Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 15:29:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:AllianzArenaII.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:AllianzArenaII.jpg
Oppose the spot you chose is a bit unfortunate. I havent walked around there but there seems to be quite good spot to make pics of that stadium. Good old Richard took some very good pics from there. --AngMoKio (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2009 at 14:34:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mignon Nevada Ophelia2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mignon Nevada Ophelia2.jpg
Comment I just about wept when seeing this beautiful piece so lovingly restored, while browsing through WP:Featured Pictures. I really couldn't go past those hauntingly beautiful eyes...
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 12:41:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:U S Air Force Thunderbirds.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:U S Air Force Thunderbirds.jpg
Info That's exactly the point. Thunerbird 5 (the Lead Solo) is the one that flies upside down in all stunts where an upside down flight is necessary. Wolf (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps a formality supporting this image but it is really good. Agree as been stated above that it does take a special kind of divvy to attempt such a stunt, perhaps retaking this image would be a daft idea (least of all for the photographer). Its a while since an image stunned me so much (mostly at how bloody daft some people can be!) Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2009 at 04:22:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lake Manyara Wildlife.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lake Manyara Wildlife.jpg
Karel, I can take constructive criticism. But "no wow" is kind of lame, and empty (and some of the images you have voted for lacks any "wow" in them). I hope you did notice the use of DoF to show four distinct 'layers' - from foreground to background, with animals in their natural habitat and movements. --eismcsquare02:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2009 at 08:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Probably the best photo of Dead Vlei we have. I first saw that location in the films The Cell and The Fall, both of which use it to add to their surreal atmosphere. This quality is captured really well in the candidate image. -- JovanCormac11:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2009 at 07:21:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:GlenHelenGorge NorthernTerritory Panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:GlenHelenGorge NorthernTerritory Panorama.jpg
Comment Thanks for your comment and attention to detail helping to improve the image. I had accidentally stripped the EXIF while cut/paste cropping in GIMP. I've resaved with the original data and cloned dark sky regions. See what you think now. --~ (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about your color profile ? When I download the image, open it in Firefox (v.3.5.3 – color mode by default) and compare it to the one opened in Photoshop, it's displayed like if it hasn't any profile embedded and with pretty harsh saturation, well far from sRGB rendering. Btw, when I open it in Photoshop, it tells me there's no profile embedded in the image. Weird, isn't it? Sting (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit out of my depth on this one. I'm sure the camera only takes sRGB (that is the default and I haven't changed it), and each image is marked as such. Would it have been mysteriously changed during the use of hugin/GIMP/Picasa? I hardly did any manipulation, so I doubt anything would have changed it. I use firefox and it looks accurate... 99of9 (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Open it in IE which doesn't handle color management and you'll notice the colors are the same than in FF, which means no sRGB profile is embedded in the image. But if you think these saturated colors with imo an unreal sky are ok... it's your taste. Anyway, I'm uploading a version with the sRGB profile embedded (no other change has been made) so you can see what I'm meaning. If you don't like it, just revert to your previous version. Sting (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical quality insufficient for FP: Looks somewhat blurry and washed out in full resolution, especially on the sides. --NEURO⇌11:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info This discussion comes up every few weeks for panoramics with high resolution. 99of9 could have uploaded a downsampled image only and you would say that it's sharp now. However we should engage people to upload full resolution pictures (this one has almost 25 MP). Judging such large images on computer screens at 100% is nonsense because you actually look at a small zoomed area. Reduce to 50% on screen to get an idea how sharp an image will look as a printed poster. --Ikiwaner (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Ikiwaner is correct that I have not downsampled at all since (I even turned off the hugin default) since I wanted to provide users with as much information as possible. 99of9 (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO lacking sharpness is not the only issue with this image as I pointed out above. As to downsampling or not downsampling: an image that is overall blurry contains redundant information (a form of w:Oversampling if you will). By downsampling you get rid of that redundancy but the information content is the same. Thus downsampling isn't always a bad thing. --NEURO⇌22:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2009 at 08:02:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment If it a colourfull HDR, the image gets shot down for unrealistic colours. If you get a plain image, it is shot down because of dull colours. Weird, huh? --Muhammad (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2009 at 21:04:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:US Navy 041201-N-4308O-030 An F-A-18 Hornet assigned to the Silver Eagles of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron One One Five (VMFA-115), prepares to launch from one of four steam powered catapults.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:US Navy 041201-N-4308O-030 An F-A-18 Hornet assigned to the Silver Eagles of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron One One Five (VMFA-115), prepares to launch from one of four steam powered catapults.jpg
Weak oppose, if even I can see the technical flaws (see above), that means there is clearly something wrong with the picture. A pity... Airwolf (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info One should be a bit more careful when judging an image like this terrible or Promoting this is a non-sense. The pic was shot back in 2004 with a Nikon D2H. This was Nikons flagship-line professional camera that cost USD 6000 for the body only. It had 4.1 MP. There was simply no better technology available. The photographer Ryan O'Connor knew what he was doing by shooting this with manual exposure and spot metering. Who ever did a picture of fog knows that this tends to be noisy. Besides the fact that noise is better visible in uniform areas such as fog the fog itself is no homogeneous structure. Therefore I would not recommend to apply a strong denoising filter because the fog would look like semi-transparent plastic. Kudos to Ryan! --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Daniel, I doubt that noise, posterization and artifacts are all camera-induced if we're talking about 2004 technology. Point-and-shoot cameras were better than that in 2004 (my 1 year old 5 mpx sony point-and-shoot was already 1 year old when this got taken). This picture's histogram was probably stretched one way or another, causing low contrast areas, like fog, to be severly degraded. --S23678 (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beside the compression artifacts - which can ruin any photograph taken with both-handedly wielded best and most recent camera in the world, using state-of-the-art deep-matrix metering system, this photo is just FA-18 in the fog. Looks nice, but not informative enough. -- Blago Tebi (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not fog, this is steam from the catapult that is about to launch this aeroplane in the air. This is imho a very illustrative picture exactly because of what you call "fog". — Preceding unsigned comment added by GerardM (talk • contribs) 19:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mind that I have written "informative", not "illustrative". It would maybe be informative had the "fog" be visibly being emitted from mentioned catapult. Here, I don't see any catapult. Thus, I have to rely on your written description. Now, that is not enough information in the picture, sorry. -- Blago Tebi (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 11:38:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small.
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 16:47:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spider webs in Muir Woods.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spider webs in Muir Woods.jpg
Infow:Muir Woods is always dark, even on a bright sunny day. The trees are too tall to let the sun through. Yesterday I've noticed many spider webs that were lit by the sun rays in some places. I was amazed by mystic of the lights and shadows that are clearly seen at spider webs and some Autumn leaves. It was almost as Photographing a model #2, only now it was all natural. BTW how many spider webs do you see :)
Oppose It's a little too hard to see what's going on in this picture (darkness, no clear center of attention). Also sharpness problems. -- JovanCormac09:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 22:24:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zvíkov 8.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zvíkov 8.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 03:57:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:City Lights at Night.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:City Lights at Night.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's composition and quality are sub-standard to normal FPs. --S23678 (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Comment Anyone with some Vietnamese skills could write to Mr Lê and explain him a little about FPC? Out of the 10 FPCs he nominated, he received a total of 1 support vote (considered "weak support" even)... --S23678 (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2009 at 21:14:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:360 degrees fogbow.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:360 degrees fogbow.jpg
Info It is a very rare indeed 360 degrees w:fogbow. Of course nothing is really sharp at the image because of the fog that made fogbow possible. There is even no need to see the image in the full view. The whole thing is seen better in the preview. My shadow in the middle could not have been avoided. Fogbows are always formed around antisolar point, and besides isn't this fun to see your own shadow inside ghostly looking white circle
Low modesty levels detected ;) It's a good representation of a very rare phenomena, but IMO it's not an eye-catching image, as the rest of the FPs usually are. That's why we have VIs. --Leafnode✉13:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is, where we differ. IMO the image, is very much eye-catching, interesting and educational. It surely cautht your eyes, if you bothered to oppose :)--Mbz1 (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the phenomenon is rare enough or the composition is exceptional enough to mitigate the low quality. --S23678 (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what makes you to think that the phenomena is not rare enough? Have you seen it yourself? Have you taken an image of it? Have you seen many images of the same phenomena taken by others? Were they better than the nominated image? Just wonder :) BTW the quality is not low, it is almost as good as it gets with such images.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that most of your pictures are extremely rare, that word looses a bit of it's value when you use it... But since you provide pictures of this phenomenon on 2 other separate occasions in the Fogbow category, I guess it's not that rare. And, no, I am not a specialist, but I'm probably not more a specialist than the people who supported your picture. --S23678 (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that I am lying, when I said that the image is very rare? I have quite a few images nominated now, and I did not use the words "extremely rare" to describe any one of them, but that one. Maybe you could link to my other nominations, where I used the words "extremely rare" to describe my image. BTW I said that this fogbow was "very rare" and not "extremely rare". About fogbows. They are more or less rare. "Very rare" are 360 degrees, full circle fogbows, the one, which is nominated now. But I guess you do not see, and do not want to see the difference. May I please suggest you to give it another thought before making the statements as you did? Please have a nice day. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference is that I could prove my disagreements with you with the facts, while you are good only at ignorant talking without any proves at all :) --Mbz1 (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I'm keeping on going with this, but I guess I'm taking it as a challenge. I'm wondering what kinds of facts you need from me, so I added notes on the image about the quality problems. For the rest, it's a mater of personal taste. You think the rareness of the phenomenon is a good enough mitigating reason for the defects that your image have, that's ok, after all, that's why you nominated your image. But I have the right to think that it's not a strong enough mitigating reason as well... If everyone had the same opinion, what a boring place FPC would be. So, is this the last round? --S23678 (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in continuing that discussion either, but I'd like yo explain what statements of yours prompted me to respond the way I did. First was that one (highlighted by me) "I don't think the phenomenon is rare enough or the composition is exceptional enough to mitigate the low quality." In that statement you put my statement that the phenomena is very rare under doubt. You had no reason to do it. You know nothing about fogbows. IMO, if a person "thinks" about something, he'd better be able to explain what made him to think that way. Even after I explained to you why this particular fogbow is very rare you did not bother to admit you were wrong about rarety of the phenomena. The other statement was that one: "Given that most of your pictures are extremely rare, that word looses a bit of it's value when you use it..." I asked to give some examples of those. You did not bother to respond.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I agree that some of the images attributes are not perfect (colour is a little dull), I think that would be splitting hairs when accounting for how special this image this is. Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2009 at 21:35:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sanger Institute and Hinxton Hall, Cambridge, UK.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sanger Institute and Hinxton Hall, Cambridge, UK.jpg
Oppose Oversaturated, even to a point where the tone-mapping software created a halo around the red building in the distance. -- H00521:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Such a saturation would actually not be that bad if there was no man-made objects, since trees at fall can be deeply colourful, but it's not the case. Composition is not optimal as well. --S23678 (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Not sure whether I'd support it as FP (just had a quick glance), but it's a significant progress. -- H00521:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. At this level of correction you get awful artifacts. Check the shadows on the building on the right side. And why this need for dramatic photographs? --Blago Tebi (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment die andere Version ist viel besser. Für ein QI würde ich erwarten, dass du die Lichter (Fassaden) noch besser in den Griff kriegst, die sollten nicht überbelichtet sein, da sie sonst wie sterne funkeln und so das Bild stören. Bin gespannt auf die Resultate! --Ikiwaner (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 03:25:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eiffel Tower at night.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eiffel Tower at night.png
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2009 at 20:50:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Echium wildpretii LC0203.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Echium wildpretii LC0203.jpg
Support Technical criticims is less important than the composition. The colours are good too. Quite a nice foto with the cloud in sky. --Korman (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2009 at 16:40:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2009 at 16:19:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Puck cover2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Puck cover2.jpg
Comment Considering the questions being asked about the role of the USA in world affairs, I thought this was a rather appropriate picture to be featured. As always, thanks go to the wonderful and talented Durova, whose (often overlooked) work contributes so much to what makes Commons a world class image collection.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 18:00:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Venezia - suggestiva foto con giochi di luce.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Venezia - suggestiva foto con giochi di luce.jpg
Oppose I won't FPX, since it will generate ridiculous support votes, but : composition (element on top right corner) and quality (noise, low resolution, as in amount of details). I would request someone else to FPX for me. Thanks. --S23678 (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
S23678, IMO it is not the right thing to do to call "ridiculous" support votes of the people, who have an opinion that differes from your own.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Very blurry and noisy. --Aqwis (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 15:39:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Two silhouette profile or a white vase.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Two silhouette profile or a white vase.jpg
Oppose More VI. This image is not of high artistic merit High artistic merit is not intended for such images in the guidelines, so I remove this, but maintain what's written below. --S23678 (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)--S23678 (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to add this : (in the sense that it's a widely known optical illusion, hence making it not very exceptional). Don't get me wrong, the illusion is well done. I just can't see it's exceptional character, as required for FP. --S23678 (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I totally agree with you on this point, but as much as a cliché shot of Machu Picchu must have some exceptional character to it to make it better than most of the other cliché shots done at the same spot, this widely done optical illusion must have some exceptional character for it to make it FP, IMO --S23678 (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the merits that I do not think we have a single optical illusion image featured, and on what merits you opposed the image, if I may ask? Not that I am really interested to find out. I mean who cares --Mbz1 (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should read featured picture criteria. FP is not a picture that we don't have nothing against. First picture has to fulfill some requirements, that this picture does not fulfill. First of all, picture should be the finest of commons. Exceptional. This simple drawing is not exceptional. We even have a whole category for pictures like this. I really don't see any feature that makes this image better than the other vase/faces images. I don't know what you meant by saying "Again familiar all faces", but I sense that conspiracy theories are coming on soon. --Leafnode✉21:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should read feature picture criteria. Of course the nominated image is the only one from vase/faces that could have been promoted to FP because it meets the size requiremnet, while others do not. Besides you did not even bother to read what I said about the image. It is not a drawing. The image was made from a photograpgh of a real young man that I took last night.I am not sure what "conspiracy theories" you are talking about, but IMO it will be better, if you kept your "sences" to yourself, except of course sense of humor that I believe you're missing --21:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not familiar with vector drawing, and have no idea how such images are made :( I looked at the category, and saw the images of only low resolution. Then I decided it will be fun to make the same image with the real face and of a high resolution. I still believe I've done nothing wrong, when I nominated the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you did nothing wrong. Anyone can nominate any image. And while I tend to put self-nominations under scrutiny ;), it is still just vote, with no very strict rules regarding the substance of pictures (only technical matters), so (almost) any vote is valid. I could have added more philosophical remarks, but that is not the place for my opinions, and you probably won't like to listen to them, so I'll pass here :) Cheers --Leafnode✉22:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW thanks for telling me about vector drawing. Now I know why my image is an exptional between vase/faces - it is the only one that is not a drawing! Best, --Mbz1 (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vector images are readily made with Inkscape. Inkscape has a "Trace bitmap" feature that will convert an image like the candidate one to a vector image, which is indeed better suited for the subject. -- JovanCormac06:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd love to see this well-known optical illusion Featured, but it has been done a lot better than in this image. The "vase" is barely recognizable here. Compare [1], where both the faces and the vase are better done. -- JovanCormac17:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your example was probably made with the nose of w:Cyrano de Bergerac. My image was made from the image of a very real young man I photographed last night. The vase is still there only with more gentle feauters than in the example you provided.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop PA, immediately! As for the language, I'm allowed to call your insinuations stupid and childish, if they are stupid and childish. I did not not call YOU stupid and childish. Do NOT make public assumptions about my personal characteristics (my sense of humour, my intelligence, my looks, my skin colour etc.). That is an ad hominem attack. -- Petritap (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 13:12:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:011218-N-9769P-047 F-A-18 With Weapons Ready for Mission.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:011218-N-9769P-047 F-A-18 With Weapons Ready for Mission.jpg
The Resolution criteria is over 2 MP. This is 2.6 MP... I know it's close to 2 MP but if the criteria has changed this should be stated in the guideline. How large should it be? 3MP ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That issue has been discussed to death (I don't even know which one of the numerous related threads to link to here; this is a recent one), and it appears to be the opinion of a vast majority that the guidelines are non-binding (compare the repeated refusal of the community to delist File:Evstafiev-bosnia-cello.jpg, which has 0.3 MP only). Everyone seems to apply his or her own guidelines (otherwise we'd just purge every single image on this page from FP); therefore, so do I. My opinion is that a Featured Picture should be of sufficient quality to be printable at a reasonable size (say, an A4 page). I will still decide on a case-by-case basis, but in general anything below 5 MP is insufficient for me. -- JovanCormac16:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 01:34:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:91 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:91 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.jpg
Info HDR image of a small water canal going through Machu Picchu's ruins, taken with ND filter. I'm using this HDR nomination as testing grounds for recent Machu Picchu HDR images (heavy link, may freeze computers) I want to nominate as FPC. Given the general opposition (including mine) to HDR images that don't look natural, I tried limit the saturation and contrast. Hope you think I did a good job.
Weak support Sharpness is borderline (roof), but at the image's high resolution that can be forgiven since downscaling sharpens the image. -- JovanCormac09:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing that no downsampling has been done to "increase quality". As mitigating factors for the (small!) quality defects, there's quite an important NR done, the DOF required is very large, the lens themselves are very large as well, AND I had to hurry-up to avoid pissing off more people by completly monopolizing the stairs ;) but that's not a REAL mitigating factor I think...! Downsampled versions are available here to compare with standard lower resolution FPC. --S23678 (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is valid (I can't convince you about liking the composition), but I'll just point the large FOV (14mm on APS-C) and the fact that moving back was impossible --S23678 (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that what I will say might sound like a profanity, but with a crop like this, at the first sight it looks to me like an ordinary pile of rubble. And I understand that there might be no space to move back. And while I'm very sorry, in my struggle for better FP level, which recently deteriorated, I can't vote "yes" :( --Leafnode✉14:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know much about HDR, but it seems to me that the shadows are just as dark as the original. The main difference to my eyes is a yellow cast on the stones, and a more blue sky. Is this the intent of the HDR work? --99of9 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HDR is a very wide field, just as a photoshopped image isn't just an optimized image of a girl in a magazine. I used HDR here to get more color saturation, more local contrast and more details. Having put the shadows less dark would have created an image too far from reality, and while it can be pleasing artistically, it would not have stood a chance in FPC. Verify for yourself and check the difference in details in dark areas. As for the yellow tint, while playing with the levels in photoshop, I got this pleasing golden color and I decided to keep it, since the Incas are associated with gold. --S23678 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 11:24:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anser Anser Domesticus.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anser Anser Domesticus.JPG
Oppose Noise is not an issue here, but white should be white and not grey. I'd support a version edited in such a way. -- H00517:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO no, to the contrary. White balance was quite well in the original photo and should remain unchanged, I'd rather add some light to the image, either as a whole or selectively via gamma curve. -- H00518:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 17:46:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:B17g and b52h in flight.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:B17g and b52h in flight.jpg
Oppose The background is ruining that picture IMO. Having a beige/brown aircraft with a grey one against a... grey background is not pleasing. And on the side, I don't know why people of commons in general should be grateful to these airplanes... --S23678 (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Composition is good, quality isn't (unsharp, noise on tailfin). On a side note, given that those are bomber aircraft, I really don't see how anyone could be grateful that they exist, except maybe for Boeing, the company that built them. -- JovanCormac11:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, the B-17 carried much of the tonnage over Germany, and brought many crews home alive due to good design and performance. The B-52 was (and still is) a potent symbol of American military power, which one could argue, counterbalanced by Soviet forces, kept the world in a state of relative peace for 50 years. So I suppose, upon reflection, we do have something to be grateful for. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I and you and a couple million people can probably be very grateful indeed, but it's very americano/western civilization - centric. "We", as far as I'm concerned, includes the entire world, and should be used with a NPOV. --S23678 (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with official rules. It's just that logic dictates that a worldwide project like Commons has nothing to gain from such nationalist propaganda in it's file names and descriptions, and that a NPOV is the best option. I'm wondering what name some pictures would get if we were to adopt a non-NPOV...! --S23678 (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Airwolf and I are merely stating what we think; notice that the file isn't called "Who Should We Be Grateful To.jpg" and that the picture of GWB isn't called 'AmericanHero.jpg" or "howdidthisbuffooneverbecomepresident.jpg" There's a difference between expressing a view civilly, and being POINTy about it. And don't forget, you did ask why people should be grateful for planes like these, I'm simply giving you an answer. I've got no idea whether the 'correct' answer (if there is such a thing), but I don't see why I shouldn't state my opinion if you've asked for it. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the comments of you 2 as arguments to change the picture's title. We were both right, just arguing on different levels. --S23678 (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I'm afraid I'm going to have vote Neutral as per Jovan. While I love the composition, the setting and quality (sharpness and noise) aren't the best. Also Jovan, I think you mean 'Boeing' :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWho Should We Be Grateful To - what a ridiculous leading question for a title - for a start, that depends on your nationality/allegience, and of course the fact that were not all flag waving morons. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too many irrelevant arguments are used. These are military planes and they need illustrating. Having only "blue arrows" or other colours because that is pretty is rediculous and also does not illustrate the subject well. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don´t think the backgroung and the plane's body color make the contrast worse. The picture has a very accurate exposure as well as a good DoF and excellent resolution, so I think it´s among the featured-deserved pictures. - ☩Damërung☩. -- 09:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe in a Hollywood film the airplanes looks better than this, but this is a real image captured by a normal camera in a real flight. --Cesco77 (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 14:38:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bay Bridge at night.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bay Bridge at night.jpg
Oppose I think a shot at a time of the day with more light would be better. Yes, it is beautiful, but so beautiful that the loss of detail due to bad light can be forgiven. Plus there are dust spots in the water to the left and a possible one if not a very strong star to the right of the bridge in the sky. I still like the picture, but not enough for FP, sorry. and please keep on with you work, I like it.--Korall (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the caption of the image specificly explains the illumination of the bridge :
The illuminations on the cables, while part of the original design, are actually a relatively recent addition, made practical by the availability of high efficiency compact fluorescent lamps.The original roadway illumination was by low pressure sodium vapor lamps, which while efficient give off a garish monochromatic yellow light. On the lower deck these have been replaced with tubular fluorescent lights attached to the bottom of the upper deck, while on the upper deck the illumination is by high pressure vapor lamps, which give off a more full spectrum light.
It would have been hard to talk about illumination in a day shot I guess :) Dust spots are easy to fix, except I do not see them :( I will appreciate, if you could fix them please. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of the slightly off-center composition (not quite thirds rule yet) and the busy composition of the bridge from this perspective (the bridge towers stacked-up one behind the other). --S23678 (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info It is the only perspective that allows to show the illumination of the bridge, which was the idea of the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. I am not sure about the sharpness. The sparkling lights prove that the image is sharp enough IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral interesting image, but the glare from carlights are ruining the mood and making bottom of this picture distracting. Also, there are some spots on it - maybe sensor needs cleaning. I'll mark them in a sec. --Leafnode✉10:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThe composition is a lot better, but the quality is not enough. A 3 mpx FPC should be more crisp when viewed at 100% zoom (the f/14 aperture probably didn't help). HDR, image stacking and/or multiple row panorama would get rid of the quality problems IMO. --S23678 (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not right to talk abot 3 mpx. If the image were downsampled, then maybe, but it was only cropped and not downsampled at all.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 03:42:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Black Panther convention2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black Panther convention2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 06:14:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chrysopa sp. AF 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chrysopa sp. AF 1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 23:40:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Confederate 5 Dollars.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Confederate 5 Dollars.png
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 17:31:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Early morning fog over San Francisco and Golden Gate Bridge.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Early morning fog over San Francisco and Golden Gate Bridge.jpg
Comment There's a CW tilt that should be corrected before voting starts. The disruptive foreground elements (some grass and a small tree) could be cutted away at the same time. --S23678 (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just brought the image to PS and placed a grid over it. I could not see the tilt. Vertical lines seem to be vertical. If you would like to correct the tilt, please do, but I am afraid I cannot do it because I do not see it. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are, but not all. Some are traffic lights, while others are lights at the structures. BTW did you see Golden Gate Bridge? It also has a light on.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I nominated an image of Bay Bridge down below. The image is getting opposed, and the bridge got so upset that part of it colapsed It has been clossed for few days already. The traffic is horrible. I asked the folks to support the image (not for me for the bridge :)), but so far nobody did...--00:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess the image is "not just enough for FP", it is the worst image from current nominations because you bothered to vote only on that nomination today, angmokio :)--Mbz1 (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 17:17:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Feijoa sellowiana .jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Feijoa sellowiana .jpg
Oppose Very nice, but IMHO technically not perfect enough for FP: seems to have lost quite some detail due to noise reduction plus there's a little chromatic aberration on the right side. --NEURO⇌18:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 23:38:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fredmeyer edit 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fredmeyer edit 1.jpg
Comment An interesting study of your typical supermarket; notice the huge amount of food, and the 2 people in there. A comment on our wastefulness? Jovan, I'm happy to say this is 5.12MP. Is that enough? :P
Oppose- Nice shot, but far too much going on, and there's no defined subject. It's an odd angle as well, so at thumbnail (and indeed at full-resolution as well) all I can see is a mess of different colors. –Juliancolton | Talk14:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Because of photos that R. Bartz has taken of this building. —kallerna™ 17:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment I just about wept when seeing this beautiful piece so lovingly restored, while browsing through WP:Featured Pictures. I really couldn't go past those hauntingly beautiful eyes...
Neutral Slight lack of sharpness, but overall good. - Darius Baužys → talk 06:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
,_prepares_to_launch_from_one_of_four_steam_powered_catapults.jpg)
--Mbz1 (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
21:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Oversaturated —kallerna™ 12:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
,_prepares_to_launch_from_one_of_four_steam_powered_catapults.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_during_shock_trials_-_080816-N-6031Q-213.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_(1).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_sand_dunes_imaged_by_Terra_(EOS_AM-1).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_prepares_to_launch_from_one_of_four_steam_powered_catapults.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_prepares_to_launch_from_one_of_four_steam_powered_catapults.jpg){kind=link}
Question Sorry, but on what merits you think this image should be a featured picture? --Leafnode✉ 17:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
--Mbz1 (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
