation) with the Academy Award Winner Mel Gibson. I appreciate your question, this image would be totally useless for Wikipedia in English, you're right. I am not referring to you personally. The developed world, specifically the United States, its citizens are unaware that there is a world outside. Most do not know where it is located in my country, Venezuela, for example. I am not referring to an anti-American or anything like that spirit. I'm referring to a picture in another language, another culture that is not absolutely used in Wikipedia in English, could be of great value to other Wikipedias. I do not know if this is the case, however, I would like to know yours. I apologize if my comments seem offensive, but that was not the idea. A gringo hug. --The_Photographer (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please Charles, I agree with The_Photographer the term gringo is not a derogatory term, is a general term used in colloquial conversations. In my country it is normal affective use for friends who are not Brazilian but reside in Brazil. Others take the term for their small business, "Gringo Bar" referring to themselves. The derogatory way exists, and depends on the context and rudeness of soul of the interlocutor. Like everything. -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 21:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem gentlemen: I have actually visited (and enjoyed) Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Peru, Colombia, Mexico... --Charles (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, if you have pictures of Venezuela, please, let me know in my talk --The_Photographer (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment A little bit of an english description would really help me to review this. Doesn't have to be as long as the Portuguese one but I'd like to know a) what is the general content of the diagram and b) what software do I need to generate that picture from the XML code? --El Grafo (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks for providing the source code! I've moved it from the description field to a separate section because I felt it was cluttering the {{Information}} box. It seems we don't have any guidelines or templates for this, but I've done it this way before and nobody has complained so far ;-) However, feel free to revert of course.[reply]
 Comment Thanks for your comment, I added some information on english and free(not like free beer) software used in file description. Please, feel you free to do any change. :) --The_Photographer (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Photographer: Talvez você poderia fazer uma versão em inglês e outra em espanhol e depois nomeá-las tudo de uma vez. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Be..anyone: Well, you can use the sourcecode (see description page) and export it in any format of image like svg, png, gif, jpg, bpm, tiff.... --The_Photographer (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please revert if answers on a closed page confuse the bots. It looks like text, SVG might be remotely suited, or a HTML table. IOW, I love technical experiments, obscure formats, etc., but a table is not my idea of a featured picture—excluding one example on YouTube, a video how somebody created a Manga image as huge table, that's just crazy (but sadly no free license.) –Be..anyone (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2015 at 15:57:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Exotic animal transportation, Villa del Casale, Piazza Armerina, Sicily, Italy.

 I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 12:09:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Space Park, NYC World's Fair, 1964
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Per above -- Colin (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2015 at 16:23:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Close-ups of Salicaceae flowers, Weinviertel
  • all by Hubertl -- Hubertl (talk) 16:23, 10. Mär. 2015 (UTC)
  •  Info Close up of Salix blossoms, February 2015
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2015 at 15:58:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pools for Salt Extraction

Yeah, yeah, we all know... Arion... -- RTA 20:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course not! This would give a little more DOF, not enough, in addition to that all the sharpness, that is already not that great, would be gone! Bracketing, or a T&S lens is the options. -- RTA 20:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2015 at 17:32:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of St. Teresa ceiling. Vilnius, Lithuania.
  • What do you mean by that? Flowers are flowers, planes are planes, ceilings are ceilings. How can you make it more interesting? It is a great capture of the ceiling decorations (one of the finest in Wikipedia) and there really is nothing more to be done. It is technically perfect. I think your opposing reason is not suitable to be counted because it is way too abstract and without arguments. -- Pofka (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The subject has to matter, clearly, as much as anything else in the photo. It has to be a great-looking image overall. It's not possible to take a FP of every subject imaginable, even if you capture the subject very well. So I understand if you disagree with me, but I don't follow what you mean with your rather fundamental criticism of my reasoning. — Julian H. 10:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should add: I don't mean "interesting" in an intellectual manner or anything like that, just visually. — Julian H. 10:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that your argument is way too abstract. For me, the church interior is way more interesting than planes or paintings, however I will not oppose the picture only because the subject is not very interesting FOR ME. Furthermore, POTY is always divided into the various categories: plants, landscapes and so on, so as the featured pictures. Don't compare church with planes or landscapes. This is just incomparable. The main question, at least for me: "Is this picture among the most valued pictures in its category?". I think in this way it is much more objective. -- Pofka (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm comparing this to other curches and even other church ceilings. — Julian H. 14:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then probably our tastes varies. Lets see what the others thinks. -- Pofka (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Julian, I'm not sure exactly what issues you had with the image, but I've reprocessed it as I think the image was a bit dark and lifeless before. I suspect your opinion won't change but I invite you to have another look just in case. ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral at least, with the less dark appearance. — Julian H. 11:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)) 22:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2015 at 15:48:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Spitfire and Hurricane in the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2015 at 22:01:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2015 at 14:25:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stag
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2015 at 14:10:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama from Hainfeld Hut (Lower Austria) eastwards
✓ Done @Yann: I have cropped the sky according to your suggestion - looks much better indeed. --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2015 at 23:27:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tower Bridge from Shad Thames
 Support OK, I have used the large image viewer and I like it now. Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Resolution alone does not make up for a lack of compositional harmony, which results from one end of the bridge fully showing, while another end is cut out and partly in shadow. Also, the background CBD is poorly and haphazardly framed around the bridge towers. Finally, a bit more foreground would have better balanced the composition. Sorry, but i do applaud you for the technical feat.--Fotoriety (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fotoriety, there are limits to how flexible I can be wrt composition from this area of the river. If you look at other pictures from this side of the bridge/river, they all cut off the left part of the bridge -- there's usually a building or trees in the way. See this, this, this, and from the other side of the bridge, this, this and this. Some of these are also featured pictures. In summary: Tower Bridge is rarely shown complete, even from a distance. This one shows considerably more than the recent FP and imo has better arrangement of the City buildings in the backgruond. They aren't "haphazardly" framed -- I deliberately chose that exact spot so that the Walkie Talkie and Cheesegrater and Gherkin were clearly visible and not cropped. Any more foreground and the left corner gets a dark triangle in it (from the near bank), with a line leading the eye away from the bridge, which spoils the composition. This is an image of Tower Bridge with the City behind -- an image without that background (from much further down river say) would be completely different. -- Colin (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak  Support. Per Fotoriety, the composition is a bit suboptimal. But excellent image nonetheless, with good lighting to boot. --King of 02:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but this picture can't fascinate me. This really huge resolution (116 MP) makes sense if we would see a really sharp result. But the result is too soft in my opinion. Maybe it would be better for the sharpness to scale down here at 10'000 x 5'000 pixel. The shadow in the bottom doesn't disturb me, but the image itself hasn't a wow for me. It's for sure difficult to create a wow at this very famous and often used object. It's too good for a contra, but not good enough for a pro for me. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I won't disagree with your opinion on wow/shadow but sharpness? I see nothing wrong with the sharpness of this image: I can just about count all the rivets on the far side of the bridge and the downsize you suggested loses a lot of fine detail. -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Taxiarchos228, can I just check you are viewing the original image directly rather than using the Flash zoom browser, which trashes image quality. -- Colin (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2015 at 17:06:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Voigtländer Bessamatic, top front view
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2015 at 21:54:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Students from Yogyakarta State University put on a fashion show on Sudirman Street, Yogyakarta, to celebrate Chinese New Year. They are taking advantage of the car-free day policies.
  • There isn't movement anywhere. This is an outstanding portrait. Focus is where is has to be, with great sharpness. There is very good light, amazing face expression, very good composition as well (eyes, neck and head follow rule of thirds, for example). Unfocused red fan and blurred enough background provide depth and context. I really don't think this could be any better. --Kadellar (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think King may have been referring to what looks like motion blur of the umbrella. I'm not sure if it's just regular out of focus or whether the umbrella is rotating. Either way, it's not a problem though! Diliff (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on privacy
    • Benh, this is the way it has always been with regard to privacy. If you feel like you need to stay at home to avoid people taking photos of you, then that's what you need to do. You can't stop anyone from taking photos of you, and neither should you. Public is public, private is private. The only difference is that now, one copy of a photo can multiply infinitely, which wasn't possible before the digital age. I don't think it justifies asking permission for every photo of a person though, it just means you have to adjust your expectations of privacy IMO. However, I'm not saying that people shouldn't be ethical in their photography. Of course they should, but if you are participating in a fashion show at a public performance, do you really think you have any expectation of privacy? Diliff (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • David, I still have the right to go out whenever I feel like so, and I still have the right of not being aimed at by anyone. I wouldn't like anybody to use any image of me for privacy reason, and well because I still have rights with my own image. If I'm caught on public exhibition, and I'm lost in the crowd and not the main subject of the picture, it's fine. If I take up this much space of the frame, then I have my word to say on it. You wouldn't want a FP of you ending up on first page of Wikipedia without your consent, do you? - Benh (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • When one is the performer, one generally doesn't end up lost in the crowd. As for public places, Commons:Photographs of identifiable people is an official guideline. If you disagree with it, discussion can easily take place at Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Judging by Commons:Country specific consent requirements, France is one of the more restrictive countries so you are right about yourself, but in most countries, it is only the publishing and use commercially that there are restrictions on. The point I was making is that you don't really have any intrinsic right to not be aimed at by anyone. Any rights that you have are local or national laws and not a 'human right'. Obviously the exact laws vary from country to country, but in most countries, generally speaking, you have no right to that kind of privacy or to tell someone that they can't photograph you. I'm fairly confident that it's the case in Indonesia too, but there's no information on the consent guidelines about it. Diliff (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • One shouldn't really have any expectation of privacy when they are a performer at a festival parade on a public street. -- KTC (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK Yes, no privacy when in a public place. But my image is still mine, and I wouldn't permit anyone use it at will. I do take photos of people from time to time, most of the time I would even ask them permission to shot alone. But I'd never publish it, whatever the bloody rules of the country is, simply because I wouldn't like this to happen to me. I bet we're more than a few to be in that case. - Benh (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Maybe it's because you grew up in a country where the laws support this point of view though. I grew up in a country (and now live in another country where it is the same) where, for the most part, it is completely legal to take photos of people and publish them, but not use them commercially. And I have no problem with this. I have no idea why anyone would want to use an image of me commercially anyway though. It's such an unlikely situation that I can't imagine it, but if for example Coca Cola used an image of me to promote Coke, that would be a different story - that's commercial exploitation, not just publishing. If someone simply happened to take a photo of me and put it on Flickr or something, I wouldn't care. I'd be surprised, but not upset. How does it harm me? For the same reason, if someone used my photos on their personal web site, I don't really care. I mainly care about commercial exploitation of my images because I think if a company is going to profit from my work, they should compensate for that, but that's another side issue. What exactly are you so concerned about? Realistically, what is the worst thing that could happen if someone took a photo of you in public and published it non-commercially without your permission? Diliff (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • You don't care, I do. It may harm me because I like to control what image I give to other people. And any photo put to Commons, and FPed, is very likely yo see its exposition amplified. Many people don't read copyrights or banners, who knows how it's going to be used? I act more carefully when dealing with living beings, instead of objects. Anyways, have been digressing enough. Was just my point of view. - Benh (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • "Realistically, what is the worst thing that could happen if someone took a photo of you in public and published it non-commercially without your permission? Diliff" - I think everybody here know it. :) Jee 03:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Without a model release (which practically 0% of Commons images have) this image can only be used "editorially" and not "commercially" (by which I mean, to promote something). People's ethical position wrt street/candid photography varies enormously (though this appears to be a performance) and I respect that. -- Colin (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2015 at 12:45:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Copenhagen Opera House (Operaen) in Copenhagen Holmen, Denmark.
Thanks, you can see here that the tower is quite high, and I don't find it essential here because it blends quite well with the sky. This way, the focus is only on the central front section of the building (which is also why I cut the right and left areas off). — Julian H. 14:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2015 at 14:15:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This is a male harvestman (not a spider!). I think the image has great educational value as it shows a rarely-captured, but typical behaviour. The image is Wikimedia QI and has been the main image on the article Opilio canestrinii since September 2013.
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2015 at 07:11:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Kiss
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2015 at 15:06:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

One of Florence landmarks - Duomo as seen from Michelangelo hill.
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2015 at 17:40:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portrait of Dom Augusto, Duke of Leuchtenberg

* Support--Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2015 at 21:26:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Supernova remnant SNR 0519-69.0
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2015 at 23:25:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Castle Bouzov, Moravia
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2015 at 15:53:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Yes, it was very difficult to choose correct crop from 3:2 to 16:9 - I wasn't sure if I need to keep more sky or more ground... As for WB, it was taken at the sunset, hence the color cast --- [Tycho] talk 22:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I guessed it was taken at sunset. But that highlighter pen yellow color seems a bit off to me. Could it come from post-processing ? - Benh (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was taken not by a conventional Bayer-CFA sensor. It produces amazing colors sometimes, but may be less accurate. Probably I can make it less vivid and more neutral, but that would defy the whole point of sunset --- [Tycho] talk 23:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I clearly see the difference and I like this version because it looks more vivid (or vibrant? Or saturated? something along that lines). Some people believe that this kind of camera has yellow cast or something like that, so you may be partially right --- [Tycho] talk 20:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Testing with color balance

[edit]
edited version of above
  •  Info I hope it is ok that I tested it by altering the color balance. This is something closer to what I would think it looked like. However I cannot be certain... Just to give you an idea. Greetings, --Ximonic (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand. The impact of a picture always differs after such changes. As much as it might be about what's real or what's not it might be about the matter of taste and compromises too. --Ximonic (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People
The chosen alternative is: File:Ninh Hòa salt production - alt.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 10:34:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Oščadnica, Slovakia - chapel
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 13:20:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pažaislis Monastery interior dome.
Opposing without valid reason doesn't count. The guy is actually opposing all the images here with the childish reasons! Take a look: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nobelpeopleuploader. Some funny arguments of this person previously: "Pathetic when photographers upload and nominate their own photos. Too me it's like nominating yourself to an Oscar. Just saying..." (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:St_Mary%27s_Church,_Radcliffe_Sq,_Oxford,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg), " I don't like the man's very big nose and his tie knot is bad." (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Denis_Mukwege_par_Claude_Truong-Ngoc_novembre_2014.jpg), without arguments as well: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Church_of_St._Teresa_Ceiling,_Vilnius,_Lithuania_-_Diliff.jpg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Spitfire_and_Hurricane_in_the_Battle_of_Britain_Memorial_Flight.jpg and so on. I think he should be blocked from these nominations. -- Pofka (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Opposing without valid reason doesn't count." - Reference needed, because that is 100% wrong.
- "The guy is actually opposing all the images here..." - That's a lie. Take a closer look and you would see that I also support many pictures.
- And again: Wikimedia sites, like Commons, are the Wild West. Most of us here are amateurs. And it's normal here on Commons that people judge many other things than the pictures.
- And just because a person is opposing doesn't qualify for blocking "from these nominations". That's your very own opinion and that idea is actually against the whole idea ('everyone can participate') about Wikipedia and the sister projects like Commons. --Oldnewnew (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take a closer look and you would see that I also support many pictures – that’s wrong, you certainly didn’t (and are not entitled to before having uttered 50 pieces of rubbish), Nobelpeopleuploader did. I would never go that far to suspect someone in here is working with sock puppets. --Kreuzschnabel 21:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my bad. I have an account for Wikipedia, and one for Commons. I forgot to log off from Wikipedia before going to Commons. I didn't know that you could use the same account on both Wikipedia and Commons. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the Academy Awards (oscars) are given to Academy Members so... yep... they nominate their own works ;) --Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It's a Diliff, and it has the usual quality (trademark sharpness, contrast, light NR). But I don't find the composition and subject very appealing to the eyes here. Certainly useful, but not extraordinary. And there are a few stitching errors here. - Benh (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah yes, you're right, there are some stitching errors. I appreciate Pofka nominating my images but unfortunately it means that I don't have the same quality control on them before nominating, so some errors slip through. I'm surprised that there are such errors though, as I used a panoramic head which has never given me errors before as it's properly calibrated. Weird. I'll see if I can correct it. What do you mean light NR? I don't usually apply any noise reduction to my images if that's what you meant by NR. The only reason my images have less noise than would normally be the case for ISO 500-800 is because the HDR processing takes the better exposed parts of the images (exposed to the right) so even the deepest shadows can have acceptable noise levels. Diliff (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see what I believe to be luminance noise pattern, so I believed you applied NR to a small extent. And what I meant is that I like when one goes easy on luminance NR but a bit stronger on chroma NR, as I thought you did. - Benh (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah ok, that's just the base level Lightroom processing settings on RAW files - mild chroma NR and zero luminance NR. Nothing out of the ordinary there, no additional NR applied. I agree with you though, chroma noise is uglier and easier to remove without affecting detail too much. Diliff (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Ralf Roleček 14:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2015 at 17:03:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ethnic sculpture, Benin, British Museum
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 21:54:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Shell of a Girgyllus Star Snail, Bolma girgyllus""
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 18:49:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Building of the Salins de Frontignan, France.
Extend content
Both are opposite side of the same coin, a coin that I do not see any kind of value... -- RTA 21:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ma finiscila e piangi di meno --LivioAndronico talk 14:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 05:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2015 at 16:21:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 14:57:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kareby
  •  Info Kareby IS celebrating winning the Swedish championship in bandy after beating AIK 3-1 in the final. Kareby is arguable the best bandy team in world, double reigning team world champion and undefeated in the 2014/2015 season. I think this is one of our best images of this type. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- ArildV (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment. I like the image's photojournalist style, but not so much the processing. It seems like you've bumped the shadows and highlights sliders as far as they'll go in an attempt to maximise dynamic range, but I'm guessing the shirts they're wearing are supposed to be white, rather than grey? And there is quite a lot of posterisation on the blues of their trousers (but I think it may be partly due to the shiny material). Perhaps you could bump up the whites a bit? Diliff (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Diliff, new version uploaeded.--ArildV (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Umm I think you've made it worse to be honest. It's much too dark now. I didn't have a problem so much with the shadows being pushed, it was more the highlights being reduced too much (which doesn't seem to be fixed anyway). Do you mind if I upload an edit with my idea of what it needs? It would be best to work from the RAW file, but I can at least give you a suggestion based on the JPG. I'd be happy to work from the RAW file though if you are prepared to give me access to it. I'll understand either way though. Diliff (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Info New version uploaded by Diliff.--ArildV (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 16:05:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lateral stained-glass window of the Sagrada Familia Cathedral in Barcelona, Spain
  •  Info Lateral stained-glass window of the Sagrada Familia Cathedral in Barcelona, Spain, by the Spanish Catalan architect Antoni Gaudí (1852-1926). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not beautiful or educational to me. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. I'm going to disagree with Nobel's reasonings even if I agree with the vote. It is beautiful and it is educational to me. But again, the image quality is the issue.... And again, I think it's a missed opportunity due to the camera settings used. Why f/10?? You could probably use f/4 or f/5.6 without any loss of depth of field and then you could use ISO 125 instead of ISO 800. I don't mean to be a stickler for these things but camera settings matter. Also, it's unfortunate that the left quarter is completely blank. It's compositionally awkward. Diliff (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Its very interesting. Play of ligth, from dark to ligth, like renaissance. I think left dark part is good combined with rigth ligther part, maybe just some crop from above. Not QI, but its interesting. --Mile (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sure it’s interesting, but poorly composed. I agree with Diliff. Pointing the camera more to the right would show more play of light instead of the dark shade. --Kreuzschnabel 20:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I lay my eyes on this photo for minutes, seriously, it's a graceful place. Notwithstanding the photo has so many mistakes that creates a feeling of a waste... A lot of noise at left, (ISO 800, even with a D800); lack of sharpness in the stained glasses, and in the architectural sculptures; the perspective is a little bit weird also... (OBS: I'm wasting my English to reatin some new words :P)-- RTA 21:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A very beautiful and moody photo which makes great use of light. I don't think the small technical issues are really a matter here. Maybe author could have gone more easy on NR (and choose better setting), but it's not like the points of it is in the details anyways. I agree that the left part brings nothing and probably may be removed with no regret. - Benh (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Diliff, but a really good photo nonetheless. — Julian H. 16:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like it! --Tremonist (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --Hubertl (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 16:03:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2015 at 09:39:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

St. Gertrude Old Church Interior in Riga, Latvia interior.
You're welcome! -- Pofka (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of easy to become his pictures fan. =) -- Pofka (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 11:17:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

University Church of St Mary's
discussion not related to the photo
  •  Very big strong support Congratulations @Diliff: Go on taking more good photos (like you always do). 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Diliff, I tried a vertical adjust, and you can tilt a little bit anticlockwise, and this blue looks to me over saturated. ArionEstar if you do want to vote for the photo, do it, otherwise do not use your vote just to poke another volunteer. -- RTA 22:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there's any tilt in this image. I've double checked all the verticals and they seem correct to me. There are one or two verticals on the left wall that are leaning a tiny amount but I can't trust them because other verticals on the same wall are straight. These walls are very old so it most likely that they are actually leaning in reality. The church itself has no significant lean at all. If anything, it is perhaps half a degree leaning counter-clockwise which is the oppose of what you're suggesting, but really... half a degree is imperceptible. It is only possible to see it when you measure it. As for the blues, I'm not sure. Blue hour = very blue. I think it looks normal. I'd rather wait to see what other people think before I adjust the saturation. Diliff (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Diliff, "a little bit anticlockwise" ~ "half a degree leaning counter-clockwise" --*. And I'm saying that are too saturated based in the blue hitting the left tower, open it at the Lightroom and reduce by 10 the blue (further, as -20, seems more "natural", however not much blue hour), anyway Diliff, just trying to help, see ya... -- RTA 03:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • PS:I was expecting ArionEstar to do a proper vote instead the provocative one, that's why I did not brought out the vote...
  •  Support Love that you even got the ghosts that haunt the street beyond the church on the left. Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Just the right time. — Julian H. 08:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not the best of Diliff in my opinion. Although the mood is nice the composition is somehow unbalanced, owing to the geometrically-distorted building at left. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see what is so geometrically distorted about the building on the left. It's compressed because you are looking along the face of it, but there's not much perspective distortion. The angle of view is actually not as large as many of my interiors, it's about 65 degrees horizontal by 80 vertical, which is fairly close to what you would see with a regular wide angle 24mm lens (unlike my interiors which are more like 10mm). So yes, it's wide, but not that wide that that distortion is really off-putting, IMO. Diliff (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • My guess is that Joaquim talks about the leftmost tower. While I do agree with you generally speaking (I'm often faced that situation where I have to explain or justify distortion), I don't think it's that simple as to say "vertical FOV is 80°, so it's not so distorted". It's perspective corrected, so it's much like your lens points toward something at viewer level, say the people in the distance. In that case, it takes more than 80° to fit the whole leftmost tower into the frame. How much more ? I'm not a math guy... :) - Benh (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually you've made an assumption, which would normally be correct, but in this case, I had already made allowances for the perspective correction in my calculations. Yes, it's perspective corrected but when I gave the angle of view and equivalent focal length, I had already factored in the perspective correction. See this screen capture which shows what I mean. Obvously, ignore the exposure issues - this is a bracketed image and PTGui previews with the brightest exposure. As you can see, the total vertical angle of view including the area that wasn't captured (which keeps the centre-point at eye level, as you say) is 90 degrees. So actually I was wrong about it being 80, it's 90 which is more like a 17mm lens rather than 20mm. But because PTgui calculates the AOV with the assumption that there is as much space below as there is above the centre point (which you usually crop if you don't want too much foreground), you can consider it like this:
          1. The vertical angle of view is 90 degrees which is the equivalent of 17mm lens - with no perspective correction, or
          2. The vertical angle of view is about 50-55 degrees (half of 90 degrees plus some foreground below the horizon) which is the equivalent of 24mm lens - with perspective correction applied.
Hopefully you're following, I think you've done enough panoramic stitching of your own to know what I mean. Anyway, my point was just that this is within normal bounds of wide angle photography, there's nothing extreme about the distortion even with the perspective correction. I guess in the end this is just academic, but if you need to go 'wide' for compositional reasons or because of physical limitations preventing you from getting further back, you have no choice but to accept perspective distortion. I still believe it's not that significant compared to a lot of other architectural photography, both interior and exterior. ;-) Diliff (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. I feel somehow relieved to see your numbers. And you're right, if my assumptions had been right, the "perspective corrected" equiv vertical FOV would have been something closer to 130°, which should have materialized into much more ugly "stretched" shapes. - Benh (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 05:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2015 at 11:54:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Windows in Caracas Building
And.. What do you think about this one? --The_Photographer (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion of CC0
And CC0 is Illegal in Venezuela (See question 5), the country origin where the work was first published, btw copyvio --The_Photographer (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in CC-0 says: it unnecessary to note your name and/or the liecense. If an user use your image outside Wikipedia without both, so all others don't know that this image is free! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that a problem? That ensures that the image can be used with maximum flexibility and freedom, in any situation, and therefore makes it most useful. If the creator is ok with that, isn't this the ideal license? — Julian H. 10:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote it: "the CC-0 license is not conducive to our Commons project". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess I'm just a little puzzled to read that in an FP nomination. — Julian H. 11:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CC0 is perfectly appropriate for Commons. It is up to "The Photographer" if he wishes to require anyone to attribute his images to him and to re-publish with a similar licence accompanied by a notice saying so. The same is true for images that are public domain due to age or because the photographer was working for the US government, and we have no problem accepting them. I'm not sure what Alchemist-hp means by "everyone can use this image how as his own" but if he means they can claim they are the author instead then that is not true: that's plagiarism and both morally wrong and commercially foolish. The re-user, if they wish, can still attribute and can still mention the CC0 status. CC licences prevents many re-use opportunities that would be possible with CC0, which results in either the image not being used, being used illegally, or paying the photographer to escape the licence restrictions. Btw, technically CC0 is not a licence but a "waiver" (though it may act as a licence if some aspects of the waiver are ineffective in some countries). About CC0. -- Colin (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that this was a joke. -- RTA 22:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some people find refreshing practiced one Edema. No need to come to commons to write thousands of jargon entangled to feel superior to others,. --The_Photographer (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, "The Photographer" is taking the piss, that much was clear, but I thought Alchemist-hp was serious. I suggest "The Photographer" takes a break from the project, and regain what we're here for. -- Colin (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to end this discussion. As it turns out now it was a huge mistake to start with appropriately licensed on COM:FPC at the first place. This is the location for evaluating the quality of media files, not their license. Another approach would be to make a white list of licenses you want to allow on COM:FPC and reject every other candidate. With dual-licensing this shouldn't be an issue. These never-ending discussions on nomination pages lead to nowhere. -- Rillke(q?) 10:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2015 at 10:30:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Scene of Adolfo Pinto’s Family, by Almeida Júnior
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2015 at 17:05:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Camera Agfa Optima I A
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2015 at 15:11:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) Comet
Then FPC is useless if you don't have exceptional pictures anymore. Plus you don't have any quality pictures of LoveJoy and may not never in (near) future. Superb comment and reason to oppose... -- - T H (here I am) 14:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Poor composition and blown lights in the comet head. Superb enough for you? Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Christ!! Cest tres bien... - T H (here I am) 15:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2015 at 12:42:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bristol Cathedral Nave
Not "Like us on Facebook!"? . Daniel Case (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2015 at 14:18:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Divinity School, Oxford
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2015 at 03:45:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hoila-Cider from Zingerle, Bolzano, South Tyrol

A ll by Hubertl, nominated by -- Hubertl (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2015 at 18:42:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2015 at 23:26:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

State Emergency Service of Ukraine (MChS) Mil Mi-8MTV picking up water near Nezhin
Julian, have a look at the version at File:Ukrainian MChS Mil Mi-8 Belyakov.jpg for something closer to reality. Sadly, that realistic photo is even lower resolution, but this one has had the full 500px treatment applied. The chroma noise I'm referring to is also in the dark still water rather than just the choppy water that might conceivably generate a rainbow effect. When you compare the two, it's clear this version has had the saturation cranked-up, thus emphasising the inherent chroma noise. We wouldn't accept such a poorly post-processed JPG from a Commons photographer. -- Colin (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right, I would expect the colours to come from foggy air from the blown away water (which would spread) but it's probably greatly emphasized. The problem with the "from a Commons photographer" argument is that I'm okay with that - we can make "our" photographers learn how to take and edit photos that are perfect for Commons - I think I learned this to some extent myself (not perfect but good), from FP discussions. I'm thankful for that, it made me a better photographer/editor. But we can't do that with other photographers (at least not as easily) and there are subjects that just aren't captured by Commons photographers. I'm torn here, I see your argument but I also think the photo has something special that deserves recognition.  Neutral for now. — Julian H. 12:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think sometimes we extend our "point out minor fixable flaws trying-to-be-helpful advice" to become reasons to oppose, which is wrong. We tend to get away with it for Commons photographers who then fix the utterly insignificant CA in their 36MP image :-). It fails, spectacularly, when we get a high-quality high-resolution portrait from a third-party and then pixel-peep it to death. So I agree that we have to learn to just live with what we've got sometimes, and weigh up the merits and flaws, even if we know the photographer/post-processor could have done better. If this was 20MP with that degree of chroma noise at 100% I'd let it pass since it would be invisible at 5MP never mind 2MP. But at just-HD resolution, it isn't close to meeting the definition of "our finest" on the technical front. I agree that "wow" from the perspective/subject is impressive, but the small size seriously diminishes its utility -- you need about 5MP to print in a A4 magazine to high quality. -- Colin (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I hear ridiculous comments that do not take into consideration where this photo was taken. surely someone will recommend using a tripod. This section is contaminating some kind of obsession for some users. --The_Photographer (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Just not thrilled by it and main subject ridiculously small. Taking a picture in the air does not necessarily make it great, as proven here. - Benh (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that we need change our ridiculous size requirements for images. You can propose this in this section talk page. This image meets the minimum requirements. It's funny, you call the ridiculous requirements with a ridiculous comment. --The_Photographer (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stop requiring legislation for/against absolutely everything for just a moment, and allow people to use their brains -- we are not computer programs. Our minimum size guidance is a lower bound beyond which images "are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'". We are free to oppose for images above this, or support for below. No justifications have been given for why the image is only 2.67MP. -- Colin (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the concern is not the size of the image itself, but the subject (i.e. helicopter) within the image. In response to that particular concern though, I would say the subject is not just the helicopter, but also the mrotor-wash underneath. -- KTC (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you: subject is more than just the helicopter. -- Colin (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm mostly concerned about the chromatic noise or aberration which is quite visible on the water surface even in this size. The picture seem to have somewhat magenta cast in it. Perhaps the problems could be partly fixed though. --Ximonic (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support The fixed version is much better to say the least. Thanks! Could be a little bigger picture but for me it's impressive enough. --Ximonic (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See comment below. --Ximonic (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose as per Colin. Yann (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Done Fixed color balance, chromatic aberration, color noise, oversharpening, perspective, color aberration in light, distortion --The_Photographer (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support new version -- KTC (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This is actually worse. Rather than go back to the photographer and ask for a more realistic (less processed for 500px style) image, the new version is about as authentic as a colourised b&w photo. The EXIF data explains what has been done. Firstly, colour noise reduction at level 90/100. This has removed all colour detail. The patch of land in the corner is now just various tones of green and the sea is just tones of blue. But more importantly (since this is an image of a helicopter picking up water in a bucket), where have the red ropes that held the bucket gone? They have just been merged into the sea like so much digital colour noise. Next, the blue hue adjustment is -13 (modest) but the purple hue adjustment is -100 (max) which has transformed all purple in the image into blue. Next the blue and purple luminance have been increased to +36/+38. This does return the blue of the helicopter to closer to the original photograph. However, the sea is still nothing like the original which was a typical brown/blue rather than deep blue. Lastly the JPG has been saved in "ProPhoto RGB" rather than "sRGB" (or even "AdobeRGB) which are the only two standard colourspaces for JPG. ProPhoto RGB is a colourspace used internally by Lightroom/Photoshop and is completely unsuitable for 8-bit JPG. Some computer browsers, most non-professional computer image viewers and all mobile browsers will fail to display this in anything approaching the "correct" colours (likely rather desaturated). But after this must post-processing, "correct" is anyone's guess. There's no change on the over-sharpening, perspective or distortion, though I didn't think the latter two were even an issue. If I were the photographer, I'd be upset that someone had removed all the colour detail, all the purple, and had ensured mobile and computer users see completely different colours. -- Colin (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of criticizing the work of others(500px comment), do not be afraid to fix it by yourself. The ProPhoto RGB color space encompasses over 90% of possible surface colors in the CIE L*a*b* color space, and 100% of likely occurring real world surface colors documented by Pointer in 1980 --The_Photographer (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you do get what you write. If your monitor encompasses what ProphotoRGB has to offer, it's fine for you, but mine merely is a sRGB, and I bet most people are in the same situation. Also what Colin tries to explain you is that the colorspace covers so much that your 8bit-JPEG is not big enough of a container for it. It gives you a mere 256 levels per channel, which is a reason why it might not be suitable to represent, says, a gradient from the lowest to the highest value of "color", without visible transition. Hopefully I wasn't too wrong. - Benh (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no monitors that can display ProPhotoRGB, it exists merely to enable lossless colour transformations during pre-processing. Rather than argue about it, you could just Google. There isn't anyone who knows anything who would recommend a ProPhoto JPG. If your job was to sort screw nails by size, you'd use a 15cm ruler with mm scale rather than a metre stick with cm scale. Bigger isn't necessarily better; it's just bigger. -- Colin (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you made an honest good-faith attempt to improve it but this just shows the problems with fiddling with other people's JPGs, and that none of us are professional post-process artists (which some photographers outsource their work to). A modest amount of colour noise reduction would help the original candidate photo, but I wouldn't go any further than that personally. At FPC we need to review a third-party image for what it is, if we are unable to request an improvement from the photographer. Even if the candidate is too saturated/contrasty/noisy to please our FPC tastes, that's what the photographer thought was an improvement on his out-of-camera version (assuming that's the history). His choice/taste and we should respect the colours he chose for his image -- even if that means we dislike it at FPC. -- Colin (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do not want to ask NASA or a painter to fix their colors. --The_Photographer (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think editing or fixing another's work or FP candidate is the problem. Well all make wrong choices from time to time. I just don't think it was a good idea to overwrite the image, instead of uploading it as an alternative. - Benh (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well its not a ALT, its the same image, same angle, same size, same author... --The_Photographer (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. The modest change I suggest would be fine for an overwrite but changing the colours is really too much of a change -- and needs to be documented (it's no longer solely the original artist's work). -- Colin (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not do that by yourself? --The_Photographer (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't prove him wrong though. And his criticism is well structured and thought. It's not like hesays "it's shit" period. I was amazed with the rope issue, and this alone should trigger a revert on ur changes. - Benh (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's OK when that someone is "the photographer" himself ;) - Benh (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the photographer --The_Photographer (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Ahonc and The Photographer: There is a problem with this nomination in that over a dozen support/oppose votes were cast on the earlier photographer's image that Ahonc nominated, and about four votes on the significantly altered version that "The Photographer" uploaded and which has an important flaw that may justify reverting (the ropes carrying the bucket are no longer visible). It would have been better if this upload were done to an alternative file and an Alt added to the nomination (providing the nominator agrees to such disruption to his candidate). One option is to ping all those who voted prior to the image change and ask them to reconfirm or change their vote on the new image -- but this assumes the flawed current version is not reverted. Alternatively, revert the modification and ping those who voted recently.
At present, it is impossible to tell which votes apply. My view is that latest version does not represent the image the photographer donated to Commons, has a serious flaw, and should be reverted. Respecting the photographer's artistic choices is more important IMO than fiddling with the image to please the FPC crowd and gain a gold star. I would support making a new version that had very modest colour noise reduction applied, while ensuring that the ropes holding the bucket remain, and no global changes to colour. But looking at the opinions expressed, I am doubtful that would be sufficient improvement to sway enough to support. -- Colin (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know, you can do it :) --The_Photographer (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Halavar, Palauenc05, Yuriy75, and Ximonic: The new version you have voted on has two significant problems: the ropes holding the bucket have vanished with over-aggressive colour noise reduction, and the colours (particularly purple) have been radically altered from what the photographer uploaded. The photographer has not sanctioned these changes, which represent deterioration and alteration of his artistic choices as image-creator (whether you like those choices or not: they are his). It is not our job to significantly change his image merely to suit tastes at FP. I propose the new version is reverted. If you like the new version, then it should (per the licence) be uploaded as a new file that clearly states what the changes are and who made them (as required by the licence). -- Colin (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I pull my support for now since I noticed the new issues. But in my opinion there is no reason to make this all such big of a problem as it currently looks. I suggest that 1) either this will be reversed, a new alternative will be made with softer methods (perhaps like how was done with the Vietnam picture). 2) or in respect to the creator we just reverse this anyway because of the trouble this has caused or might cause and we continue without the alternative. In that case there won't be very good chances for a FP, I think. --Ximonic (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:NeuseelandSeagulls.jpg (delist), delisted

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2015 at 20:36:33
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Red-billed gull

Result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. KTC (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 15:34:43
Mountains from Hatcher Pass

Result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. KTC (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2015 at 16:55:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cartagena shore at night
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2015 at 17:42:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Artist Frida Kahlo in 1937

@Yann, Alvesgaspar, El Grafo, and Tremonist: I would like to point out that, as an artist only really recognized after her death, there aren't a huge number of photographs of Kahlo, and fewer free-licensed ones. Commons has an educational mission, and I do think that that should have some effect on FPC, even if it's not the only consideration we use. If people want to point to a better free-licensed Kahlo image, I will restore it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but that has never been much an argument for FPC on Commons. However it would certainly be a VI, and may be on the English WP? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: educational value or rareness of a subject traditionally play a minor role in everyday Commons FPC life – that's what COM:VIC is for. It is possible to overcome things like lack of sharpness or bad composition though educational value, if that value is high enough to create a "Wow!" effect for the reviewers (example 1, example2). But that's difficult, and it seems that at least for the three opposers, that wasn't sufficient to overcome the perceived shortcomings of the image.
Commons FPC is all about finding the finest picture, the best of the best, the Crème de la Crème – and I stand by my opinion that this isn't one of them. However, I would highly recommend trying to nominate it for FPC at Wikipedia, where educational value seems to play a much more important role – if I would participate there, I'd vote for it. (I'm not so sure about VI, since something like File:Frida Kahlo, by Guillermo Kahlo.jpg might be preferred over there) --El Grafo (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks for the idea. ;o) BTW I am surprised that there isn't a license for this file. I am not sure if the current template is sufficient. I expect more for a FPC. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: The license is certainly accurate if you read the LoC page linked - explicitly released by Toni Frissell, and the LoC checked with Vogue and tthey confirmed she had that right:
Images for which the Library holds original negative: Per the instrument of gift, Miss Frissell dedicated to the public the rights she held to original negatives in her collection, and she orally informed the Library that she held the rights to those images. This assertion is supported by Vogue Magazine, for which Miss Frissell was a staff photographer from 1933 to the late 1940s. They have informed the Library in writing that they claim no rights to images for which the Library holds the negatives. However, privacy and publicity rights may apply.
I certainly do agree the template could be improved, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Made some improvements. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much better. Yann (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2015 at 21:02:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Yellow-legged gull
Now it looks perfect for me. -- Pofka (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, much better. --Mile (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The crop is better. But it doesn't fix my own concern (which I don't think you can fix afterwards anyways). - Benh (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thanks for your opinion. Technically, it is possible to blur the entire background with much photoshopping, but that will of course not be a minor adjustment. -- KTC (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 12:57:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Soyuz TMA-14M spacecraft floats over a sea of golden clouds during its descent by parachute through planet Earth's dense atmosphere.
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2015 at 12:54:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Discobolus in National Roman Museum Palazzo Massimo alle Terme

✓ Done @KTC: can you check the new version? --LivioAndronico talk 16:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Support Not bad for me --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2015 at 20:50:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Night view of the temple of San Cristóbal (St. Christopher), a catholic church located in the center of Puebla de Zaragoza, Mexico. The church was built between 1676 - 1687 but whose towers were rebuilt in 1957 after they were destructed in 1856.
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2015 at 21:53:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Stitching the Standard is a painting by British artist Edmund Leighton. It depicts a nameless damsel on the battlements of a medieval castle making the finishing touches to a standard or pennant with a black eagle on a gold background. In a time of peace the woman has taken her needlework into the daylight away from the bustle of the castle." -- from the English Wikipedia article about this painting.

* Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2015 at 22:29:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2015 at 10:57:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the Great Ararat and Khor Virap monastery. Ararat Province, Armenia.
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 11 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2015 at 09:47:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Spasskaya Tower
Are you sure about the "lack of detail"? It's a >23 Megapixel image with pixel-sharpness pretty much everywhere. I'm with you regarding the light, but if this isn't detailed enough, I don't really know what is. — Julian H. 16:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to rise levels on the wall and tower. About detail, nothing more can I try, but I will. Tonight or tomorrow. Thanks.--Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New version available. Not to much differen, but a litle bit detailed. --Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that introduced a visible white rim/halo along the left side of the roof. --El Grafo (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted. Thank you very much --Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2015 at 11:51:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 15:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2015 at 22:23:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

White peacock
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 15:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2015 at 14:22:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

City of Berlin in morning fog
  • Both arguments of alchemist-hp I can't follow.
  • (1) A picture isn't excellent automatically if there is light from behind as well as a picture isn't bad if we have back-lighting. I see neither a aesthetic problem with the bright corner nor in information content. The important center of Berlin is good captured and the atmosphere of this image is winning compared to a "normal" birds-eye-view. So what is really here the problem of this part of the picture?
  • (2) It is the decision of the photographer if he nominates colour images or an image in bw. The contrast is very good, especially for a birds eye view from the plane. I can't remember that FPC would have restriction for black-white-images. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion, but this is absolutely not mine! Sorry for this hard words, but this is digitally trash for me.
because if I read the image description:
   Dieses Bild wurde digital nachbearbeitet. Folgende Änderungen wurden vorgenommen:
   RAW-Entwicklung in Adobe Camera RAW
   Konvertierung in cmyk, dort extreme kanalgetrennte Tonwertkorrektur
   Rückkonvertierung RGB
   Entrauschen mit Dfine 2
   S/W- Umwandlung mit Silver Efex Pro 2 (90% Deckung)
   Schärfung mit Sharpener Pro 3
   Skalierung auf genau 50% mit PhotoZoom Pro 5; Methode S-Spline Max
Nice, but what is true at this image? Perhaps I do have some more software packages for additional reworking ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alchemist-hp: It's absolutely no problem for me if our opinions are not equal. This is not hard because true. This image has a high aesthetic and information value. And the technical development is for me a reason for it and not against. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its all simply Photoshop. --Ralf Roleček 07:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2015 at 04:15:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Quiet Beach in Da Nang
  •  Comment. Actually if you downsample the image to about 5000x2000px, the image is sharp so I don't think the blur at full resolution is a major problem. What bothers me a bit more is that the framing around the sky is a bit tight. I think it would look more balanced to use the rule of thirds and have the horizon on the 1/3 position. Diliff (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, I also would have preferred with more sky, which I actually have in the original file but I had to crop it out because of electricity lines being on the way. Maybe I could Photoshop them out, but I'm not a big fan of the idea? -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2015 at 07:31:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Neuer Wenkenhof" in Riehen, Switzerland
Of a symmetric door. Is there any information missing or a strong aesthetic disturbance? --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The fifty shades of shadows ... Yes, the shadows are very disturbing for the aesthetic for me, because it is simply to fix it: take the image a little earlier or later with less visible shadows. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The shadow is disturbing because it is simply to fix? Where is the logic of this argument? --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn Du mein "schlechtes" Englisch nicht verstehst, dann eben auf Deutsch: etwas früher oder später am Tage photographiert (hängt von der geographischen Lage des Standpunktes ab) würde den Schatteneffekt minimieren und das Bild von den störenden Schatten befreien. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Du gabst diese Möglichkeit als Grund dafür an, dass es dich ästhetisch stören würde. Und das wirkt als Begründung nicht sehr schlüssig. Leider gab es keine Begründung, warum es dich dieser minimale Schatten stört. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where we have light we naturally have shadow. Each shadow part is visible good, non of the parts in shadow is relevant for the image. The parts of shadow is less about 5%. So what's exactly is the problem? --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Measuring distracting elements in % probably doesn't help. I feel this image lives from its symmetry and the shadows clearly do not help to strengthen that impression. This is a matter of taste, but saying "none of the parts in shadow are relevant for the image" is not a good argument for FPC, imo. We see no sky at all, so perhaps a cloudy day would have solved such issue? --DXR (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the symmetry-argument is the first documented reason here. But for sure I evaluate this situation different. Shadows give objects plasticity so this is not an issue of this picture IMO. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you proof your monitor to calibrate it. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 15:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2015 at 01:59:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Convocation House
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2015 at 21:07:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of the course of the Trebišnjica river near Gornji Orahovac, Southeast of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2015 at 17:13:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bay and site of Komos
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2015 at 09:16:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

St. Peter's Church interior. Riga, Latvia.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2015 at 15:04:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Four Mandalas of the Vajravali Series
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2015 at 10:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Theatrical group La Fura dels Baus opening Perth International Arts Festival 2010.
 Info The DR is here. You are mistaken on the copyright issue: it is fine. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then you should start DRs on your own pictures of performing artists first, e.g. this one. There also is no admit to make pictures of this written. 80.187.102.219 22:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please start it if you think it's reasonable and spare us with your anonyms input. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2015 at 18:07:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eryphanis reevesii
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 04:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2015 at 10:38:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A UNESCO site, Mausoleum of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi in Hazrat-e Turkestan, Kazakhstan.
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 04:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings