Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2009

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


This is an archive for Commons:Featured picture candidates page debates and voting.
The debates are closed and should not be edited.


[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 15:29:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Allianz Arena lighting in blue, Munich, Germany.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2009 at 14:34:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ophelia, classic beauty
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 12:41:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles#Air
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2009 at 04:22:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wildlife as Lake Manyara, Tanzania
Karel, I can take constructive criticism. But "no wow" is kind of lame, and empty (and some of the images you have voted for lacks any "wow" in them). I hope you did notice the use of DoF to show four distinct 'layers' - from foreground to background, with animals in their natural habitat and movements. --eismcsquare 02:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ikiwaner (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2009 at 08:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dead acacia tree in Dead Vlei, Namibia

*  Oppose Noise is visible even on thumbnails, 1,2 only. —kallerna™ 13:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)) 22:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2009 at 07:21:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Late afternoon sun on the western wall of the Glen Helen Gorge in the West MacDonnell Ranges, Northern Territory, Australia.
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2009 at 08:02:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2009 at 21:04:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

F-A-18 Hornet readied to be catapulted into the air
  • That does not explain the jpeg artifacts. There was less visible artifacts in images from my digital camera I used in 1998. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Daniel, I doubt that noise, posterization and artifacts are all camera-induced if we're talking about 2004 technology. Point-and-shoot cameras were better than that in 2004 (my 1 year old 5 mpx sony point-and-shoot was already 1 year old when this got taken). This picture's histogram was probably stretched one way or another, causing low contrast areas, like fog, to be severly degraded. --S23678 (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Longbeach 1 bg 122802.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 11:38:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

—kallerna™ 12:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 16:47:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Spider webs in Muir Woods
It could make a very good picture of the day for next year w:Halloween--Mbz1 (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that some photo could be used doesn't make it a worthy FP candidate. --Leafnode✉ 10:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what I like the image, and enjoy your opposes, so please keep them coming --Mbz1 (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 22:24:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Czech castle Zvíkov on Vltava river
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:City Lights at Night.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 03:57:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

City Lights at Night, Los Feliz, Los Angeles
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's composition and quality are sub-standard to normal FPs. --S23678 (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2009 at 21:14:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

fogbow
Of course it is FP. It is a very good image of a very rare phenomena. --Mbz1 (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Low modesty levels detected ;) It's a good representation of a very rare phenomena, but IMO it's not an eye-catching image, as the rest of the FPs usually are. That's why we have VIs. --Leafnode✉ 13:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is, where we differ. IMO the image, is very much eye-catching, interesting and educational. It surely cautht your eyes, if you bothered to oppose :)--Mbz1 (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what makes you to think that the phenomena is not rare enough? Have you seen it yourself? Have you taken an image of it? Have you seen many images of the same phenomena taken by others? Were they better than the nominated image? Just wonder :) BTW the quality is not low, it is almost as good as it gets with such images.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that most of your pictures are extremely rare, that word looses a bit of it's value when you use it... But since you provide pictures of this phenomenon on 2 other separate occasions in the Fogbow category, I guess it's not that rare. And, no, I am not a specialist, but I'm probably not more a specialist than the people who supported your picture. --S23678 (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that I am lying, when I said that the image is very rare? I have quite a few images nominated now, and I did not use the words "extremely rare" to describe any one of them, but that one. Maybe you could link to my other nominations, where I used the words "extremely rare" to describe my image. BTW I said that this fogbow was "very rare" and not "extremely rare". About fogbows. They are more or less rare. "Very rare" are 360 degrees, full circle fogbows, the one, which is nominated now. But I guess you do not see, and do not want to see the difference. May I please suggest you to give it another thought before making the statements as you did? Please have a nice day. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can agree that we disagree on about everything... Have a nice day as well! --S23678 (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference is that I could prove my disagreements with you with the facts, while you are good only at ignorant talking without any proves at all :) --Mbz1 (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I'm keeping on going with this, but I guess I'm taking it as a challenge. I'm wondering what kinds of facts you need from me, so I added notes on the image about the quality problems. For the rest, it's a mater of personal taste. You think the rareness of the phenomenon is a good enough mitigating reason for the defects that your image have, that's ok, after all, that's why you nominated your image. But I have the right to think that it's not a strong enough mitigating reason as well... If everyone had the same opinion, what a boring place FPC would be. So, is this the last round? --S23678 (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in continuing that discussion either, but I'd like yo explain what statements of yours prompted me to respond the way I did. First was that one (highlighted by me) "I don't think the phenomenon is rare enough or the composition is exceptional enough to mitigate the low quality." In that statement you put my statement that the phenomena is very rare under doubt. You had no reason to do it. You know nothing about fogbows. IMO, if a person "thinks" about something, he'd better be able to explain what made him to think that way. Even after I explained to you why this particular fogbow is very rare you did not bother to admit you were wrong about rarety of the phenomena. The other statement was that one: "Given that most of your pictures are extremely rare, that word looses a bit of it's value when you use it..." I asked to give some examples of those. You did not bother to respond.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is going nowhere. I'll give you the joy of having the last word. --S23678 (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2009 at 21:35:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sanger Institute and Hinxton Hall, Cambridge, UK. HDR panorama bringing out autumn colours.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eiffel Tower at night.png

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 03:25:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's too small --S23678 (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2009 at 20:50:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portrait of a plant
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Flowers
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2009 at 16:40:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kenyon Cox's Nude study
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2009 at 16:19:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Puck cover
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Venezia - suggestiva foto con giochi di luce.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 18:00:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

picture of Venice taken from a cruise ship
Examples of ridiculous supports. Since their opinions is against me (not the picture), I have the right to think their supports are ridiculous. --S23678 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Very blurry and noisy. --Aqwis (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Two silhouette profile or a white vase.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 15:39:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Two silhouette profiles or a white vase?
Could you please link me to the guidelenes for FPC, which said that the image should be "high artistic merit" ? --Mbz1 (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to add this : (in the sense that it's a widely known optical illusion, hence making it not very exceptional). Don't get me wrong, the illusion is well done. I just can't see it's exceptional character, as required for FP. --S23678 (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong, if an image of optical illusion will get FP status, at least it is something different.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I totally agree with you on this point, but as much as a cliché shot of Machu Picchu must have some exceptional character to it to make it better than most of the other cliché shots done at the same spot, this widely done optical illusion must have some exceptional character for it to make it FP, IMO --S23678 (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the merits that I do not think we have a single optical illusion image featured, and on what merits you opposed the image, if I may ask? Not that I am really interested to find out. I mean who cares --Mbz1 (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should read featured picture criteria. FP is not a picture that we don't have nothing against. First picture has to fulfill some requirements, that this picture does not fulfill. First of all, picture should be the finest of commons. Exceptional. This simple drawing is not exceptional. We even have a whole category for pictures like this. I really don't see any feature that makes this image better than the other vase/faces images. I don't know what you meant by saying "Again familiar all faces", but I sense that conspiracy theories are coming on soon. --Leafnode✉ 21:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should read feature picture criteria. Of course the nominated image is the only one from vase/faces that could have been promoted to FP because it meets the size requiremnet, while others do not. Besides you did not even bother to read what I said about the image. It is not a drawing. The image was made from a photograpgh of a real young man that I took last night.I am not sure what "conspiracy theories" you are talking about, but IMO it will be better, if you kept your "sences" to yourself, except of course sense of humor that I believe you're missing --21:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
File:Cup or faces paradox.svg is a vector drawing, so it can be any size you want. It is also sharper, and probably would satisfy Jovan's requirement that the vase should be clearly visible. --Leafnode✉ 22:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with vector drawing, and have no idea how such images are made :( I looked at the category, and saw the images of only low resolution. Then I decided it will be fun to make the same image with the real face and of a high resolution. I still believe I've done nothing wrong, when I nominated the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you did nothing wrong. Anyone can nominate any image. And while I tend to put self-nominations under scrutiny ;), it is still just vote, with no very strict rules regarding the substance of pictures (only technical matters), so (almost) any vote is valid. I could have added more philosophical remarks, but that is not the place for my opinions, and you probably won't like to listen to them, so I'll pass here :) Cheers --Leafnode✉ 22:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW thanks for telling me about vector drawing. Now I know why my image is an exptional between vase/faces - it is the only one that is not a drawing! Best, --Mbz1 (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vector images are readily made with Inkscape. Inkscape has a "Trace bitmap" feature that will convert an image like the candidate one to a vector image, which is indeed better suited for the subject. -- JovanCormac 06:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I'd love to see this well-known optical illusion Featured, but it has been done a lot better than in this image. The "vase" is barely recognizable here. Compare [1], where both the faces and the vase are better done. -- JovanCormac 17:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your example was probably made with the nose of w:Cyrano de Bergerac . My image was made from the image of a very real young man I photographed last night. The vase is still there only with more gentle feauters than in the example you provided.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again familiar all faces.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can stop those stupid and childish insinuations. -- Petritap (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop PA, watch your language, and use your sense of humor, if of course you have one.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop PA, immediately! As for the language, I'm allowed to call your insinuations stupid and childish, if they are stupid and childish. I did not not call YOU stupid and childish. Do NOT make public assumptions about my personal characteristics (my sense of humour, my intelligence, my looks, my skin colour etc.). That is an ad hominem attack. -- Petritap (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's right "everything said" :)  --Mbz1 (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 13:12:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

F/A-18 Hornet armed and ready
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles#Air

File:91 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 01:34:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Machu Picchu
Original image
  • Thanks for noticing that no downsampling has been done to "increase quality". As mitigating factors for the (small!) quality defects, there's quite an important NR done, the DOF required is very large, the lens themselves are very large as well, AND I had to hurry-up to avoid pissing off more people by completly monopolizing the stairs ;) but that's not a REAL mitigating factor I think...! Downsampled versions are available here to compare with standard lower resolution FPC. --S23678 (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument is valid (I can't convince you about liking the composition), but I'll just point the large FOV (14mm on APS-C) and the fact that moving back was impossible --S23678 (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that what I will say might sound like a profanity, but with a crop like this, at the first sight it looks to me like an ordinary pile of rubble. And I understand that there might be no space to move back. And while I'm very sorry, in my struggle for better FP level, which recently deteriorated, I can't vote "yes" :( --Leafnode✉ 14:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • HDR is a very wide field, just as a photoshopped image isn't just an optimized image of a girl in a magazine. I used HDR here to get more color saturation, more local contrast and more details. Having put the shadows less dark would have created an image too far from reality, and while it can be pleasing artistically, it would not have stood a chance in FPC. Verify for yourself and check the difference in details in dark areas. As for the yellow tint, while playing with the levels in photoshop, I got this pleasing golden color and I decided to keep it, since the Incas are associated with gold. --S23678 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 11:24:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portrait of white goose (Anser anser domesticus)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 17:46:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

B-17 and B-52
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles#Air
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 14:38:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bay Bridge
  •  Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Much less photographed than Golden Gate Bridge, Bay Bridge is also a beautiful one :)
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I think a shot at a time of the day with more light would be better. Yes, it is beautiful, but so beautiful that the loss of detail due to bad light can be forgiven. Plus there are dust spots in the water to the left and a possible one if not a very strong star to the right of the bridge in the sky. I still like the picture, but not enough for FP, sorry. and please keep on with you work, I like it.--Korall (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the caption of the image specificly explains the illumination of the bridge :

The illuminations on the cables, while part of the original design, are actually a relatively recent addition, made practical by the availability of high efficiency compact fluorescent lamps.The original roadway illumination was by low pressure sodium vapor lamps, which while efficient give off a garish monochromatic yellow light. On the lower deck these have been replaced with tubular fluorescent lights attached to the bottom of the upper deck, while on the upper deck the illumination is by high pressure vapor lamps, which give off a more full spectrum light.

It would have been hard to talk about illumination in a day shot I guess :) Dust spots are easy to fix, except I do not see them :( I will appreciate, if you could fix them please. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aqwis, could you please explain to me what quality problems you see at the image? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of sharpness and colour banding in the sky. --Aqwis (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. I am not sure about the sharpness. The sparkling lights prove that the image is sharp enough IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral interesting image, but the glare from carlights are ruining the mood and making bottom of this picture distracting. Also, there are some spots on it - maybe sensor needs cleaning. I'll mark them in a sec. --Leafnode✉ 10:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the glare, yes there is trafic at Bay Bridge :)--Mbz1 (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed dustspots. Thanks for pointing them out.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

[edit]

Bay Bridge

It is not right to talk abot 3 mpx. If the image were downsampled, then maybe, but it was only cropped and not downsampled at all.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of sharpness is more acceptable at higher resolutions. If this is a crop, longer lens would be more appropriate. --S23678 (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 03:42:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 06:14:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 23:40:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 Oppose Comment It's a transparent image, What do you prefer? GIF ? --The Photographer (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Why not sticking to the original file: File:Confederate_5_Dollars.jpg? Seems to be much clearer. --Andreas 06 (talk) 09:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 17:31:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fog over San Francisco
I just brought the image to PS and placed a grid over it. I could not see the tilt. Vertical lines seem to be vertical. If you would like to correct the tilt, please do, but I am afraid I cannot do it because I do not see it. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do it tonight, I don't have the tools right now --S23678 (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
During this time, could you upload the original image to limit multiple JPEG rewites? --S23678 (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are, but not all. Some are traffic lights, while others are lights at the structures. BTW did you see Golden Gate Bridge? It also has a light on.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must be blind today. :P Are you planning on nominating any images in future without the Golden Gate Bridge? :D Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I nominated an image of Bay Bridge down below. The image is getting opposed, and the bridge got so upset that part of it colapsed It has been clossed for few days already. The traffic is horrible. I asked the folks to support the image (not for me for the bridge :)), but so far nobody did...--00:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess the image is "not just enough for FP", it is the worst image from current nominations because you bothered to vote only on that nomination today, angmokio :)--Mbz1 (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Why not to oppose an image of the fog because of.... the fog :)--Mbz1 (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I take it back. It's not great. It's awful. -- Petritap (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And who is the judge?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 17:17:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

feijoa sellowiana (or acca sellowiana) - Myrtaceae
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 23:38:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Supermarket overview
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2009 at 21:47:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gibraltar Airport
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles#Air
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 17:24:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hurricane Bill in the first full disk thermal image from GOES 14
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 08:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Brazilian salmon pink birdeater
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2009 at 03:17:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
And since my potential need for plastic surgery has come under discussion, here's a portrait. In future, please refrain from this level of personal commentary during reviews.
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2009 at 04:32:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 15:35:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Perspective view of Seattle Columbia Centre
  • I'm taking a look at this just before going to bed, and I see no differences between the 2 version. I may be tired (or my screen may be dirty), but are you sure you uploaded a denoised version? --S23678 (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 05:40:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 14:16:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tanner scale - female
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 20:14:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A view of Tower North Central, the Sky Plaza and Opel 3
 Comment A piece of friendly advice to Tdgreen: do not give Creative Commons licences to your pictures. -- Petritap (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noise can be corrected, but it's not the only quality issue here (although the most visible). I don't think any post-processing can make this FP, if this is your intent. --S23678 (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:USS Mesa Verde (LPD-19) during shock trials - 080816-N-6031Q-213.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 09:04:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

USS Mesa Verde shock trials
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 18:31:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Volkswagen industrial plant in Wolfsburg, Germany.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /{{{sig}}}
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 23:51:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 21:38:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jan Garbarek Group Athens concert in Lycabettus theater, July 10th, 2007
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 20:24:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aglais Urticae
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2009 at 00:17:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Paradiesbrücke über die Zwickauer Mulde
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Notting-Hill Carnival-Beauty.JPG

[edit]

 Romazur 12:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2009 at 21:50:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Notting Hill Carnival Beauty
Thanks, first of all for honesty! romazur (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank You for above opinion, too - I accept Your point of view. romazur (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, typical for present NHC parades is almost everyone, probably from the whole world. Watching it live you may find out it's already transformed into a multicultural event. So, one is able to take a lot of extremely different pictures... Nevertheless, Your undoubtedly important remarks are being appreciated. romazur (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've got few more, but in my opinion this one is the most interesting... Thank You for Your point of view - of course - too. romazur (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I ought to say... at last! Little girl is cute, isn't she? When I discovered her on this picture, looking stright at camera, I started to think it is the best actress in supporting role I've ever seen. Pretty and misterious, as well. And what caused it? Tilt! :) romazur (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tlit was essential... Quality is everything what my compact camera can offer - I am only amateur in photography. Thank You for not long but concise statement, indeed. romazur (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Took me quite a time to think about it (tilt or no tilt?), and now I think the tilt is artistically valid here. But it's quite subjective. Overall, I feel it's an awesome picture (and model...!). --S23678 (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You very much for deep insight into the picture... romazur (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I want to see full costume. I think that a nice face is not enough for FP, especially with her eyes being closed (sadly, it makes the pic less interesting and lively for me). Also background could be better. And quality... Nice try though :)--Tired time (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly You have a full right of expecting to see nothing more but each one imagination of Yours. To be honest, this year there were parading several adult women I would be glad to see without any piece of costume... Unfortunetaly rules of the reality are heartless for daydreams :( Nevertheless, above expression of Your thoughts is important for me, too. romazur (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If "Per kallerna", ok - "Per kallerna": "Tlit was essential... Quality is everything what my compact camera can offer - I am only amateur in photography. Thank You for not long but concise statement, indeed." + I appreciate You were so kind to express some opinion. romazur (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's right - in relation to the facts: this is a picture with content focused on the one particular moment of the NHC, and I was not going to "photoshop" it to get anything more but real portrait of true beauty. So, thanks for wide reflections on this "raw"... picture! romazur (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank You for Your opinion, too. In fact it is not graphics, so... romazur (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sapona Panoramic.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 09:00:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Shipwreck panorama

 I withdraw my nomination

I'll suspend this until I can contact the author, and get the original images. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:F-16 refuelling, Exercise Green Flag East - 081201-F-3071N-235.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 09:20:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

F-16 refuelling
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles#Air
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 05:22:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 19:18:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Altar of the catholic church in Viechtach, Bavaria.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 14:41:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Su-27UBM
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 13:29:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 09:49:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chichilianne, the Trièves and the Écrins seen from the eastern edge of the high plateaux of the Vercors
Uh. There is a weird image bug in the middle of the sky - weird pixels. I'm regenerating the JPEG file. In the meantime, can you please evaluate the picture apart from this bug? Thanks. David.Monniaux (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bug fixed. David.Monniaux (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason Hugin is giving me weird tone/fuse bugs... David.Monniaux (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Create a panorama with each exposure then use enfuse (either with hugin or as a standalone). Hugin is doing the opposite when creating HDR panoramas (tone mapping then assembling frames). It's faster but not ideal. --S23678 (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 22:14:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A small village church on a bright day.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2009 at 11:25:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 01:59:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

fisherman
Kallerna, it is the very first time I nominated an image of a fisherman. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 19:21:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A rescue helicopter type Agusta A109K2 leaves Mount Pilatus after recovering a patient
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Impatiens lawii.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 18:36:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Impatiens Lawii is native to peninsular India,it's common name is Law's Balsam
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's too small --S23678 (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 17:29:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 07:35:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2009 at 16:39:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Soldier beetles (Cantharis fusca). Mating.
The thing is that, if the image was just a little bit better quality, and had just a little bit more details, it would not have been safe for the kids to look at --Mbz1 (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 07:53:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dead Vlei 3.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 18:43:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Contre-jour shot of an acacia tree in Dead Vlei, Namibia

 --Ikiwaner (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 04:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info created by Corey Leopold - uploaded by Lê - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, I think it is very clear, with the light river, but too dark, I think, but it is not opaque when I zoom it. -- Lê (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of low quality (heavy noise, low amount of details) and composition (intrusive foreground elements). Overall snapshot feeling. You obviously did not understood. You should ask advice from regular contributors BEFORE nominating further images. Next time, I might be a little less polite. Google translate : Bạn rõ ràng đã không hiểu rõ. Bạn nên xin lời khuyên từ những người đóng góp thường xuyên TRƯỚC cử thêm hình ảnh. Tiếp theo thời gian, tôi có thể là một chút ít lịch sự.--S23678 (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Doesn't look like a snapshot to me. And what exactly "Next time, I might be a little less polite" means? --Lošmi (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Means I was very polite to take him by the hand another time, as it has been done numerous times in the past by me and other contributors. Mr Lê has difficulties understanding FPC quality concepts, but doesn't seems to learn from his mistakes. So if the childish way doesn't work once again, I might be tempted by a more direct approach next time. --S23678 (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Aqwis. It is impolite to bite newbies, who have difficulties understanding English.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 20:33:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

panoramic view of the olympic stadium of Berlin

first version

[edit]

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Olympic station in Berlin at night
How everyone can prove this is wrong:
  1. Use JPGSnoop to determine how the original image (18.7 MB big) was saved. Result: Adobe PS CS4, Quality 12
  2. Open the image and downsample it to 66%, Save as with quality 12. Result: 11.3 MB file
  3. Open the new file again and upscale it so it's 7149 pixels wide again. Result: 17.1 MB file
  4. Final result: We lost 1.6 MB or 8.6 % of information.
A few years back I was thinking like you Blago when I uploaded this file as a downsampled version to reduce noise. A few weeks later we had to upscale the same image because we needed a large format print for an exhibition in Berne. That was when I realized that downsampling images is not useful for pictures here on commons. Besides: Take your favourite pictres and make some large format prints yourself. You'll notice how much harder to see noise is on paper compared to screen. Some noise might even increase subjective sharpness. --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not care so much about the noise, but I do believe that the image will look better (both on the screen and on the paper), if it is downsampled.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

second version

[edit]

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

panoramic view of the olympic stadium of Berlin
It is impossible to come to some conclusion. Some like it better in full resolution, others prefer downsampled version. FPC process is not fair I am afraid, yet I believe one of the version will probably pass. Tobi 87, please revert the file you overwritten with the downsampled version, and let the first nomination to proceed. Please upload downsampled version as a new file. That way the reviewers will have a choice between the two versions, which will go parallel to each other, and you will have more chances that one of the two is to pass. Good luck :)--Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Calibas that having this debate here is unfair on the photographer. We need clear guidelines for if and by how much an image should be downsized, but lets establish them before we oppose images either way based on downsizing. 99of9 (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Given that the guidelines are clear, I think some votes need to be revised - even if both sizes are separate versions, the high-res version should be featured. Voting the way we are, there is a chance that both version could fail. 99of9 (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is not fair to oppose downsampled image. The passing size requirement is only 2 megapixels. The nominated image is much bigger. Some users claim that the image could always be downsampled as needed, but not the other way around, but I believe that Internet connection of some of our readers and reviewers might be too slow to load big resolution images. That's why I believe we should have both images as separete versions. Each will link to other version in the image's description. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On image summary pages, it says something like this:

Size of this preview: 800 × 234 pixels
Full resolution‎ (15,150 × 4,430 pixels, file size: 25.28 MB, MIME type: image/jpeg)

In my opinion it would be nice to extend this to some common widths, heights, or percentages, so that the downloader could choose their own resolution. It seems odd to have duplicates with different file names. 99of9 (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For me the guidelines are very clear :
  • Graphics located on Commons may be used in ways other than viewing on a conventional computer screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible.
  • Images should not be downsampled (sized down in order to appear of better quality). Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file.
I see nothing indicating to voters and nominators that their image should be downsampled. I especially like the wording "in order to appear of better quality", since it's clearly stating (and it's a fact) that downsampling is just an illusion of quality, and that voters should be aware of it. Since I've started contributing on FPC, I've always tried to upload my images at the highest resolutions possible, unless strong mitigating reasons (such as keeping uploads under 100mpx...). I would personally make it mandatory for FPCs to be at the camera's native resolution, with the evaluation of quality done at a standard resolution for all nominations. This would put all nominations at the same level, encourage nominators and alleviate a lot of problems such as right now. --S23678 (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO that rule is all, but impossible to enforce. An image could be cropped, and one will never be sure, if it is downsampled or just cropped. The same with panoramas. Also, if that rule is enforced somehow, not only FPC, but Commons will loose some good and rare images IMO. Besides, if one would like to be consistent, one should oppose all downsampled images, and not only some of them. We have few that are nominated now, Would you like to go ahead, and to oppose all of them :)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors
The chosen alternative is: File:Berliner Olympiastadion night.jpg
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 06:42:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gate of Heavenly Peace, Beijing.2009-11-1
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2012 at 22:51:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chalciporus piperatus
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Gauravjuvekar (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 02:24:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Morning after Halloween
It is exactly what the image's name explains: "Morning after w:Halloween" :) The girl is still wearing a costume (horns on her head,and something on her legs), the guy has special shoes. IMO this image is like a story with no beginning and no end. We do not know what happen on Halloween party and why they were sitting like that for half-an-hour (I found them like that and went for a walk. When I came back half an hour later nothing changed in their position). We do not know how it will end up.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read that recent news article (can't find the link) about an old man who was laying dead for 3 days in front of his house, with his neighbours thinking it was an Halloween decoration... Were this couple breathing? --S23678 (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not read the story. Let's hope my image's story is a happy one :)--Mbz1 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
link --S23678 (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Daniel, I would have never allowed myself to upload image of "someone peeing in the bushes" leave alone to nominate it for FP :) --Mbz1 (talk)
Well, users have asked for more nominations of people... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean something different from Golden Gate Bridge :) Thank you for your comment! --Mbz1 (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not just that, but yes. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 02:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Not for voting: Comparison of the relief today and sketch showing significant differences between the two; this is a combination of loss of detail and addition of detail, causing the sketch to be idealized by the artist.
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 23:42:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stanley Steamer
  •  Oppose Chopped heads in foreground. 99of9 (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment I honestly can't believe that someone oppose this image with reasons like that. Too much going on? Well, this picture actually is about too much going on. The composition is anything but mediocre. You can't put the whole Universe in the image - something needs to be cut off. These heads in the first plan are just the part of the composition, implying that there are people on the other side, siting and watching. There's no need for them to be seen more than they are. And what does it matter if it's PNG? It's now 7,55 MB. If you save this as jpeg it's 3,71 MB. Big deal. Gee, you oppose this picture for really dull reasons. --Lošmi (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

[edit]
Alternative 1.
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 03:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vatican angle° 0
  •  Info created by juanRubiano - uploaded by Lê - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Lê (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of quality (overexposure, noise, resolution) and composition (tilt and crop) problems --S23678 (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support and be it only to remove that once again precipitate FPX by S23678. Where is your problem? Resolution is many times higher than required, can't see any noise, overexposure only in few spots, tilt is hardly noticeable and can be fixed, and after all, even if these were issues, they can't really destroy the excellent atmosphere in this picture. I'd really like to see more constructive criticism here than to piss of anybody who nominates pictures that just don't meet your personal preferences when it comes to technical standards. FPX is for clearly insufficient pictures, that's it. -- H005 22:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overexposure masks all details on both sides of St-Peter's basilica, noise is very visible on the out-of-focus areas, image resolution (the amount of detail in an image) is very low on the sides, tilt is very visible and the cross on the top of obelisk is cropped. You may think it deserves to be FP because of it's atmosphere, and I respect your choice, but given what I said, FPX was clearly sufficient to me. About personal preferences, I'm wondering what's FP is, if not a bunch of personal preferences... Your support is as much a personal preference as my FPX is. As for constructive criticism, Mr Lê has some difficulties understanding FPC rules, as it's suggested by his nomination history and some votes about it's nominations. There's some limit at holding someone by the hand, hence the lack of constructive criticism in my comments. --S23678 (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've never heard or read of Lê but can't see any evidence from this nomination that he/she "has some difficulties understanding FPC rules". It's a nice image with IMHO only minor technical flaws, and I value the mood and content of an image higher than technical perfection to a level that only enthusiasts like us here see who inspect every single pixel, but not all those millions of Wikipedia users who just will see a nice image. Sorry for being a bit harsh with my comment, no offence intended, I just found it very annoying to see repeatedly what in my humble opinion is a misuse of FPX. -- H005 23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paeonia lactiflora 'Bowl of Beauty'-2459.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 08:34:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Bowl of Beauty" Peony (Paeonia lactiflora).
  •  I withdraw my nomination As per request by Maedin. I'm still trying to figure out what gets supported and what doesn't. Seems to be a very fine line, as even ones which get lots of support will still have one or two oppose votes. --Silversmith Hewwo 22:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 10:39:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The military occupied the Complexo do Alemão, a Slums in Rio de Janeiro, 1998

 Comment I nominated this image because it haves a important social contest in Rio de Janeiro.--Econt (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Hey Econt, I can tell you right away that the tilt will need to be fixed. Aside from that, it looks good, and yes, the contrast is quite interesting. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'll oppose based on what I saw on travels. This is indeed an impressive sight based on a western country point of view. However, it's extremely common in a lot of latin american countries I went to. I did not went to Rio, but I saw the armoured vehicles guarding the Peruvian president's palace in Lima, I got searched at military checkpoints in Colombia, etc. Being such a common sight for that region of the world, I would expect more from such a FPC, in composition and people's visible emotions for example. --S23678 (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral The composition is really good (though it would be even better if the civilian was wearing red clothes), but quality problems are there (noise and sharpness mostly), which makes it difficult for me to support this. I cannot say how common such a sight is in Rio, but S23678 does have a point in that this isn't a war photograph and can probably retaken. -- JovanCormac 12:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Too much going on. —kallerna™ 15:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support as per Econt. Yann (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm with Jovan, great composition. I love the fact that there is too much going on - this kind of image always has hidden treasures if you scour it. However the people's faces have defects in them, and there are other minor quality issues that stack up against promotion. --99of9 (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support We have to few pictures about ordinary life.. Certainly when it is different from a Western experience it is valuable.. 17:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)This unsigned comment was written by GerardM --S23678 (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. On the basis of quality. I would love a better option to come along. --Silversmith Hewwo 04:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2009 at 12:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A specimen of Rana esculenta (Common edible frog) on a nymphaea leaf. Location: garden pond in Brandenburg, Summer 2005.
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Amphibians
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 14:51:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Gypsy Girl Mosaic of Zeugma
Cropped
Original

Tineye search

  •  Comment Trim parts of photo aren't included in mosaic. The original parts are missing. I think the picture is sufficiently characteristic and succesful. --.dsm. 01:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-edit from the original with perspective cropping, very extensive brightness and contrast corrections, and curves adjustment.
  • Comment Seeing the original and the nominator's crop makes a big difference. There are several problems with the nominated version in addition to Takabeg's comments above. Uncorrected perspective distortion is worth noting, but more important is the failure to correct for uneven and highly directional lighting. It stands to reason that the background tiles above the subject's head ought to have been made from the same stone as the background tiles behind her hair at far left, yet in the nominated version the former are nearly blown whites while the latter are quite dark. Also there's an unexplaned overabundance of red in the balance on the version nominated (no edit notes at all were provided on the hosting page, although significant digital edits to historic artwork should always be annotated). Here's hoping it doesn't offend the good intentions and hard work of the nominator to say that the result is not very successful: it really is necessary to correct for perspective and lighting before attempting that sort of edit. Have uploaded an alternate (displayed at right) which endeavors to address those issues. Over 100 layer masks were used to create this re-edit; could possibly tweak it further if people agree with this assessment. Durova (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Support the version by Durova only.--— Erin (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asa & Jätkäjätkät @ Bar Kino - Asa, Joska Josafat & Kari Hulkkonen.JPG, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2009 at 19:47:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Joska Josafat, Rasmus Pailos and Asa from Asa & Jätkäjätkät performing at Bar Kino, Pori, Finland.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 12:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guisard - Milky Way.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2009 at 11:32:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Milky way starscape taken from Paranal
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 14:33:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of a Roman bath beneath the Latin Quarter of Paris
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 06:59:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rose hip
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:M-danilov-2009-01.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 18:58:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Troitse-Danilov monastery in Pereslavl, Russua, on Easter 2009


 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Dear people, I appreciate your comments and now I agree with them.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 07:13:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Swallowtail" Butterfly
I just had a look through the category you linked to, and there are a few (ignoring caterpillars) that are high quality, but they are a bit noisy or blurry when you zoom in, and many have bad lighting or distracting backgrounds. this one is about the best that remains (excluding the one that is already a FP) and I doubt it would get voted in. If you think there is one that is worth nominating then please show me. And actually, having another close-up look at this one, it certainly has a few problems. I won't withdraw it at this point though, I'd like to get more feedback. --Silversmith Hewwo 12:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took myself the time to have a closer look at Category:Papilio machaon too. I made a quick selection over at my talk page. To be honest, I think the currently featured picture is the only one that deserves to be. --Ernie (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wicked Witch2.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2009 at 09:52:52
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Original - for comparison. Note the lines cut off at the bottom of the featured version are intact here.
  •  Info Comparing this to the original, it becomes obvious that some details at the bottom of the image - the line on the right side of the lower left puddle has been cropped through. It's a minor flaw, but so incredibly careless: paintings have been opposed for far less, and it was entirely avoidable with minimum competence and care. At worse, the creation of a small amount of paper could have been used to fix the awkward angle of the cutting of the pages in this particuar copy of the book. As this has not been done, I do not think this can be considered as amongst Wikipedia's best work, and it should be delisted. (Original nomination)
  •  Delist -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Why not delist it on Wikipedia then? ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 delist, 6 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2009 at 19:50:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Heath Fritillary (Melitaea athalia)
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Lepidoptera
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2009 at 17:27:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Snowfall in Enäjärvi.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2009 at 09:59:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

young indian woman
The strong shadows caused by the harsh sunlight are a point to criticize the image. I guess it is a candid shot and for that it is an excellent portrait. --Ernie (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 14:21:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tadorna ferruginea

Alternative 1.

[edit]
Alternative 1.

I was going to oppose the original because the ducks blend into the background too much, but then I decided to see if I could rectify that problem. I've cropped closer to the ducks (from the top and left only) and darkened the image using levels - the lower duck's head was the main issue with brighness. I would support my version or a version like mine, but not the original as it is now.--Silversmith Hewwo 01:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 13:15:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alluvial fan

* Support AWESOME PIC. LOVE THE DIFFERENT COLOURS AND LAYERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ^W^

Anonymous votes are not allowed.
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 21:36:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Brahmeid Moth, Buluowan, Taiwan.
 Comment Yes, I was concerned about the flash. I believe this photo was taken at night, which is when moths tend to come out. — Erin (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but even at night an umbrella or a diffuser can be used. --Dschwen (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 15:14:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Golf balls.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 21:45:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Moth (Thymelicus lineola)
 QuestionWould someone be able to remove the artefacts as I don't even know what that means and therefore can't do it myself. :( — Erin (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so easy to get rid of the artifacts without affecting the rest of the image. The artifacts possibly occured during postprocessing, e.g. sharpening or denoise with sharpening. If you have postprocessed this image, you should upload the original, so someone else can give it a try. --NEURO ⇌ 18:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 15:16:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Scales of Common Roach (Rutilus rutilus).
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 15:15:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sparklers with a slow shutter speed.
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Surfer in Santa cruz 11-8-9 -1.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 18:21:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Surfer and wave
As I said in the image's introduction, which I assume the user did not bother to read, the image is more about the wave than about the surfer. The "tiny surfer" is a very special bonus because he provides the scale for the wave. The image does illustrate the big, beutiful and special wave just fine.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I did, and I perceive the surfer not in the same way as you do ... GerardM (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again the image is about the wave and not about the surfer. That's why I do not understand what "Because of the tiny surfer this picture is hardly usable as an illustration" suppose to mean? Is it hardly usable as an illustration of the wave or it is hardly usubale as an illustration of the surfer? Would have you opposed the image, if there was no "tiny surfer" at all, and what oppose reason whould have you used then? I am just curious :) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this picture looks artificial, the surfer is an unmistakable detail that is too tiny. I have imho valid reasons why I do not like this picture. I do not like it either. I oppose this for a FP GerardM (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2009 at 03:08:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Main Quadrangle panorama at The University of Sydney, with the jacaranda in bloom.

Alternative: File:SydneyUniversity MainQuadrangle panorama 270.jpg

[edit]

Main Quadrangle 270 degree panorama at The University of Sydney, with the jacaranda in bloom.
By shooting at dusk I mean the moment when the sun disappears but there still is some rest light. The light is so even then that it produces hardly any shadows. Some people simply take an HDR during daytime though. --Ernie (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 23:02:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

* Oppose. I agree with Karel. I don't support historical value alone. --— Erin (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Info is it not great that it is restored as well, has good annotations and is of historical value ?
    It's just such a horrible illustration. I don't think it captures the scene well at all, and therefore isn't so great for historical value. It's good enough to go on an article, not good enough for FP. — Erin (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When you know something about the subject matter, you will find that there is hardly any material about this subject and at that this is among the best I have seen. There are discussions about this one and similar ones.. one of the questions is "why is the boy blindfolded, what is his role". The dancing on the head of two people is to get a clue if the deceased lived a good life. The one thing that puzzles me is that everyone is in white .. this is not in line with what I know about Suriname clothing.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a bad illustration like this one can lead to misinformation. I don't think the boy was deliberately blindfolded at all, as he is wearing the same white head scarf that the woman bending over is wearing and a couple of blokes in the back. He could have easily pulled it down himself, or it slipped down etc. Just because a picture has a lot of historical value doesn't mean it needs/deserves to be a featured picture. I will change my vote to  Weak oppose though.— Erin (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This picture is known and used extensively in literature.. It is considered a good illustration and the blindfolding is found in other pictures as well, it is just not understood. GerardM (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 22:59:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The blackberry leaf in autumn color.
  • Please explain the modifications you did, as I still see very visible banding in the sky. As well, was this picture taken with a FinePix F30 (a camera you used in other uploads)? I hope no, since this image would be twice as big as your sensor resolution...! --S23678 (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Asa & Jätkäjätkät @ Bar Kino - Asa 10.JPG, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2009 at 19:45:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Asa from Asa & Jätkäjätkät performing at Bar Kino, Pori, Finland.

Alternative version

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2009 at 19:45:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Asa from Asa & Jätkäjätkät performing at Bar Kino, Pori, Finland.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2009 at 21:38:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mute swan
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 00:59:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Horse market in Lorenzkirch
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Inname van Godesberg - Capture and destruction of Godesburg in 1583 (Frans Hogenberg).jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 21:59:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Resolution is far too low. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

-- JovanCormac 06:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kralicky-Sneznik-03.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 06:25:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info Kralicky Sneznik mountain, Czech Republic. Author - Marek Stránský - nominated by Anon
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: size is below guidelines without mitigating reasons --Leafnode✉ 15:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Ružomberok - Hrabovo pano.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2009 at 10:00:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hrabovo - part of Ružomberok city, Slovakia
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Wolf (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 21:32:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Three Zlins of the Żelazny team
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Wolf (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 22:15:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Baha'i House of Worship near Chicago.
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2009 at 21:12:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fjærland and the Fjærland Fjord in Sogn og Fjordane, Norway
Quick WB correction
The only parts of the picture that are blown are the window frames of the green house. Neither the boat (whose brightest spots have the RGB values 248/248/235) nor the roof of the brown building are blown. If you see them as blown, you may need to calibrate your monitor. Also, this is not a tone-mapped HDR picture, so it is only natural that the picture has both bright and dark parts. --Aqwis (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to suggest an alternative white balance, but I think the current white balance corresponds approximately to how I saw the scene when I took the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll upload it later if I can replicate your WB settings. --Aqwis (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:I35W Collapse - Day 4 - Operations & Scene (95).jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 08:24:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info Submitted Photo - nominated by Anon

Cars rest on the collapsed portion of I-35W Mississippi River bridge.

Alternative

[edit]

Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:25:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I scream truck on the beach!
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2009 at 12:14:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Catholic Church of St. Boniface in the Town of Werdau
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 22:08:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

What ever you make it
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 08:26:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info Vineyards in Napa Valley. created by Mila Zinkova - nominated by Anon

 thank you for nomination --Mbz1 (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really appropriate for you to withdraw the nomination when you are not the nominator? I am aware that you created the picture, but still... --Aqwis (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where were you when we discussed this? I do agree that author withdraw is nonsense, and really could have used your support in the discussion. You should check out FPC/talk more often. -- JovanCormac 13:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I believed that the rule was voted for and added to the gudilens. I guess I am mistaking. Please acept my apology, everybody. Go ahead with the votes. One more humiliation one less, who cares --Mbz1 (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right, it was, and you won't see me saying otherwise. What I am saying is that this rule shouldn't have passed in the first place (which I already argued for during the voting process) and that I could have used Aqwis' support for my position then, rather than now when it's all over. -- JovanCormac 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is funny. I thought that "Where were you when we discussed this? " was addressed to me :). So, I thought to myself that some users are unhappy, when I nominate my images, others are unhappy, when I withdraw nominations of my images :) I kind of got lost in translation :)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't read FPC talk very often anymore. --Aqwis (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, Aqwis, "sorry" is not good enough anymore. Now you should support the image.  :) Otherwise ... I do not know what I will do... Maybe misspell your user name like I did last time :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, please take a look at the image my husband took with his point-and-shot Nikon File:Napa valley vineyard 10.JPG. I am sure,some users would say it is "Oversaturated", except... the image is the original one not post-processed at all :) --Mbz1 (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmh, ok. I'm not quite sure I trust the color reproduction of a coolpix, but I trus you if you say the colors really were this vivis. The grass looks a bit iffy and there is a red blot somewhere in the right half of the frame. But it has been a while since I saw grapevines in fall. --Dschwen (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)s[reply]
And how that one File:Napa Valley vineyards 8.jpg looks to you, Daniel :) --Mbz1 (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1

[edit]

Napa Valley

Of course you do not know because ... I have never nominated the virst image myself :)--Mbz1 (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places
The chosen alternative is: File:Vineyards in Napa Valley 7.jpg
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2009 at 15:32:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portrait of a English: Mute Swan (Cygnus olor)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 12:33:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Józef Piłsudski
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 15:49:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Coats of arms of Proskowsky family (left) and Lobkowitz family in Opole (Oppeln)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:16:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

water droplets
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 03:50:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 09:51:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The burning of Columbia, South Carolina, February 17, 1865, by General Sherman's troops.
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Thomas Bresson - Water droplet-5 (by).JPG, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:00:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dew droplets on spider web
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 13:22:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Napa Valley
Do you mean to change the color of the sky without changing the color of the hills? One should also remember that so-called "mid-day" shot in November are very different from "mid-day" shot in June. The sun never goes high up in mid November (of course I mean Northern Hemisphere :))--Mbz1 (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 01:49:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sturnus vulgaris
What about the crop, if I may ask?--Mbz1 (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like that you can't see all of the birds in the flock. I appreciate, since it was obviously a large flock, that it probably wasn't possible. The photo to me just looks like lots of dark flecks on blue and even the largest birds aren't clear when zoomed in. For me, I'd either like a picture with beautiful composition where you can see an entire flock but not make out the birds clearly, or a small flock where, when you zoom in, you have great focus on at least some of the birds. --Silversmith Hewwo 23:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My deliberate choice???? What in a world do you mean?For everybody else here's how those birds are flying In my situation that "bird cloud" just happened to be all around me, so I guess it really was my "deliberate choice" . I wish I had many more choices like that one, I really do because it is a sight to behold--Mbz1 (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer to the points you've added after my answer below, even though you do not control the birds, you do control the composition to a large extent, and you are the nominator of this FPC, which makes the choice of such a composition for FPC to be deliberate (or, in other words : calculated, advised, intentional, well though out...) --S23678 (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These thousands of birds fly in a somewhat chaotic way, which is expressed in the composition. It seems to be deliberately chaotic, a picture nominated for it's absence of apparent order. --S23678 (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1

[edit]

Sturnus vulgaris

Any better? --Mbz1 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's the original File:Sturnus vulgaris in Napa Valley original.jpg. As you could see there was not just one plant, but two plants in the image. I did not want simply to cut the the plants off because then some nice birds would have been cut off as well. So I removed the plants using cloning. Of course I added "retouched" template to the edit.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not like Lošmi *sigh*. Lošmi supported the original one, while you only opposed alternative. On the other hand it is good that you opposed as Lošmi and not as S23678 :) --Mbz1 (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:99 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.edit1.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 08:42:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Machu Picchu
WARNING:
Some browsers may have trouble displaying this image at full resolution: This image has an unusually large number of pixels and may either not load properly or cause your browser to freeze. Downsampled versions are available here.
  •  Info All by me -- S23678 (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm nominating 2 versions of the image, since I think the larger version (which I prefer by much) may get opposes from 2 reasons : quality problems on the left tried, but can't get rid and shade from the Wayna Picchu, on the right, hence the smaller second version. A third version, getting rid of only the left side, is also available, but I'll bring it up only if necessary. Both images were uploaded at full resolution and do suffer quality problems when viewed at 100% zoom, so they should be viewed with some downsampling. To do so, or if the image is crashing your browser, please view downsampled versions here. Some flare got removed on the left side by cloning as well. These are HDR images taken from the small ruins on top of Wayna Picchu, looking down on the Lost City of the Incas.
  •  Support -- S23678 (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Both versions could use a denoise IMO. -- JovanCormac 11:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crop

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 08:42:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Machu Picchu
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 12:31:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2009 at 11:33:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cross sections of teeth ru
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 11:33:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Novi Belgii
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 08:07:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dinosaur sand sculptures at the Sand Sculpting Australia "Dinostory" exhibit held at en:Frankston, Victoria, 2008/2009.

 Comment-Isnt this a derivative work? Is this pic OK to upload on commons? Cause if it is a have loads of similar pics.--Korall (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so, of course you can nominate this pic (and others) for deletion. Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OR start uploading and see if thay stay? =)--Korall (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image was taken in Australia which allows freedom of panorama in its copyright law. Other similar images would depend on the local copyright law in the location where the photograph was taken. Durova (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on if the sculpture is a permanent installation or not. Im not sure I would see a sculpture made out of sand as a permenent installation, because it will fade in much shorter time than something made from a more time-consistant material.--Korall (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Perhaps this nomination should be suspended? We actually can't promote if this has licensing issues. Durova (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! I think is just the time to suspend this nomination and nominate this file for deletion. Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we all had a big fight over any potential licensing issues at WP:FPC at some point. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to read the previous deletion debate: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sandsculpting,_Frankston,_Vic_jjron,_21.01.2009.jpg and: en:Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Sandsculpting,_Frankston,_Vic_jjron,_21.01.2009.jpg -- Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about a sand sculpting exhibition in Portugal where they change the the sculptures once a year? Would those images be OK to upload? Cauase if they are I have some pictures.--Korall (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 15:49:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stadthaus Winterthur
It's true the generousity of the 19th century is partially lost today. Just on the left there is now an ugly bus station and the garden on the right adjoins a not less ugly footpath. Seee street view or this commons image. --Ikiwaner (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right there is some left over perspective distortion. However just because you have a shift lens or a panoramic software that doesn't mean you have to correct it fully. Nothing looks worse than an over corrected perspective. For my pictures with a natural distortion of 10-15° I will leave about 1.5°. This avoids that not perfectly staight lines are tilted the wrong way round. --Ikiwaner (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 23:30:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Compliant captive
  •  Info created by Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Patrick Thompson - uploaded by Geo Swan - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment As Jovan said, "...unlike the infamous "Camp X-Ray" pictures showing people in orange suits gagged and tied up, this one presents a much more balanced view of the subject. IMO, it is definitely not a propaganda picture; it shows a pretty ordinary scene, while not attempting to hide the fact that the Guantanamo issue is far from overcome. Also, the fact that we cannot see the man's face takes all emotion out of the picture, which is a good thing in this case as it allows the viewer to deal with the subject as objectively as is possible when dealing with a controversial subject like Guantanamo. With a hard-to-take picture like this, the blurriness can easily be excused."
  •  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose poor quality, Multichill (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Quality issues are too important IMO for FP. Unrelated to my oppose, but, as for the propaganda issue (or non-issue), I think it's a little bit simplistic to view this as candid snapshot, made and published in order to present a balanced POV rather than being a subtle but possibly efficient counterweight to the enormous controversies surrounding this detention camp. I am not against featuring shots that can be considered to be propaganda (this one is, IMO), since they can "have a life of their own" and can even be used against their publishers once released, but I don't buy into this "more balanced view of the subject". Sorry Jovan to hit on your citation that may be taken outside it's context (didn't found the source), but since it was used here as an argument, I am just offering the counter-argument. --S23678 (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Hehe . Even the Guantanamo pictures released by the mainstream press were of worse quality than this one mostly. Add to that the fact that this photo, to my knowledge, hasn't even been published in the press before. This picture is so valuable and unique that I am more than willing to overlook almost anything in order to proudly present it as one of our best. -- JovanCormac 07:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It's originality vs quality decision. I like the idea, but when looking at photo without context I see just blurry, out of focus image. --Justass (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The quality is not good enough. /Daniel78 (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Quality is not there but this is not QI and exceptions can be made. I love the DOF effect and the man holding the rosary walking away. --Muhammad (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose nice composition...but the quality is really problematic --AngMoKio (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. Composition. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Very poor quality. —kallerna™ 15:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Quality --Phyrexian (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.--Ankara (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blonde Woman.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 17:04:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


 Barun (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC). Sorry. I think I made a mistake. I was a bit hasty in selecting the picture. I concentrated more on the person than the picture.[reply]

  •  Info created by

http://www.flickr.com/photos/edbrambley/ - uploaded by Barun - nominated by Barun -- Barun (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 10:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 21:33:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Flags of Europe, Andalusia and Spain
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 21:30:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Murillo Gardens, Sevilla (Spain)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 21:37:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Olive trees in Andalusia
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 22:05:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mudejar pavilion of the Ibero-American Exposition of 1929 (Sevilla, Spain)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2009 at 02:22:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A ten-year-old Polish girl mourns the death of her sister, who was killed in Warsaw during a German air raid.

{{FPX|Size below 1Mpix --Leafnode✉ 13:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2009 at 11:15:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Christ Pantocrator
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 22:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A tile ball created with fractal art program Apophysis.
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 01:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2009 at 15:20:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bell tower of Nikitsky monastery in Pereslavl-Zalessky, Russia
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 01:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 00:12:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Inflatable structure
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 06:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 14:06:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Belgian F-16
 InfoChromatic abberation has now been corrected. Additionally some compression artifacts have been removed or gently softened. Chalger (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's also been corrected. What do you think now? However I just must add those dust marks were hardly visible on two different properly calibrated monitors. Chalger (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 10:10:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Lagoon Nebula
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 09:22:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Millesgården, Stockholm
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 09:36:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Computer-generated

File:Buteo magnirostris -Goias -Brazil-8.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 20:00:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Roadside Hawk (Buteo magnirostris) in Goias, Brazil.
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:ComputerHotline - Water droplets (by) (1).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:07:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rain drops on a tree branch
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 22:15:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Family Georg V of Hanover
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:19:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sean Astin
  • Significant image noise in the background? That's a bit too picky in my opinion. Noise/grain has always been a part of photography and always will be. Even high-end digital cameras produce noise at their lowest ISO/ASA settings. Personally I prefer noise over any smeary NR. Noise reduction always means some detail and color will be lost. Demanding noise-freeness is simply unrealistic. --Ernie (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Thomas Bresson - Water droplet-6 (by).JPG, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 16:56:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dew droplets on spider web
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2009 at 19:37:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I would support if there was not that red thing (is it lens flare, I don't know) on the top of the image. As well, the sky shows some levels of posterization. Are you using your RAWs and converting to JPEG only at the last step, since it's not the first time I see this issue in your nominations, or it's only from post-processing?
I cropped out the red thing. If you add notes to posterization I will try to fix it, but I am not sure where it is.Is it all over the sky or only in a few places? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember how large my previous note was, but that red flare (I'll call it flare, without knowing exactly what it is) is still very visible below the sky/mountain transition on the red side. As for the new crop, from comparing with the previous image, I feel something important is missing in the composition of the image. Rather than being part of the scene as previously, the cliff is becoming more an intrusive element in the picture. For posterizating, I don't consider it a "pass or fail" issue here since it's barely visible, but it could be a point to improve on for future nominations. As for where it is, it's all over the sky. Just more the image from left to right at full zoom to see some Colour banding where we would normally see a nice gradient (and I'm not talking about the clouds themselves). Finally, is this a downsample or a crop? --S23678 (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to fix it once again.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editing has been well done at some places, but not at other, as per the new notes. The darkening of the sky caused the picture to lost a lot of it's charm as well. Fixing a problem creates other ones, I'll make you stop doing edits, and I'll just abstain from voting. --S23678 (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The left dark side" could be cut off.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1 cut off "the left dark side"

[edit]

Ocean Beach

Between vote to feature and oppose is still a choice not to vote at all :). Both images provide a very good idea how the Ocean Beach looks, but who cares...--Mbz1 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Mbz1 (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Astrid Vockert - Projekt Landtag edited.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 22:14:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 16:11:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pond with reflection
It is reflection. Have you ever seen a sharp reflection? Not all images should be sharp. Some just should be beautiful.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is beautiful as it is rather murky. Also, the leaves which aren't reflections are blurry. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know we have a very different ideas what is and what is not beautiful. So far you have opposed few of my images, and never supported any. The image is as sharp as it gets in such situation. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think a reflection can't be sharp? --AngMoKio (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the water should be absolutely still in order for the reflection to be sharp, and it is really rare. Please take a look at that image (not mine) [5]. See how sharp the mountain is and the reflection is not so. If you have a sample of the image with a sharp reflection in a natural body of water I'd be interested to see one please. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has to do with on what you focus and the shutter speed you chose. Right now i don't have such a picture at hand but I am sure a google search can give you a lot. Your photo was made with a shutter speed of 1/20, this way the reflection can't get sharp. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That particular reflection was not sharp, wnen I looked at it with my own eyes.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO "dirty" water still is much better than dirty people.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2009 at 20:55:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 02:52:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cathedral of Learning
  •  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by User:Notyourbroom. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info This is the current valued image of the Cathedral of Learning, a Great Depression-era Late Gothic Revival skyscraper in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
  •  Support as nominator. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  NeutralI'm not convinced by the lighting/point of view/time of the day combination. Architectural features are difficult to see, given the angle at which we see them. Right side of the building has less perspective distortion but is in the shadow, and thus dimmer. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)vote striken by MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment There are only perhaps two angles from which a relatively-unobstructed shot may be obtained- remember, this is a skyscraper in an urban environment. Also, when the building is uniformly well-lit, it appears exceptionally bland and "flat." For comparison on these points, see this alternate version. My intention with the submitted shot was (1) to illustrate the structure in a way which would not confound the viewer with other buildings in the frame, as well as (2) to use the angle of lighting to my advantage to reveal the volume and ornamental nuances of the building, rather than leaving it to appear homogeneous and flat. In a sense, I am not attempting to photograph a structure, per se, but an art style or a design philosophy, and I am trying to do so in a way that will not confound the viewer with extraneous details. (Crazypaco, an expert on this structure, articulated a similar analysis in his review of the photograph for valued image.) I hope that this helps to clarify my decisions. —Notyourbroom (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for these details and explanations. I agree that the alternate view you provided almost looks like a cardboard cutout of the building itself, whereas this view actually shows the intricate volumes that comprises this tower. Is it one of the best views one can get of this structure? I'm willing to think so. Is it superior to many others we can see on Commons and elsewhere? Once again, I'd think so. Is it thus a featured picture, a valuable picture, or something else ? Well, I don't know... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 10:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 22:13:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 10:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 08:05:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Carrier Air Wing
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 11:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pelican flapping wings.
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 09:18:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A path of stone resembling lily-pads over water in a park in Nanjing, China.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Interno cattedrale ortodossa Fira, Santorini.JPG

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2009 at 21:44:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The interior of the Orthodox Cathedral of Fira, Santorini island, Greece
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: this image is very small and has much too tight a crop. Some portions are also severely underexposed or overexposed. I encourage you to stick around to learn more from the community here and get a better idea of what images are considered FP material. :) —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 20:49:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Surfer
If it is not an action shot, I do not know what is.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he's falling of the board. They all usually do in the end :) It is a normal , and usual part of surfing. We already have few FP images of surfers on the board. It would have been nice to have one out, and btw IMO to show a surfer without the wave is not nearly as interesting. The wave by itself has EV. A surfer provdides a great scale for the wave, which makes EV of the image only higher.BTW what "FA" stands for in your comment above?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, I think that the image description should say that he is falling off the board. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that the image description has been amended to explain the picture better. I have changed my additions above to a comment, and I might vote again later when I have considered the image again. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In any case I'd like to thank you for helping me to improve the image's decription :) --Mbz1 (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 19:56:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Macaca sylvanus feet and hands
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 06:15:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dune reflections
Jovan, it is not a mirage. One cannot see a mirage looking down like that. Here's a good place to learn about mirages.What we are seeing here is rather an optical illusion I guess.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an air reflection, similar to the phenomenon called a "Highway mirage", which is described in the article Mirage (even though it arguable doesn't fulfill the classical definition of Mirage being = Fata Morgana). -- JovanCormac 23:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is no air reflection! There are many little salt lakes between the dunes dry or filled with saltwater. Look a long time to the enlarged image: You can see, the salt lakes are lying in holes between the dunes. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be that, it might also be the "Typical pale gravel plains" mentioned in the WP article on the en:Rub' al Khali. I do think I see reflections of clouds there, though. Strange that the NASA page doesn't explain the phenomenon. -- JovanCormac 15:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a former river delta with brown yardangs between the small arms of the former river. The delta is now oversaltet and contains many little hypersaline lakes. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Satellite images

File:Mercedes SL 500 front.JPG

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2009 at 15:04:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mercedes SL 500

 320td (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC) There is no chance any more for FP -- 320td (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no chance any more? There are 6 pros and 4 opposes... --AngMoKio (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because in five days the picture has to have at least 2/3 pro's and that is not the case right now. --320td (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 09:13:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:CoA_Città_di_Milano.svg
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 07:21:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mt Etna puts on a show

 I withdraw my nomination

Whoops, forgot to denoise first. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have to disagree. Looking at the noise I am quite sure a lot of detail will be lost due to noise reduction. The picture is fine the way it is and noise is just natural. --Ernie (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 13:54:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Julian Alps with Prisojnik and Razor
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2009 at 15:09:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 22:09:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bernina Express at Lago Bianco
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 16:14:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tower of Villena Castle
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 23:52:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mosquito Tasmania
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 19:59:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vineyard in Napa Valley
I might agree with branch on the left, but what could have been done to avoid "background trees blending with the "main tree""? I wanted to show the hills behind the vineyard, so I could not play with the DOF.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a different perspective would have worked, but as a personal opinion, I think a shallower DOF would have had more advantages than disadvantages. --S23678 (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 

Edit 1 (cropped out branch on the left)

[edit]

Vineyard in Napa Valley

 

Alternative 1

[edit]

Vineyard in Napa Valley

Did I understand you right? Did you opposed my "good image" because in your opinion I nominate too many? I'd like to let you know that I could nominate as many images as I want, and you could oppose them all, or better yet you could ignore them, as I am ignoring your nominations that are way too boring to even bother to review, but please do not tell me what to do. Okay? Thanks. To answer your question, yes, I do believe that the nominated image (as well as others I nominated) is good enough and different enough from other FP to get promoted. Of course I never know what reviewers would say. How, for example, should I have known that one will oppose an octopus taken in a wild with "no wow" reason, and in few days is to nominate a boring, dull fish taken in a local aquarium :) BTW here's advice for you - please try not to look at the name of author/nominator, just look at the image itself.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forget to express that my Oppose is becasue I think (as others here), that this image is not good enough for FP. That´s all. But additinally I just wanted to give you friendly advice, but from your nearly hysteric reaction I see, that it was not the best idea. Regards, --Karel (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So was my reaction "hysteric" or "agressive" :) Ah, anyway... I am glad you understood that I could do just fine without your "friendly advices". Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Commons:Staying mellow - please bear that in mind. You usually aggressively respond to any critics of your behavior or your works. People have right to have their own opinion, to state it, and to have different opinion than yours. And if there are no strict rules in given subject, they can use any criteria they want. --Leafnode✉ 07:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is that I know your take on self nominations, Leafnode, which is the same as Karelj has. It is against the rules. I have the right nominate as many images as I'd like to. I will just repeat that a good and fair reviewer should not even look at the nominator's name, but only at the image.Oh and btw could you please provide few diff of my so called "agressive responds"? I mean, if it is "usually" you should be able to provide quite a few diff, don't you, Leafnode? --Mbz1 (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 

Confirmed results:
Result: X support, X oppose, X neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/November_2009&oldid=47463083"