Oppose regretfully because I like the place and the mood. I think it was taken a taaaad too soon ; buildings are too dark compared to the sky. Buildings are leaning outward as well. Benh (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info The buildings are leaning outward, because they were built in this manner. In Dutch we call it 'op vlucht staan'. The picture was taken with a Manfrotto tripod, which has a integrated leveling bubble, so there is no tilt present. I have taken pictures later on, but on those pictures the buildings were even darker. Canals in Amsterdam are not well lit. This is why its so hard to take a picture here at night.. Massimo Catarinella (talk)
Comment I've seen that an Autoequalisation in Corel Photo Paint gives a better result. --Alex:D (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral, fifth-day rule => not featured. Lycaon (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nearly nowhere in focus, bad technical quality, bad composition. —αἰτίας•discussion• 16:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it has insufficient DOF and a poor composition.
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.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: lack of wow.
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.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is not identified and not sharp enough.
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.
Oppose Subject is not in focus. Too much going on in this photo to bring the subject to immediate attention. - TheWB (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Quality is bad and composition is not very exiting. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: poor overall quality.
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.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the topic is too small and not properly identified.
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.
QuestionWhat exactly do you mean by "the topic is too small"? I didn't identified the bird firmly because, it's not my field of expertise, although I am sure it's Mediterranean Seagull. How to fix this? But if the photo doesn't have what it takes to be a quality image, just say so, I like negative critics. Should I rename the photo to "A pair of hovering Mediterranean Seagulls" Am I boring you?-- Silfiriel (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image is 95% blue sky, so the topic (gulls) is too small. Furthermore, though I'm no ornithologist neither, I'm not convinced by the id. It could as well be Larus ridibundus as L. melanocephalus. Lycaon (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was considering the option that the seagulls are "Larus ridibundus", but their habitat even with migrations spans from Westernmost Europe to North America, while the photo is taken on the Balkan Peninsula, which is surrounded by the Mediterranean Sea, Eastern Europe.The City of Ohrid, about 150km far from the Adriatic Sea.
Thanks for this contribution! Not gaining the Featured Picture status doesn't necessarily mean it's not a fine photograph and as such, a valuable contribution. If the photo is cropped so that the birds take up most of the space, the size would drop below the recommended limit of 2 megapixels (see our image guidelines). We need to be sure (not only guess) what our Featured Pictures portray. Furthermore the images need to be categorized appropriately and accurately to reflect the sematics of the photograph. I now categorized this as Category:Unidentified subjects so that others can help identify the birds. It's not always up to just one person to construct everything that consists a featured level picture – that's why we're a community :) –Dilaudid 18:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: there is heavy CA fringing on the beak and the bird is not identified.
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
I am not sure how that part of the bridge is called, its purpose is to break ice, so I guess it may be called icebreaker. I have never seen a house built on top of it. Maybe there are parts of the world where it is a common sight, and you have been there. Just my 2c. Barabas (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The subject is interesting, but I get no wow from this picture. Maybe you could try a night shot? Or at a different time of the day in order to use shadows to give a little more volume to the building? --S23678 (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Cannot be promoted as nothing is identified, and as such not properly categorized. Lycaon (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment White flowers look like some type of Chrysanthemum and the Orange flower could be a Chrysanthemum but reminds me of another bulb or daisy type flower but can't think of it's name. Bidgee (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sadly, i have to agree with Lyacon. Apart from that, this is IMO definietly a great picture which should be featured - it 'sparkles of life'; the colors is amazing, and it is good quality too.
Oppose Looks good in thumb and the tight crop plus the sober centrical composition is surely a matter of taste -but- the large washed out (slight OE caused by a harsh neon lamp light, I assume) area on the upper left part of the snakes back and the missing brilliance in quality and crispness is KO criteria here 4 me. --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Richard is right: good but not excellent. --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Technically maybe not perfect, but great WOW 4 me. --Karelj (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose subject not rare enough to forgive technical issues as outlined above Ianare (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Wash-out is borderline but doesn't seem blown. A little photoshopping could help with the graininess at full size, but encyclopedicness and wow make up for the technical problems. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Wow and encyclopedic (although it does not care that much whether the image is encyklopedic or not; remember that Wikipedia is just one of our projects; if an image would be good in a news article, I think it would be same important as it would be good in aqn encyclopedic article). Leo Johannes (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- would support but needs english description Ianare (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
added basic english info
Comment It needs a description, which in this case, is provided in 2 languages. The FPC page is available in 25 languages. English descriptions (even if practical for a lot of voters) are not mandatory, since it would restrict the use of FPC process to people fluent in English. Le multilinguisme de Commons est une richesse plutôt qu'un handicap! --S23678 (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not asking for a full translation of the text, but at least some basic info. I'm sure there are plenty of users here that can do this. For this image I was able to do it, but it would be better if a speaker of the language were to do it. (maybe it's not really a dragonfly, but something that looks like one, for example). Je suis bien d'accord avec toi à propos du multilinguisme Ianare (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough and yet somewhat oversharpened (pale haloes). Lycaon (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Really cool, and that is more important than quality, I think. Leo Johannes (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral I wish the crop would be a little tighter it being an animal photo and all. But besides that I like it. --IvanTortuga (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral First of all the darker version is too dark. This one is the better version. The picture is well done. The composition is good. The trees in the foreground and the houses give a good feeling for the size of the mountain. But its is lacking wow. Maybe you should have done this picture later or earlier in the day when the light is not so harsh and the colours are little bit warmer. There are also a lot of dust spots visible --Simonizer (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, I agree with Simonizer about the quality of the light. --Aqwis (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support It is nice and has lots of encyclopedic value (but the light could be better.) This is only a weak support. --MacMad (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose not enough wow and rather dark. Also needs geo-coding, of course. Lycaon (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I agree with Lycaon. Well geocoding isn't nescessary I think, but the image is really too gray. Perhaps with sun lower on the horizon it would be better. And less clouds of course. --Aktron (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of over and underexposure, poor crop and unsharpness
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.
Support no anonymous votes, thanks. Lycaon (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC) -- 193.153.2.72 17:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposeI like the picture, but it's much too small. -- TheWB (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small
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.
Question Can you please add a more detailed image description? And can you or someone else please translate it to en? I'm not really sure what is shown here (or better: If I see what I think I do). --norro 19:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it has a very low overall quality (details, color, TV capture artefacts)
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.
As well, I think that it has low value, by being more shocking (wide open abdomen and head, blood on the table and instruments, story about being stuffed for drug smuggling, etc) than educative/useful. --S23678 (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support same comment as on QIC page :) incredible details, but not very appealing background. This still deserve to be promoted (for better visibility by all wikipedias) in my opinion. -- Benh (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Border case for me. Good colours and sharpness, but unfortunate crop (would have liked to see all of the animal). Lycaon (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Nice colors and contrast, wow feeling. Leo Johannes (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Why do we always have to have a picture showing the entire animal? We don't, the crop is fine for such a nice picture. This will illustrate its tree-of-life article very well. -- Ram-Man 13:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I dont have anything about cropped animals either but in this case a vertical picture format would be better IMO --Simonizer (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Focus is inconsistent. Also, the dark left 1/4 of the photo doesn't do anything for me. I think it would look better with that section cropped. - TheWB (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Also the brown/dying flowers in the background does not look so good. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Quite bad composition, very noisy, nowhere sharp. —αἰτίας•discussion• 15:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Why such a drastic downsampling? You're jumping from 9X10 Mpx (less overlap and crop) to slightly over 2Mpx. From the guidelines: "it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible" --S23678 (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I agree with above. The result (size mainly) is not very worth the a 3x3 pictures stitch, and all the steps you went through to. I guess this could have been a one shot catch, and a downsampled version would have given the same quality. Still a very nice building (and probably even better if a twice as big version is given). -- Benh (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The nomination speaks only about technique. Can you explain how the photograph we see is better as a result of the technique? Fg2 (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The major reason for the stitch is for the perspective correction. --Base64 (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no need for stitch to achieve perspective correction. Benh (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose No details in anything, bad lighting, very low quality of a common subject--Sensl (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Size --Base64 (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info I'm such a fool. In this image, even the "golden fish" on the top can be seen. Please don't say "no details in anything". This is 8MP, bigger than the 2MP original--Base64 (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- high resolution and good quality, almost no tourists in the shot Ianare (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose "golden fish" is it what they are? Details are not good even trees are not good. the lighting is bad (sky). low quality. I do not like composition with ropes. What is "perspective correction" anyway? Why not to do it more natural?--Sensl (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I suggest you read all this in English Wikipedia(en:Nagoya_Castle) before posting such comment. "On top of the castle are two golden imaginary tiger-headed fish, called kinshachi (金鯱); this motif is used as a talisman for fire prevention. They are said to be a symbol of the feudal lord's authority. " Why are there ropes?, those are not ropes. During World War II, the upper part of the castle is destroyed. The rock on the bottom is not. Back in 1525, there wasn't effective en:Lightning protection system and drainage pipes penetrating the bottom rocks. There are not occasional but permanent, refer to the image in 2005 Image:Nagoya_Castle_01.jpg. As Wikipedia said, the castle is open for public exhibition, with air-conditioning and elevators. Finally, If you don't even know what is perspective correction, I suggest you take a look at COM:QIC which there are 5 images require perspective correction. --Base64 (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This image is so clear, my instinct was to clone out the drainage tube that goes from the roof to the ground which is much much smaller than the fishes that are there. I suggest that Sensl needs to perhaps wipe their monitor off (the occasional cleaning of the viewing mechanism is helpful for seeing things in the display). -- carol (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support really good, sharp and clear, good composition. --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose First, praise for sharpness and clarity, and for getting good color in the shachi. Automatic exposure often overexposes them, and they become nearly white; you've done well to avoid that. But second, in my view, the photo is dull. It's dark and dreary, not in a moody or interesting way, but in a way that begs for lightening. I suggest adjusting levels and curves to add light to the building (which I see as the subject of the photo) and the foreground. Even Photoshop's Auto Levels should help, and with work you can make this picture sing. While still keeping great color and detail in the shachi. I'll gladly support it when the "wow" is there. This photo has the makings of a real winner. Fg2 (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info Thank you for your greatly useful comment, I did a in-place upload to correct the over-blue colour balance and adjusted the shadows. --Base64 (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support That makes the mood much more appropriate (in my opinion). Thanks! Fg2 (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sunset is nice and the sea is nice also. But yet, there is no central part of the image where should the wiever focus on (such problem is having also one beatiful image of Norwegian lake). I have here also some similar images, also with such nice sky, but I haven't even uploaded them because of what I have written here. Sorry, but such image I can't support as FP. --Aktron (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sunsets pictures are always nice cause sunsets are nice. But i can't see anything what makes this picture more special than other sunset pictures --Simonizer (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not enough wow for a sunset. Lycaon (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it has little value. From the guidelines: almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others'
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.
Oppose Sorry, it is normally expected that plants are identified by scientific (Latin) name. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the subjet is not identified.
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Info Sorry guys I figured but I just skipped out being kind of dumb about it. It's a Lonicera sp. then again is sp. to vague for featured pictures? --IvanTortuga (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support anonymous voting not allowed. Lycaon (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC) -- 69.159.55.229 02:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too noisy.
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Comment This should be deleted anyway because it was nominated by an IP address, should it not? --MacMad (talk) 05:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IPs are welcome to nominate images and comment on them. For voting however, you have to be logged in. Lycaon (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Conditional Support - conditional on demonstrating that SEMs, by their nature, are that noisy. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info Pork packing in Cincinnati. Print showing four scenes in a packing house: "Killing, Cutting, Rendering, [and] Salting." Chromo-lithograph of the cartoons exhibited by the Cincinnati Pork Packers' Association, at the International Exposition, at Vienna. Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1873 by Ehrgott & Krebs in the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington, D.C. Created by Ehrgott & Krebs - uploaded by Alex:D - nominated by Alex:D -- Alex:D (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support These "telling pictures" are representative for that trade and time and, above that, the fine quality of this chromolitography, makes it a quality image. -- Alex:D (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This picture is worth a thousand words --Romwriter (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's nothig I can do, it's a typographical error. Only the upper border and the top and bottom margin of the images are a little bit tilted. Side and bottom borders and left and right margins are straight. --Alex:D (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Good quality and historical value, reminds me of The Jungle. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support When this type of image it's important to respect the technical limitations of the era. A very slight tilt of tenths or hundredths of a degree often occurs. When restoring, I'll correct for errors that result when a brittle document cannot lie flat, but I'll leave this kind of slight misalignment. It's truer to the period to retain these little hints that the work was done by hand rather than automated. Durova (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Wow, what a great series! I'm just wondering, did you keep the white-balance constant for all shots? --Chmehl (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the info. Then it is the different lighting that changes during daytime that we can see in the pictures. --Chmehl (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Supergeil --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC) *** und das von dir :-) danke (Böhringer)Reply[reply]
Support Great value and sharp. Cirt (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Excellent. The other version is more educational, but this one is easier to view. It's a toss-up. Both are FP material. -- Ram-Man 19:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The subject of the picture is the lock. But this is actually not visible. I'd prefer a picture where you can see the closing doors of the lock for example. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Sorry, thought the other one didn't make it ... this one isn't as good anyway. Ianare (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- A large puff-ball wishie of the Western SalsifyTragopogon dubius showing the achenes with their feathery pappus. Cropped from Larger pic Feel it is as sharp, and as wonderful a picture as this previously featured image of a small wishie at Image:Dandelion clock.jpg (Wishie, clock or Blow-ball. The flower head matures into a spherical "clock" (also known as a "wishie") containing many single-seeded fruits (achenes). Each achene is attached to a pappus of fine hairs, which enable wind-aided dispersal over long distances. )SriMesh | talk 23:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small
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.
Checked the page you referred to. Size should be 2 Mega pixels according to guidelines, my adobe photoshop program says this cropped version is 2.09 Megapixels in size.SriMesh | talk 02:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The cropped version is 882x828 px = 0.73 Mpx and the uncropped is 3.78 Mpx... I don't know where you got that 2.09 Mpx. --S23678 (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment 882 × 828 pixels which should equal ~ .7 pixels. In my opinion, the camera manufacturers have done a dis-service to their customers selling cameras according to "mega-pixels" when it is just more honest and a less used lingo to say the largest pixel area that can be obtained from that camera. Photoshop is telling you how much disc space that image is taking and how much needs to be downloaded to display in internet connections. Also, I tried this before, claiming the disc spaced used definition of file size instead of the area measurement of the file size. (size hint: 1200 x 1600 pixels is too small for the nit-picker(s) here, whose personal camera makes larger photographs than that.) -- carol (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok Dokey. Now that I understand that ( I think ) a bit better, I believe this image fits the photo size requirements. I get 2240532 pixels, so I could crop it in a bit more yet. The image still is in focus, and shows the awesome detail of the achenes with their feathery pappus.... Wishie from next image on camera hard drive.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the main subject is obstructed and the composition is weak in its symmetry.
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.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the main subject is obstructed and the composition is weak in its symmetry.
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.
Question Was this nominated before? Maybe same subject but different user. I seem to remember this shot though. --Dori - Talk 03:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you do remember the QI nomination from april. --Sfu (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like the light. Ziga (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice quality and lighting, unfortunately no wow enough for me, sorry. - Keta (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per above, additionally technically not that good at full resolution. Altogether not good enough. —αἰτίας•discussion• 16:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Impressive and well depicted. –Dilaudid 19:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support any vote please --Sfu (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Wow mitigates minor technical issues. It looks the way I remember it, though the sea was quite a bit rougher last time ;-). Lycaon (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
InfoView on the Matterhorn from the Gornergratbahn, Switzerland. Created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Not so bad, but I think it is quite dark. --Aktron (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Some colour correction could improve this picture --Simonizer (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Great subject, but a bit too dark. Here's a FP of the Matterhorn (Deletion Candidate IMO), but with better exposure. --S23678 (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ...this version ;-). Lycaon (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well if you are fixing it, perhaps you can also straighten the photo. Matterhorn seems to be leaning to the left. Maybe it's the way it is, but it doesn't look leaned on chocolates :). Ok I am not joking, I just rotate it a little to the right and it looks much better. However, at full size, it looks really blurry, nothing is sharp enough. --Silfiriel (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of the burnt out area.
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.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of overexposed highlights and tilt.
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.
Support, wow! --Aqwis (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC
Support Fantastic!! If you geocode your picture it will be perfect ;) -Tobi 87 (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question If the original panorama was 50000X4000 px (200 Mpx), why not have a final result larger than 10 Mpx? A 40-50 Mpx panorama would give a still very sharp 4-to-1 downsampling from the original picture, and would incorporate way more details. As well, should be geocoded. --S23678 (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there was provision for a non commercial CC license variant in Wiki then I would gladly upload the full size original. I will add the geocoding though. Mfield (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very sharp picture all the way across the panorama, very awesome picture to add for encyclopaedic puroposes. ( Should also be a puzzle... :-) SriMesh | talk 04:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support a very nice pictire.--Pauk (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC) voting period was over -- Benh (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, too bright sky. Канопус Киля (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC) voting period was over -- Benh (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Great composition. I will support if geocoded. As well, is this a stitch or a single shot? --S23678 (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info Thanks for the comments. This is a single shot. How do I go about geocoding an image? - TheWB (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SupportBoth "wow" and extra ordinary quality. Great editing, to. Leo Johannes (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Great quality, sorta feels funny to stare at for too long but agree it has a wow factor to it. Cirt (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info Composition seems slightly unfortunate to me, and the dark triangle at the top right is distracting; did you consider cropping the image a little bit as to remove the triangle and de-center the subject? Rama (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I am not sure that the picture will become better if the subject is de-centred. It's leaning a little, enough for me. I like its look... I'm sure he follows me... Sémhur 14:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice duck and composition, but no wow. Crapload (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Good composition and sharpness, but the loss of "wow" makes I rather would say this is a QI. Leo Johannes (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose No wow, and that little plastic thing on the leg is not very nice. --S23678 (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose that plastic thing on the leg ruins it. Alvaro qc (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC) voting period was closed -- Benh (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info it is a bird ringing thing, I don't see why it is a problem. It has nothing to do with the good/bad quality of the picture. Peter17 (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quality is one out of many aspects we judge for FP. Subjective arguments about the color, shape, composition, volume, and about the subject itself are entirely valid, and are actually what separates QI from FP. In this case, IMO, the bird ringing, by it's color, size and location, becomes the "highlight" of the picture, which is not good (IMO, again). --S23678 (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I tried to, but the train was so fast, that I was even unable to switch to continous shooting. But after all I think the train is here depicted quite well. --Aktron (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral This picture would have been perfect with a good motion blur. The train looks static, sadly. --S23678 (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info This is the picture of Shanghai scyscrapers — Jin Mao Tower and Shanghai World Financial Center which disappears in the clouds. It was really impressive sight for me... created by Lošmi - uploaded by Lošmi - nominated by Lošmi -- Lošmi (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't like the placement of both skyscrapers here (too close) and colors of the edges of the image is also not very good. --Aktron (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The Sun glares too much in this photo, making the skyscrapers unclear. --MacMad (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't view the disappearing building as an added value for this image. Composition at the bottom as well. --S23678 (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Does not say anything to me and quite simple work... (seems to me) --Aktron (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose If you had a more detailed schematic of a specific building--particularly an orginal architectural sketch--that might help. I think I recall seeing some old plantation plans from Antigua that date from the eighteenth century. Tug on my sleeve and I'll see about digging them up--they need restoration, so offsite via Skype would be a good way to transfer .tif files if you're interested. Best wishes, Durova (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not meant as an insult, sorry if you took it that way, but all the elements repeat several times, so in vector work that is called cut and paste. Lycaon (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that sometimes it is annoying to note mediocre work, perhaps this is not the case. But you must remember to be assertive, this is a job and the perpetrators must be respected. I do not speak for this, but in general --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposeBackground overexposition As per Aktron. --S23678 (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bit windy up there? Parts of the image are blurred... Diliff (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, parts of the picture are very blurred. --Aqwis (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, I was about to support, until I opened it at full res... View, composition, lighting are beautiful. But right part of the picture is very blurry... Wind ? forgot to turn off any stabiliser ? -- Benh (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination woah, hold on, I must have inadvertently uploaded the wrong version as I surely didn't mean to nominate this one. I withdraw this nom while I figure it out. Mfield (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Nice find, nice clean-up work. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC) voting time was over - Benh (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support At the first sight, the horizon seems to be tilted, but it is in fact not (or only very, very sligtly) tilted. Nice subject and composition, no major quality problems IMO. -- MJJR (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per αἰτίας. Noise and white haloes spoil the image. Lycaon (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Quite noisy, but my opinion is that the great composition (a kind of "wow") outweigh that. Leo Johannes (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Original composition. --S23678 (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, Seychelles are forever. --Pauk (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry, that's just what people fancy Seychelles are, but that's not what Mahé is, which is much more profusing. This picture is a poor reduction to an expected vision for holidays market. --B.navez (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Too common scenery IMO. The picture is good, but the subject has no wow to me. --S23678 (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It may be common to some (cultures, locations and nationalities) while others will travel thousands and thousands of miles to catch even a glimpse of something like this. –Dilaudid 08:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A lake with small mountains covered by forest on the opposite shore may attract people comming from places where this is uncommon... but it's still a very, very common sight! Snow is uncommon for a great number of people, but a snow covered scenery is still a very common sight. --S23678 (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- This pic gives a feeling of inner peace. The exposure is well made, such all the areas result to have a natural tone. -- Ilfranzo (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, I agree with user:S23678. --Kjetil_r 15:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The quality is not very good. The surface of the water contains artififacts and has lost a lot of detail. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, I agree with Daniel78 and it also lacks a "point of interest" you can "focus" on. Right now it's just a horizon with mountains. --Aqwis (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Yes wow – the typography, printing technique and paper quality used really are something to look at. Beautifully restored to near original form from the initial scan. –Dilaudid 23:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Connection to historical event makes wow for me. Per my knowledge, Americans sold lands for low price to get Europeans to move in USA. --QWerk (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support From a historian's point of view, this is an exciting document. It's also a nice example of 19th century color printing. And the quality of the scan is very good. So for me it's FP worthy. -- MJJR (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the composition is poor Lycaon (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question - What I'm doing wrong during the upload of my images? I added this one & the one above recently & the images look like good quality on my desktop. Am I doing something wrong upon upload? I agree, the pic looks bad as shown here. FieldMarine (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's hard to tell without having access to the file on your desktop. Not to let you down, but these two suffer from at least the following: lack of clear subject, tilt, motion blur, unsharpness, lack of contrast, poor composition and unbalanced colours. If the colour space of the image on your desktop is not set right (for viewing on screen, eg. sRGB), the colours may seem different on a web browser as opposed to an imaging software, though fixing that alone unfortunately won't make these Featured Picture level. That said I believe to be speaking on behalf of the whole community when I say that these are nevertheless a valuable contribution to Commons, thank you for that, and I wish for your continued effort! –Dilaudid 23:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SupportPoor composition is a matter of taste and not a FPX reason. --norro 19:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Poor composition is a technical issue and as such a perfect FPX reason. Supporting just as an anti-oppose at the other hand may be less valid!! Lycaon (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Poor composition" is certainly not a technical issue, it's an aesthetic issue. Technical issues are things like unsharpness, noise, and so on. --Aqwis (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Composition is not solely an aesthetic issue. It is governed by sets of rules, making it technical too. Lycaon (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The so-called composition "rules" are not rules, they are merely guidelines. Many, if not most, of the finest photographs the world has seen are not guided by your "composition rules". --Aqwis (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't know what this image is about. And I think the compostion could be better. --Aktron (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe I stated reason enough in my comment above. –Dilaudid 07:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, sure. I have a reflex posting this message when seeing an unsupported oppose. Sorry, wasn't necessary here of course. Lycaon (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all Oppose. The picture is just really nothing special. Second of all, there are pictures here FPXed due to "lack of wow". "The wow" effect a matter of taste. Scroll down and you'll find what I am talking about. There's something just wrong with the possibility that everybody can FPX, just hours after the photo has been posted. Maybe this should be done at least 2 or three days after the nomination and some votes have been casted. I am not saying this because my photos got FPX, I am an amateur photographer, I was pretty much expecting it, I am still learning -- Silfiriel (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, poor composition. --Aqwis (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Quite obvious composition problem, FPX should have been left there. --S23678 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 supports, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Indeed good quality, but not that much wow... I can't descide whether it is enough wow... Leo Johannes (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Sharp, good colors and subject is looking really good. --Aktron (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, too unsharp for a picture of an object as easy to photograph as this basilica. --Aqwis (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral The perspective is really nice, but I don't like the semi washed-out advertising about "Expo Da Vinci" --S23678 (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Good composition. I like the way up to the hill in the foreground --Simonizer (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I think different angle would be much more suitable for statues or similar objects. This does not show the statue as primal object. Compostion like this would be much better and image I could support. --Aktron (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, I completely disagree with Aktron. The angle in the picture he links to is common and way too boring. The people in this picture give context, which adds to the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support My first reaction when I saw this image was "wow". Leo Johannes (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Noisy, lack of contrast and above all tilted. Lycaon (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Tilted, boring composition (50% of the picture consists of unspectuclar blue sky), lack of contrast, vignetting --Simonizer (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I consider the contrast as the biggest problem here. --Aktron (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Contrast, vignetting and horizon tilt (at the cost of a slightly smaller crop) could be fixed, I presume. -- Klaus with K (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I've tried my hand at editing the thing and provided our existing Everest FP as comparison. The shot was in here; the camera settings just weren't very skilled at handling a snow capped peak against a blue sky. Durova (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment An improvement certainly, but I feel the contrast is now on the harsh side. I know it is difficult through a plane window. -- Klaus with K (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed about the contrast. I tried about ten different approaches with the histogram including different crops and automatic settings. This is where it wanted to go, but I wound up manually adjusting the foreground clouds and the background. Noticed the two existing FPs along the way. This has the advantage of a wider crop, but I'm uncertain whether the shortcomings make up for it. I'll abstain from the voting; mainly wanted to see the potential inside that original nom. Durova (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I like the composition, but has too much technical problems. Maybe a polarized filter would have helped for the contrast (I don't know). --S23678 (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral The quality is actually quite remarkable for the conditions under which it was taken. I created version that falls between the original and Durova's, but in the end if the information is not in the photo you can't bring it out with Photoshop. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too shallow depth of field.
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.
Support A large puff-ball wishie of the Western SalsifyTragopogon dubius showing the achenes with their feathery pappus. Feel it is as sharp, and as wonderful a picture as this previously featured image of a small wishie at Image:Dandelion clock.jpg The flower head matures into a spherical "clock" (also known as a "wishie" or Blow-ball containing many single-seeded fruits (achenes). Each achene is attached to a pappus of fine hairs, which enable wind-aided dispersal over long distances.-- SriMesh | talk 04:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose sharpness is not enough for such a delicate subject - filling the frame would have brought out more detail. Mfield (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info created by Robert Planquette, and Paul Cézano, and Pierre d'Assy - uploaded by Rama- nominated by Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC) -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I hope this isn't disruptive, but we have so many high-quality sound files here that I thought that it might be worth testing the waters to see if there's any interest in creating some sort of Featured Media category beyond simple pictures. We have Media of the Day, but that's no real substitute for such a project. I chose this one as the test case as it's A. Very high-quality for 1909, well-documented, and, to avoid Anglocentric bias, not in English. Anyway, thanks for your time. - Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: this is featured pictures not sounds. Sorry.
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.
Which is my point: We don't have any sort of featured sound program, so I went for the nearest possibility. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which is my point: Nothing stops you (and maybe quite a few would help you) setting up a featured sound program. E.g., recently Valued Images was construed and is now running smoothly. And BTW, I didn't think of your nom as disruptive. It's good to bring it to the attention of more contributors anyway. ;-). Lycaon (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. I just wanted to test the waters for such a project =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a view on the the higest dome of the Saint Basil's Cathedral (MOSCOW CITY) and a lampshade. Канопус Киля (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose inadequate DOF - ceiling is very unsharp, poor composition, underexposed & tilted Mfield (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Tilted and too dark. --Chmehl (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per above ... I thought it was part of a sci-fi movie's spaceship interior set, really. Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of technical reasons mentioned above.
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.
Oppose the federal seals at top appear to float in the air. I'm not sure why the uploader chose to eliminate the background; removal left a few pixels behind. Retaining the orignal paper grain gives a more authentic feel. Might support a redo of the document. Durova (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The pixels have gone now. --Alex:D (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of unoptimal lighting, distortion and overexposed clouds.
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.
Support clear, sharp and crisp. Cirt (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Good composition, but technically insufficient. Needs a bit of noise reduction in the sky, is not sharp and has a lot of CA fringing. Lycaon (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Should be goecoded --S23678 (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose A skilled example of panning, but put to a confusing use. Not enough motion blur to diminish the unpleasant background. Durova (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Concur with Durova - the background is blurred enough to be disorienting and not enough to seem smooth. Nice work, though - were you actually standing on the tracks? Shimgray (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I was standing on the tracks. Is there an easier way to do this? I actually meant the background to be recognisable, as it is historic downtown Durham (North Carolina). I suppose the setting may not mean much if you're not local. Here's a shot from when I finally figured out how to hold the camera still. By the way, thanks for all the wonderful feedback, guys! --Specious (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a view on The East Part Of Moscow - at the night. The beatiful view on streets and districts of large city in Europe. Канопус Киля (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. ISO 1600 ruins the image, as well as the 1,3 s shutter speed. ISO 100 and 2-6 s shutter would make this image much better (like this example). --Aktron (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support A Three-toed-sloth in the rather dark jungle of Costa Rica. -- Chmehl (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I feel lighting could have helped you a little bit more (background is a bit bright compared to main subject), but it still looks good. -- Benh (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question are you withdrawing the original version or what? -- carol (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the edited version has a bit better details in the shadows but less contrast, so I am not withdrawing the original version. I still prefer the original. Thanks for your effort Leo. -- Chmehl (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem :-). I am not used to Commons, I didn't really know how to present the edited version (what I should do). Leo Johannes (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I think this edit is superior to my original. Let's see if it gets more support votes than the original. Thanks for the editing by the way! Chmehl (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Agree with Chmehl --S23678 (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Surprisingly better ! some strange artifacts on dark areas, but minor issues -- Benh (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (other version has more support votes) Simonizer (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 01:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support It's more artistic than my typical butterfly photos. Of course it is naturally valuable for our projects. -- Ram-Man 01:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral great picture but the head of the butterfly should be in focus too! IMO --Simonizer (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Yes, Original ButterFly. --Pauk (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Incredible details on the wings ! It's a pity head isn't in focus. Why f/5.6 ? -- Benh (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It just happened that way. The lighting was variable and the butterfly didn't stay still for long. I took some with smaller apertures, but this had the best lighting and sharpness. The lens I use maximizes sharpness at ~f/5.6. For me this is about the wings, not the head. -- Ram-Man 00:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Great composition, no noise, the rocks and clouds are great here. And the colours... I like them. --Aktron (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Delightful composition, subject and colours but sadly very noisy. Lycaon (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is very difficult to photograph in water or in an aquarium because the light is low or water creates defects! It is an image of 3600 x 2000 it is possible to reduce and still have a beautiful image --Luc Viatour (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose That is great picture of a fish. I'd like to support it, but the noise ruins it totally. --Aktron (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Le bruit est minime si l'on considère la taille de l'image. Très impressionnant. --S23678 (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Wow is definitely there. Barabas (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral A great aquarium shot. Love the colors and detail on the fish. But the image is too noisy, as others have said. -- TheWB (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support this Fish! :) --Pauk (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Should not be hard to remove some of the noise, but until then I oppose. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support 2200 ISO... and it shows ! I'm surprised you had to go this high (but don't really know how lit was the aquarium). Fortunately you had a D300. Still a super catch to me ! Benh (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Heavy noise, CA, motion blur. –Dilaudid 12:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - These sorts of things are very useful for showing the popular attitude of Country X to subject Y, in this case, the English view on Napoleon near the end of the Napoleonic wars. The art is pretty typical of that time, though not, perhaps, reaching the humour and insight of the acknowledged master of political cartooning from that period, James Gillray. However, Gillray was not that active by this point.
I realise that there's going to be more photographers here than historians, but do think through what would be lost by ignoring insight into popular views provided by this kind of work. Also consider this: The 18th and 19th centuries started with the flourishing of cartooning, then illustrated newspapers which provided engravings. If we accept that illustrating subjects relating to the 18th and 19th century is important - well, we aren't going to be able to do it with paintings alone, and we sure as hell aren't going to be able to do much more than the very end of the 19th century with photography. Political cartoons and engravings are all we have to choose from. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support As a historian, I can agree with Adam Cuerden. Moreover, the scan is pretty well done. On the other hand, there are several hundreds (!) of that kind of Napoleonic cartoons; should we promote all of them as FP?? -- MJJR (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose A much better image of this series is already FP here. Lycaon (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CommentThe Picture that is already featured is the 18th century Qing Dynasty remake, which is much different than the 12th century Song Dynaty original that I uploaded. Also keep in mind that this painting is nearly 1000 years old and pictures of it of this size are very rare. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose reluctantly, although I supported on en:wiki. Different featured standards here: encyclopedic merit put this over the top on that project, but the technical shortcomings are a stronger consideration over here. If you locate a better scan of this original, I would support it. It wouldn't be an issue to me that a later dynasty's imitation is already featured. Durova (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I personally think it's good and with the information given above it makes it that much better. --IvanTortuga (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The current scan gives 62 ppi resolution. I think the value of this painting resides in the details. A better (higher resolution) scan is necessary IMO, even if it's necessary to split the image in 2 in order to achieve it. --S23678 (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Why is there a speedy deletion template on the nominated picture? --S23678 (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I think only a scan with 30,000px width would do this justice. The photo already exists, so it only needs to be scanned at higher resolution. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose This format of image cannot be seen well on screen. --Karelj (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Good work, but I don't like these stripes. --RoFra (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Displaying the Song chef-d'oeuvre in such poor quality seems to be discreditable for Wikipedia. Even unambiguously decorative black and white photos of this handscroll which one can find in the book by Bingjian Feng specifically entitled "A Genetic Epidemiological Study of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma", http://publishing.eur.nl/ir/repub/asset/10700/071129_Feng,%20Bingjian.pdf (in their turn borrowed from the Netherlands Optima Grafische Communicatie, Rotterdam, ISBN: 978-90-8559-329-4) produce much better impression due to more or less clearly visible details. It may seem worth asking for help from China with their numerous copies of Zhang ZeDuan being sold in each arts&crafts store. In fact, a resolution allowing you fo feel the original size would do only, so split into a dozen of 1-Mb parts, minimum is inevitable. Please start. Dr. Prof. D.Kivasipapu
InfoRanunculus glacialis L. (1753), Glacier crowfoot at the Swiss/Italian border at the Grand Saint Bernard Pass. Created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Composition - not cropped close enough considering how far out of focus the background is. I mean if its a flower portrait then they should be cropped tighter, and if it's putting the flowers in habitat then more of the background should be sharp. Or crop about 1/5 from top and right. Mfield (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral I like it, but there are too much distractions in the background, which isn't particularly interesting.Perhaps you can crop it and still keep it above 1600x1200. -- Silfiriel (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The background is actually part of the picture. This is a scientific illustration of an in situ specimen, that grows from 2400 m up to 4000 m altitude, often in the vicinity of glaciers (here a few meters from a melting snow field). 2600 m (where the picture was taken) is above the tree line, so a rocky background is very typical for this species. Cropping and/or resampling are non-issues for me: Commons policy is to always try to post the largest version available. This picture is very valuable uncropped (it is in situ), but as per the license, if someone wants to make a derivative for some specific purpose, he/she is very welcome. Lycaon (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment if that's the case, that it's intended an in situ shot, then more DOF would have been appropriate though. Mfield (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Hi, perfect like this. --B.navez (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support background is fine (shows habitat w/o being distracting), flowers show lots of detail Ianare (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose agree with Mfield. Background is fine to show habitat but then it should be throughout sharp --Simonizer (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I can't help but discern a yellowish tint. –Dilaudid 15:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Common good quality image, no reason for nomination into FP IHMO. --Karelj (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very beautiful picture, huge bird tagging on that poor bird. SriMesh | talk 04:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - I think the background confuses the shot, but that;s my personal opinion. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Background distracting. The head merges with the ground. Nichalp (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Is it a racing condor???? so bad the numbers on the wings... --Sanchezn (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info According to an ornithologist I met there, all the free living Californian Condors (I think about 150 at the moment) are numbered. --Chmehl (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don like the composition with the head near the border. Give them room to make them fly! ;-) --Simonizer (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Not only an image of one of the rarest birds on the planet, but also an excellent quality image of one in flight. --Calibas (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question any way to remove the little white spots ? Ianare (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. With historic paintings, though, I tend to leave that in because it accurately represents the way the paint has behaved over time. Durova (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose This picture is copyrighted (see the copyright page on the site Geheugen van Nederland[1]) and protected by the Dutch laws: Auteurswet 1912 and Databankwet 1999. -- MJJR (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you link to the laws themselves? I checked with three Dutch Wikimedians in advance of uploading to see whether Dutch law had any exception to the standard practice on derivative works of two dimensional artwork. This is a digitization of a two dimensional painting over three centuries old. It isn't uncommon for museums to assert spurious copyright claims that have no basis in law. If you say Dutch law supports this, we ought to know where and update our summary of Dutch copyrights. Durova (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whatever Dutch law says on the matter will quite soon be irrelevant, since consensus seems to be to follow the 'position' taken by the WMF and to allow such images on Commons even if local law forbids it. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag/Straw Poll. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd certainly delete the image if local law places it under copyright. The relevant law in this instance has been researched extensively in advance. If you know of a law this violates, please provide specifics. Durova (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not a bad view, but tilt and not very sharp (given the downsampling) --S23678 (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, a nice viewing. --Pauk (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Everything is out of focus except for the "Feuerschiff". For a deep scenery like this, maybe try F8 instead of F3.5? --JDrewes (talk) 10:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose While the colours are very nice, it seems too fuzzy for an FP for me. Also some parts such as the right hand side are heavily blurred, and it could use perspective correction. –Dilaudid 12:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose a day shot would have given less noise and better DOF, and i see no advantage to a night shot Ianare (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but at full resolution, I find the image too blurry. jakemaheu (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the part of image is out of focus. Канопус Киля (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I really like, and I have no issues with the sharpness since it's a 6mpx picture (better have an unsharp large picture than a downsampled sharp one). However, the big bird's head is too dark. I don't know if this can be corrected. --S23678 (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC) ________ Forget my last, I failed to notice the heavy CA at the black/white interface on the face of the bird. --S23678 (talk) 06:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you, but I do not believe that it does brighten head denm --Böhringer (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Looks like a 10 pounds blueberry at thumb size! but I have to oppose because of too small DOF. --S23678 (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is ruines the factory in Constantinovka, Donetsk Region. Look at this ruines! This is a Donbass, very-very poor region in Ukraine. Канопус Киля (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nothing Original. No wow.--Natl1 (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, very interesting, but too unsharp and poor composition for me to support. --Aqwis (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As per above. No geolocation as well. --S23678 (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support perhaps not wow but oow for sure ! --B.navez (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The type of topic that needs technical excellence to make it to FP, and that is unfortunately lacking (too soft, CA fringes). Lycaon (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Could be cropped closer. Try shooting closer with a wider angle lens. -- TheWB (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose low details, grass and trees are washed out --Simonizer (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. It's interesting. It's a truth of Life. --Pauk (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I love the composition, though the sharpness could be better, I think. There is definitely a wow for me, but I like this kind of stuff! --Specious (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Random industrial blight. I can't even tell that they're ruins, much less do I get the impression of economic collapse I'm expecting from the explanation. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It's a too normal factory... --RoFra (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 5 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment, the colours in the first version you uploaded are better. I also think you shouldn't have cropped away part of the bridge to the right. --Aqwis (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Good lighting and composition, sharp, beautiful place. Spots in the sky on the right (birds?).Vassil (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. For this the panorama. --Pauk (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The composition is not sufficiently interesting. Barabas (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support wow is defintely there, quality is good Ianare (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose technical very good, but it would be better wihout the harsh light and with another sky --Simonizer (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose A very, very bad photo shop--Sensl (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Low quality and no wow factor for me --Karelj (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 6 supports, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid we have a far better picture of the subject by User:Chmehl. Its only error I have spotted being the apparent tilt to the left of the horizon. -- Benh (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. A very interesting composition. I like it. --Obersachse () 17:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support under/over exposure, unsharp, noise, poor white balance, tilt, ... but it doesn't really mather here. Excellent picture. --S23678 (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very unique and clever method. It's quite nice and you apparently didn't have to burn your camera to bits pointing it at the sun either! -- Ram-Man 00:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info Clouded Yellow on European Cornel in the Dordogne, France. Created by, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no FP of Colias croceus yet. Did you at least check? Lycaon (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are accusing me of lack of diligent research? There is also no FP of a sunset over Aberdeen, Scotland yet. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your opposition rationale is irrelevant, and I'm sure you know it. Lycaon (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coming from you that's even more laughable. But to translate it into lingo you can understand: "No wow". ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As important as this subject is, the lack of sharpness won't be resolved by a restoration. That can sometimes be forgiveable in early photojournalism of unique historic events, but this is a formal portrait under controlled conditions. With respect toward the uploader, I don't think I could bring myself to support this as a featured candidate. Durova (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I was wondering why he was wearing two Boy Scout emblems in a "service photo" until I noticed the image was from "Bain News Service". Misleading capitalization in title. Rmhermen (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of th 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per coming back to my senses. That image may be funny, but it's more blurry than genius. Count that as a withdrawal so that people don't lose their time voting on this. Rama (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is out of focus --Simonizer (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[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.
One of the worst images of the bridge I've ever seen.--Sensl (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Giving only your opinion is some form of contribution for sure, but you could at least be a little be more courteous than this, when talking about somebody else's work. -- Benh (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not bad, but size is too too small. --Karelj (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Too many compression artifacts visible. 177kB for a 2.5MPixel image is way too much compression. --Chmehl (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of overenthusiastic JPEG compression (= artifacts).MER-C 10:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[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.
Oppose Issue has probably been raised before, but why are you taking them at night ? Is it relevant to have them at night rather than at some more brighter time ? I don't like the black background, the flash lighting and I have the feeling this may harm the subject. But if it's relevant to see them at night, I'd reconsider my vote. - Benh (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK for relevance. I maintain my oppose because of other issues I mentionned. Benh (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposeThere is actually some relevance to take these at night, cause they are nocturnal birds. That said the harsh flash light, the over-processing and the insistence at posting images at the smallest possibles size (didn't we agree on the opposite here at commons?), disqualifies this picture for me for FP. Lycaon (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The size meets the criteria, I don't see why it should be a factor. Muhammad 20:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't like the lighting either, the flash is too obvious. /Daniel78 (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info created and uploaded by Chmehl - nominated by Benh (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Following a similar nomination below, I propose this one instead. The view is amazing, it is huge and very detailed. -- Benh (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Not very sharp, the sign at the front is distracting, I don't like the way it's cut off by the trees, and I also think the image should be wider (to show more of the sky) for a better composition. Sorry. Naerii (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I agree with Naerii - the foreground sign is far too prominent and noticable. R-T-C Tim (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I meant the sign to be prominent. It was supposed to be part of the composition. Honestly, I just figured no one would be wowed by just a skyscraper these days, so I made sure to include something else. To get both the sign and the building sharp, I did indeed sacrifice some overall sharpness, but the image is 10 megapixels! Also, the building is surrounded by trees, so there isn't a clear view. So, how do you guys want to see this skyscraper? --Specious (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - it's not notable. inclusion of sign because it would be more interesting? We are not looking for interesting but educative and this sign can be used in which article exactly?--Avala (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe I understand why this shot (which looks great geometrically to me) won't interest most people. Thanks for the feedback! --Specious (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support For those who don't like the highway sign in the other picture. Please let me know if the wires are getting in the way here ;) -- Specious (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment For the previous picture as well, I just think the building itself is boring - just a big glass skyscraper. You would be very hard pushed to get a feature photograph out of it. R-T-C Tim (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment What about the fact that it's not next to other skyscrapers? Isn't that unusual? --Specious (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose bad composition--Sensl (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of bad composition and low prominence of main subject.
Yes, the wires are in the way; in fact, the composition is such that they seem to be the main topic instead of the building. –Dilaudid 20:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Composition is a matter of taste and no technical issue and therefore no FPX reason. --norro 18:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Composition is partly (though not completely) a technical issue. Here it fails because of the visual hierarchy of the elements in the picture. See our guidelines. Please only remove {{FPX}} when you add a support vote. –Dilaudid 17:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The guidelines say: "The arrangement of the elements within the image should support depiction of the subject, not distract from it." They do not say the subject has to be in front. --Specious (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The guidelines also say: "Foreground and background objects should not be distracting." –Dilaudid 09:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, The background is distracting --Romwriter (talk) 07:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FPX reasoning reaches a new low. --Aqwis (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for all the comments. I'll get a better shot. By the way, should I not bother submitting this dog any more, or should I just do something more interesting with him? Specious (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Question Any helpful suggestions? --Specious (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I see the black background as an improvement, but the masking isn't exactly masterful, the nose is lost in the background, and the shallow dof is more harmful here than in the one with the background. –Dilaudid 17:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's true, I'm a n00b when it comes to manipulation. Next time I'll shoot against a better background for cutting out the subject. Thanks for the comments, guys! Specious (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: we are choosing featured PICTURES here not sounds or videos --Simonizer (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[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.
Are we sure this is actually the Wow signal? Did they actually record them, or just use printouts? Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[[Image:Festungsberg Salzburg, Sommer 2008.jpg|300px|View from one of the Salzach pedestrian crossings towards "Festungsberg" in Salzburg/[[File:Flag of Austria.svg|22x18px|border|Austria]] Austria]]
Oppose Lighting is very harsh, and the almost black area on the right does not help the composition. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - because of the extremely dark part in the bottom. Perhaps try at a different time of the day.--Avala (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of its lighting and composition.
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Comment The small DOF was voluntary but I understand you could dislike it. Sensl's comment have no relevance (like ever)- Glorfindel rb (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Agree with above that the inconsistent focus is a bit jarring. Cirt (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of shallow depth of field and unsharpness.
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.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of unsharpness, composition and washed out colours.
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.
This is a burned old soviet pillows!! Looked, this is a Soviet Live!!! A fire and a feahers. Канопус Киля (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment According to the image description, these are old soviet pillows stuffed with poultry feathers being burnt. --Specious (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read the brief description above, but that does not make the picture special.--Caspian blue (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposeIn Soviet Russia, pillow explodes YOU! Seriously, there might be a deeper cultural meaning to this picture, but if there is, it certainly doesn't translate well. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the subject and its value are unclear.
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.
Oppose It is an old newspaper. I can imagine that this reaches FP on en: as encyclopaedic value is most important there. But an old newspaper on commons...? Lycaon (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe an FP on commons gains more visibility, and are then likely to be used on other wikipedias as well. So I think value should be important here too (??). -- Benh (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Ist there an uncompressed original and could it be saved as a png? The whole small print is an artifacts fest and at 800kb for the jpg, the png shouldn't be prohibitively large. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Agree about the jpg quality mentioned above. /Daniel78 (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - This is one of the most famous newspapers in history: Emile Zola's defense of Dreyfuss. This newspaper would be discussed in most school textbooks. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Would support a png version or a better quality jpg than 800kB. Using low quality jpg for a picture that's all text is an obvious technical flaw that has a simple solution. Oh, and of course getting a high quality facsimile of one of the more important documents of western thought is of course a valuable contribution to many of our projects. This isn't just a repository for birds and butterflies. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I agree with trialsanderrors: this is an extremely important document, which must be available at Commons; but the quality of this copy is not good enough for FP. -- MJJR (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 6 supports, 6 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of a lack of needed quality.--- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Although I will not support this picture, you should be more specific when you put up a FPX template (what is the quality problem? exposition, focus, depth of field, white balance?). Even here, I think composition rather than quality is the problem. --S23678 (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was a slip of the mind; the composition is, as you say, the main issue here. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SupportDeleted FPX, IHMO this image is not so bad qaulity, same meaning as S23678. --Karelj (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Restored FPX (contested) --Romwriter (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose What does the photographer want to tell us with this picture? --Romwriter (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Is that blurred part on the centermost man's face from stitching? If there are no other options it could be restored by hand. –Dilaudid 07:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, if I can find it, I'll fix it, but I can't see it =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for being vague. It's a horizontal blurred line on the man's nose level. –Dilaudid 14:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd love to support this, but the blur is still there pestering me... –Dilaudid 17:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SupportIt blots thy beauty as frosts do bite the meads, Confounds thy fame as whirlwinds shake fair buds... - Just kiddin, really fine work though. Cirt (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose High quality work, for sure, but not enough wow. Barabas (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment At 16MB+ file size (and 20+ megapixels), isn't the image a dab too heavy? At 10/12 jpeg quality (which should suffice imo) the size would be approximately around 10MB. –Dilaudid 09:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I usually find that, with works with high contrast like this, that JPEG artefacing becomes too annoying too quickly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support An excellent restoration. High resolution files are a good thing. Durova (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please hold off closing this a little longer - I'm fixing the flaw Dilaudid found right now - it took a little discussion to direct me to the right part =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Fixed!Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 5 supports, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured Benh (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Thanks so much for the fix! Much better now :) –Dilaudid 18:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose May support translation (e.g. English, Français, Deutsch, Nederlands, Español, Italiano, ... my Russion is sadly not good enough to follow the story). Lycaon (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You would support an English-only version, but you would not support a russian-only version? Why not? --Aqwis (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must speek French to make images? I understand, that translation can be good, so, I upload source for images in SVG. You (or enyone who talk english, "Français, Español", etc) can use them to translate. I am yet again see, that russian is an obstruction for any image nomination... Sad. #!George Shuklin (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I might support the Russian only version if a translation is available so that I can correctly follow and assess the process. Lycaon (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This meaning, that I can vote against every text-contained image/scheme until it will translated to russian, белорусский, украинский, казахский or татарский? You position - is exactly I talking about language discrimintation @ commons. #!George Shuklin (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has nothing to do with Russian per se. If I propose a Dutch labeled SVG, people will ask for a numbered version too. In this case, a significant part of the image consists of text. I'm in no position to judge on the correctness of this text, not even through the description page of the image. So I oppose. I'm sorry but my Russian is limited to reading the Cyrillic alphabet, though I would love to understand it. Lycaon (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's think together. If I use such aproach for all non-cyrilic images, this will be looked not very cute? (opposite, No cyrillic vesion). Your position meaning "no f/i if I can read image text". If this position become common (for commons, lol), this meaning only one: no f/i images without text for every language. (How about Bashkirian text or Udmurtski)? #!George Shuklin (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposeSupport. I think the beauty of this animation is that I can follow it without speaking Russian, but I don't understand why the DNS server jumps from top to bottom between 3 and 4? Also, I would recommend renaming the clouds to sender.net and receiver.org to avoid confusion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is DNS resolving. We asking root servers for org zone, they points to .org name servers. We asking .org name server about example.org and it point to nameserver for example.org. I think, this part of DNS is a very important for mail transfer process (And all morden mail systems heavy depends on MX RR). Of couse, we can assume using of caching DNS server, but it will incresize complexivity of scheme. Using reciver.com and sender.net... Example.com, net, org reserved specially for education/sample purposes. sender.com is a real (cybersquated) domain #!George Shuklin (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, but why is the .org DNS next the root server in frames 1-3 and then jumps down in frame 4? Are those different DNS servers? ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops! I see it by fresh eye. My mistake, fogot to fix 1-3 frames. FIXED #!George Shuklin (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This looks good now. Happy to help with the translation (other than I don't speak Russian...) ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I don't speak Russian so I'm assuming it's correct. --Calibas (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Here the English translation of the image titles goes:
Elementary E-Mail Delivery
Marc decides to send an E-Mail to bill@example.org and types it in his E-Mail Client
The E-Mail Client forwards it to Marc's Mail Transfer Agent (relay.example.net)
The relay.example.net server gets the .org DNS zone data.
The relay.example.net server gets the example.org domain data.
At ns.example.org it gets the IP address of the smtp.example.org mail server where incoming E-Mails are to be delivered.
The relay.example.net server connects to the smtp.example.org mail server and transfers Marc's E-Mail.
The SMTP server detects that the E-Mail was sent to a local user and then delivers it to the user's mailbox.
Bill comes, starts his PC and launches his E-Mail Client.
The E-Mail Client connects to the smtp.example.org mail server.
It retrieves the E-Mail from the mailbox and downloads it to Bill's hard drive.
I would appreciate if someone of the native speakers would check it and correct grammatical mistakes (if any). As for the technical correctness and instructiveness of the titles in the source, IT experts will judge.
I for one very much doubt the technical strictness of the terms used in Russian text (list item 8 doesn't contain description of E-Mail Delivery step at all). Besides, the fonts used look differently and wiggly, you knowSlovik (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Maybe useful, but visually rather unappealing colours and layout, especially with all the text on the face of the image. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not to say it wouldn't be informative, but it isn't exemplary 21th century information graphics, either. –Dilaudid 17:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I have a few Monarch FPs, but this high-quality female is unique to the commons, and finally a picture of the butterfly on its host plant! -- Ram-Man 00:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Another bug... too common --Sailko (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly you don't actually mean that this is a common Monarch butterfly shot. Unlike the eastern tiger swallowtail image that just became a FP, this butterfly normally rests with her wings closed. Taking a sharp shot of the open wings on a female is not a common shot. Taking it on its host plant is even rarer. Of course maybe you just don't want any bug pictures.... -- Ram-Man 21:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Almost there! A pity that a wrong exposure solution was chosen, with a high shutter speed and a large aperture. A smaller f number would allow the petals of the flower to be also on focus. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info A Yellow-legged Gull (Larus michahellis), my first bird nomination! Found at the island of Pessegueiro, Porto Covo, west coast of Portugal. Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Distracting background, poor level of detail. Not quite FP quality, I'm afraid. Jordan Busson (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose No wow image of a common bird--Sensl (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose poor details, and I would have prefered a more blurred background. lower border is also too close to subject. Benh (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Poor thing, looks like I've to try again! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Harsh lighting, intrusive shadows and a building that is leaning back. Not FP quality I am afraid. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose A nice enough image, but not of FP standards. No "wow factor" either. Jordan Busson (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose | Would be better without the trees in front of the building. - TheWB (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the perspective hasn't been corrected and the composition is problematic.
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Benh (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I'd like to give this simple picture a try. -- Benh (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose | Whats this picture about? Does it show something special or should I be moved? Additionally, its not as sharp as it would be possible and I don't see a clear composition. Manuel R. (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yap I shouldn't have nominated it maybe... But I like the mood. It simply shows candles. It's sharp on the diagonal line which goes from bottom left corner to upper right corner. Honestly, this could illustrate much more articles than several other FP over here... but this is just my opinion. However, I may have missed the effect. I'll try to shoot something similar again. Thanks for sharing your opinion. Benh (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, hafl of the image is blurred, other half is noisy and all together zero wow--Sensl (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The picture is not too much noisy and "no wow" is a personal point of view. About the blur, welcome to the world of DOF (sometimes it can be used in an aesthetic purpose)!!!}} Sanchezn (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I accept the no wow, but you probably don't shot a lot yourself, as you contributions tell. DOF was on purpose (and you need not see all of the candles sharp anyways, since they are all the same) and actually, I should have used a wider aperture. Also churchs are usually dark, hence the need to raise ISO a little. Noise is reasonably low (and this is 10mpix pic). Benh (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SupportSanchezn (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC) This vote is kind of biased :) Benh (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose due to technical reasons mentioned above. –Dilaudid 19:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose To be successful this shot needs a tripod and a smaller aperture. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually wanted the shallow DOF. When I have opportunity again, I'll give it a retry with both a small and large aperture so one can see the difference, and with my tripod this time (I just hope they'll let me use it). Thanks for the comment. Benh (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I like the mood too but i would prefer at least 4 of the candles in the second row to be in focus --Simonizer (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Enough comments for me to try to reshoot this again, hopefully with better results next time. Thanks ! Benh (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it has a time/date stamp
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.
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it is far too small. (en:FPC has different rules) Lycaon (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The commons community does. Lycaon (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I do. In fact, it's really far to small, which slash it's value e.g. for printing. --LC-de (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Support There's nowhere in commons that specifies what size the image must be. There's only: "Resolution - Photographs of lower resolution than 2 million pixels are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'". There are 'strong mitigating reasons' for me. You have no right to cross out my vote. What you did Lycaon is a very bad practice. I believe you should apologize for you uncivil behavior.--Sensl (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Indeed, it is far too small. I would have used the FPX template as well --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Too small for FP. Maybe a good valued image candidate? -- Sanchezn (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
InfoAfter realizing that the guidelines here are different, I withdraw/close. Thanks. --Meldshal42? 12:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info A "making of" version of the famous "Dali Atomicus" photo: in this version all the props holding up the various objects are still visible and the frame on the easel is still empty. (Compare published version.) According to the Library of Congress, the picture is now in the public domain because the copyright has not been renewed.
InfoCopyright information: This picture was taken by an American citizen (Halsman) for an American publication (LIFE magazine) in New York City in 1948 and marked as copyrighted (see first upload). As such it falls under {{PD-US-notrenewed}} timespan of 1923 through 1963 for works published in the U.S., i.e. it falls into public domain in the U.S. and shorter term countries unless copyright was renewed. According to the information provided by the Library of Congress, no copyright renewal was found. The U.S. Copyright Office is a branch of the Library of Congress and the Copyright Reading Room, which holds copyright renewal claims prior to 1978, is housed in the Library of Congress. As such, the opinion of the Library of Congress is authorative unless someone is able to provide counterevidence. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is commons not the library of congress. Lycaon (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
StrongOppose. Cruelty to animals. These cats were thrown in the air 28 times until the photographer was satisfied with the capture. Lycaon (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that it's cruelty to animals, but I really can't see why this makes it less suitable as a featured picture. I would recommend abstaining instead of voting strong oppose. --Aqwis (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, this promises to become an interesting discussion. I guess I'll just cite the relevant passage of the guidelines and leave it at that:
"Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image “speaks” to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations…."
This is one of the most famous pictures by one of the best-known photographers of the 20th Century. If it still instills strong passions 60 years after it's been taken that's a pretty good indicator that it fulfills this guideline. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw worst for cruelty in other FP. As far as I'm concerned, throwing a cat 3-4 ft in the air is not cruelty... it may be stressful for the cat, but cruelty? What about those stroboscopic pictures showing how a cat held backwards in the airs will always land on his foots, is that cruelty? --S23678 (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed cruelty against people can be far and far worse. But in this case (current nom) the cruelty was solely to make the picture, while in your example the photographer was documenting cruelty of war. Lycaon (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
StrongOppose Public domain for this picture is only possible in the USA. Elsewhere it is an obvious violation of the author's rights.--B.navez (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have not seen a guideline that makes some license tags acceptable for Commons but inacceptable for FP. If PD tags of limited geographical reach make a picture inadmissible for FP I will request that all my pictures with those tags be deleted. If there is no such provision the above vote should be ignored as agenda pushing. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, unfortunately. Looks like it should be deleted and rehosted locally at en:wiki, where it would probably pass FPC. Suggest adjusting the levels. Durova (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes of course this US law doesn't respect most of international laws and right of creators. Owning an object doesn't give any right to make a public use of it. In most of countries, including USA now, creations enter public domain seventy years (the most common duration) after the death of the artist. Who asked Dali and Halsman or their heirs if they agree to this publication? This picture will be PD only in 2055. --B.navez (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The picture is, according to the research of the Library of Congress, in the public domain in the U.S. and the countries that have adopted the shorter term rule (which is the majority). If you believe there is a problem with the legal interpretation, send the picture to deletion request and discuss it there. If you believe Commons should not accept geographically restricted PD images, try to change the rules at the Village Pump. Your comment is out of place at FPC because there is no guideline that limits FP's to unrestricted PD pictures. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The number of other images that may be inappropriately hosted at Commons is irrelevant to this featured picture candidacy. If this is public domain in the United States but not in the country where it was taken, then it ought to be hosted on en:wiki rather than Commons. I'd gladly help promote it there (although a little restoration would be good), but I can't endorse the nomination at this site. Durova (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WTF are you talking about? The picture was taken in New York City by an American photographer for a U.S. publication. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please refactor the epithet. Durova (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose This is a photograph by the photographer Philippe Halsman, who died in 1979. According to most laws on copyright, this work will become PD 70 years after his dead, i.e. 2049. Till then, reproducing this picture without consent of his heirs is a copyright violation. This document must, unfortunately, be deleted from Commons, unless the copyright question is thoroughly settled. -- MJJR (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This convention eventually gives the right to the Congress library to go on publishing by itself something the library was allowed to publish before, not the right to anyone else to take the publication. This can't be PD but copyright continuation. This media must be deleted and the tag too. --B.navez (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's so completely incoherent and demonstrably false it's not even worth of a rebuttal. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right. This very reason was false. Shame on me but the right to copy remains unclear :
1) According to the US law, this is PD if copyright has not been renewed and the work has been published. This is not the famous known picture but a raw attempt (threads are visible). The notice says publication occurs “circa 1948”. But for this attempt, when and where exactly ? Copyright deposit is not publication. Could the real sources be mentioned ? If publication is missing, this delivery made by Congress Library is just a robbery. If not published, PD occurs 70 years after author's death.
2) By now, general international rule about author's rights is the Convention of Bern and the USA are part of it now (after a long time when considering art works as commercial products they didn't want to join it). This convention gives rights to authors, whatever their nationality and the place of creation. Thus an american work is protected in Germany by german laws. Many countries never recognised for themselves and for the author's works the former copyright system of the USA and the shorter term has nothing to do with that. So you have to check if protection is delayed according to the Bern convention. And if you can prove it, change the tag. Otherwise uploading this picture in other countries than the USA is prosecutable. It would be awkward for a FP !
3) This photograph shows two paintings of Salvador Dali whose representation is not free and is protected 70 years long after Dali's death.
P.S. : why is the copyright tag of this picture, the one published in Time magazine, so different ??
Comment Yawn! What would be far more interesting is a movie of a cats reaction to an engaged vacuum sweeper. Completely entertaining while putting the critter into no more of harms way than the operator of the machine. Allow me to yawn again before I sign this. YAWN! -- carol (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support valuable and informative. Ianare (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I love cats and I usually dont throw them trough the air to make pictures of them. I cant support such nonsense. So i have to vote against it --Simonizer (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support and ignore groundless opposes I have four cats. I don't like it was done. But it was 60 years ago, and saying you dislike cruelty to animals is a pointless gesture at this point, as pretty much everyone involved with this are probably dead. Also, if you don't want to bother listening when copyright is explained to you, don't throw your ignorance everywhere by voiting oppose. I swear, if FPC keeps down these lines, we're going to have to insititute the law over on the en-wiki Featured articles, where groundless opposes are simply ignored. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about a movie of them when the vacuum sweeper is being used then? -- carol (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That what happened in Zimbabwe recently too. Opponents have no rights. Why? Because they are wrong. Why are they wrong ? Because we are right. Why are you right ? Because we are not wrong. What are your grounds ? Not to be wrong. And more ? Do you want to go inside the vacuum cleaner ? --B.navez (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep your unqualified political comparisons in check. Discussions about the copyright status do not belong on FPC and speculative copyright-based opposes should be ignored. I don't think the "cruelty to animals" opposes should be ignored even if I think they're silly for a picture that has been under public scrutiny for 60 years. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, I agree with Adam Cuerden. --Aqwis (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info To be clear about this image. This is a print of the original image of the famous photograph prior to cropping and other darkroom techniques. Also note that the painting in Dali's easel was added after the photo was taken. Look carefully at the angle and bend of the cats' legs and tails in the orginal. They match those of the painting in front of Dali and that isn't likely to be a coincidence. Arden (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -Library of Congress note on rights says, "No known restrictions on publication. No renewal found in Copyright Office." -SusanLesch (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 8 supports, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - I actually feel like I have seen this picture before, but not so sharp and clean. Nice work. Cirt (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The amount of fine detail in the scan hardly justifies 26 MP and 20 MB. Have you considered a smaller resize? NVO (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WeakSupport I really love this picture and the other ones from that series, except we can't see what the title promises. It's simply an old guy checking out the girl's arm. Also, what NVO said. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I realy like this picture. --Sfu (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I am not used to supporting media from public agencies but I will make an exception for this one I find very human. Maybe the file is too heavy. --B.navez (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't know there is such a version. When people are not using other version from information template this can happen. What to do now? --Sfu (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But this version is FP on Polish wiki.--Sfu (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Looks nice. --Lošmi (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info Fatal embrace I - A Bee-killer wasp (Philathus triangulum) paralysing a bee. The bee was caught in mid air and brought to the ground where is was paralysed by the wasp's sting. During the process it was hold by the wasp's jaws at the back of the neck. Than the wasp took off with the prey. The whole scene took less than 15 seconds. Please check the "other versions" in the picture file. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it is a fascinating picture but I think the background is too noticeable, particularly the yellow, and makes the image rather confusing. R-T-C Tim (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral This has lots of wow but the action is a bit hard to make out in a single frame. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Good sharpness, great action, but centered composition and distracting background make it less interesting --Simonizer (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Fascinating picture and given the short time the photographer had for taking this photo also impressive quality. --Chmehl (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Extraordinary ! Composition and background fit very well too. --B.navez (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It's a super catch again for sure, but composition is a bit messy. I can hardly tell what happens at a first glance. Benh (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Bugs are disgusting. Too many bugs recently as picture of the day --Sailko (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Sorry, for me it is arrogant ignorance which is disgusting -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And also it is the truth.--Sensl (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only written truth here ----- is the guideline ! --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Ugly subject makes ugly picture. --Sailko (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Contra ignorance vote. And I like hymenopteres... Lycaon (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 4 supports, 5 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info Fatal embrace II - a Long-jawed Orbweaver Spider (Tetragnatha cf. striata) feeding on a fly. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I think it's a super catch. Details are a bit lost because of flat lighting, but I guess it's hard to get an action shot otherwise ? Benh (talk) 10:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - finally an interesting insect macro in the ocean of boring and same photos.--Avala (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
StrongOppose Disgusting bugs. We've had something like 15 bugs as picture of the days last month.. they're becoming like sunsets... --Sailko (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info -- None of them is a bug. One is a dipteran, the other an arachnid. Most themes are best appreciated when one has some minimum knowledge about them -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info This does not make the subject prettier. I think it's not proper to link it in every wikipedia's main page without any disclaimer (in case). --Sailko (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We dont generate a entertainment program here to anticipate the future POTD, so please be fair. There is a recent trend for documentary macro photography and a strong oppose for that reason is hardly overshot. Just my 5 cent. --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I'm not 100% satisfied with the technical part of the image, but I have to support to counter ignorance votes as above. Lycaon (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I dont like the wedge-shaped gap in the background associated with a centrical composition as well the harsh flash-lighting with some twinkling OE's --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose|interesting, but not exzellent; composition could be better --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is extremely contrasty
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.
Oppose - sorry but it looks like an ordinary tourist snapshot and looking at the other versions proves that this remark is true.--Avala (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support!!! WOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!! So hard to photo his!!! It`s not Moon, but a not bad!!! Канопус Киля (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support really beautiful and well done --B.navez (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Impressive use of light. –Dilaudid 17:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -- Agree, but the lens artifacts can (and should) be removed from the centre of the image -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Looks like there should be a form motivational tagline at the bottom. Otherwise, very very nice. Cirt (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Divine? Yes, it is with two UFOs red one and green one in the centre of the image.--Sensl (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, very ugly flares. --Aqwis (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, regretfully. This reminds me my trip to australia a few years ago... I'd have focused more on the three sisters rocks or added a second row of pictures below. The sisters are too close to border, and that's a fault to me since it's where my eyes are driven first. I also think your camera doesn't do justice to your skills. Benh (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The camera is not the problem, the light is. --Aqwis (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, but I think this could have looked much better with a better camera. This applies (even more) to the above nomination too. Benh (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not good quality, half image lihgt, half dark... --Karelj (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of too many flares
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.
Oppose - bad composition (nothing special in the frame) plus colors seem weird (too light). Renata3 (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of focus and contrast problems --Simonizer (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[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.
Delist Looks unsharp, overexposed sky, CA and the composition is not very thought-out IMO --Simonizer (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are lots of reason to delist this one, but I think it would have been hard not to have the sky overexposed. And we're talking about a fractional part of the picture. Benh (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure it was not my only reason but i can mention it, can't I? --Simonizer (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was just finding this isn't a valid reason IMO, hence my comment. Sorry if you found my words a bit harsh. Benh (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Very valuable image despite its small resolution. See previous deletion request for more input. --Kimse (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Small resolution has only historical reason, in that time it was normal. But wow if high. --Karelj (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are images from nearly 100 years ago that are double or more this one. I don't have to actually show one of them for you to believe me, do I? diego_pmc (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Good photography doesn't change that fast. However it's small. Why not ask Evstafiev for a bigger version instead of starting a delist request? --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I asked him for a higher res version. diego_pmc (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The image is much better than boring high resolution landscapes.--Sensl (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep How many times do we have to vote keep on this image? --Dori - Talk 23:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delist Of course. I still don't understand how it was ever featured at this puny size. This is not en:wiki after all. Lycaon (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's right, let delist one of a very few FP images that has the soul and the value, and what will be we left with: a high resolution 300 degree indoor panorama of baggage claim area at Hong Kong International Airport near midnight by base64, or blurred candles by benh, or zero encyclopedic value Mooring bollard at sunset, Lyme Regis, Dorset, UK by MichaelMaggs, or boring landscapes by Simonizer?--Sensl (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder if you really mean what you say. Anyhow... if our pictures are so boring, we are waiting for yours. Benh (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me assure you that I said exactly what I meant to say and that I tried hard to say it in the nicest form possible.--Sensl (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If in your opinion the community made a mistake by electing those pictures to Common's featured pictures, feel free to nominate them for delisting --Simonizer (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid it will not resolve the problem. Until sharp and high resolution images of common identical birds, insects, buildings would get promoted only because they are sharp and high resolution while unique, hard to take and hard to find around the NET images would get deliested, Commons FP is going to remain a laughable institution.--Sensl (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then iam asking me why you want to be part of this laughable institution. Feel free to leave it --Simonizer (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An easy one. I am here because I love to laugh.--Sensl (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then we are alltogther a big laughing family, because we are laughing too --Simonizer (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What would be laughable here is someone who'd hide herself behind some other username because she got upset for some reason. I agree with you on most part, and I wish I could myself bring more diversity to commons FP, but not everyone has opportunities to take a trip on helicopter or dive underwater or, also, have some great ideas. We do what we can. -- Benh (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The images you refer to are very good, but they are hardly unique. I'm talking about really unique images.Sure, not everybody has the opportunity to take unique images in a war zone, risk their life for an amazing image of human suffering, to show the horror of the war, but everybody has the opportunity to vote for keeping one as FP, if one is nominated for delisting as we have here.--Sensl (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No wonder these images are good and aren't very badly "photo shopped" (in two words) and blurred, they were taken by you. Everybody also has the opportunity to say "we don't want thumbnail sized FP" when author has bigger version in his archive. What emotions could convey a couple dozens of pixels ? Impressionism was popular in 19th century... Benh (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is getting increasingly hard to follow your thoughts, but I still would like to give you a good advise: please, if you could, before making a statement, and I mean any statement, try to give it another thought. For instance to justify the reason for delisting of the image you wrote: "Delist Not very useful at this size". I went to the image page and hit "Check usage" button. Here's what I got: "Evstafiev-bosnia-cello.jpg is used on at least 192 pages in 28 projects." Is the image really not very useful? Is any of your high resolution images is at least half as useful as this one?--Sensl (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delist We certainly wouldn't promote an image of this size now. Let's strive for consistency. Pretty as it is, older promotions shouldn't get preferential treatment. Durova (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Procedural objection - has anyone contacted Rama and given her a chance to try and upload a higher-res version first? Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delist Too small. But as said sensl (sometimes a good girl!!!!), this picture has a great historical value, so why not proposing it as a valued image candidate? -- Sanchezn (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Yeah. There is a really valuable picture for years but now it violates rule created 5 minutes ago so we must delist it. This is not the way of building any project like commons is. There were no 10mpix cameras in 1992-95 when the war in Bosnia was going on, think about it. --Aktron (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was probably shot on film and scanned so we can expect more. Author has a high resolution version but won't give it up, as stated here. The 2mpix rule was on guidelines since I began contributing, as far as I remember. Benh (talk)
Keep Commons can be proud of this picture. Even with its size it has much more importance than many others of insects, birds or something else that can be repeated hundreds of times. --wau> 16:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delist The author's response reposted by Benh tipped the scale for me. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I agree with Leo. Although it has some blury parts, overall it's very cool photo. --Lošmi (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - I like the colours. The right part of the butterfly and the flower is sharp, thats enough and i think it would be distracting if the background would be sharp too. Manuel R. (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose A significant proportion of the butterfly is blurred. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As these (butterfly and plant) are not rare species nor in a rare situation we should expect perfect sharpness (upper wing is blurred) --B.navez (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Other than the cleanup work, the picture has pretty much nothing going for it. Of all the Doubleday portraits available, this one is the least interesting. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know of others that are better? I wouldn't have spent five days restoring this one if I were aware of them. Please link? Durova (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please double check the image sizes: the only return from that search that is large enough for FPC consideration is another portrait right here on Commons, similar in most respects except that it lacks restoration. Durova (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh I know they're not all available in large sizes, I just check Image Google for comparison what else is out there other than the nominated picture. This one is completely flat, with a massive uniformly gray area, it's blurred in most areas, so the large size doesn't produce any useful detail, and, for lack of a better word, it's expressionless. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Excellent cleanup work, obvious cross-project value, and actually this does seem to be one of the better Doubleday portraits out there. Cirt (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Portrait looks quite casual, no psychological trait at all. --Sailko (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposeSupportOpposeI was going for featuring because I like very much composition and atmosphere but it seems there is a problem with perspective correction : buildings on the left lean to the left, on the right to the right and I do not support. --B.navez (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I thought it needed perspective correction also, so I went back, but the buildings on the left really lean to the left. All buildings in Amsterdam lean in some way or another in a direction by the way. A good example is the second house from the corner and the right of the building on the corner. You can clearly see it leaning forward. Massimo Catarinella (talk)
That's well known Amsterdam buildings do lean and that's why it is difficult to check the perspective lines but if you look at the light pole on the left you can see it is not vertical at all. Thus leaning of the buildings on the left is exaggerated too.--B.navez (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's because most light poles in Amsterdam also lean in some direction. I have tons of pictures showing leaning light poles, which are even in the center of a picture. If there was a problem with the perspective in this picture, the light poles in the right corner would also be leaning to the right, which they are not. Massimo Catarinella (talk)
Sorry I was wrong. I have not been there for 30 years. --B.navez (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Twice sorry for changing my mind once more but there is really a noticeable problem of distortion. As we cannot rely on buildings which do lean, I looked at the water. As water gives the horizontal reference, axis of reflection must be vertical. The top of the tree is not vertically above its reflexion and the axis of symetry of the light perspective of the canal is not vertical too. --B.navez (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lay a grid over the picture and you will see that the reflection are almost vertical in line with there source..--Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Massimo is right, although not all buildings in Amsterdam lean over forward, just the old ones, up to and including 18th century or so. The perspective is correct. MartinD (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I meant all old buildings along side the canals ;). Thanks for the correction.
Oppose Perspective issues. Lycaon (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I tried to correct the perspective here. Even a 100 point horizontal perspective correction did not bring the reflections in the water in order with there source, although there are practically in order. If you are so convinced there is a problem, try fixing it and show me. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just laid a grid over the picture and the reflections in the water are practically symmetrical in a vertical axis with the sources. In the longer reflections there are only some defects, probably created by wind. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have fixed this proposal : --B.navez (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thank you for your try on this. I think the new version looks worse than the original. If you look at the buildings in the new version they look compressed, like someone put his hand on them and pushed them down (the buildings became shorter). Also the picture look really bloated. So I'll stick to my original opinion. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Why this unfortunate crop? And what about a perspective correction? -- Sanchezn (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The crop was a result of the location itself, I could not get further back without compromising the image. As for the perspective correction, I don't know how! —CyclonenimT@lk? 19:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose no wow, noisy, blurry --Ianare (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Quality is not good as pointed out by Ianare, and the composition seems a bit messy too. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of lack of general quality and wow.
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.
Support It seems like maybe a curves adjustment could improve the contrast, but the lighting is very lively. -- Ram-Man 01:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info Bumped contrast. Hows that? (If not, I'll just delete it) --ShakataGaNai^_^ 02:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Reply[reply]
Oppose Unclear composition, not resolved by the very shallow DOF. Not Wow enough to overlook the flaws --LC-de (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not even close to fp.--Sensl (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Why this one for FP??? --Karelj (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Just read comments of other oponents and you will find lot of why... --Karelj (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Yes, but your Oppose lacks any purpose what so ever. "Why this one" doesn't communicant anything. Perhaps you might consider in the future posting something constructive, rather than asinine. --ShakataGaNai^_^ 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose just ugly composition. --Sailko (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I know that this wote won't change the result, but I kinda like this picture. It looks so real like you can smell it. --Lošmi (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. naerii 19:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info It got featured in 2005 but looking at this image today makes me wonder if it still deserves the status it has. I especially dislike the overexposed sky. (Original nomination)
Delist I think that an average Machu Picchu image I have just uploaded from flickr is better or if it is too small, there are bigger but nicer Machu Picchu photos on commons.--Avala (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delist Excellent location. Fortunately we now have images that were shot under better conditions. Durova (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep (the image on flickr is too small) --Böhringer (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delist the image is too small and the quality too low. -- Ram-Man 11:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I think it is ok to keep it. Considering the low hanging clouds, the sky could and likely was gray, and thus properly exposed. Crapload (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep IMHO its the best Machu Picchu picture Basik07 (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - because it is difficult to create the photo like this without any quality flaws whatsoever. --Avala (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Nice picture but not special enough for FP. The crop seems too tight for me. Also, do i see some posterization in the water? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This is my favorite milkweed flower photo. It's got great composition, DoF, and high quality. It even has an insect. It's useful for illustrating a number of Wikipedia articles. -- Ram-Man 01:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support A tad blurry but I like the composition. --Calibas (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an unreasonable standard. DoF is already quite high for this magnification. The only way around this is to sacrifice resolution (2MP at f/22 vs. 6MP at f/13) or perform focus bracketing, which is not and should not be a requirement here. All the parts of the flowers are sharp in some part of the image, so value is not in quesiton here. -- Ram-Man 21:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or you could have chosen a flatter angle to reduce the front-to-back distance. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you mean? The focus *is* at a front-to-back angle. Notice how the camera is looking down at an angle, thus spreading the focal plane out over a wider range of flowers. This maximizes the focal plane! The flowers were not shot head-on or top-down, which would have destroyed the composition. I have plenty of more clinical views, but they are are much flatter as a result. See this image for a prime example. The apparent DoF is much higher in the nominated image because of the angle, even though both images were shot at the same aperture. This is the version with an FP-level composition. -- Ram-Man 21:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to say I personally prefer that one, but it's a matter of opinion. There is no doubt you have obtained the maximal depth of field consistent with overall sharpness, but not all camera-angles are FP-worthy. Sorry, I think we will just have to disagree on this one. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The DoF at f/13, 70mm, 10" distance is only 4mm or 5mm. Since the individual flowers themselves would fit in a 6mm cube, there is only enough DoF for a single flower to be in pure sharp focus. Obviously DoF does not drop of suddenly, so it looks okay with the gradual drop-off, but nevertheless, there is very little the angle could have done to actually improve this image. We can disagree. I think this is the only FP-worthy composition, you think otherwise. So be it. -- Ram-Man 21:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Neutral The shallow DOF pleases me here: you don't have to have every bud in focus to know what they look like. However I feel the composition is too tight on the bottom. –Dilaudid 17:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like the DOF and the composition. --Chmehl (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral | I think the composition and quality of the image is good, but whats the practical use? Sure, the picture could be used as symbol. If i remember right from my history lessons, Gulags were working camps for (political) prisoniers during Stalinism in Russia and many thousand people died in there. So wouldn't it be more interesting to show the inner life of the camps, for example the bed rooms or working places? Manuel R. (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Your memory serves your right. And as for the purpose of using this photo, I see two possible fields. One would be the article post box, so as to show contrast between this one and those nice, sterotypical, vividly red boxes. The other would be a more artistic (and thus less encyclopedic, surely, but after all this is not just about Wikipedia) depiction of the GULag. I'm no artist or poet, I admit, but what I see in this picture is a gigantic load of sorrow and gloominess coupled with very high quality - that's why I nominated it. And by the way, this particular camp (now a museum) has its own article: de:Perm-36 Gulag-Museum. Airwolf (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - it doesn't show the whole Gulag, just a detail which is completely unimportant for the subject of gulags - a postbox.--Avala (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I would like to underline the fact that this photo's aim is not to show the entire camp. Just the post box on the wall. Airwolf (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This picture doesn't show many other things. I do not understand how a picture of a postbox on a wall should show the whole gulag, or a whole system of gulags in the whole USSR. It is not a panorama of this Gulag. :-) Wulfstan (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I'm going out on a limb here. Apparent encyclopedicness is very low, technical quality is adequate. It's certainly no FP for a post box article, and the symbolism of the picture requires translation. But I think it captures the essence of confinement in a very immediate and iconic way, so it would make a great picture for a Gulag portal or any other way we bracket a series of articles. As such it's very qualified for FP on Commons. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Not good enough image quality, with visible posterization in the sky, lack of detail and dull colours. All of these could of course be mitigated by an exceptional artistic quality, which is not the case. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Composition not strong enough in my view. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support "Symbolic meaning or relevance" - have you, opponents, forgotten the guidelines? Picus viridisRSVP? 18:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support High symbolic meaning: post box as the only way for the people behind the barbwire to communicate with the outside world (even if certainly censored). I appreciate this small detail picture.--Harke (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Total symbolism, thoughtful photo. Wpedzich (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - National voting is unelegant and unfair, and may cause considerable damage to the credibility of FPC. I would withdraw if I were the nominator... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose In my opinion, the symbolic meaning of this image does not compensate enough for the lack of quality and the composition. Chmehl (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As Lycaon - composition. --Karelj (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Poor composition? This is great! -- Ram-Man 11:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It is a well composed (definitely better than I could have) image, but not really outstanding. Crapload (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose CA visible in preview --Base64 (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 17 support, 10 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Beautiful panorama. Perhaps it would look a little bit better with a stronger contrast. Manuel R. (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, too much sky and too little detail. --Aqwis (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Not sharp? Really?--Sensl (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, in my opinion this picture is not enough sharp to be FP. You never contribute any picture, so at least be courteous (lots of your comments are insulting). --Sanchezn (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look who's talking about courtesy! I'm not sure I understood you,Sanchezn. To whom I should be courteous to you as to opposer or to Tobi 87 as a photographer and why my support vote on the the image is insulting to you? Don't you think that it is not exactly courteous to support image taken by your personal friend benh with the vote that the image author himself calls bias? the benh image should be promoted or not promoted, but without you supporting it. Do you still want to discuss what is and what is not courteous?--Sensl (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only supported Benh's picture because it's asked when you contest a FPX (and I still think your reasons were bad). I also supported this picture because I know it will not be featured. About courtesy, comments like "not even close to fp", "A very, very bad photo shop" or "No details in anything, bad lighting, very low quality of a common subject" are not acceptable, especially from someone that doesn't contribute with pictures. In spite of everything, I'm really surprised a user that contributes since july 25 june 5 knows benh is my personal friend? --Sanchezn (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You supported your friend image because you know it is not going to be promoted? Is that right? How interesting! There's no mystery how I learned you and benh are friends. Both of you used the word "courteous" . It is not a common word to use here and it seemed strange to me. I went to your user page and learned that both of you live in France, share the same interests in photography and I saw an image with the description : me and benh working at the same panorama or something like that. Then I knew you were friends. Now, when I know you are roommates too, I assume you're using not only the same uncommon words, but the same IP too? --Sensl (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes we have the same IP and we use the same words!!!!! and???? --Sanchezn (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to justify. I've already told that sanchezn is my long time friend and temporarily a roomate of mine. Although this wouldn't be against the rules, we try not to biase our votes when reviewing a picture of each other. Here, sanchezn just wanted to remove the FPX template, but by doing so, he had to add the support template (or have I got something wrong ?). I told him not to, but he went ahead, as he felt this wouldn't have a lot of consequences. So I don't think there's some insult with sanchezn's votes, and contributions to commons and wikipedia in general. They actually are useful, unlike some harsh comments over here. Benh (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I am not convinced by the composition. There is no real focal point to draw the eye. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per MichaelMaggs and it does not show enough detail in my opinion. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- No subject is the focus of the image. 203.160.118.97 06:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC) please log-in to vote Benh (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Beautiful image, composition is good, but as noted above, it's not sharp. Jennavecia (Talk) 04:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Would like the composition better if there wasn't a tree popping up on the left. The image also has some artefacts and isn't sharp enough. naerii 15:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like it and IMHO it's sharp enough. --LC-de (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose This ist the most standard "postcard view" one could ever do of that building. Besides, it rather shows "garden parterre" than the building. To become more clear about author's mind, please have a look at what he calls "other versions=": That is but linkspam to more of his good resolution but otherwise average stuff, including off-topics. I do not think such should be supported by the community. --WeHaWoe (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, however, this FPC will not succeed. --Aqwis (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks very interesting and artistic, but i can't support it, because i don't see a value for Wikipedia or commons. --SvonHalenbach (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Really featurable picture --B.navez (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Why b/w? Why "that" house? No use of wiki projetcs. If it meant to show a traditional house it should be coloured --Sailko (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - In reading the opposes, I understand the reasoning, but the more I look at this picture, the more it draws me in. Where could it be used? I don't know, but I hope it finds a home. It's truly captivating. It's more artistic than practical, but surely there is a use for this somewhere. Jennavecia (Talk) 04:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Good for Explore! on Flickr, but there's no encyclopedically supportable reason why this was taken in b&w. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment IMO, we should not judge a picture because of its usefulness. No one of us can think of all possibilities where this or other pictures can be used. This picture for example could be used at en:Black-and-white, en:Monochrome photography and en:black and white photography. And outside the wikiworld it can also be used for a cover of a book for example. A half year ago some scientists from the cambridge university in england asked me wether they can use one of my pictures for the cover of their new book. The picture is a picture of a butterfly but the book is about Health and Social Sciences. --Simonizer (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that taking this picture in b&w doesn't add anything to it artistically, and simply reduces the usability. It's simply a gratuitous gesture of artiness to take such a picture in b&w, which is a very good reason not to feature it in an article on monochrome photography, especially not over pictures such as this or this, to use some non-famous examples where the reduction of color is used to enhance the composition. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Strong oppose. Very small usability here and what more, b&w isn't right for this picture in my feeling and it is maybe some strange unprepared b&w which looks as secondary created by some graphic editor. Image has really good composition, but dark sky in contrast to lighted edges of trees (polarizing or at least yellow filter?) looks very very strange. These facts pull down everything except some artistic sense, but artistic view is unimportant. --Martin Kozák (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose might support a color version. Ianare (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Strong support! I agree with Jennavecia and Simonizer. And: This picture is mystic. The white front of the house is a good contrast to the black surrounding area. --Ukuthenga (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice one, but "Oil painting" effect (?) at full size. Benh (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's the "oil painting effect"? --LC-de (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry for the poor english of mine. I think it's not very sharp for a 2000 width pic. It looks like it's been brush strokes paint. Was the picture out of focus and sharpened ? This is most noticeable on the rightmost bird. Benh (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - I don't see the effect mentioned above. All the birds look sharp to me. Jennavecia (Talk) 04:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I agree with technical quality and I find it very illustrative. --B.navez (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I think the resolution/quality is too low for my tastes, but it does meet the guidelines and it is otherwise a pretty good picture. 11:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram-Man (talk • contribs) 11:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Overexposed highlights and the composition is not sufficiently interesting, which is a pity since the birds are cute. Crapload (talk) 04:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support As other co-nom. Not much more to say. Very well known picture and I was a bit surprised that it hadn't been featured before. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Clear, excellent quality, striking image, and with obvious value. Cirt (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Chmehl (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support A picture from last year I just found on my harddisk. Hope you like the mood like I do. -- Chmehl (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I do (as with most of your pictures). Benh (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Building is cut off on the left. Lupo 06:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice building but I don't like the black trees, --128.131.67.101 06:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry forgot to login... Chmehl (talk) 06:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Composition, underexposure. –Dilaudid 09:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Poor composition, I don't like that the image is cut off on the left, and as Dilaudid says above, it is underexposed. naerii 15:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose agree about the underexposure --Simonizer (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Size, flower is artifacted and has blown highlights, font is aliased, use of italics is unclear. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Agree with trials. The font in particular does not look good. Jennavecia (Talk) 13:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose due to technical reasons mentioned above. Also the borders are unnecessary as they do not improve the presentation. –Dilaudid 19:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose technical reasons, as mentioned above. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose a SVG version would be better. Alvaro qc (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Tintero (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose technical reasons as above and no WOW factor to make it an FP picture --SuperJew (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Please do not vote after a nomitation is closed --Tintero (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support A picture I always wanted to take (or something similar with this conditions). No reason to oppose. --Aktron (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Beautifully stunning! --SuperJew (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Please do not vote after a nomitation is closed --Tintero (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral A little bit oversaturated. 15:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment | This is already a featured picture But on the english Wikipedia, which I saw too late. Manuel R. (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The oversaturation makes it appear unreal. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I agree with MichaelMaggs that image looks unreal, but this does not mean, that does not look nice. --Karelj (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral = featured. Jordan Busson (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC) ??? vote is still ongoing (unless withdrawn or FPXed, this is to be closed on the 28th) - Benh (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Too saturated. For the purposes of the Commons, I prefer the original, though this would be fine for advertising. --Specious (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not bad but nothing of the (over)processing (retouching) is indicated on the image page. Lycaon (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral The smoke looks like a painting which I like, but a bit oversaturated forgot to sign --SuperJew (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Please do not vote after a nomitation is closed --Tintero (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support... but same question as Sanchezn and others: why so small? -- MJJR (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think because there is not a good license for pictures on Wikipedia, if you also sell your pictures. This is the same reason I withhold on uploading most of my great ones. Diliff maybe chooses to reduce the resolution of his images. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - I thought it was already featured but apparently what I saw was the tag for FP on en wiki.--Avala (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Downsampling. That excuse is ridiculous, I sell my pictures regardless and I don't keep larger version behind for commercial purposes. FP asks for largest available format. Lycaon (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, is it what are you doing here lycaon selling your pictures? I do not think it is the right place to sell your pictures --Sensl (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I think that that maybe the reason, but that does not mean I am for sure. It is not my picture by the way. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral I can't oppose this very beautiful image, but I also can't support because of the dramatic downsampling from 60MPix to 2.3MPix. Chmehl (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support What is wrong about downsampling?! The picture how it is is great....who cares how big the pic was before?! --AngMoKio (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because downsampling dramatically reduces the quality of the image, and the ways in which the image can be used. In full size this could be printed in large scale while in this size it cannot. In full size portions of the image could be used as high quality prints while now they cannot. The requirement for the largest possible size is stated in our image guidelines according to which the images should be evaluated. –Dilaudid 19:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reduces the quality of the picture? In what way? It has more than 2 mpx and that is all that counts. What if the picture wouldn't be a stiched picture but a normal picture of a digicam with just 2mpx - then it would be ok?! --AngMoKio (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't want to play the devil' advocate here, but the amount of mpx's is within wikipedia's guidelines. So legally there is nothing from with downsizing. Further more Wikipedia should not be a source for printing photographs. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From the nomination guidelines: "They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible." /Daniel78 (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That rule is ridiculous, and ridiculous rules should be ignored. For one, other than from the creator, how should we know a picture was downsampled? For two, that downsampling automatically reduces image quality is nonsense. Larger images also make artifacts more visible, so whenever a large scale picture reveals more artifacts than image details, downsampling is a very obvious tool to improve image quality. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Downsampling automatically reduces image quality is nonsense" --> Try this then: "Here is your 12oz steak sir, we felt it had a better appearance as a 4oz steak, be sure to thank us and tip us well as reducing the content (amount of stuff) does not affect the quality...." -- carol (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a rule is ridiculous it should not be ignored, it should be changed. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support If he wouldn't of mentioned it's downsampled you wouldn't know and it doesn't affect the picture you have now --SuperJew (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Out of date. --Tintero (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I really regret that I can't support this very nice document, but sharpness is not crisp, and the editing created some noise. Sorry... -- MJJR (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I added an edited version here: (sharpened, rotated, black border removed). ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like your edit and would support either. Would you mind including the identification key? Durova (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info Just a side note on authorship: Sidney Hall was merely the etcher of the cards. The original appeared in a box of 32 cards called Urania's Mirror, attributed to "A Lady". As it turned out, this "lady" was Reverend Richard Rouse Bloxam of Rugby, England, who hid behind the pseudonym likely to avoid charges of plagiarism. Oh and the box set has been reprinted by Barnes & Noble in 2004. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
29 of the images are available in high resolution scans through the Library of Congress. This was an independent restoration. Durova (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Disagree with choice of focal length for such big buildings. I prefer if it would be closer to natural eye vision (50/55). 28 mm makes artificial distortion (and perspective correction would seem artificial too). This means it would have been probably necessary to stitch 2 or 3 pictures. I also find composition too poor. Wasn't it possible to take one of the almond trees around as a foreground ? --B.navez (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As above - blurry. --Karelj (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like the composition, a tree in the foreground might be too disctracting. The choice of the focal length is imposed by the location, the temple is on a hill and moving farther away would lead to a view from a still lower position, leading to a less impressive view. --Bjs (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like this shot very much. If someone can provide us with a higher quality image, we can delist this, but I think the composition and the choice of lighting is very good. --Specious (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- I think its too unsharp, mainly the left part, and "washed out" Manuel R. (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Shows great facial details of the chicken -- Muhammad 18:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry, DOF too shallow. f/8 would have been better. -- Sanchezn (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But its just a few of the feathers thats out of focus, the main facial features that the picture is about are very sharp. Muhammad 19:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose DOF ok in my opinion. The picture is good, but the light is harsh and the background has a boring colour, so WOW is missing IMO --Simonizer (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image suffers strongly form CA, is a bit CW tilted and has an unfortunate composition.
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.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is noisy and suffers from CA.
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.
Oppose the subject of the photo is small and indistinct and the picture lacks sharpness throughout. R-T-C Tim (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose clarity is focussed on the foreground rooflines whilst the declared subject in the background is muffled. -- Nancy (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Phil13 (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. Phil13 (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Small size + nothing interesting = no wow. --Karelj (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I think its too unsharp and not a very good composition. But nothing interesting? There are a lot of people who are interested in military things. -- Manuel R. (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Very interesting place, but I'm sure a better picture could be planned in that location. This composition is rather cryptic. --Specious (talk) 07:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose For a featured picture, it should show more details of the duck. So I would have made the picture from an other perspective and brought the duck in sharper focus. Manuel R. (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose No wow, and should see more features of the duck to be FP --SuperJew (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. naerii 10:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Wow too ! Mais où vas-tu chercher tout ça ?? Pour ma curiosité, as-tu recadré l'image ? je vois un peu de bruit, ce qui est très surprenant sur un D300 à 200 ISO. Benh (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
J'ai trouvé cela près de chez moi, des cascadeurs ambulants ;) Oui c'est recardé, une version non cadrée ici:[2] mais pour Wikipédia trop large par rapport au sujet! Pour le bruit, je suis souvent critiqué, mais j'imprime mes photos sur papier et la réduction du bruit fait perdre de la "matière" à l'image imprimée. Le bruit est bien visible lors d'un agrandissements 1:1 à l'écran mais pas en impression, au contraire il donne un beau rendu. J'ai donc coupé toute réduction du bruit sur le boîtier, je fais en premier mes photos pour les imprimer. Je gère cela au cas par cas en raw. Mais question de goût je ne lisse plus mes images ;) --Luc Viatour (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
D'accord, merci pour ces explications. Je tiens à dire que j'apprécie beaucoup ce que tu fais, et qu'il n'y a aucune critique ici. Je suis juste curieux (on me dit tellement du bien du D300). Benh (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Le D300 corrige un grand retard de Nikon par rapport à Canon au niveau du bruit, il est actuellement pour moi un des meilleurs boîtiers mais Canon ne va pas tarder à répondre ;) --Luc Viatour (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SupportParlez vous anglais s'il vous plait :). Beaucoup de gens de Wikipedia ne parlent pas de Francais. Le photograph est incroyable. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not write much in English because I write really bad, so I have great difficulty explaining a few things! --Luc Viatour (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am able to understand what you just wrote :)! Just give it your best try. Otherwise maybe some of use can translate. -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Je connais (et j'aime) bien Ciney, mais je ne savais pas qu'on pouvait y voire des choses si spectaculaires. C'est bien plus brûlant encore que les poêles que l'on y fabriquait jadis. Nice work! -- MJJR (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Looks as the picture of the year!--Sensl (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This is a change from his typical macro shots, but it is once again spectacular. The best fire picture we have (I'd delist some others perhaps). -- Ram-Man 11:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the quality is really good, but why the wine is on the floor??? -- Sanchezn (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because it has been taken in Romanian mountains and unfortunately I haven't a portable studio in my backpack. But generally because of ideal contrast and combination of colors and balance of light. --Martin Kozák (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, my question wasn't clear... why you didn't photography the wine on the tree? -- Sanchezn (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I bought it in village in valley one hour before. --Martin Kozák (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info Vertical panorama of the Empire state building. Please note that this image is sharp at over 33MP and was created using exposure blending to show detail at the rather dark street level. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen (talk)
Support The whole image seems to be a little bit hazy, but the details are absolutely amazing. Great work! -- MJJR (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like this one for the details, even with this overexposed sky... -- Sanchezn (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, but what makes you think the sky is overexposed? --Dschwen (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
maybe overexposed is not the good word because it's probably white... but too white. -- Sanchezn (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Do not like how the sky looks.--Sensl (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I'm not a fan of cityscapes, but this one has both technical quality and a good composition. FP-worthy IMO. Lycaon (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The technical merit of this picture is off the charts, so that needs no further discussion. But. The only way to actually notice this is to download the 18MB full size version, which <1% of users ever do. For the other >99% this is quite simply boring (esp. for a NYC shot), with a lot of gratuitous detail wasted on midtown office buildings, water tanks, a/c units and excavators. The Brooklyn Bridge is invisible, the Verrazano Narrows Bridge and the Statue of Liberty disappear in the haze. The main subject of the picture is lost in the middle distance and is shot from an unfortunate angle (the lower part is hidden, the western facade is a white vertical bar). This picture is like one of those piano pieces that are technically dazzling but leave one cold otherwise. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sigh, with that rationale all pictures you will ever get only show the Empire State Building, or the famous bridges. It was my intention to show what you call boring midtown buildings as well. I don't think they are boring at all! Pardon my naivite but this part of the skyline is almost never pictured, and I spent literally hours on top of the Rockefeller center soaking up all those little details. I thought this composition, which extends the the well known image of the Empire State building and allows the eye to wander further down than most pictures, was kind of exciting. Amazing how opinions may differ... --Dschwen (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are any number of midtown rooftop pictures, some of which are actually quite compelling. This one here doesn't really know what it wants, it doesn't focus on the ESB, doesn't capture the whole island and doesn't zoom in on a compelling rooftop landscape. Compositionally it's pretty scattershot. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Too gray for me and sad looking. --Aktron (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support You apparently missed a shot (blurred part at (1500, 4250)) ;) Benh (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As Aktron, too flat, not sharp enough. --Karelj (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sharp enough? That's a joke, right? Just want to clarify, since other voters might take you seriously... --Dschwen (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not a bad shot, but not a particularly difficult one to obtain either. Easier enough to get under better conditions--such as after a rainfall when the air has less pollution, or late in the afternoon when the lighting is better. A fresh snowfall in New York City has a magical effect for a few hours. Try again and surprise us. Durova (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah sure, just drop me a quick note when to embark on the 14 hour journey to NYC and shell out another $20 to get on top of the Rock. Let's hope the air will be real clear by the time I get up there. Cause we don't want a representative view of NYC, it should be the once in a lifetime crystal clear air day... --Dschwen (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No offense intended. The New Yorkers are having a meetup this weekend; maybe they can take up a collection. (The Staten Island Ferry is a lot cheaper and gives good views of the harbor at night). Best wishes, Durova (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I give up. This is like suggesting the Grand Canyon at sunset looks nicer maybe someone should take the picture there. --Dschwen (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And as far as not a particularly difficult one to obtain goes: this shot is a composite of 45(!) pictures and uses exposure blending. I have an even higher resolution version on my HD, but the upload limit kicked in. --Dschwen (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Amazing picture. --Lošmi (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support OK so maybe not the most exciting view when thumbed, still amazing at full res. --Ianare (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Technically flawless, fascinating detail, excellent without doubt. --Dontpanic (talk) 10:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Well, I don't often find panos interesting, but this one kept me busy for a good twenty minutes - I'm in awe at the incredible level of detail! It's a bit grey, but IMO this is a good shot of how New York typically looks - you don't often get picture perfect weather there. It's a city, for god's sake, they tend to look a bit shit when you see them close up :) This image is valuable & interesting, and as such is a perfect FP. naerii 13:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW:I downloaded the pic, tried a contrast adjustment to fully saturated shadows and found the result quite improved. -- Dontpanic (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Excellent shot, very valuable, but unfortunately much underappreciated. Freedom to share (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SuperSupport I can NOT believe anyone could have opposed such a picture. So many great details... Simply wonderful. Muhammad 17:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support it show a number of interesting items that give it a wow factor, one it shows how the Empire State Building is a dominant feature of the NY Skyline. I gives perspective to size and scale of NY as a city, for someone who's never been thats a bonus. I also see the haze as a plus NY is a city I'd expect to have atmospheric elements. What would be an additional bonus would to see this converted to a line drawing(gimp has a tool to that) and a key made to identify the other points that would also be of interest. Gnangarra 01:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I have half a mind to oppose this simply due to the fact that I really believe that the photographer lied when he said he did not use a tripod, monopod or other to take the 'graphs. -- carol (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hehe, and I'm sure I'll never succeed to convince you otherwise. I could show you a set of night time pics taken an hour later, where I screwed up >50% of the shots due to lack of a tripod, which makes me really sad as I will have major problems to assemble an HDR pano as I planned to. I suggest you visit the Rock the next time you make it to NYC and witness the big bulky security guard types who'd shove the a tripod one leg per orifice up (/down?) your body ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Daniel regulating his own daily coffee dosage/intake.... -- carol (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Great picture! Good work! --Lemi15 (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Everything (except for one silly oppose) agrees this is technically fine. As for the composition, not everything has to be of an important landmark. I have no issue with this composition. Even at thumbnail level is has some appeal. -- Ram-Man 00:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, --what kind of camera and lens did you use? Rasilon 18:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Canon EOS 5D with a Sigma 150mm Macro (well, macro is not really relevant here, the lens focuses all the way to infinity and has great optical properties, it is a fixed focal length after all). This image was taken with the same combination, and it shows the lens' sharpness at 100% (no downsampling). --Dschwen (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposeStrong fisheye effect, distracting shadows, no details in trees, the composition is too centered and too boring, the castle looks small and not impressive at all. --Sensl (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noooo!!!! just about the fisheye effect.... the white border is really circular!!! :-) -- Sanchezn (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Perfectly centred, as this style of image should be. Deep shadows on trees focus the eye in. It is a shame that the camera wasn’t a little higher, to ensure a complete reflection of the building. Snowwayout (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support There's only the illusion of a fisheye effect. Notice the trees on the far right and left are straight. --Calibas (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The symmetric lines make this picture work. --85.223.118.251 17:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC) please log in to vote Benh (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support friend support ;) -- Benh (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Good attempt, but technically not very good. Sharpness is lacking (especially left) and details as a whole are insufficient. Stitching looks fine. Lycaon (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info Reine on the Lofoten island Moskenesoy, Norway; created, uploaded and nominated by LC-de. The pic was first nominated some days ago. I withdrawed the nomination to deal with some minor problems first. So here's the result... -- LC-de (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of the tilt. No chance of promotion this way. - Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[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.
Rasilon (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC). What if I resubmit with tilt removed?Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of the chaotic composition and background -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Comment FPX not applicable here. Chaotic composition is a matter of taste and not a guideline violation. --norro 09:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is only one way to remove the FPX template, which is adding a support vote. Nothing in the guidelines limits the use of the of FPX template. And yes, a "too busy composition" is a guideline violation -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose FP candidate spam by nominator --Romwriter (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment he's just a bit over-enthusiastic as it is his first time here. he won't spam again. anyway spam is not a criteria for if it is good or not. --SuperJew (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question What in the composition doesn't convince you? How can I fix it in future pictures? --SuperJew (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Subject is centered in the picture, which is often boring. In addition subject is cropped and background is not too nice. It's really hard to take a good zoo shot. --norro 16:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of bad technical quality (unsharp, washed out details, highlights, purple fringing, compostion) --Simonizer (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Comment - To Karelj and Alvaro qc - do not say "nothing interesting." This is vandalism. Do not revert this. Turbo Golf (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: because it is tilted, and has a low quality. Details are totally washed out --Simonizer (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Info Harbour of Hamnøy on the Lofoten island Moskenesøy; created, uploaded and nominated by LC-de -- LC-de (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very StrongOppose We already have two FP images of the very same species of dragonfly taken by the very same photographer. I mean how many more we need?--Sensl (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Striking away my vote not because I believe FP should be represented by the images of the identical insects, I do not, but because this particular image is of a female and two current FP are of males, one of which should be delisted I believe.--Sensl (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So sad we have none of yours. Please stop this nonsense opposes. Lycaon (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see great progress in your comments, Lycaon - instead of striking away my support vote as you did few days ago now you simply called mu oppose vote "nonsense" . I'm glad that the warning I left on your talk page and that you deleted had at least some effect.--Sensl (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I think we have a bunch of featured pictures from her... :-) -- Sanchezn (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That "her" means me? If so it's a him. :) -- Laitche (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No!!! of course not!!!! "her" is for sensl (my comment was an answer to Lycaon). I think a good picture earn to be FP even if we have already lots of the same type. -- Sanchezn (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. I misunderstood. Thanks Sanchezn. -- Laitche (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons does absolutely NOT have any limitation to how many FPs we can have of one subject. --Aqwis (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support wer kennt das Sensl Problem ? :-) --Böhringer (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Wieso? Hat di ana geh(s)enslt? ;-) --Simonizer (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ich verstehe es nicht... kannst du übersetzen, bitte? Ich will auch lachen !!!! -- Sanchezn (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its difficult to translate that because its a word-play in a german dialect --Simonizer (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Wow, it never crossed my mind that these FP (fat pigs) could deserve such an honour! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- A uncommon subject, which I think makes this picture special Manuel R. (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Don't like the straight forward composition. --norro 14:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposeDo not like the background. I have nothing against ZOO images as long as they look like they were taken in the wild.--Sensl (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info - Well, this is hardly a type of pig we can find in the wild... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed - in this case, a "natural" background is way more "fake" than a zoo background. --Aqwis (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe "wild" was not exactly the right word. I meant I would have liked to see something more special like for instance :[3][4] with absolutely natural and not "fake" background.--Sensl (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ts, ts... Maybe you would like to nominated one of those?... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ts, ts..., don't worry, your piggs will get promoted.--Sensl (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not enouhg quality, slightly distorted lines... --Karelj (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WeakOppose This panorama was shot in a close distance, so the size of the building couldn't be presented to the viewer quickly. Moreover, if the lighting was similar to Image:Chora_Church_Constantinople_2007_Panorama.jpg, it would be amazing. --Base64 (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Lamp is somewhat distracting the view. Sorry. It could convince me if there was no person in the picture. --Ltz Raptor (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Just in case...) This one was a bit borderline as some people voted 'weak'; if weak votes are counted as full votes, then the nomination fails, if they are discounted it (literally just) passes, and if they are counted as (say) half-votes then it fails; I decided to err on the side of caution and close as not featured. naerii 08:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question If they are from the same manuscript (assumed), then why do they have a different colour? Or are they just combined to make the size (only just) featurable? Lycaon (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the linked source files show, two centuries of aging have resulted in a different appearance for the two pages of this manuscript. I suspect part of the explanation may be chemical: both originals were stained. I minimized this difference during restoration. Due to the scanning resolution there were technical limits on how far that could go. Durova (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -- I like very much the last Beethoven sonatas (especially op.106 and 111) but am not sure this should be a feature picture. Abstracting the fact that the manuscript is almost unreadable(at least for me), due to the terrible quality of Beethoven handwriting, is there anything is in this image justifying a promotion for "graphical" excelence? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yesterday morning when I worked on these files I chuckled at the thought of some schoolmarm giving Beethoven a bad grade for penmanship. When I was a child and first saw artistic studies by Picasso in a museum, I thought there were kids in my class who could draw better. In both cases you're seeing the mind of a genius at work. Durova (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Document a haute valeur encyclopédique --Luc Viatour (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Translation: Document has high encyclopaedic value[.] --96.251.134.253 23:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Inspiring image!--Sensl (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Single images of the composition far to small for FP. In this particular case adding two (different coloured) pages from the manuscript adds no extra value (as e.g. in here or here). EV is not questioned. Lycaon (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Image has high value for encyclopedia, indeed because of who Beethoven was, but not a high enough resolution for FP. To me personally the image has no value, for I don't know the content. --Ltz Raptor (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. naerii 08:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I must admit I didn't watch this image in full size, I just trusted en FP ... When trying to identify the islands seen on the right, I've found no Canada and no Greenlad here. There is the sea in most of the image. Especially artifacts in center of the shadow are hard to explain using cities theory. --Sfu (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Cool image. But is up north ? I have a hard time recognicing exactly where the land is. And there are many bright spots scattered over the image, what are they ? /Daniel78 (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Tons of artefacts (bright spots) spoil the picture. Lycaon (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you mean that city lights? If so, that's how the Earth it's seen from above in the moment of the Eclipse (if that's what you mean). Minisarm (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WOW, the great cities of the north pole ;-). Lycaon (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure there are a few towns and villages, but the bright spots seem to be mostly at sea and between the pack ice...??? And if they were on land, they would never account for the spots: population density is extremely low over there. Moreover, the 'lights' are visible where there is no umbra, so no need for illumination during Arctic summer. Nope, just artefacts, probably as explained in the link below. -- Lycaon (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I changed my mind, it looks like those white spots are actually errors, and in that case there are way too much of it. Is this what it is ? They look quite directional to me. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose This is interesting (to some), but it's not visually that beautiful. Perhaps this is a good candidate for the Valued Image contest. --Specious (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose high wow, but has too many artefacts ... some are even blue rectangles Ianare (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. -SuperJew (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right! Courtesy to National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States of America, strong artifacts. --Base64 (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. naerii 08:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support An amazing panoply of caricatures. A review 50 years later said it was "the most talented caricature that has ever appeared". The Prince of Wales paid a large sum of money to have this image suppressed and its plate destroyed. -- Eubulides (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Interesting document with an excellent description. -- MJJR (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- AVRS (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC) --AVRS (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Revoking my active support because of the DoF comments below. The point was the “wow factor”, if I understand it correctly, that comes when you look at a thumbnail (see the comment below after looking at it). --AVRS (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info created by Massimo Catarinella - uploaded by Massimo Catarinella - nominated by Massimo Catarinella -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose regretfully because I like the place and the mood. I think it was taken a taaaad too soon ; buildings are too dark compared to the sky. Buildings are leaning outward as well. Benh (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment I've seen that an Autoequalisation in Corel Photo Paint gives a better result. --Alex:D (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Silfiriel (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
QuestionWhat exactly do you mean by "the topic is too small"? I didn't identified the bird firmly because, it's not my field of expertise, although I am sure it's Mediterranean Seagull. How to fix this? But if the photo doesn't have what it takes to be a quality image, just say so, I like negative critics. Should I rename the photo to "A pair of hovering Mediterranean Seagulls" Am I boring you?-- Silfiriel (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Neutral Not much wow, but good quality... Can't decide. Leo Johannes (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg)
Strong support Craziest shit I've seen in a long time! Picture of The Year material. –Dilaudid 19:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Awesome! Alvaro qc (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg)
Alternate 1
Alternate 2
another existing FP of Mount Everest
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
. Its only error I have spotted being the apparent tilt to the left of the horizon. -- Benh (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
.jpg)
Comment Composition is a matter of taste and no technical issue and therefore no FPX reason. --norro 18:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
.jpg)
.JPG)
_09633u.jpg)
Keep Very valuable image despite its small resolution. See previous deletion request for more input. --Kimse (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
--B.navez (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
(sharpened, rotated, black border removed). ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_09633u.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_09633u.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/Pigpic.gif){kind=link}
