Commons:特色图片评选
特色图片评选 欢迎来到特色图片评选!社群将在此投票决定图片是否会被选为维基共享资源最优秀的图片之一,即特色图片,每日图片的图像便是从特色图片中选取的。特色图片是中文维基百科最令人感到印象深刻,也是最具百科性的图片或图表。谚语有云:“一画胜千言。”特色图片能够让条目的内容更加清楚丰富。如果你认为你已经创作或找到了一张可能有价值的图像,请把它加到“提名”部分。如果在10天后达成了共识,图像就会成功入选。 这里列出了特色图片的评选记录,你也可以在下方查看按时间顺序列出的图片:2004年、2005年, 2006年、2007年、2008年、2009年、2010年、2011年、2012年、2013年、2014年、2015年、2016年、2017年、2018年、2019年、2020 以及本月。 关于我们最好的照片的另一个概述,请参阅我们的年度评选。 |
|
规范[edit]
提名[edit]如果您认为您已经找到或拍摄了一张可能符合标准的图像,并使用了适当的图像描述和版权标记许可,那么请按照如下步骤操作: 1. 按照括号内的格式(Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:提名图像名称.jpg)在下方的文本框输入图像名称,然后点击“创建新提名”按钮。
推荐操作:请COM:FP的列表处添加一个分类。 可选操作:如果您不是图像的创建者,请通知在他/她的讨论页添入“ 注意,你的荧光屏可能未调校妥当![edit]光暗度[edit]在讨论图像的光暗度的时候,投票者有必要知道他们的屏幕显示有否被适当地调整。不同的屏幕显示,它们显示阴影细节的能力亦大有不同。旁边为一幅画了四个暗灰色的圆圈的图片。如果您能辨明其中三个(甚至四个)圈子,那表示你的的屏幕可以正确地显示阴影细节。如果你只能够看到三个以下的圈子,你可能需要调整你的屏幕以及/或者电脑显示设置。一些显示设备可能无法被调整至观察阴影细节的最理想度数,故此请在投票的时候考虑这点。如果可行的话,也可以考虑把它打印出来。 色彩度[edit]在伽玛调整的屏幕显示上从几尺之外观看右图,图中四个不同颜色的圈子会自然混入背景之中。如果他们完全跟背景混合,你则须要调校你的伽玛设置(在电脑的输出设置上,而不在于屏幕显示),直到它们能彼此融合。调校的过程也许会非常困难,然而轻微的偏差并不是致命伤。未能更正的个人电脑显示通常会显示出比背景深色的圈子。请注意,在液晶显示(无论膝上电脑或者平面屏幕)上观看图片,你的观看角度有很大可能影响屏幕上的图像质素。如有需要,请点击图像以获得更多技术信息。 |
Featured picture candidates
[edit]Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2024 at 14:32:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Luxembourg
- Info A really nice church interior of a smaller church with some beautiful art and lovely golden light. Also a Christmas tree to get us in the mood! created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice catch, thank you! Poco a poco (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
File:Secretario (Sagittarius serpentarius), parque nacional de Amboseli, Kenia, 2024-05-23, DD 13.jpg
[edit]Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2024 at 13:57:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes
- Info Secretarybird (Sagittarius serpentarius), Amboseli National Park, Kenya. Note: we have no FPs of the whole family Sagittariidae. c/n/u by Poco a poco (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Really nice: I've never managed to get a good shot of the secretary bird. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great composition and expression, and per Charles, difficult shot Cmao20 (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Question A juvenile? Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2024 at 13:56:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Paris
- Info Basilica of the Sacred Heart, Paris, France. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Outstandingly beautiful Cmao20 (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Bottom crop deliberate ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it's, I thought that I rather show the border than a cropped window. Poco a poco (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Blurry, though -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support as per Cmao20. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2024 at 12:17:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1950-1959
- Info created by Arthur Sasse / International News Service, uploaded and nominated by Yann
- Support One of the most reproduced and parodied pictures of Einstein, according to reports, Einstein liked the photo so much that he requested International News copies of them for personal use as gifts. -- Yann (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2024 at 10:43:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Fulgoridae (Planthoppers, Lanternflies)
- Info One FP of another species in this genus. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Karelj (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support Excellent level of details. Terragio67 (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The stacking error at the front leg should be fixed.--Ermell (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2024 at 06:45:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Magazine_and_newspaper_illustrations_in_color
- Info created by J.C. Leyendecker - uploaded by SDudley - nominated by PDMagazineCoverUploading -- PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Excellent high-quality reproduction of a rare unpublished Leyendecker illustration. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for the nomination! I would also support this. :) --SDudley (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
File:Namdae stream water reflection of colorful clouds from Wolhwagyo bridge in Gangneung South Korea.jpg
[edit]Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2024 at 06:09:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Reflections
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2024 at 19:20:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#United States
- Info created by Superbass - uploaded by Superbass - nominated by Superbass -- Superbass (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Superbass (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent Cmao20 (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful mirror image with great colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Großartig! -- Radomianin (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Skyscrapers, trees with autumn colours, a beautiful sky and the reflection of all these things – almost too good for a single photo ;–). – Aristeas (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2024 at 04:55:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
- Info Chief Raoni Metuktire of the Kayapó people with an indigenous leader from other countries in Abya Ayalam (during the National Movement of Indigenous Peoples that takes place in the capital of Brazil). Created by Xakriaba - uploaded by Xakriaba - nominated by Zquid -- Zquid (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Zquid (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 12:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe overprocessed, like this one? -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Invalid vote. Newly created account can't vote, sorry. Please read the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support Very expressive, strong image. I wonder a bit about the noticeable noise. I would not mind it at all if this was a photo taken under difficult circumstances at high ISO speed, but acc. to the Exif data this photo was taken at ISO speed rating 180 with a Nikon D3200, therefore I would expect a very low level of noise. Strange. – Aristeas (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with Aristeas, in my opinion it looks like the noise has been artificially added. Sometimes photographers do this to either simulate "analog grain" or to mask blur/shake. I took the liberty of creating a denoised version: SwissTransfer link If you and the community are fine with the result, please feel free to use the file for an update. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support - An insect photographer (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
File:Ramsau bei Berchtesgaden (DE), Milchstraße über Hochkalter & Hintersee -- 2024 -- 1018-50.jpg
[edit]Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2024 at 03:05:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Sky
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by me -- A. Öztas 03:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- A. Öztas 03:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
OpposeDifferent from this fake but artificial too. Painted brush in the center -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)- What is supposed to be artificial about it and what kind of painted brush are you writing about? A. Öztas (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, it's supposed to be natural :-) And please, assume good faith, it's your work. You should know (better than us) what you've done in the sky -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- You brought it up, so I'm interested in what you consider being "artificial" in the sky. Is it about emphasising the structure of the Milky Way (high/low or white/black)? I don't understand, assuming good faith, what you're getting at. A. Öztas (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. "Emphasising the structure". "High / low, white / black" -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Will you also explain why you quote it like that or do you want me to guess? A. Öztas (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- You guessed well and put words (your own words) on the issue mentioned above -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I honestly don't think a painting brush was used, the milky way has brighter borders on each side that can naturally be captured by long exposure photos -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Giles Laurent: , thanks for your comment. Please take a look at the 3 versions in the history. Resize them at the same size, and superimpose them, each separately. Then you realize very clearly that yes, a painting brush was used. Moreover, it's very possible also that the initial upload was already more or less heavily edited. In this version, the center of the sky is too dark, and certainly not faithful -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I still don't know exactly what you mean by painting brush - it's the first time I've heard the term in this context - but if you mean masking, I've already commented on this with regard to the white and black levels. I'm just surprised at the astonishment, as this is a common process in image processing. Or are we talking at cross purposes? A. Öztas (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Painting brush" is the official name on many software editors, isn't it? Usually an icon with a "painting brush" 🖌. Now there's a 4th version uploaded. Not yet observed. But If you darken selectively some areas here and there, while the sky is supposed to be a giant uniform surface, it makes it fake -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying, what you mean. By your reasoning, wouldn't most photos then qualify as "fake", not only on FP? We can discuss this matter on my talk page, if you want. This would not only apply to (even slight) HDR images but also to those where, for example, a building is subtly emphasized. If you set the threshold for "fake" at any adjustment that doesn’t globally affect the entire image, then so be it — at least that's a clear position. As for the term "painting brush", as I mentioned earlier, I wasn't familiar with it in this context. In the software I use, this tool is called "draw mask". Either way, I hope we’ve now discussed this topic thoroughly. --A. Öztas (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion continues below and I'm also interested in talking with other participants, having different points of view -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying, what you mean. By your reasoning, wouldn't most photos then qualify as "fake", not only on FP? We can discuss this matter on my talk page, if you want. This would not only apply to (even slight) HDR images but also to those where, for example, a building is subtly emphasized. If you set the threshold for "fake" at any adjustment that doesn’t globally affect the entire image, then so be it — at least that's a clear position. As for the term "painting brush", as I mentioned earlier, I wasn't familiar with it in this context. In the software I use, this tool is called "draw mask". Either way, I hope we’ve now discussed this topic thoroughly. --A. Öztas (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Painting brush" is the official name on many software editors, isn't it? Usually an icon with a "painting brush" 🖌. Now there's a 4th version uploaded. Not yet observed. But If you darken selectively some areas here and there, while the sky is supposed to be a giant uniform surface, it makes it fake -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've just checked the picture on my computer (I was previously on my phone) and it seems you were right that a painting brush was used.
- However I don't think the result is very different at first sight from adjusting curves/exposure adjustments, which is something a lot of people do and the result doesn't look unatural to me (especially if you compare it to something really unnatural like this). But perhaps the center of the milky way was darkened too much (it's not supposed to be that much darker) and perhaps the brighter part shouldn't have been brightened with a paiting brush but with a global exposure/contrast adjustment because looking at thumbnail we see the brushstrokes and comparing it to the previous version, the brighter parts changed shape and were extended, which in the end changed a bit the shape of the milky way and is something that shouldn't happen.
- Also, there's one other new thing I've noted now, there's a strange change change of exposure in this zone that might be improved -- Giles Laurent (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I still don't know exactly what you mean by painting brush - it's the first time I've heard the term in this context - but if you mean masking, I've already commented on this with regard to the white and black levels. I'm just surprised at the astonishment, as this is a common process in image processing. Or are we talking at cross purposes? A. Öztas (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Giles Laurent: , thanks for your comment. Please take a look at the 3 versions in the history. Resize them at the same size, and superimpose them, each separately. Then you realize very clearly that yes, a painting brush was used. Moreover, it's very possible also that the initial upload was already more or less heavily edited. In this version, the center of the sky is too dark, and certainly not faithful -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I honestly don't think a painting brush was used, the milky way has brighter borders on each side that can naturally be captured by long exposure photos -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- You guessed well and put words (your own words) on the issue mentioned above -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Will you also explain why you quote it like that or do you want me to guess? A. Öztas (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. "Emphasising the structure". "High / low, white / black" -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- You brought it up, so I'm interested in what you consider being "artificial" in the sky. Is it about emphasising the structure of the Milky Way (high/low or white/black)? I don't understand, assuming good faith, what you're getting at. A. Öztas (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, it's supposed to be natural :-) And please, assume good faith, it's your work. You should know (better than us) what you've done in the sky -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Should be fixed, both. --A. Öztas (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Abstain Painting brush removed. @Giles Laurent: there's a noticeable difference between the second-third-fourth and the fifth version, and in the previous ones, there was no reason to darken artificially some zones in the sky so as to create strong and unnatural contrasts. Thanks for pointing this out, and for confirming the manipulation was not only my subjective impression. The sky is supposed to be flat. So the normal processing in this case is not local touches but should be global, yes -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support I don't think this is a picture that had strong editing, I actually think the result out of the camera is close to what we see in the picture (contrarily to this picture), but the top of the picture is perhaps a bit too dark compared to the rest? -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with you there, I've lightened it up a bit at the top. A. Öztas (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Ignoring the brush discussion, I just don't think the milky way ever looks like this in Europe. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well if you would try astrophotography you would see that it looks like this, even in Europe. First you need the perfect weather conditions: 1) no clouds; 2) new moon phase : extremely important because as soon that the moon illuminates the sky, you lose easily 80-90% visibility of the stars; 3) as low as possible light pollution (so you have to be far enough from big cities); 4) be late enough in the day because often until midnight there's still remains of the sun light polluting the sky in summer. Then you also need the right equipment: 1) a tripod; 2) a lense with small f number (like F1.4). And finally you need to find the right parameters (manual focus, multiple seconds exposure, not hesitating to increase ISO, etc.). Once you combine all that, the camera can capture a milky way that looks like this. But of course what the camera sees is different of what the naked eye sees because the naked eye can not do a multiple seconds exposure on the contrary of a camera. This means the naked eye will always see a much much darker sky -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, but you do agree that the Milky Way never looks like this to the naked eye. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- The exposure time of this was 30 sec at F1.8 and ISO 640. You almost couldn't even see the outline of the mountains with the naked eye at that time. This is what it looked like there taken with a smartphone. A. Öztas (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, but you do agree that the Milky Way never looks like this to the naked eye. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well if you would try astrophotography you would see that it looks like this, even in Europe. First you need the perfect weather conditions: 1) no clouds; 2) new moon phase : extremely important because as soon that the moon illuminates the sky, you lose easily 80-90% visibility of the stars; 3) as low as possible light pollution (so you have to be far enough from big cities); 4) be late enough in the day because often until midnight there's still remains of the sun light polluting the sky in summer. Then you also need the right equipment: 1) a tripod; 2) a lense with small f number (like F1.4). And finally you need to find the right parameters (manual focus, multiple seconds exposure, not hesitating to increase ISO, etc.). Once you combine all that, the camera can capture a milky way that looks like this. But of course what the camera sees is different of what the naked eye sees because the naked eye can not do a multiple seconds exposure on the contrary of a camera. This means the naked eye will always see a much much darker sky -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Surprisingly good image quality given the circumstances of darkness. I like the water reflections of the milky way galaxy --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Aristeas (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2024 at 19:02:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Uzbekistan
- Info created and uploaded by Humoyun Mehridinov - nominated by Красный -- Красный wanna talk? 19:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Красный wanna talk? 19:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Is there some chromatic aberration at full size? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, and sharpness could be better too. I'm honestly not sure about this one. I made this downsample which is 8.5 megapixels and better but still corner sharpness isn't great. But the motif is really cool so unsure how to vote, will think about this one. Cmao20 (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Noticeable CA and low level of detail, probably due to the lens. It is a common effect according to the Wikipedia article Canon EF-S 18–55mm lens -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2024 at 13:15:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Other#United_States
- Info Walking path underneath the Hell Gate Bridge on Randall's Island (New York). all by — Rhododendrites talk | 13:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 13:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Pretty photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support An impressive sight; great quality, light and composition Cmao20 (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice light and composition. Crop perhaps a bit tight at the bottom under the lamppost, but the vanishing point with Matryoshka doll effect is cool -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support Great image, but maybe needs perspective correction a bit. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you're right -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's distorted. The front and exterior sides of the pylon are wedge-shaped, so what looks like the sides tapering in is actually the wedge tapering back. — Rhododendrites talk | 15:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry Rhododendrites, but I think Екатерина Борисова is right here. I had the same impression as you at first sight, but after comparison with your other photo File:Under Hell Gate Bridge on Randalls Island (60101p).jpg taken from further point of view, it becomes obvious that the perspective should be fixed. These arches are not leaning in reality. Note added. I will remove my support otherwise, because it's also architecture -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support-- by others.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Iwaqarhashmi: I think you were just trying to copy a vote, but you copied in a separate nom :) — Rhododendrites talk | 18:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, my bad. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support Great image, but like Екатерина and Basile I think your other photo shows that a slight perspective correction is advisable and would further improve the image. – Aristeas (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2024 at 11:31:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
- Info Aerial view of the Vexier Chapel in Reifenberg. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ermell (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very nice composition. Appealing viewpoint -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very simple motif and very beautiful image. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support as per Екатерина Борисова and Basile. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support The church nicely stands out from the green background, excellent quality. – Aristeas (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support by others.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Support -- Smallworldclick (talk) 11.01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Invalid vote. Newly created account can't vote, sorry. Please read the guidelines --Basile Morin (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Rolf Kranz (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
File:009 Greater flamingos male and female in the Camargue during mating season Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg
[edit]Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2024 at 10:38:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Phoenicopteridae (Flamingos)
- Info created by Giles Laurent - uploaded by Giles Laurent - nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 12:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 12:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support for composition, details, colors, and quality. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 15:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --PaestumPaestum (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Of course. Cmao20 (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support A piece of art. The shape of the beak, naturally twisted, which fits almost perfectly into the free area like a puzzle piece! And the level of detail is fantastic -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Radomianin and Basile. Congrats! – Aristeas (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Support -- Smallworldclick (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Invalid vote. Newly created account can't vote, sorry. Please read the guidelines --Basile Morin (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support Excellent level of details. Terragio67 (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2024 at 10:12:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Morocco
- Info Main courtyard of Bou Inania Madrasa, Fez, Marocco. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --PaestumPaestum (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not loving the shadow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, the harsh shadow doesn't seem to be a feature here. So just a tourist shot in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan Kekek (welcome back, have missed your comments round here). Sorry Mile, I like it overall but the light conditions are just too harsh for me and the big black shadow makes it less than FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan Kekek. -- Karelj — Preceding undated comment was added at 14:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2024 at 03:23:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Class : Ostracoda (Ostracods)
- Info created by Janeklass - uploaded by Janeklass - nominated by Janeklass -- Janeklass (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Janeklass (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support - could use a bit of a right crop — Rhododendrites talk | 12:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. I agree that it could be more centered and I've made the changes. Janeklass (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --PaestumPaestum (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Honestly I am confused by the discussion below, therefore I suspend my judgement until I can study the image myself in the detail (not enough time right now, sorry). – Aristeas (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)- Oppose Underexposed for my personal taste. It's not an asteroid, so the subject could be better presented.
Some details look interesting at the bottom, buttoo dark, I can't make them out -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- + After increasing the light on Photoshop, I also notice focus stacking errors. Image notes added -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree about the lighting and I won't change it. I made the background darker. Janeklass (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's slightly worse now, and you also changed the crop, so my image notes have been displaced. I think you should notify everyone who already voted -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- + The author created the image to be viewed as you see it. It is not okay for the viewer to download the image to their computer, make changes in Photoshop, and then find errors. If you don't see errors right away, then there are none. You can ruin any image in Photoshop, but the author doesn't create the image so that someone can edit it in Photoshop. Janeklass (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- What?! "make changes in Photoshop, and then find errors"? I would be the last person to do that. And it's very clear from the file page that you are the sole and only uploader. You're of course free to do what you like with your pictures, but for me it's a similar case to this one or that one nominated last week. Sorry to be allowed to review here... When I read Ikan's review below ("I do see details well"), I had the impression it was a mirror of my comment (now crossed out) above ("Some details look interesting"). I got curious and then noticed the stacking issues. Please fix these errors like in this nomination. By the way, where do you find that "It is not okay for the viewer to download the image to their computer"? -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- You downloaded the image to your computer, increased the light in Photoshop, and then you saw the errors. The "errors" you pointed out do not disturb or affect the image. I am very sorry, but I think your assessment is unfair and is not given because they somehow affect the photo, but because you just want to scold. Janeklass (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- You darkened the image, not me ("background made darker" in your summary). And you made this change without notifying a (weak) supporter writing "Definitely too dark for me", nor other participants who could also find the image (really) too dark now. Photoshop helps to find potential issues like wrong embedded color profiles (which can make the appearance vary from a computer to another, example here). This was done to help you. It was a tool. But the stacking issues (now located) also appear in the current version -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- You raised the light and only then did you see errors that were otherwise not visible. For me, they do not affect the image and the problem does not exist. If you add light, you can see all sorts of things. As an author, the light is set the way I want it and it is not intended to be changed by anyone else. Janeklass (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- You darkened the picture (for everyone, not only for me). Proof in the history of the file page and in the summary you left. Given the critics (here and elsewhere by other participants), it would have been more judicious to brighten the picture instead of the contrary. Otherwise it's like you want to hide the mistakes. You also hide the whole content in this blackness.
- No, my first impression was : "Some details look interesting at the bottom". But because it was dark, it could be a wrong impression. Confirmation (I mean denial of "interesting details") comes now, yes. Same as here. I think light should be adjusted and FS problems resolved -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Your words " + After increasing the light on Photoshop, I also notice focus stacking errors. Image notes added". I'm referring to the fact that you didn't see the errors before you increased the light. So you amplified the errors yourself, which are otherwise not so visible and they don't affect the overall impression of the image. But okay, I added a little more light and I won't change this file any more Janeklass (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- You darkened the image, not me ("background made darker" in your summary). And you made this change without notifying a (weak) supporter writing "Definitely too dark for me", nor other participants who could also find the image (really) too dark now. Photoshop helps to find potential issues like wrong embedded color profiles (which can make the appearance vary from a computer to another, example here). This was done to help you. It was a tool. But the stacking issues (now located) also appear in the current version -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- What?! "make changes in Photoshop, and then find errors"? I would be the last person to do that. And it's very clear from the file page that you are the sole and only uploader. You're of course free to do what you like with your pictures, but for me it's a similar case to this one or that one nominated last week. Sorry to be allowed to review here... When I read Ikan's review below ("I do see details well"), I had the impression it was a mirror of my comment (now crossed out) above ("Some details look interesting"). I got curious and then noticed the stacking issues. Please fix these errors like in this nomination. By the way, where do you find that "It is not okay for the viewer to download the image to their computer"? -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- + After increasing the light on Photoshop, I also notice focus stacking errors. Image notes added -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment If my eyes are good, there is no difference in the light between the first version and this one? And your words "It is not okay for the viewer to download the image to their computer"... and worse: "the author doesn't create the image so that someone can edit it in Photoshop." Apologies, but this idea "If you don't see errors right away, then there are none" sounds a bit clumsy, according to the ton of similar nominations where errors / stitching problems are detected in the middle or even at the end of the voting period. A bunch of examples available in the archives. Currently the focus stacking errors are still present. Thus I don't change my vote -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Editing an image to amplify small flaws that aren't actually visible is very strange behavior to me. Janeklass (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Very visible now, even in the darkness. And also at the top right.
- Could be fixed / uploaded by someone else (not necessarily you).
- Alternative could be proposed. At least for the FS issues. Then it's a democratic choice. Could be also delisted and replaced by a more accurate version later. If you change your mind, or if someone else improves your image.
- Like it or not, that's how it works, actually. And how divergent opinions offer chances to improve.
- It's a mistake to believe that the purpose of increasing the light was "to amplify flaws". Certainly anyone else would / will do the same as observer or re-user, because it's very dark, then trying to evaluate the content fairly and see it under more favorable conditions is useful and / or necessary. The FS flaws popped up at this moment, and were not expected. Most of the users here are happy to meet the opportunity to correct their own images -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am happy to correct mistakes when I see that the criticism is relevant. At this moment, I feel that the criticism has been overdone and criticized for the sake of criticizing. These "mistakes" are not visible in the picture and do not spoil the picture. Janeklass (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- These mistakes have just been revealed a few hours ago. And first reaction, you darkened the image, which had the effect of making the situation worse, and lengthening the discussion for everyone. It would undoubtedly be wiser to fix the issues like here or there. See also this interesting case -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't darken the image because of your alleged "errors". I cropped the image and at the same time noticed lighter areas in the background and thought that the background would be better completely black. Janeklass (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm... noticed something, too? For the record, you said "If you don't see errors right away, then there are none.". You changed the crop? You changed the light? Twice, already? Yes, things happen / appear in the light of a discussion, like in the light of a (well-exposed) photo -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- You can keep your opinion. I'll stick to my position and won't fix alleged errors that aren't actually visible and don't affect the image. Besides, this picture's value lies elsewhere for me (and for Wikipedia). What we actually see in the picture is much more important here - whether it ranks among the best is secondary. In my opinion, Wikipedia isn't Instagram, and I add pictures that have genuine informative value. Janeklass (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- 🛑Stop it now. "You can keep your opinion" and other derogatory comments written above are against COM:CIVIL. All various and subjective opinions here are welcome and encouraged on this section, per the guidelines at COM:FPC "A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate". You don't like criticisms, this does not give you permission to be disrespectful to those who don't share your view. You voted above, fine, we all respect your choice, did not contest anything. Do the same, please. Now enough. It's an open project. -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is the author's position not important, or do you always have to agree with criticism? If so, I will try to improve myself in the future and will not engage in further discussion.
- For now, this discussion is over for me. Janeklass (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Very good. -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- 🛑Stop it now. "You can keep your opinion" and other derogatory comments written above are against COM:CIVIL. All various and subjective opinions here are welcome and encouraged on this section, per the guidelines at COM:FPC "A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate". You don't like criticisms, this does not give you permission to be disrespectful to those who don't share your view. You voted above, fine, we all respect your choice, did not contest anything. Do the same, please. Now enough. It's an open project. -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- You can keep your opinion. I'll stick to my position and won't fix alleged errors that aren't actually visible and don't affect the image. Besides, this picture's value lies elsewhere for me (and for Wikipedia). What we actually see in the picture is much more important here - whether it ranks among the best is secondary. In my opinion, Wikipedia isn't Instagram, and I add pictures that have genuine informative value. Janeklass (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm... noticed something, too? For the record, you said "If you don't see errors right away, then there are none.". You changed the crop? You changed the light? Twice, already? Yes, things happen / appear in the light of a discussion, like in the light of a (well-exposed) photo -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't darken the image because of your alleged "errors". I cropped the image and at the same time noticed lighter areas in the background and thought that the background would be better completely black. Janeklass (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- These mistakes have just been revealed a few hours ago. And first reaction, you darkened the image, which had the effect of making the situation worse, and lengthening the discussion for everyone. It would undoubtedly be wiser to fix the issues like here or there. See also this interesting case -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Editing an image to amplify small flaws that aren't actually visible is very strange behavior to me. Janeklass (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support Definitely too dark for me but still interesting Cmao20 (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition, and I do see details well. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Pictures of the Sun by ESA Solar Orbiter
[edit]Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2024 at 21:24:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page
-
The Sun in UV light of 17.4 nanometres, taken by Solar Orbiter's Extreme Ultraviolet Imager (EUI) instrument, assembled from multiple images taken on 22 March 2023.
-
A magnetogram of the Sun that shows the line-of-sight direction of the magnetic field on the Sun's disc, measured by the Polarimetric and Helioseismic Imager (PHI) onboard the Solar Orbiter spacecraft on 22 March 2023.
-
The velocity map of the Sun that shows the line-of-sight speed and direction of movement of material at the Sun's visible surface, measured by the Polarimetric and Helioseismic Imager (PHI) onboard the Solar Orbiter spacecraft on 22 March 2023.
-
The Sun Polarimetric and Helioseismic Imager (PHI) onboard the Solar Orbiter spacecraft on 22 March 2023, at a wavelength of 617 nanometres.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Stars
- Info Created by ESA & NASA/Solar Orbiter/EUI Team, Image processing by Emil Kraaikamp (ROB) - uploaded by Artem.G - nominated by David Osipov -- David Osipov (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- David Osipov (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Procedural oppose I think some of these pictures are great but I don't see how they represent a valid or complete set. They are just unconnected pictures of the Sun by the same spacecraft, there is no governing theme for how they make sense together and complement each other. You should nominate the best ones separately and let us review them. Cmao20 (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I understand your viewpoint. Let me try to explain a bit better why I see it as a complete set. It's like, when we look at the Sun, we shouldn't just see a bright ball of light. We need to see all its sides, like with a cube, to truly grasp it. The magnetogram, the velocity map, the UV picture—they all reveal a different face of the Sun, helping us understand its power and complexity.
- Looking at the Sun in only one wavelength is like seeing a single face of a Rubik's Cube. Each face shows a different color arrangement, but only by observing all sides do you understand the puzzle's complete pattern. Similarly, different wavelengths reveal unique aspects of the Sun, and only together do they provide a comprehensive view. Showing just one picture is like showing just one square of a cube - it doesn't represent the whole picture.
- I think representing the Sun in its full complexity needs more than just one image. The rules, while important, shouldn't limit our ability to represent complex subjects like the Sun fully. David Osipov (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Invalid set and poor quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment According to the European Space Agency, The PHI images are the highest-resolution full views of the Sun's visible surface to date, including maps of the Sun's messy magnetic field and movement on the surface.(European Space Agency. (2024, November 20). New full Sun views show sunspots, fields and restless plasma.) So I just can't comprehend how you could comment on their poor quality. They are literally the highest-res pics of the Sun to date with 92.16 Megapixels res, composed of a stitched mosaic of 25 pics each, taken with a space quality lenses. --David Osipov (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Stitching issues. And this one also from ESA has 196 Megapixels with stitching issues too. But the main problem here is the set, which does not fit the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Info Hacker news thread on the pics --David Osipov (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2024 at 19:57:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
- Info created by Олександр Воропаєв - uploaded by Олександр Воропаєв - nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Info Transfiguration Cathedral in Odesa. On July 23, 2023, the cathedral was severely damaged by a Russian missile attack. This is UNESCO World Heritage site in Ukraine -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very sad and high quality, I think it's a bit of a shame that we have the distracting shadowy figure of the second workman in the doorway, but not enough of a drawback not to support. Cmao20 (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Due to its high documentary value, the picture is worthy of promotion. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Rbrechko (talk) 12:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 12:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --PaestumPaestum (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20 and Radomianin. – Aristeas (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support--ArildV (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support per others, but I think there's CA on the right, especially the upper right on the edges of bricks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support per others, --Famberhorst (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2024 at 16:22:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Corvidae (Crows, Jays and Magpies)
- Info created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thank you for the nomination. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --PaestumPaestum (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful bird, good posture, composition and quality. – Aristeas (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Punk on a branch :-) Basile Morin (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Aristeas. Very vivid, great facial expression. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Support --Smallworldclick (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Invalid vote. Newly created account can't vote, sorry. Please read the guidelines --Basile Morin (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2024 at 08:18:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus_:_Bubulcus
- Info created by Giles Laurent - uploaded by Giles Laurent - nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Crazy eye :) --Rbrechko (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Aristeas (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very high resolution and excellent level of detail -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2024 at 06:11:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Grisons_(Graubünden)
- Info S-charl, bridge over the fast-flowing mountain stream Clemgia, a tributary of the Inn. The autumn colours are at their peak at S-Charl in Switzerland (altitude 1810 metres).
All by me -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC) - Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Autumn colors make this photo spectacular. --Rbrechko (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support I just love when the European larch take these colors in autumn -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 12:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 12:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support as per Giles Laurent. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --PaestumPaestum (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Giles. – Aristeas (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very nice composition --Don (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2024 at 03:37:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Kazakhstan
- Info created and uploaded by Максат79 - nominated by Екатерина Борисова -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral Great composition but I think the colours are a bit oversaturated Cmao20 (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 20:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Somehow. Despite i think sky colors are more fake. But that structure make it pass and Kazakh could be more represented. --Mile (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 12:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --PaestumPaestum (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Impressive, great structure. Probably a bit overprocessed, but when comparing misc. photos from the WWW I get the impression it’s not completely unrealistic. – Aristeas (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support as per Cmao20 and Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral per Cmao20 and Mile -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2024 at 03:23:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Others
- Info created and uploaded by Radomianin - nominated by Екатерина Борисова -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the nomination, Екатерина Борисова. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- I love this picture, it shows the photographer's talent to see beauty and grace in an ordinary street scene. This is the wow factor for me. The color combination is also wonderful here. Thank you for sharing this little masterpiece. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Many thanks for the appreciation, Екатерина Борисова. The picture was a real snapshot, we were first in a record store and then, as I recall, in a store next door, which we left with the friendly woman in red. During our walk through SF, my camera was always ready for spontaneous snapshots. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Busy background, nothing special. Yann (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Yann --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support When we want to show people walking on a city street the background will usually be busy; somehow the variety of the city must be included – if the background consists just of windows reflecting the sky or a wall we would not get the feeling that we are in the downtown. The vanishing lines of the row of cars on the left and of the buildings on the right, which converge above the centre of the picture, bring order to the composition; the woman seems to be walking towards this vanishing point, her placement slightly to the left adds tension to the composition. This placement, the bright colours of her clothing and the out-of-focus background make her stand out clearly from the background. For me, this is a good example of an intense, orderly and yet dynamic composition in the middle of the variety of a city centre. – Aristeas (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Yeah I think it's great. The colours, the outfit, the sense of movement, all superb. Good street photography. Cmao20 (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Yann. -- Karelj (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2024 at 23:00:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual_snow_sports
- Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Tupungato -- Tupungato (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Tupungato (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Tight crop, background isnt so favourable. --Mile (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very good sharpness for a pull along shot at that high resolution. --Granada (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Stunning sports photo which conveys an excellent impression of the tremendous speed of the ski jump thanks to the successful panning. The background is good, both for the panning (if the photo was taken against snow, the blue sky etc., we would not see the speed) and for the composition: the crossing diagonal lines make the composition interesting. – Aristeas (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Convincing example of the panning technique. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Agree the quality is rather good for a panning shot. Not as sharp as this one but still very convincing at lower resolution. Question: What are the red and grey ghosts at the lower left corner? -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- A ski jumper is moving their body, legs and arms for correcting their in flight position at all times until the landing, so it's practically impossible to get a ski jumper completely sharp when panning and using longer shutter times. The plane itself does not move all its parts, it's one block of mostly metal parts slicing throug air and it is most probably photographed from further away and not in 2-3m distance as with ski jumpers. --Granada (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting. It's not an answer to my question, though, right? -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2024 at 22:24:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Space_exploration#Space_launch_vehicles
- Info created by NASA/Bill Ingalls - uploaded by BugWarp - nominated by Tupungato -- Tupungato (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Tupungato (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --BugWarp (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support Yes, for such photos getting the right moment is everything. Or almost everything[.] – Aristeas (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC) Cut off discussion about technical details to avoid distraction of other voters. – Aristeas (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Discussion about technical details
|
---|
|
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 12:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose A lot of CAs (Green/red) and perspective correction necessary (see especially the pole at the left and the silo and the poles at the right). It is also not very sharp. --Llez (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Karelj (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2024 at 21:12:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Sky
- Info created & uploaded by Anthony's astro - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
* Support --Ermell (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Basile and Giles. --Ermell (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It's of course a beautiful picture at thumbnail but when looking closer at the separation between the sky and land I wonder if the background is real or if it is a photomontage of a sky photographed from another place/angle/time. The file description says the file was taken by putting a camera on a tripod and taking 30sec exposure shots and assembling them, which would mean that the background is supposed to really have been behind that foreground. But the author is the same one than this church picture that was recently delisted for having undeclared photo manipulations (fake background) and having misled votes. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Abstain Explicit abstention in line with Giles' analysis and reasoning. Personally, I'm tired of undisclosed manipulations on this forum, just recently I fell for a manipulation in my nomination of someone else's picture, which the author didn't really admit. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Giles Laurent. We shouldn't promote any more images from this user given the risk that they could be photomontages. Cmao20 (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think we have to judge the picture and not the author. If the author shows us the original raw of this image and that he proves that it's not a photomontage, this picture (and other proven real pictures) should still be able to be promoted in my opinion -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also this one by "AstroAnthony" is clearly a fake. There might be many other manipulations by this uploader (I don't want to waste hours examining each with a magnifying glass). It is not worth risking another time-consuming delisting process after potential POTY qualification like the previous case. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, if the author could provide the RAWs I would be happy to reconsider, but I think it's fair to assume that images by this user may be photomontages, particularly if they look 'too good to be true', and to vote accordingly. Cmao20 (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Too good to be true. --Thi (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Per above. Stitching errors. Note added. Ping @Ermell: -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2024 at 17:02:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Objects
- Info created by Otto Domes - uploaded by Otto Domes - nominated by Zquid -- Zquid (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Zquid (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Really nice. One of the few instances where black and white really works, because it focusses the eye on shapes and forms. Cmao20 (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Екатерина Борисова (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support as per Cmao20. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support as per Cmao20. --Harlock81 (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support The moment when an arrangement of everyday tools resembles an artwork; black and white definitely helps here. – Aristeas (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20 and Aristeas --Rbrechko (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 20:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful interplay of light and shadow, with good quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Paracel63 (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2024 at 12:35:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Pieridae (Whites and Sulphurs)
- Info created by Anitava Roy - uploaded by Anitava Roy - nominated by Sandipoutsider -- Sandipoutsider (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Sandipoutsider (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Question male? Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose we are probably spoilt with crispy sharpness and detail of Lepidopteras here, this one is below the bar, the eye is blurry, sorry. Poco a poco (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Poco, unfortunately this is not sharp, even though the composition is great Cmao20 (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, very beautiful and well-composed, but just too soft (maybe the AF missed the focus?). – Aristeas (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose no wow + unsharp. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2024 at 09:47:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#France
- Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful photo of a charming timber-framed house in very authentic condition. The storks on the roof are a nice extra and so typical for the Alsace. – Aristeas (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --EUPBR (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --PaestumPaestum (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2024 at 22:59:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Laos
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful light + composition Cmao20 (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support as per Cmao20. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support lovely composition. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very pleasing composition, beautiful contrast between blue hour outside and warm lighting inside. – Aristeas (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 12:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Aristeas — Rhododendrites talk | 13:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Rbrechko (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support If you had moved the tripod 5 cm to the left (or maybe less) the composition would have been absolutely perfect. However, a photo to be noted and to be taken into consideration for the complementary colors that alternate to create a relaxing effect. --Terragio67 (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'll try to remember that for next time. Thank you very much for your insightful / constructive appreciation -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- 3.5cm I think... Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per Terragio67. The centering is not optimal in my opinion.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2024 at 19:57:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Styles and Techniques#Texture photography
- Info Two wood knots which resemble two eyes in the wooden fence at the north side of the plot Lembergerstrasse no. 13, Beilstein, Württemberg, Germany. All by – Aristeas (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support I like this simple example of pareidolia along with the rich texture of the aged wood. Two fellows have told me that they particularly like this photo, so I’m going to give it a try. What do you think? – Aristeas (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment What do I think? Mmmm. It's a knotty problem. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support The eyes look so big that you can imagine the mouth open :) Great example of pareidolia, similar to this sad one from your archive. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Kritzolina (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support it's really cool how this resembles a pair of eyes. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Different Poco a poco (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support----Famberhorst (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 12:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Terragio67 (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Pareidolia not the most obvious at first sight (although I don't deny to guess it roughly, two eyes of course, eventually a nose, and a discreet closed mouth) but the light is pleasant, the level of detail very high, and the composition appealing. I also appreciate Radomianin's link and agree both images match very well. They are indeed "alive" in an abstract way, beyond their representation -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2024 at 17:14:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Poland
- Info A courtyard and workers’ houses below high factory chimneys in Nikiszowiec, Katowice, Poland. Between 1908 and 1918 Nikiszowiec was built for the workers of a coal mine according to the plans of the architects Emil and Georg Zillmann. Today the neighbourhood is a listed architectural monument. Created and uploaded by Radomianin, nominated by – Aristeas (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support I like very much how this photo illustrates the life in the shadow of tall factory chimneys; this effect is enforced by the contrast of the huge chimneys with the playground equipment in the middle ground, and the subdued light of the evening sun also fits in well with this impression. – Seems that during the Wikimania 2024 in Katowice two of our fellows visited this neighbourhood at the same time; Frank Schulenburg took a very similar photo and it was hard to decide between the two. In the end I have opted for Radomianin’s image because IMHO the portrait (vertical) format and the steep diagonal of the footpath ending in the bottom right corner make the composition more dynamic and emphasize the height of the chimneys better. – Aristeas (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Many thanks for the nomination, Aristeas. When we went on the photo tour, we were just in time to catch the evening light. Personally, I like the contrast between the houses, the safe haven of the people, which is in complete contrast to the monstrous industrial architecture represented by the chimneys. I also like the lines, including the contrails, which create a kind of convergence. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support I went to another of the tours to this place - I wish I had captured the atmosphere there as well as Radomianin did! --Kritzolina (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --EUPBR (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support----Famberhorst (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --PaestumPaestum (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The two chimneys don't have the same color. The one at the right has a blueish hue. It is pink and gray, while the other at the left is red and white -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Improved file uploaded Thank you for the constructive feedback, Basile. The bluish hue of the right chimney has been removed. You are right about the different shades of red, I already noticed this during the development. On site, they actually look like this, I suspect the red paint on the right chimney is either older than the left one, or was a different quality of paint that allows the azo dyes to fade faster due to ultraviolet radiation. Here are a few examples from the same month this year, where you can see that they are just as different as in my photo: 01, 02, 03, 04 and 05. If you compare these with a photo from 10 years ago, the suspected UV light bleaching seems reasonable. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks to both of you! This is a very interesting hint, Basile. I wanted to answer that the difference seems to be mostly real, as other photos show, but Radomianin has already explained this and also improved the image – great! Best, – Aristeas (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Radomianin, for the clarification and useful links that confirm your words. Thanks also to Aristeas for the comment. Interesting feature of the real world! Not enough wow for me, but if a majority of supporters want this image FP, I'm fine (neutral) with a promotion -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2024 at 11:00:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Aegithalidae (Long-tailed Tits)
- Info created by Jerzy Strzelecki - uploaded by Jerzy Strzelecki - nominated by Jerzystrzelecki -- Jerzystrzelecki (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Jerzystrzelecki (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Lovely. --Yann (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Although I'm not sure if everything possible has been done with the denoising, I think this is a great photo! --Superbass (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely not, Superbass, I gave it a try, see here, I think that there is room for improvement here. Jerzystrzelecki you are free to offer this version as an alternative or upload it over your version if you like, whatever you like (or do nothing, that's also fine with me). --Poco a poco (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose For now, we need here some kind of improvement, you are of course also welcome to reprocess it on your own. Poco a poco (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Really lovely, excellent posture and composition. But I agree with Poco a poco that the processing should be improved. A new processing from the raw image file (an ARW file in your case) would be the perfect solution (I could help you with this if you want – I have used the same camera and use the same lens). But Poco a Poco’s version (thanks!) is already a solid improvement and even ready for use for you, so it would be the easiest solution. – Aristeas (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Follow-up Comment Jerzy, this is really a lovely and wonderful photo, I (and other users) would really like to become it a Featured picture. We just think that the post-processing is not up to what your photo deserves. Modern tools allow to reduce the image noise greatly without sacrificing details (as old-styled noise removal did), therefore the new tools have rapidly become standard especially with wildlife photos. Just contact Poco a poco or e.g. Radomianin or me if you would appreciate a little help with this. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks to Aristeas for his engagement. The photo is too beautiful to let this nomination die. SwissTransfer link provided: This version is similar to Poco's (thanks for the edit), but in mine the colors are closer to the photographer's original. However, the degree of denoising and sharpness is similar to Poco's version. If you and the community find the edit acceptable, feel free to use it for an update. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Will support Poco's version, but not this one. Cmao20 (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 20:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2024 at 20:19:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
- Info Man dressed as the pagan god Veles at the traditional Rękawka festival in Kraków. All by me -- Jakubhal 20:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Jakubhal 20:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support I'm captivated by this unusual portrait. If you compare it to similar ones from the series in the category, it really is the best. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Appealing mask portrait in good quality. – Aristeas (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2024 at 19:46:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Automobiles
- Info Abandoned Ford E-Series van by Gerritsen Creek in Brooklyn, New York. I like the mix between urban waste and nature at the edge of a city. I was torn which to nominate, this one or this wider view that includes a glimpse of Manhattan, but I think making the van the subject probably works best. all by — Rhododendrites talk | 19:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 19:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Distracting branches. This derelict vehicle with graffiti has its own charm, but as FP, the unbalanced tight crop at the right, cluttered by branches interfering with the composition in the foreground, make the viewpoint awkward, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Basile Morin, sorry but I do think the branches are distracting, great subject but unsure about composition Cmao20 (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Before nominating, I uploaded a version with the branches removed, but wound up reverting as it seemed like a bit much. — Rhododendrites talk | 01:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment For me, this is an interesting image that I would support without the branches. I took the liberty and created a proposal from the revision at 19:35 on 25 November 2024. Please see the SwissTransfer link. Modifications made: fixed retouching remnants on the top right. From the left side I cropped 300 px and made a slight level adjustment to give the sky a bit more weight. This is just a suggestion that you are welcome to use for an update if the result is acceptable for you and the community. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Alternative
[edit]- Info This is the retouched version, with branches on the right removed, as edited by Radomianin (thanks!). I uploaded it as a separate file to allow for an alternative. Pinging other voters so far: @Basile Morin and Cmao20: — Rhododendrites talk | 14:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 14:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support The image not only conveys the problem of environmental pollution, it also has an "apocalyptic aftertaste". Thank you for the alternative upload, I personally find this crop the most appealing. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support this one is much better. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support IMHO this one works perfectly. – Aristeas (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --PaestumPaestum (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2024 at 10:52:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus_:_Alopochen
- Info Quite a common bird these days in Europe. FPs of an adult's head and of a chick. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as long as not sufficiently COM:CAT'egorized --A.Savin 16:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Why don't you just let the one do it whose job it actually is? --A.Savin 15:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please explain the reason for the continued oppose vote A.Savin. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Das behalte ich mir bei falscher und/oder unvollständiger Kategorisierung Ihrerseits auch weiter ausdrücklich vor. --A.Savin 15:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Google translate says this means I reserve the right to do so in the event of incorrect and/or incomplete categorization on your part. But I have no idea what is wrong now. Can ANYBODY help please? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please justify continued oppose vote or remove it @A.Savin: . Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please justify continued oppose vote or remove it @A.Savin: . Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please justify continued oppose vote or remove it @A.Savin: . Your vote is stopping promotion. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please justify continued oppose vote or remove it @A.Savin: . Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please justify continued oppose vote or remove it @A.Savin: . Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Google translate says this means I reserve the right to do so in the event of incorrect and/or incomplete categorization on your part. But I have no idea what is wrong now. Can ANYBODY help please? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Das behalte ich mir bei falscher und/oder unvollständiger Kategorisierung Ihrerseits auch weiter ausdrücklich vor. --A.Savin 15:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please explain the reason for the continued oppose vote A.Savin. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Why don't you just let the one do it whose job it actually is? --A.Savin 15:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
And what is wrong?Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)- Support What a lovely composition. I would also like to know what is wrong with the categories as this might help me in future nominations, it isn't clear to me what is wrong with this at the moment. Cmao20 (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice light and composition. Category Ducklings added. Interesting mirror image -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping. I have replaced ducklings (=ducks; not geese) with another category. It is worth noting that the category structure of this species uses the word feral which is incorrect. Most of these geese are wild from introduced birds and are not feral. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your update and sorry for my confusion. It's the idea of "juvenile" that I wanted to introduce and I was also thinking that you would easily find the relevant subcategory. But it's a different branch and you're more than expert :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Rbrechko (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful and charming family photo. – Aristeas (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --PaestumPaestum (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support So nice family and reflect composition An insect photographer (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
File:Bukchon-ro 11-gil street with hanok houses at blue hour in Bukchon Hanok Village Seoul.jpg
[edit]Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2024 at 07:56:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#South Korea
- Info created & uploaded by Basile Morin - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting but lacking that special thing to make it extraordinary IMHO --Poco a poco (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thank you very much, Tomer T, for the nomination. It's a pretty street surrounded by authentic hanok houses in Seoul, and I was lucky that evening to find it deserted after a sunny day -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 16:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support To be honest I know what Poco means. I don't much like the fact that the road has been tarmacced over. Nevertheless, interesting enough for FP and nice light. Cmao20 (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2024 at 16:01:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1949
- Info created by Claude Dettloff, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann
- Support Notable historical image with its own article. This was a delicate restoration. It was heavily damaged. Apparently the print was scratched with a sharp tool. All copies on the Net have the same defect. -- Yann (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Historical or not, this is an atrocious image. Wolverine X-eye 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support I think it's lovely Cmao20 (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 04:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Happy end :-) I checked the restoration work and find it well handled, given the difficulty.
- Photographically the focus is wrong (and the crop tight at the left), it's a shame, but this image has its own story (and yes, also own article on en-wiki). It has become an iconic photograph. We should take this into account.
- Finally, a reminder about the voting process. COM:FPC: 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... -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nomination, per Basile. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nomination, per Basile. – Aristeas (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 20:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2024 at 03:06:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Sky
- Info created by Zwiebackgesicht - uploaded by Zwiebackgesicht - nominated by Zwiebackgesicht -- Zwiebackgesicht (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Zwiebackgesicht (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 08:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Why PNG? I would support a JPEG version. Yann (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral
{{s}}--Harlock81 (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)- I change my position since no answer has arrived to the questions below. --Harlock81 (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I've never seen the Milky Way look anything like this. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Per Charles, the colours certainly do look very strange. I'd like to know more about how this picture was taken. Was it during an aurora, or is a special filter being used? Cmao20 (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- The image was strongly edited : the milky way was brightened a lot and everything else extremely darkened with a painting brush. Also the stars are sadly out of focus (these shots always require manual focus and usually to achieve a good focus on the stars the cursor must be set just slightly before infinity because at infinity the focus is always missed, at least on Sony cameras but I don't know what camera was used for this one since the exif data are missing). As for the colors they are either a side effect of the strong edits or were painted in the image with a brush -- Giles Laurent (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Je-str (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Giles Laurent. Surprised this is still picking up support votes. Cmao20 (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose What are these red and green stripes? The picture also looks overprocessed -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Finally no, per others. Yann (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with the reviewers that the image looks relatively colorful compared to other images of the Milky Way. So far I have no experience with this kind of photography. But as I remember from the weather reports, there were some unusual aurora observations in Germany in August this year. Maybe that influenced this photo, but I'm just guessing. @Zwiebackgesicht: I took the liberty of creating a version with less saturation, a little less noise, and more sharpening. I also applied the sRGB color profile to ensure a consistent display on most monitors. The file was saved in the slowest mode, which reduced the file size by 20 MB while maintaining the same quality. Please see the SwissTransfer link 1/2. This is just a suggestion to be helpful, if this version is an improvement for the community and for you, please feel free to use it for an update. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It is certainly a lot better, but I don't know how much of the colours here are trustworthy. It's hard to know how far the original manipulations went and thus how far they should be reversed. Cmao20 (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- The contrast is still completely exagerated and inaccurate and the colors are still not real, you never get colors like that with a picture of the milky way -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks to Cmao20 and Giles for your evaluations. It is difficult to adjust saturation and level values based on guesswork when the original file is not available. But I didn't want to leave it untried. I created a second version in which I reduced the brightness, contrast and saturation values significantly: SwissTransfer link 2/2. There are still a few days left until the end of the nomination period and I'm still hoping that the author will respond with his personal feedback. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- The green and red colors in the sky still come out of nowhere and don't exist in reality. There's also many blue weird zones in the black zones that look like it was painted (I think they are remains of the painting brush used to darken the sky). The whites also seem a bit too illuminated. And also the black part of the sky is underexposed in my opinion (but underexposed because of the way it was edited by painting it darker and not by the way of taking the photo). I think the image has to be reworked from raw because the way it was edited to make everything else than the milky way much darker probably caused details to be lost there -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your insightful remarks, Giles. You're right, without the raw file we can't make any progress here. It's a pity that the author/nominator hasn't responded yet. Best, -- Radomianin (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, if improvements can be made in this case, I think working from the RAW file would be better. At least to see from where we start -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
File:Jaszczurówka at Winter.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2024 at 17:46:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Poland
- Info created by Jakub T. Jankiewicz - uploaded by Jakub T. Jankiewicz - nominated by EUPBR -- EUPBR (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- EUPBR (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Wow. Great atmosphere Cmao20 (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Nice but too dark IMHO Poco a poco (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Underexposed Agree with Poco. Even an atmospheric image needs to offer a little more distinguishable content. The roof and the trees are currently too dark in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Heavily manipulated image. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Question Frank, this is a very important hint, can you elaborate a bit on the manipulation? Thank you! – Aristeas (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- The overprocessing (in particular with regard to the colors) makes this look super artificial to me. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your assessment, Frank! It seems the photographer was after a very painterly look … – Aristeas (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I hear you. I guess it's more a matter of taste and what the image is being used for. In my opinion, for a piece of art to be hung on the wall, it would be wonderful. But in an encyclopedic context, the heavy-handed processing is just to much. At least for me. Given the artistic merit, I'd be perfectly ok with it being promoted.--Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral I’m torn on this one: on the one hand I am conviced by Frank’s assessment, on the other hand I can’t deny the atmosphere and effect of the result. After looking at other photos of the church it seems not totally unrealistic to me, so I am inclined to regard the editing as within the creative freedom of the photographer. – Aristeas (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support The image looks natural to me (eventhough it's a bit underexposed in my opinion, hence the weak support) and I honestly think the image was not edited much from what was captured with the camera. In night photography long exposure shots like this one (6sec exposure) often lead to such colors and such light effects -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support per Giles –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 04:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 14:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Dark but very nice IMHO -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support After some reflection and thought, I agree with Giles' evaluation. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Level of detail too low in the dark areas, in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)