Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2015

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

File:2014 Gagra, Plaża (17).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2015 at 20:10:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The beach, Black Sea and Caucasus. Gagra, Gagra District, Abkhazia.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 03:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Basel - Sonnenuntergang am Rheinufer.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2015 at 22:19:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Basel: rhine banks at red sunset
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Roca del elefante, Heimaey, Islas Vestman, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-17, DD 036.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2015 at 08:32:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Elephant Rock (I hope you recognize it) in the cliffs of the island Heimaey, Westman Islands, Suðurland, Iceland.
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:A14 Rheintalautobahn.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2015 at 08:21:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A14 Rheintalautobahn
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Bassac 16 Abbaye vue ESE 2014.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2015 at 06:15:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The abbey (12th -18th centuries) of Bassac, Charente
Jacek Halicki, Halavar It seems that JLPC is not often at home right now and he don't have his computer to try to correct the photo. My fault, I had not asked him before nominating this photo, sorry. -- ChristianFerrer 10:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Lake Ståvatn Panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2015 at 05:35:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lake Ståvatn panorama
  •  Info all by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Not really sharp enough (landscape panoramics like these really need to be shot with an aperture of at least f/11) some CA on the ridges, and blown clouds at upper left. A shame, because you certainly had the right idea. Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak  Support. Sharpness just barely meets the threshold for me. Please fix the CA though. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support  ■ MMXX talk 14:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose, per Daniel Case. The image impression is "washed" and not really sharp. There is no sence to provide us so a huge resolution if there is no quality reason. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose as others.--Hubertl (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pelecanus occidentalis at Bodega Head.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2015 at 19:09:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) sitting on a rock in the cliffs of Bodega Head, Sonoma County, California.
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Ponte Vittorio Emanuele II San Pietro, Rome, Italy.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2015 at 15:59:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ponte Vittorio Emanuele II San Pietro, Rome, Italy
  •  Info created by Jebulon - uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Great sky. Great lighting. Great City. Great composition. Great colours. -- Colin (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose...and half bridge and then it would be better that the reflection in the water is full,good quality anyway but i don't like composition --LivioAndronico talk 16:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might be best if you recluse from voting on a "rival" photo when you are clearly upset about your own failing nomination. -- Colin (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you write the rules Colin? This is just a bad your opinion, and then what do you know if a nomination is "failing"?--LivioAndronico talk 21:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Moreover you criticize my photos making it look this a picture of Leonardo and I can not say my? Be serious please. --LivioAndronico talk 21:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support for me an interesting composition, at the end of the blue hour when the nightclouds meets the end of the day. Its pretty sharp too! Therefore overall pro.--Hubertl (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Thank you Colin for this unexpected Xmas nomination. Buon Natale a tutti ! (Did you notice the two anglers ? ;)--Jebulon (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Looks somewhat pale (if this is the right word for the German word "blass" in English). Perhaps a level adjustment ("Tonwertkorrektur") would help. But anyways the clouds on the top are irritating. All in all I think this picture would work better in black/white. However, buon natale a tutti. --Code (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support I like composition, colours harmony and in fulview's details (fishermen...) are (for me) interesting --Bojars (talk) 16:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I agree with Code. Splashed colors, clouds are disturbing. Not so lucky composition, my sigth got sticked in the middle of bridge-dome line...so nowhere much. --Mile (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I'm not responsible of this candidacy, but I like this picture very much. I'm particularly happy with the sky and clouds, and the overall composition. We have here many colors, not only orange and black, so, all in all, it's time for me to support this nomination !--Jebulon (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --JLPC (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Jee 03:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

* Support --P e z i (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Thank you very much, but voting period is over... Please keep this support for a following nomination ! --Jebulon (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges

File:2014-12-21 10-59-48 musee-histoire-belfort.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2015 at 15:52:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ausweis
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Abbotsbury, Dorset, UK - May 2012.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2015 at 15:26:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Abbotsbury, Dorset, UK
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Kreuzschnabel 16:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Goiaba vermelha.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2015 at 19:54:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Guys (Kreuz, Arion,King of schnabel) for me this one have more realistic and less vanished colours, special in the green of the right fruit

Lauro Sirgado, Christian Ferrer you edited the previous version also, what do you think? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment It is you who have seen the fruit in reality, you are the best person to say which is the most realistic. -- ChristianFerrer 07:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rodrigo.Argenton: Yes, more ralistic, but... It is a tiff file. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ArionEstar, and? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rodrigo.Argenton: Read TIFF and JPEG (aka JPG). 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rodrigo.Argenton sorry to use Portuguese, but I'm feeling lazy. As duas são bem realísticas lembre-se que um objeto apenas absorve e reflete a luz que recebe, tudo depende da iluminação. Neste caso a foto indicada está com luz direta forte e algumas áreas das duas goiabas estão claras, mas apesar disso a foto esta muito boa. A opção (a segunda) está escura demais apesar de ter maior equilíbrio nas áreas claras. Fico com a primeira: as cores me parecem melhores (O vermelho não estoura) e o domínio do motivo sobre a reflexão é maior. No geral a composição é muito boa a reflexão é atraente e equilibrada gostei muito do conjunto. A sim e atenção com o formato, apesar de png e tiff serem opção nos editores, pelo que percebi, aqui o uso do jpg é padrão para fotos. -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 14:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine for me either way. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lauro Sirgado, esse treco de ser tiff ou jpg é pura frescura... alias, tiff armazena mais info e pode armazenar camadas, o que seria melhor para editar fotografias...
Depois dessa votação vou ter que arrumar umas coisas na imagem em questão, pois, por algum motivo rolou uma perda de dados; vou deixar a versão tiff mais clara e menos vermelha, depois lhe procuro na página de usuário, só para eu ter uma segunda opinião. Abraços. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, tranquilo -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 23:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink#Food
The chosen alternative is: File:Goiaba vermelha.jpg

File:Gullfoss, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-16, DD 123.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2015 at 07:22:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rainbow over Gullfoss ("Golden Falls" in Icelandic), a waterfall located in the canyon of the Hvítá river and one of the main attractions of the Golden Circle in southwest of Iceland. The fall step on the left is 11 m high and the one on the right 20 m high. The amount of water flowing is in summer, when the picture was taken, 140 m3/s.
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Kreuzschnabel 15:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Selwyn College Old Court, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2015 at 15:32:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Selwyn College Old Court, Cambridge, UK
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Kreuzschnabel 15:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:2014-12-24 10-28-21 ouv-g.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2015 at 11:03:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Inside an old Radar base (Belfort, France).
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:2014 Tarnobrzeg, kościół Wniebowzięcia NMP, 26.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2015 at 19:12:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of the Assumption in Tarnobrzeg
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Ljungan October 2014 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2015 at 15:47:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

River Ljungan
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Papilio polytes mating in Kadavoor.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2015 at 03:41:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Papilio polytes
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 02:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Roo-loorkull Paunküla veehoidla kohal.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2015 at 17:10:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Circus aeruginosus in Estonia
Bad background Merops (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Busy background. Maybe a serious crop would help.--Jebulon (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Too cluttered to allow us to focus on a subject quickly. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Strong support This is probably one of the most difficult shots you'll see in FPC for a long while and it's perfectly done. The branches in the background make focusing a huge, really huge problem. I think this is also useful as camouflage example. --Kadellar (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Weak support per Kadellar. Though this is not a textbook example of an FPC because the bird won’t set well off the background, it’s very well taken and looks perfect in its own class. --Kreuzschnabel 06:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Ram-Man 20:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 00:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC))Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Skopje 2014 by night.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2015 at 11:35:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Skopje by night
I prefer the crop too. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, now is photo with crop --Pudelek (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pudelek:  Strong support now. And Pudelek, more pictures from Macedonia. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Vistas de Macao, 2013-08-08, DD 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2015 at 13:22:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of Macau
  •  Info Panoramic view of Macau. Created and uploaded by Poco a poco, nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Kadellar (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Cool picture! :) thanks for the nomination Carlos! Poco2 15:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support  ■ MMXX talk 16:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Code (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I divine the image idea: the small barracks versus the high rises in background are a interessting contrast and the comparably monotonous and varied pattern of different windows and balconys give a chance to explore the image. But this idea doesn't work because of a few reasons: (1) The light impression is to dull and not very nice. (2) The transverse angle of the first few house in front give a bad distortion (look at the street on the right lower edge). (3) The trees on the left side are very predominant and deflect to much from the main aspects. Over all a good image but not a featured one. Maybe a zoom in from this viewpoint would give a better image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Same as Wladyslaw.--Jebulon (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Like Wladyslaw, and as I often say in fewer words, I can see what the photographer is thinking. IMO it fails because of the light and background. With fewer clouds, and brilliant sunlight from a different angle at a different time of day raking across the buildings and creating high-contrast drama. But instead the mostly cloudy background leaves us with a detailed yet very flat, all too ordinary image. And there's blown highlights in the upper left as well. Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Comment Not all photos should have sunny blue skies. I like the mood and feel of this one, and IMO trees on the left and foreground provide a good frame for the photo.  ■ MMXX talk 17:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      •  Comment I wasn't complaining about the trees; take that up with Wladyslaw, not me. As for the sky I didn't say, nor meant to imply, that clear sunny skies are always preferred (inasmuch as I like them myself). But in this case they would have made the lighter buildings stand out better, and sun from the side, if possible, would have increased the contrast on the buildings. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Lighting and sky don’t distract me here but I agree with Wladyslaw that the trees are too dominant. For me the image is a b it off balace too, there’s too much weight on the right side. Crop suggestion added, I think it works better that way. --Kreuzschnabel 08:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ✓ New version with a new crop, not that much as you suggested, but in that direction. I agree, it looks better. Poco2 10:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I like the 3D vista. Don't think the building on the right is distorted -- I suspect it does not have a rectangular plan. -- Colin (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I agree that it is not perfect, but I still think that it is a good cityscape and here the dull light does rather help than hurt imo. --DXR (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- ChristianFerrer 21:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Great motif. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Видубицький монастир-3.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2015 at 01:24:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vydubychi Monastery, Kiev
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Bertillon, Alphonse, fiche anthropométrique recto-verso.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2015 at 16:12:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alphonse Bertillon, fiche anthropométrique, 1912
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 16:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Château d'eau du Peyrou, Montpellier 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2015 at 20:14:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Water castle of the Peyrou, Montpellier
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 16:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Towers

File:Dactylorhiza incarnata - Kahkjaspunane sõrmkäpp Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2015 at 13:34:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Early Marsh Orchid
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 16:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Flachlandwisent (Bison bonasus bonasus).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2015 at 00:40:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Young Bison bonasus bonasus
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 16:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Josefine Hökerberg 2013-11-21 001.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2015 at 21:28:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Josefine Hökerberg, Swedish journalist
  •  Info created by Magnus Bergström, uploaded by Kaiketsu, nominated by -- Yann (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support A professional portrait of a Swedish journalist. -- Yann (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose DOF is too small. Only the eyebrows and hairline are in focus. –Makele-90 (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose nice, but false focus point: it must be to the eyes not to the eyebrows. Very pity. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose as well. A very striking portrait, but Makele and Alchemist are right about the DoF issue. Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment The DOF is short on purpose. This is from a professional photographer. You guys don't know what you are talking about. Sigh. Yann (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Comment When I see a portrait of someone I generally expect that it will show all the relevant parts of them in focus. So the photographer was a professional ... well, does that mean he or she doesn't have to meet our standards? It may be clever and artsy, but it isn't what we're looking for. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • That's a poor understanding of photographic technic. Shorter DoF are used to emphasize a part of a picture, and it is done here with great mastery, as Colin explained below. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • That's a poor excuse. The short DoF that f/1.8 gives you is great for a insect on a flower, which you would need for emphasis. But here there's no need to make us look at her face at the expense of her hair. A nice choice for a book cover perhaps, but not a portrait. Do any of our other featured portraits of people do this? Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • @Daniel Case: No. For macro photography, the exact opposite is usually done: closingg the aperture to maximize the DoF. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • @Yann: I seem to recall some of the macros approved here with a shallow DoF. But if we want to talk portraits there is no denying that f/1.8 is pretty shallow compared to the linked portraits above: According to their EXIF data, the Robert De Niro image is at f/3.5, Merkel at f/4 and Carla Bruni at f/5.6. So I don't think they support the argument that this is standard for great portraiture, no. Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • @Daniel Case: In a macro, the DoF is short not due to the aperture, but to the distance between the camera and the subject. And in all the cases cited here, f/3.5 to f/5.6 are still wide aperture creating short DoF. You confuse the result with the intent. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I know this kind of portraits and it looks just fine from a distance, but if most of the face are out of focus including important parts such as the lips and eyes then I can not support. –Makele-90 (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • The focus "issue" is quite exaggerated. The eyes are "in focus", just not quite as sharp as the rest. Perhaps some comparison with other featured portraits is helpful.
            • Not sure who I'm addressing here as there was no signature to the comment, but I think the commonly understood definition of 'in focus' is (even if we don't understand the technicals behind it) the region in which the circle of confusion is the limiting factor. In other words, the area in which the ability to discern the any sharper focus is limited by either our eye's inability to discern more detail, or by the camera's lens and sensor's inability to capture more detail. Therefore, although there is in theory always a single point that is by definition the 'focal point', in practice there is a range that we consider in focus. This varies from person to person and from camera to camera, but when limited by the camera, it is calculable. By this definition, the eyes in this image are definitely not 'in focus' because we can discern that they are less sharp than the sharpest part of the image. Diliff (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • It was my comment, made at the same time as the bullets below. An interesting definition of "in focus" but another would be satisfactorily sharp, and I've given examples below where the subject's eyes were less sharp than this yet no complaint. I do actually wonder if the photographer could have applied some selective sharpening to the eyes, as is commonly done, and we might never have had this discussion. -- Colin (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This sort of small focus issue happens all the time and is hardly the barrier to FP status some are making here. And Daniel, "there's no need to make us look at her face at the expense of her hair. A nice choice for a book cover perhaps, but not a portrait." is just fundamentally wrong. There's every reason, in portrait photography, to make us look at her face and very little reason for the hair to be in focus. And this isn't Wikipedia -- we are allowed more styles of image-making than technically excellent passport photographs. -- Colin (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Colin: First, in all of those portraits you cited save the Brazilin girl, the focus issue is only apparent when you view the image at full size (and as for her, I would have opposed that one, too, had I voted). Second, disagree with me if you want, Lord knows it's happened before, but don't suggest my reasons for disagreement are "fundamentally wrong". Not while I'm not using your arguments to cast implicit aspersions on your sense of aesthetics. Third, yes, I'm aware the scope for Commons is wider than it is for Wikipedia ... but even so I still think this image is not within it enough to be featured. Fourth, "There's every reason, in portrait photography, to make us look at her face and very little reason for the hair to be in focus," ... I ask you if you'd be willing to say that to her face or her stylist's, for that matter. It looks like a fair amount of work went into that hair, and it wouldn't have been that hard for a picture to have been taken at a narrower aperture setting, even given the lighting or lack thereof, showing it in all its glory. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You say "there's no need to make us look at her face at the expense of her hair" as though that is some truism about portraiture. Sure, some portraits will show hair in detailed focus. Some might even crop out most of the hair. It's just a fundamentally wrong reason to oppose a portrait, and not supported by any serious study of portraiture. -- Colin (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"It's just a fundamentally wrong reason to oppose a portrait, and not supported by any serious study of portraiture." Cite please? You might as well just admit it's a matter of taste, and leave it at that. In this case I don't think the hair blurred like it was some protected witness works. It's visible at thumbnail, unlike the other ones. I might not have minded if the hair was largely unlit and shadowed. But it isn't. If this were a general practice of effective portraiture, then a lot of our other featured portraits would look this way. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you Daniel - it simply comes down to opinion and taste. Yes, shallow DOF photography is a legitimate type of portraiture, just like B&W is a legitimate type of photography, but it doesn't mean that everyone does and should appreciate it, nor does it make them ignorant for not appreciating it as an artistic choice. We don't have to be knowledgeable about art or photography to appreciate it. It might help to inform our critiques but it is by no means a requirement for appreciation. If we don't appreciate the way the shallow DOF was used here, no amount of argument is likely to change anyone's mind. Diliff (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue is not about opinion and taste but of expressing one's negative opinion in such a manner that it goes beyond "I don't like the use of shallow DoF here" or "I prefer it for flowers, not portraits". Instead Daniel and others have said the photographer has actually made some fundamental error of portraiture. I find this rude and disrespectful. I was asked to provide examples of other FP that has this narrow DoF, and even found one with the same front-focus issue. But really, our repository of FP portraiture is very small and random and not representative of the gamut of modern professional portraiture. Let's call it a day. -- Colin (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noted, and agreed. I think the debate was somewhat confused by two parallel arguments. One, that the focus was missed and should have been on the eyes, and two, that the DOF was too shallow. The arguments are related but not the same. For what it's worth, I definitely wouldn't go so far as to insist on the entire head being in focus. That is not always possible even with a studio set up and f/11 onwards, except with small focal lengths (which suffer from other issues). Diliff (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support The DoF is indeed extremely narrow and if one pixel-peeps then one can see the sharpest focus is literally a couple of mm in front of the eyes. But the eyes remain sharp enough I can see she is wearing contacts, and the details in her iris and blood vessels. Viewed properly, as a whole image from a reasonable distance like one might a real person, it is a striking photo where her eyes absolutely grab you and there's no other distracting details. I join with Yann in despairing about the quality of our reviews sometimes. -- Colin (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Comment I nevertheless insist her hair is visually interesting enough, and inextricably linked with her face as part of her appearance, that leaving it out of focus is cheating the viewer. Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I am confused. I wanted to give minus, its looks like hair isnt part of her head, than i read its made by professional. After that i read DoF must be such. --Mile (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support per others -- ChristianFerrer 15:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I see no problem with the dof --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Agree with Alchemist. It would be a great portrait (this DoF is perfect) but focus should be on the eyes. In this cases, reframing a bit after focusing can lead to this kind of problem. --Kadellar (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak  Support I agree with Alchemist, but IMO this is a good addition for our people category.  ■ MMXX talk 17:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support smile is beatiful, no problem with DoF. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Yann, Colin, you may add me in your collection of stupid reviewers. I agree with opposers, let me free of that.--Jebulon (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose While i certainly agree that the portrait does not need to be fully in focus in order to warrant FP status, this professional photographer has made the elemental error of portrait photography; they have not focused for the eyes, or as was mentioned above, have lost that focus while re-framing. Quite a shame.Fotoriety (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose difficult, but per Fotoriety --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose. I have to agree, if you're going to use an extremely shallow DOF, you need to get the focus just right. The DOF was not an inherent limitation in this case, it was a choice. To me, it looks okay in thumbnail but unpleasant when viewed full screen as the only part of the image really in focus seems to be the bridge of her nose, which has no real detail and as a result, the entire image lacks sharpness. Diliff (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Comment OK, David is opposed. This carries, to me, more weight than "he's a professional! We peons cannot presume to understand his higher-level artistic ambitions, so we must mindlessly genuflect before his photo!" does going the other way. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Well, I'll take that as a compliment, but I don't want anyone to vote a particular way just because I did. I have some experience with portrait photography but probably far less than the photographer who took this image. I agree (somewhat) with Colin that he likely knew what he was doing. I just personally don't like the result and think he could and should have nailed the focus. That's only an opinion though, no more valid than anyone else's. I admit that I'm kind of a perfectionist in my own photography and that probably informs how I judge other images. But as Colin points out, professionals often actually don't need a perfect photo. I have no idea if this was the photo that the author used professionally or if it was a reject from the shoot. I noticed that some pro photographers keep their best work and upload their flawed images to Commons - in some niches like portrait photography, a bad pro photo is still significantly better than what we already have. Whether this image is good enough for FP... I still believe no, but it's only a matter of opinion. Diliff (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Daniel, I don't know where this "pro == must be right" idea comes from, which you keep attacking. We are entitled to disagree with the end-result, but some humility is necessary when a bunch of amateur landscape/rock/building photographers tells a professional portrait photographer that he's made a beginner error. The argument is "pro == knew what he was doing and doesn't need our advice thank-you-very-much". -- Colin (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Colin: Can you explain what the difference between "pro=must be right" and "pro=doesn't need our advice" is, beyond the wording? Or maybe not, because this discussion is not about giving Mr. Bergstrom advice; he's not participating, after all, and I wouldn't expect him to. This discussion is about whether we as Commons community members believe this picture meets our FP standards. And I would say it did, if the subject's entire head was in focus. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Plenty people including you seem to think he made a poor choice in using narrow DoF for a portrait or had poor focussing technique but these are comments from people who frankly (and I include myself here) have zero experience photographing famous people in order to create a beauty portrait. Diliff has experience photographing Euro MPs as part of a Wiki Loves campaign, but the priority there was encyclopaedic portraits at f/11 and studio lighting and really no creative or artistic choices at all. That's fine for what it is, but doesn't in any way represent what Commons FP people-photographs are about and isn't really the kind of portraiture that most professionals do (which either seeks to make the subject beautiful or perhaps shoots an "environmental portrait" where the image is more than just a head). Daniel, do you think File:Young Ashaninka girl in an Apiwtxa village, Acre state, Brazil.jpg should be delisted? It was even more extreme at f/1.4 and is clearly focused on the nose. Me thinks the issues here are blown well out of proportion when you examine other FPs. -- Colin (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I implied above, yes, if it came to it I would support delisting that Brazilian girl's portrait, yes (although the light there was starker than the light here, which hides it just a little bit more). It's funny you should speak of proportion, because in this image the blurred area is, well, a much larger proportion of the image than it is in the other photos (besides the Brazilian girl) that you linked. You see this as merely different; I see it as distinctive. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment This sort of FP candidate just highlights where FP judging fails. We can all agree it would be nice if the focus was just a few mm further back. Some suggest such a narrow DoF should not have been used or if used then this slight focus error should have resulted in a rejected image by the photographer. Some even give advice to the professional photographer that "focus - recompose" doesn't work at f/1.8 (I think he knows). Have any of us taken a beauty photograph of a journalist? One or two may have taken documentary photographs of some European politicians (at a nice safe f/11 with studio lighting). Do any of us take photographs in a professional capacity? We are mostly landscape or wildlife photographers. We nearly always use "found lighting" rather than control it with equipment. We take images for pleasure rather than in a contract. That photographer knew when his shot was good enough, and got paid for it. In judging, we can be predisposed to support a picture or to find fault in a picture. This is natural. I suggest that for portraits, for images taken professionally, for images taken with manipulated lighting or other technical choices we are unfamiliar, we are as a group predisposed to find fault and reject. But nominate a building, landscape or animal, and provided it is taken by one of us and is very conservatively composed, lit and exposed, we are predisposed to support. There really is nothing a Commons FP reviewer loves more than to pick fault in a professional portrait. -- Colin (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment @Colin: a professional portrait photo ≠ automatically FP for me. And a query: can "we opposes" have our own opinion? Please accept it simply! And a shoot with f/1.8 at 1/250s and ISO 200 is a big beginner mistake for me. Why not f/4 at 1/125s and ISO 400??? Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC) P.S: the DOF calculator tells me: focal length 85mm, f/1.8 and 1.3m (EXIF) distance: from 99 up to 1.01m. Result it is a fragile thing! The lens reviewer: f/4.Reply[reply]
    • Assuming the photo was taken by this Magnus Bergström then mocking him for a "beginner mistake" looks foolish and rude. We love pointing out technical errors that are only visible full screen on a 27" monitor viewed from 30cm. And we love mocking photographers who are not one of us: no revenge voting or harsh response from them! This photographer is no beginner and he has not made a elemental error. He is however human. A professional knows when his photo is good enough, and there are more aspects to this photo than determining the point of focus. This is a living, breathing subject who is not a model paid to spend all day in a studio. And Alchemist-hp, freedom includes disagreeing with each other and making and receiving criticism not just of the image but also of our opinions. If you don't want to read any criticism of your voting, you know where the unwatch button is. -- Colin (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Dear Colin: your show here is a good and funny lerning effect for me. Thanks for your opinion. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC) P.S. we have exact this image here for a voting decision, not a downscaled one.Reply[reply]
  •  weak oppose Smile, expression and lighting are excellent, as one would expect from a pro. Colin – certainly this photo was good enough for the purpose it has been taken for. The look on her face is striking. Still, at full view (24" monitor from about 60 cm) I find it really distracting to see her eyebrows and nostrils distinctly sharper than her eyes. Please keep in mind that media on Commons does not only serve one purpose (as might be the case with the original work) but should allow cropping, large printing or hi-res large screen projection. Taking this into account, I find the false focus – even if it’s just a few millimetres – bewildering. My eyes are dragged off hers towards the sharp parts any time I look at them. It is certainly a very good portrait of her but it has this one drawback which keeps it from being multi-purpose IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 16:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Kreuzschnabel wrt to your "media on Commons" comment. I agree in essence with that point, otherwise we might as well review "featured thumbnail" for use on Wikipedia, but very few of our FP portrait photos could be used for the varied purposes you suggest. Poster printing (or projection!) of a head-and-shoulders portrait typically requires medium format cameras and studio conditions. The problem here is rather the other way round -- we see so few high-resolution portraits (other than of models) that we don't appreciate that most of them will have "flaws". Even printed A4 in a magazine, one could not detect the issues raised above [Anyone here read a photo book where the author displays two photos with different sharpness or noise and been unable to tell the difference?]. After reading the above comments, I think most people would now struggle to view this photo neutrally and really know if their eyes were being drawn to the wrong part of the portrait, or their brain is taking them there. -- Colin (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Weak Support per Colin et al. I disagree with saying "A pro does it like that, so it must be right", but I still think that the result is impressive and captivating at reasonable viewing distances. It is clear to me why they wanted a short DOF and missing the target by a mm or two is not ideal, but does little detriment to the effect of the image. Nobody will print this as an A3 or larger and it is much better (imo) than what we often have to work with when considering portraits overall. --DXR (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support per Colin and DXR. The result is impressive despite the focus issue. · Favalli ⟡ 00:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Its absolutely featureable for me. --Hubertl (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support as the other supporters. --Code (talk) 08:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support This thread is the perfect embodiment of why I haven't showed up over here recently—to remain polite, some really have some dust in the eyes. I still struggle at understanding why supporting the rare photos that bring a bit of life and emotions is so difficult in comparison to supporting photos showing a bunch of bricks or a painting. I feel like most of the promoted photos here are the ones showcasing some art made by others and where no artistic input or whatsoever has been introduced by the photographer itself—it's as if only the technical skills were praised, rather than the emotional value of the photo. Is it a consequence of what digital photography and its race to who have the biggest pixel count brought? In any case, I believe that this photo is much better, interesting, and wowable, than many photos being featured here -> heavy support. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I agree that there is more of a technical emphasis here, and perhaps at times it is at the expense of technically flawed but genuinely interesting and artistic photography. But art is inherently subjective, and what works for one person doesn't work for another. I think part of the issue is that people are opposing because the photo doesn't work for them because of the shallow DOF, which is a technical reason, but it doesn't mean the basis for the opposition is 100% technical. A number of people have, when challenged, explained that the limited DOF affects their ability to appreciate the details of the face and hair because they are out of focus - this is an artistic reason. A non-technical person could have the same negative reaction and feeling about the photo but explain their dislike for it in more emotional terms but the fundamental basis for the opposition would be the same - the limited DOF. In any case, I think we have to remember that this isn't a Flickr/500px photo competition and we have different goals and evaluators. It is Commons, and I see its role as more technical/archival than many art-oriented photographers are comfortable with, but rightly or wrongly, that seems to be its niche. Just my thoughts anyway. Diliff (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Diliff, see Choice-supportive bias among the many Cognitive bias. One can tell absolutely nothing from the response someone gives when challenged about their opinion. Indeed, as we see above, one's defence becomes even hardline when challenged. It is clear, from the Young Ashaninka girl photo that if such minor errors go unnoticed early on then the voters will continue to not notice. All we can tell from this vote is that when flaws are pointed out early (even minor ones) it becomes very difficult for subsequent voters to ignore them or to persuade themselves they are not important. Even when evidence is presented that such issues have in the past been overlooked, it is extremely hard for any individual to change their position, especially after a bout of rationalization. My point is that it is now impossible for any of us to look at this photo impartially or to tell whether one's reaction is a neutral response to the image, or a reaction to previous comments. For what it is worth, I don't believe the DoF/front-focus reaction would appear on any forum other than Commons/WP FP, and elsewhere this would simply be regarded as a striking portrait -- I believe the phrase Saffron Blaze uses is that we "chicken shit it to death". -- Colin (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • That depends on one’s individual habits of reviewing. As for me, I prefer to first have a look at the picture in question, make up my own mind, then have a glance on what other voters say (sometimes quite contrary to my own opinion, but I have learnt no longer to apologize for being the only opposer among 20+ supporting votes). Thank you Diliff for pointing out that "we opposers" still do have an eye for the beauty of this image (as I wrote explicitly in my vote) but just cannot get over the fact that the focal flaw is distracting in a way exceeding our tolerance threshold. First time I had a glance on this image (before reading others' votes), my eyes were constantly drawn off her eyes towards the sharply focused parts. Took me some seconds to figure out why. Thats an effect hard to excuse for me – all the more on a professional's work. --Kreuzschnabel 11:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • But choice-supportive bias and cognitive bias is just as likely to apply to support votes as well as opposes, so it isn't indicative of anything other than human irrationality. Of course other opinions can influence our own and of course we feel the need to defend our point of view when challenged, but that doesn't make the opinions less valid. As you say, it's impossible to determine whether and to what extent any individual opinions on this photo are influenced by others anyway. We know it can happen because it's been demonstrated experimentally by sociologists but we can't prove any single voter would have voted differently here. The only way to fix this is to implement a system where votes are hidden until the nomination expires, but that would have a big impact on the social aspect of the project. Diliff (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Oh I agree it works the other way too. But you were attempting to rationalise about the votes when in fact this cannot be done. -- Colin (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The “genuinely interesting artistic photography” is what you guys openly reject even though such photos should be welcomed as per what I thought were the guidelines of this community. Because yes, at the end of the day, the community decides, and what works for one person doesn't work for another... but if, like me, photographers who have more fundamental interests end up being disgusted by this obvious technical prevalence and vanishes from here, then you've got it your niche—you guys have found a perfect way to perpetuate this culture of “tehcnical first” to keep self-promoting your own photo genre—where it probably wouldn't have been accepted as widely anywhere else on the web—while keeping away the other genres. That's fine with me to have such places, I just wished that it wasn't on a website such as Wiki where I believe neutrality and diversity are supposed to be promoted. Funnily, I initially came here believing that Common would carry such values, hence my immense disappointment.
Now, it's not even a matter of supporting “artistic” photography. Aren't we supposed to celebrate a “wow” here? Do people really need to be able to masturbate on every detail at zoom x10000 to be wowed? Seriously, what's wrong with you people? I wished we were still in the ages of film where we would have a higher respect for the moment captured rather than the freakin' ISO or aperture used.
As an illustration of both my points and frustration, and I'm sorry if this is seen as being offensive, but can anyone please tell me what is being wowed here? I respect the hard work and technical knowledge to get such a photo, but is a fruit really being unanimously wowed? Am I missing something? I wished fruits were that much wowed in real life insted of junk food, it would save many lives. In any cases, how can this be preferred over a beautiful portrait that tells an actual story?
Christopher Crouzet (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Christopher we need you and others with differing views to stay and keep questioning our practices and the patterns we fall into. I think one of the problems with this photo and with previous discussion of b&w and low-key photography is when voters step beyond expressing mere opinion as mere opinion, and instead go on to state that an image which exceeds their typically conservative taste is actually flawed and a mistake. The distinction is perhaps subtle but when we fall into that trap we are declaring and teaching that Commons FP has no place for artistic photography where creative choices are made. That is quite different from if a voter had clearly expressed that that the creative choice made was simply "not for them". Let me cite professional portrait photographer Suki Dhanda in her advice for amateur photographers taking portraits: "the subject looking straight at the camera with the focus on the eyes can produce powerful results, especially with a shallow depth of field.". When we declare the opposite, we look foolish. We're all so hung-up on a minor front-focusing issue that the artistic talent (not to mention attractive subject) on display is overlooked. In their review of the best portraits of 2014 in The Guardian newspaper, they choose this photo of actor and writer Mackenzie Crook by Murdo Macleod. Now that's far from being a beauty photo, and certainly not to everyone's taste, but we have there an image by one of the UK's foremost professional photographers, working for an educational medium (broadsheet newspaper), and chosen as among the best from among hundreds of portraits taken that year (so not a "flawed image" "uploaded to Commons"). And, em, the camera has slightly front-focused. I guess it must be shite then :-) -- Colin (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Going against the flow is exhausting and that's something that I've learned by experience. I don't want to wear this hat anymore and now prefer to stay aside. I'll probably keep sending some photos from times to times to the FP though, just to see how it goes, with a bucket of popcorn nearby. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Christopher, it really seems like you're guilty of exactly what you're accusing us of though. That is, intolerance of people's idea of what makes a good photo. Don't forget that Commons exists to be an educational source of images. We seem to disagree (as per the discussion above on B&W photography) about what importance to place on the educational value in evaluating FP candidates, but it is undeniable that educational value is a pre-requisite for any image on Commons. I think the ideal photo for Commons can combine educational value with wow, but sometimes the wow is in the educational value, rather than in the artistic expression. I think that it is actually your thinking that is limited if you cannot see that there is at least some wow in a well composed and artistically lit photo of a fruit. Why does a photo have to tell a story to be considered great? I would argue that the portrait doesn't actually tell much of a story, and certainly not more of a story than if the depth of field were deeper. Diliff (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As you've probably already well undetstood, I'm not the philosophical kind of guy as you seem to be, which leads to make it inherently hard to conciliate how we perceive a same thing. That being said, I'm happy to go deeper on the path of my intolerance, and why not with an extra touch of stupidity/provocation for not trying to conciliate our differences.
I've tried to read some of your points but I still can't get my head around how this DOF, which I find to be a really minor defect here, can affect you guys so much. Not considering an image as educational because of a small DOF shift sounds like a real joke dign of The Princess and the Pea.
  • Do you really have to be a philosopher to appreciate that others have a different opinion and point of view than you do? :-) The simple matter is that some people consider the shallow DOF/focus issue a big issue whereas you don't. If you're happy to remain intolerant, go ahead, but don't expect others to be tolerant of intolerance. The world is full of different opinions, sometimes we just have to agree to disagree. Diliff (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Christopher Crouzet (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • Diliff, I think that Christopher was being provocative rather than intolerant. It is a genuine question to query the wow of photographing the mundane in a relatively straightforward manner. (reminds me of my File:Mixed onions.jpg). Saffron is another here who has little patience for that. And it is apparent from that nomination that the support did not flood in but dribbled over days. So the community isn't exactly over-wowed either. That image can only muster "wow" from technical competence, which it isn't guaranteed to achieve (I bet if a "no wow" vote appeared from a regular here early on in that nomination, it would have died). There is a balance, but I think our balance is very much skewed against creative photography and wrongly so. Educational medium is far far wider than "Fully detailed, clearly lit, straightforward view of subject suitable for lead image on Wikipedia". The Guardian is an educational publication (whether one agrees with their politics or not, they present the news) yet its staff photographers are not paid to take technically excellent passport photographs of their interviewees. We really need to stop with this "f/1.8 is less educational than f/11" nonsense. -- Colin (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think the Guardian is a good comparison though. They might be a source of news but they extend far beyond that into entertainment. I don't think any of the portraits really relate directly to the news. Most of the time their staff photographers take a nice staged portrait of someone, it's not strictly a news piece or educational. It's more likely to be related to a celebrity, bordering on tabloid. I'm not saying they can't be educational, but the intention is not to be educational but to make them attractive and interesting to sell advertising space. As for the mixed onions image, I probably would oppose it if nominated here, for aesthetic reasons, as the lighting is a bit cool and sickly to me. I don't think many people would support it just for its technicals (sharpness, concise depiction, etc) - I think they would recognise it as a bit weak aesthetically, if not artistically. Diliff (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The portraits generally are taken to accompany interviews which, although not news, serve an educational purpose. Those portraits will be re-used to accompany news if no current image is available. They serve an educational purpose. For all it's faults the Guardian's Scott trust's values are not dissimilar to our own. The "tabloid"/"sell advertising space" is just so much rhetoric and unhelpful. Have you never looked at a fantastic portrait in a newspaper/magazine and just enjoyed it? I hardly think the source of funding has an influence on the type of portrait photography, but perhaps on the budget and quality of photographer. On Wikipedia, the FP standard is that the image should make a viewer "want to read its accompanying article" -- it doesn't require the image's appearance on the Main Page is completely educational in and of itself. That requirement is probably not that different to the brief given to a photographer taking images for an interview. Grab the reader's attention. Make them want to learn more about the subject. The "be educational" is the aspect I think you are getting wrong. It is not our mission to take/collect only educational photographs, though if that is your purpose and intent here than I'm fine with that. It is our mission to take/collect/celebrate photographs that have an educational value. In other words, educational value is a necessary attribute but not our priority. If it were, a police mugshot style image would be a priority. A crop to head-and-shoulders would be a reason to strong oppose for it has less "educational value" than a full-length portrait with height measured on the wall behind. We can celebrate a highly educational image for sure, but provided a photograph of a notable person is recognisable, it ticks the "educational" box and it is time to judge other aspects. -- Colin (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You keep repeating the argument (in various forms in various discussions) that because I'm arguing in favour of educational value then it follows that we should take it to the nth degree and feature only bog-standard 'mugshot' style photography (in the case of potraiture). I've never argued that educational value should be absolute and exclusive, I've only argued that it should be the main goal, and a greater priority than artistic expression. That does not mean artistic expression can't be part of a great photo. It's not a zero sum game, and I believe we can prioritise the educational value without removing all artistic expression from the image. It requires a balance and of course I can't prescribe exactly how we would do so in every situation, but I do feel I'm within my rights to oppose if I feel that the balance is not right for me. I think that's what other opposers are doing here also but I can't speak for them - it's just how I understand it. Anyway, I don't mind this discussion as I do feel we're getting to the bottom of our differences of opinion, but you did mention that you were happy to agree to disagree, so perhaps we should leave it at that for now. :-) This discussion has completely taken over the nomination. Diliff (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No it isn't as exclusive as you make out. One doesn't have to consider educational value solely, merely to make it "the main goal", to make this mistake. Cropping is the example that completely blows that argument, for that is always a case where aesthetics wins over direct educational value. Sometimes one can improve both educational and other aspects by our photographic choices, but sometimes one must come at the expense of another. Once you free yourself from thinking educational is the main goal, you can accept that a low-key photograph of a camera and a standard-lit photograph of a camera can both be great photos, can both be educational, and are just "different". Or a narrow DoF and a deep DoF portrait are just "different" and both may be beautiful in their own ways. Or a wide projection of the maximum space in a well lit church interior and a close-up of the stained-glass light falling on some pews can both fantastic photos, have educational uses, but just be different. Honestly, Diliff, if you spend 2015 de-prioritising educational value in your photographs you will imo be a better and more interesting photographer by the end of the year. You certainly have the talent. -- Colin (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Diliff, you seems to contradict yourself here. This portrait is certainly not the best possible artistic portrait of this journalist. However, it has certainly a high value to depict her. So your opposition while prioritize value over artistic content seems a contradiction. BTW I am fine that this nomination got into a philosophical discussion over value and educational content. That is in itself an achievement. ;oD Regards, Yann (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think I've contradicted myself... I just felt that the missed focus and very shallow depth of field contributed to the image not being among our best images. The flaw in your argument here seems to be that you're using my logical argument about how I value images but inserting your judgement of the value of the image into it. There's no contradiction there, just contorted logic on your part IMO. I would argue that actually this image doesn't have a high enough value in depicting her because of the faults I mentioned already. Instead of trying to find holes in my arguments, why not just accept that we have a difference of opinion about its value? I agree though, I'm happy that we're debating what value is, and how it relates to our voting here, as I said to Colin. Diliff (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the flaw in the picture is complicating a discussion of educational value priority. Clearly nobody would deliberately front-focus a shot. I suspect Diliff would support this if the focus was perfectly on the eyes, even though Daniel seems to think that shallow-depth-of field is in itself a flaw, and Diliff suggests this lowers the EV. But overall, it is about balance and I agree with Christopher about his Princess and the Pea analogy. Clearly we have not noticed this pea before because we have several FPs with poorer sharpness or missed focus on the eyes, and one FP with even shallower DoF and missed focus. And it is also something that professional picture editors don't consider that important as they still choose as "best of 2014" an image with this "flaw". And it isn't bad enough to be a "reject shot" as demonstrated by the Guardian image being used, as well as this photo being used (it wasn't donated to Commons, just had a free licence). So I think there is plenty evidence that our reaction to this photo is out of step with professional and expert judgement on how important a tiny bit of front-focus really is. -- Colin (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The missed focus is, along with shallow DOF, part of why the discussion of educational value priority exists at all in this nomination though, so I don't think the flaw is really complicating the discussion. And I'm not sure if I would have supported it or not. Obviously I saw the previous oppose votes before casting my own and you could legitimately argue that they may have clouded my judgement (as could I claim that you're digging your heels on this because of the previous oppose votes), but I do find the shallow DOF to be limiting in this case. I just don't find it as aesthetic or artistic in this instance as you keep insisting it is. This is not me disagreeing fundamentally with the use of shallow DOF in any instance. I think there are many instances where it's great for removing distractions and really isolating one part of the image in focus. But I just don't think this image does that successfully. The shallow DOF makes her face look quite strange to me, an disorienting effect a bit similar to the shifted focal plane of a tilt-shift lens. Again, just my opinion. Diliff (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 16:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jõhvnööbikud.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2015 at 12:16:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Horsehair parachutes in Lehtmetsa village, Albu Parish, Estonia
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 16:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC))Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Kiernan Shipka at PaleyFest 2014 HQ.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2015 at 17:02:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kiernan Shipka at PaleyFest 2014
 Comment This is a higher quality version of the Kiernan Shipka at PaleyFest. Tabercil (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry Tabercil but isn't a good job,noise everywhere --LivioAndronico talk 18:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Comment I own Canon Rebels that are to either side of the one Dominic used to shoot with - I know from experience that ISO 3200 adds more noise than I prefer to my own shots. Still think this a damn nice shot though... Tabercil (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Surely it is a nice picture but not featurable for me --LivioAndronico talk 20:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • How does this compare to other FPC photos of portraits? I could be convinced to change my vote if my impression of other recent portraits was proven false. -- Ram-Man 20:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose We've had some pretty decent portraits in FPC recently and while this is a nice portrait, it's not of high enough quality or as good as some others. -- Ram-Man 19:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Thanks for making the effort to get hold of a higher resolution portrait. Not surprising it is this noisy at ISO 3200. It would have been better to go for a larger aperture to bring down the ISO (and noise). Still a good portrait though with very nice light. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A larger aperture isn't an option on that lens at 250mm. And considering this is equivalent to 400mm on a full-frame camera, the 1/200s exposure is about as slow as one could risk. So I think this is about as good as one could achieve in the circumstances. It is a lovely photo and at "for web use" resolutions the noise is absolutely not a problem. But not enough to achieve FP. -- Colin (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed - that was taken at max distance and fastest aperture (f/5.6) possible using that lens. About the only thing I think could've been done using the equipment he had was to maybe drop the ISO down to 1600 (which is as high I'll go with my Rebels in terms of ISO) and drop the shutter speed a bit to maybe 1/125 or 1/160 in order to let more light in to compensate. You're starting to run the risk of getting shots that aren't pin sharp though, and it'll probably be dark enough that you'll need to do some Photoshop work to brighten it up with the risk of introducing artifacts that way. Tabercil (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should maybe have clarified that it would have been better to use a lens, which allowed a larger aperture. Anyway, I feel a bit sorry for having to oppose as I feel the best possible outcome has been produced with the gear at hand. I have nominated it at COM:VIC as the best image within the scope of Kiernan Shipka. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 16:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rügen, Beach at Sellin -- 2009 -- 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2015 at 06:33:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Beack at Selling, Rügen, Germany
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 16:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Палац у Шаровці.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2015 at 22:41:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Palace in Sharivka, Ukraine
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 16:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Eristalis tenax auf Tragopogon pratensis 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2015 at 10:55:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Drone fly (Eristalis tenax) on a Meadow Salsify (Tragopogon pratensis) flower
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Diptera

File:141227 Neue Wache.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2015 at 07:17:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Neue Wache (New Guardhouse) in Berlin-Mitte at early morning. It was built from 1816 and 1818 according to plans of Karl Friedrich Schinkel.
  •  Comment Neue Wache (New Guardhouse) in Berlin-Mitte at early dawn. It was built from 1816 and 1818 according to plans of Karl Friedrich Schinkel and is a leading example of German neoclassical architecture.
  •  Info created by Code - postprocessed by Hubertl - uploaded and nominated by me -- Code (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Blaue Stunde,Klasse Licht--NoRud (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Code (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Well done. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support--LivioAndronico talk 21:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support weak pro, but the composition makes it. --Hubertl (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --XRay talk 12:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Not convincing for me. Chroma noise (not only in the background, also visible in the doors), left side of building is very unsharp. Blue Hour shots like this are very impressive if they’re crisp sharp, but this does not work for me. --Kreuzschnabel 16:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per Kreuzschnabel, I think it wasn't accurately focused (f8 should be crisp sharp, as he said). The building is dully illuminated (only behind the columns, not photographer's fault), the facade is quite dark and it doesn't stand out from the sky. Maybe some lightpainting could have work! --Kadellar (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:2014 Picunda, Plaża (02).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2015 at 14:17:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The beach and the view of Caucasus Mountains. Pitsunda, Gagra District, Abkhazia.
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:EON Ruhrgas Blaue Stunde Winter 2014.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2015 at 21:20:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Headquarters of E.ON Ruhrgas in Essen photographed at Blue hour
  •  Info all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --XRay talk 06:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose No wow to me, especially not much of "Blue Hour" effect, I think the sky is still too bright. Sorry. Slightly tilted CW. --Kreuzschnabel 08:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Thanks for the review, Kreuzschnabel. I made moderate vertical corrections should be OK now. The case with the brightness of the sky is more difficult than it seems to be at the first glance. The building is situated near the town center of Essen - a very densely built area. Thus every blue hour photo massively suffers from light pollution. The time of the photo is already at the end of the blue hour. The building itself is not directly illuminated as it is the case with typical blue hour photos of e.g. important historical buildings - thus I used only the available light. Additionaly I tried to photograph the surrounding trees and the small pond with the winterscape in a way that there are still details visible although only less light reached those deeper parts of the photo - I did that by HDRI technique (forgot to add this info to this photo). I do not expect from you to flip the vote, but probably you do better understand my considerations during taking and editing this photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose the foreground is too dark (maybe too much of black) also the WB is far too blue IMO -- ChristianFerrer 21:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ✓ Done, Christian, I made some local WB adjustments. A global WB on white snow in shadow areas would lead to a red/orange sky. Shadow parts have always a tendency to look a bit blueish - you can only compensate it by doing a local white balance. I also further brightened the foreground. Please take another look --Tuxyso (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed it's an improvment but not enough for my tastes. I've tried on my PC, and you've got very good details in the shadows with a general brightening (shadows, black, dark levels..). And for the sky you have IMO a large margin before it become red/orange, and in more a sky a bit red/orange will be not unatural here IMO. And... best wishes Tuxyso :) -- ChristianFerrer 13:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:RAF Typhoon inflight.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2015 at 10:57:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An RAF Typhoon taken from the back of a transport aircraft.
  •  Info created by Sqn Ldr Dylan Eklund - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Gyrostat -- Gyrostat (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Interesting and unusual view of a fighter jet. -- Gyrostat (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Colin (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 14:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support russavia (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --El Grafo (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Jee 16:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- ChristianFerrer 08:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose How is this picture great? -- Atoine85 (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Not centered, halo, management of colors looks artificial. And per Atoine85.--Jebulon (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Why is the background so dark? I thought it was computer graphics, not a photograph. --Kadellar (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Kadellar that would be the ocean. russavia (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Yes, but is this a night shot? The ocean (or the forest, or whatever) should be visible. --Kadellar (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • You might want to look at the full size image, or adjust your viewing angle, and you should see ripples on the water's surface. Gyrostat (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Actually, it's a lake in the Baltic region, not ocean. It's still water though. russavia (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          •  Oppose Yes, I saw some waves, that's why I'm asking, at first I thought it was a black background. It should be clearly visible, I don't understand the difference in light between the aircraft and the background. --Kadellar (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            •  Comment Kadellar, I think in part the deep blue is due to low light, and the nearly vertical angle of catch it tends to darken deep water surfaces, depending on the lighting: as we can see,1, 2, 3, 4  ; obvious that another portion is due to photo manipulation to enhance the colors, which deepened the blue. From what I researched before voting the jet is more light gray under full lighting and the control display despite appearing green marker is lighter and less intense. Nevertheless I liked it, but I am suspicious. : ) -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 18:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I got feeling sea is inserted manualy like from some graphic, but i like the object. --Mile (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • My friends, should we really promote a fake ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • No evidence it is a fake. The description even says "This photograph was taken from the back of a transport aircraft over a lake in the Baltic region where the Typhoons are currently deployed in the NATO Baltic Air Policing Role." The EXIF also states that the photograph was 1 of 9 entrants in the RAF "‘People’s Choice: Image of the Year’". We all know only the Russians fake photographs :) russavia (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Jebulon I do not know if it's false, the direction of the lighting in the waves; helmet; jet and radar are consistent, there is a pilot in the cockpit; the turbine exhaust gases are evident and the halo generated also, the noise does not seem inconsistent throughout the image; in the right portion of the cockpit there is a reflection that when I made the support I interpreted as the reflection of a blue lake and a row of trees of similar size, but is only an impression. May be false because have exaggerated colors and a dark background, but can be real (see my comment above) and also a black stripe separating much of the background of the jet, and an unexpected full black in jet air intake latter are more suspicious but do not support an accusation (IMO). And yes there was a processing of colors, the actual figure would be brighter and less defined. Again IMO, and this is just my opinion, without defending without accuse. ; ) -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 02:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Fresco with CoA of Pope Pius VII.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2015 at 10:31:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fresco with CoA of Pope Pius VII
✓ Done Jebulon,thanks for review --LivioAndronico talk 20:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support but you should make clear if you publish it under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or CC-BY-SA 4.0 or both. The information is not clear at the moment. --Code (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Ora è chiaro Code,grazie e saluti. --LivioAndronico talk 21:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:1 taipei sunrise panorama 2015.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2015 at 21:08:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Original nomination with little chance of success
Pano of Taipei
  •  Info created and uploaded by Chensiyuan - nominated by DXR (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Interesting view of a part of the world that is not omnipresent on FPC, special light atmosphere, large resolution. -- DXR (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 21:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Without doubt an impressive (and featureable) photo. But there are technical flaws. For me it is remarkably overprocessed / oversharpened. Take a look at the darker areas with less structure (e.g. left facade in the foreground, left part of the sky, mountain on the right). IMHO it is a bad idea to apply strong global sharpening on areas with noise and less structure. Areas with less structure do not become better with strong sharpening - in contrary. Probably you can try some kind of selective sharpening. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Agree with Tuxyso—distortion, oversharpening and noise ruin an otherwise well-composed and detailed image. Daniel Case (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per others. Impressive though. If it can be reworked, it should be re-nominated. --Kreuzschnabel 06:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will ask Chensiyuan for a new version. I do however also think that the opposes above are pretty harsh for a 48-Mpix image and somewhat reflective of our pixel-peeping disease here. If the image were downsized to 20 Mpix, which is a perfectly acceptable resolution for a landscape, it would be just a bit noisy, probably not enough for anybody to seriously care, so basically high-res-curse strikes again. In addition, I think that those of us who have previously done high hfov rectilinear panoramas know that the quality decreases at the borders due to the projection, which is why patterns like noise become more apparent in those regions, but downsizing etc would remove detail in the center.--DXR (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1. It's completely normal for such a wide photo to lose detail and resolution in the corners due to the distortion. And looking at the photo at a slightly reduced resolution makes the issue go away. The quality in the centre is amazing, the quality in the corners is only good. Compare this with any featured non-panorama landscape and it's still far better, so I don't understand an oppose based on this problem. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 10:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am surprised that even you, Julian do not see these obvious technical issues as a problem. In the past you looked (at least at my noms) very thoroughly, which is good, and critized the tiniest amount of channel overexposure :) For an FP, DXR and Julian one can expect technical perfect processing - this is not the case here. My point is not border unsharpness but very unfortunate (over)sharpening of noisy areas - keep the noise as it is, sharpening does not help to make the noise looking better! BTW: It is not impossible to make high res panos with sharp and noise free borders. I agree that the quality might be OK downscaled to 20 Mpx - but that does not change my point that there should not be obvious processing mistakes for an FP and the image is not nominated as a downscaled version. -Tuxyso (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that this approach will mean that we will keep on featuring our own stuff that checks all the formal boxes, but not other images even though nobody seriously denies their wow. I think that this is unfortunate and not in the best interest of "our customers", that is the passive visitors who want to see impressive, wow images in our galleries. I have contacted the author and I hope that we might get a reworked version of the image, but even if that is not the case I think that this panorama is among the best we have. I myself do what I can to upload very high resolution files in good quality and I am fully aware that you and many others do, but there is only so far we can travel and I fear that FPC was, is and will be eurocentric and a pretty closed circle of guys who rate each others' images and - like Colin said in the portrait review below - the best chance to get FPs is doing conservative and technically correct work that doesn't require much wow as long as the technical boxes are ticked.
BTW: your Yosemite image, which is very impressive indeed, is equirectangular (according to the EXIF), which like cylindric projection does NOT distort the borders. Rectillinear projection, which has been used here, does, so your argument not is not quite valid. Of course you can make multi-row panos etc., but for most panoramas rectillinear projection cannot give equal sharpness everywhere. That is why most church interiors are downsized, even though their center sharpness would be great even at 100 Mpix+ --DXR (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I'll explain my thoughts in slightly more detail: You might notice that I have hardly ever opposed an image because of noise, because I don't think it's a big problem. Our brains are quite good at looking through noise and seeing the the reality behind it. This is not true for clipping and banding, which look very strange and artificial in my opinion. Especially if clipping exists but isn't at least fully white. But that's all that is, an opinion. It's true though that I'm often concerned about oversharpening, especially if it produces white lines around features with good contrast. Admittedly, that's the case in the corners here, but it's not extreme in my opinion, and most notably, it's not the case in the centre of the frame (at least not to a degree that I find distracting). Most people will view this photo either scaled down to see the whole image or zoomed in to the centre, and in those scenarios, the image isn't flawed. Even at the very bottom, it's still pretty much perfect. Add to that the amazing light, good composition and good resolution and I'm very much willing to accept the flawed quality at the left and right edges of the frame. Sure, I'd like the sharpening to be less there, but this is what we have. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 13:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tuxyso, your comment "image is not nominated as a downscaled version" is a viewpoint for judging I'm opposed to. We don't create versions of files on Commons that are downscaled simply to pass FP. In what way would that serve our mission? I wish there was an easy way to offer a link to a downscaled version of a file by making using of MediaWiki's thumbnail reduction API, but it appears to be crippled for large images where it would be most useful, and there also seems to be issues with sharpening artefacts in the current software. -- Colin (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I agree that there are processing issues that are very apparent at 100%. But with high-megapixel images, we have the choice to review at more modest dimensions. Reduced 60% as noted above and the noise disappears leaving a remarkably sharp picture that is well exposed, very detailed and full of interesting features. The processing issues are frequent with this photographer and I wish we had better communication so he can improve. But sometimes we just have to judge what we have, rather than what we wish or what we would have done differently ourselves. -- Colin (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Fortunately, Chensiyuan has given me access to the raw files. I will try to do an edit myself adressing the comments above. --DXR (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Great effort from you! I will look forward to the newly processed pano. BTW: Happy new year! --Tuxyso (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative 1: Reworked in rectillinear projection[edit]

Edit Pano

  •  Comment Happy new year to all of you! I have reworked the image based on the raw files, tried to keep the look similar but address the noise/sharpening issue. I think that the issues pointed out above are now solved adequately. Julian, Tuxyso, Daniel Case, Kreuzschnabel and Colin, please have another look. Of course any further comments are welcome. Keep in mind that this is a 100° view, something one gets from a 15mm lens, so it is very wide and the view is a bit extraordinary.
  •  Support --DXR (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Can I suggest you try another projection than rectilinear (e.g. General Panini in Hugin) to see if this minimises distortion at the lower corners. You could use the sliders Hugin has for that projection to keep the top half closer to rectilinear while the bottom remains closer to cylindrical. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Support It is better than the above, though my query about projection remains. -- Colin (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Colin, Diliff, here is the Panini general projection version. I am not a big fan of using Pan-gen or any other cylindrical projections in scenes that can be realistically captured with existing wide angle lenses. In addition, the bent street in the foreground that does not exist like this in reality is a EV problem for me. --DXR (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I've changed my support to oppose now as it is no longer the finest: the panini is much better. I agree the street curves but the rectilinear is not without its gross distortions: those buildings at the bottom are not really trapezium shaped -- the width/height proportions are all wrong as well as wonky angles. So at an individual-building-level, the panini projection is greatly superior and closer to reality for EV. One of the glorious features of a high-resolution panorama like this is being able to study it in detail, and that cannot be done as realistically with the rectilinear: if I fill my screen with any portion of the panini projection, it is more or less accurate with no curve visible but if I do the same with the rectilinear, then much of it is very unpleasant and not at all realistic. -- Colin (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DXR, would you consider offering the Panini projection as an alt (and perhaps collapsing the original nomination image, which won't go anywhere now). I think that is the fairest approach (if everyone who voted is pinged) rather than having to go through a possible delist/replace afterwards. Alternatively, if this is too complicated now, just reboot the whole nom with the two projections. -- Colin (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Colin, while I disagree with your assessment concerning the superiority of the panini projection in this case, I'm not too fussed about which version is promoted (as long as one of them is), so I have followed your advice. -- DXR 19:38, 2 January 2015‎
  •  Support --Tuxyso (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --LivioAndronico talk 19:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support. I too would be interested to see how it looks with panini projection, but regardless, I think it's more than deserving of support. Diliff (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support better looking than the original. Well done! Nikhil (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support This is it! Well done DXR! --Kreuzschnabel 08:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak  Support. I like the non-edited sky (didn't notice that problem in the original before). I don't have any strong feelings concerning the projection. The colours, especially in the sky, are a little less beautiful than in the previous version in my opinion, and the clarity in the sky is a change for the worse to me. Especially the top right area seems to have lost its beauty. The off-center areas definitely look cleaner, so that's an improvement, but I actually find that the tower has lost considerable detail. That's a necessary tradeoff I guess. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 10:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand your point of view. I have tried to match the look, which really is not that easy if you are starting from the raw files, but I don't rule out that somebody else could do a better job at this. One observation I have made, also based on the Toledo images I processed this summer (Original, Edit), is that Hugin imo is better at balancing exposure differences between frames. This does however also mean that nice, but somewhat coincidential, gradients in the sky disappear. --DXR (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative 2: Reworked in panini general projection[edit]

Edit Pano*

  •  Comment As suggested by Colin. I have expressed above why I prefer rectillinear projection, but of course the reviewers should be free to choose from both options. I'm sorry for the constant pinging, but just for fairness' sake everybody who voted above should be aware of the alt. Tuxyso, LivioAndronico, Diliff, Nikhil, Kreuzschnabel, Julian, Yann --DXR (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Sure! --LivioAndronico talk 19:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Better. Yann (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak  Oppose. I don't really like the way it's curved the horizontal lines in the foreground. For this image, I think Panini is unnecessary. If the horizontal field of view was larger, it would be more useful. Diliff (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support The comparison of different projections has imho a high educational value. The answer to the question which one of these is better is imho not trivial and a matter of personal taste. Our "naturalists" will argue that those curved lines are not "real" and are bad per se. For me some curvature in those wide panoramic views has an aesthetic merit. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Well, I would agree with you if it were only a matter of taste, but we still have a responsibility to represent the subject accurately. I'm not saying rectilinear is more 'correct', but it is the projection that we usually expect to see and I think it is therefore the preferred projection except when excessive distortion makes it unpractical. I don't think the rectilinear distortion is enough that Panini projection is warranted, but that's just my opinion. Diliff (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Rectilinear is not the projection we see since our retina is not a plane, and it is only a classical choice for 2D works for small angle-of-view (Diliff you will remember from our discussions last year that the great renaissance artists discussed this and thought something round 45-degrees (if memory serves me) was reasonable -- hardly 100-degrees). Our eyes in fact only see accurately in a tiny centre area (as I know you know) and outside this area is very blurred and much constructed by the mind. Therefore I'd claim that the Panini in getting the accuracy right in small areas is far more representative of what we see than the Rectilinear which completely fails to get the accuracy right at the building-level. Neither projections are 100% accurate but the gross building-distortion in the rectilinear is far more dishonest imo. Looking again at the rectilinear, the road may be straight in one axis but the buildings actually look like they are tilting to fall off the bottom of the screen like some disaster movie. -- Colin (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I think it was far greater than 45 degrees, probably closer to 60 or 70. 45 degrees is quite conservative. I know rectilinear isn't the projection we see with our own eyes but it is the projection that we usually expect to see in a photograph - that's what I meant. I agree with you that the rectilinear projection has its share of problems relating to the distortion, but I generally prefer it as a projection because it preserves the relationship between objects slightly better and objects retain their true shape, albeit stretched along the plane. With the panini projection, objects become bent, and it gives the illusion that the angle of view is much narrower than it really is. This helps with distortion but comes with its own dishonesty. I accept that no projection is free of limitations though, and clearly I'm in the minority this time. Diliff (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • See this reference. "90° is the visual angle accepted since the Renaissance as the outer limit of images projected onto a plane... The practical limit for an acceptable visual cone has historically been a 60° circle of view — a suggestion first made by Piero della Francesca in c.1470 and repeated often since then. In fact, depending on the geometry of the principal form and the location of the vanishing points, a 40° circle of view or less is much more typical. Leonardo da Vinci devoted many pages in his notebooks (c.1490) to the analysis of perspective distortions, and he especially disliked the exaggerated apparent size of the perspective grid as it reached the ground line of the image plane. He recommended painting an object as it appears from a distance of 3 to 10 times its actual dimensions. This is equivalent to placing the figure within a 19° to 6° circle of view. In fact, modern vision research has found that most people say an object "fills their field of view" once it occupies approximately a 20° circle of view; the classical French rule has been to contain the image within a 30° circle of view." I'm not sure about your "true shape" claim -- the individual buildings at the lower corner are surely much closer to their "true shape" in the panini than the rectilinear. Only a mathematician could love the "relationship" those buildings have with reality. -- Colin (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • The difference is that painters like Leonardo had the ability to suspend reality and imagine the view through walls to create the perspective of their choosing. Photographers have to work with physical limitations. I particularly enjoyed reading "Only a mathematician could love the "relationship" those buildings have with reality" though. :-) I suppose you're right. The panini view looks better when viewing at 100%, because you just don't see the bending of straight lines at that magnification. It's more of an issue when viewing the image as a whole, whereas the rectilinear view becomes less distasteful, the greater the viewing distance. Diliff (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support see above. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 22:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Much better. -- Colin (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support per Colin. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Preferred. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support--ArildV (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 17:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Ahja jõgi 2013 06.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2015 at 14:07:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ahja river (Estonia)
  • Thanks. I don't understand the settings. f11 ISO 1600 have caused some loss of sharpness imo. --Kadellar (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Berlin Potsdamer Platz Sony Center 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2015 at 10:55:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Weihnachtlich geschmücktes Sony Center
  •  Info created by No Rud - uploaded by NoRud - nominated by NoRud -- NoRud (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- NoRud (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Quality is not overwhelming according to todays standards, but then there is already an FP of this which shows definitely less quality (though great composition). Not sure yet. --Kreuzschnabel 07:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose. Image quality is too low for me, looks like a lot of noise reduction in the shadows making it a bit soft and smudged. I think the fact that we have an inferior FP of this subject already is not a good reason to feature this one instead. Probably more of a reason to delist the older one. Diliff (talk) 10:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Regretful oppose While I see how much work went into making this technically better than the existing FP, David's point is valid. And frankly, the older one just grabs you more because of the location of the ceiling rosette. Would that the quality aspired to by this one had been married to the composition of the older one. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, this is a beautiful picture, but no FP standard. --· Favalli ⟡ 01:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hacker-Pschorr Oktoberfest Girl.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2015 at 14:39:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Oktoberfest girl delivering beer.
  •  Info Oktoberfest girl delivering beer. Created by Markburger83 - uploaded by Przemek Jahr - nominated by --Mile (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • One more portrait, to compare with that belllow of Swedish journalist. Yann, Colin, welcome to judge and comment. I dont know if its made by professional.
  •  Support -- Mile (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment The composition and the smile are very nice. It looks overexposed though. Can this be corrected? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I did check with some -EV. Not much to gain. But on the other hand, i like simbioze of ligth colors (white, blonde, blue) so i dont mind some +EV. I would not like to spoil some, maybe author wouldnt like it. --Mile (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose for now; too much overexposure in her hair, clothes and at the beer foam (background is not so important, but it is overexposed as well). --Kadellar (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per Kadellar --Kreuzschnabel 06:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Blown highlight per Kadellar. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Mile if it helps: Remix -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 15:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Very good picture. The slight overexposure reflects the summer atmosphere at Oktoberfest quite well. It is therefore in this case an artistic element and no reason to decline FP status. On the contrary, this is what makes the picture special. --Code (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative[edit]


  •  Support this version. Yann (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Much better but the background looks overprocessed (sharpened noise or artifacts). --Kreuzschnabel 07:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Compared to the original, yes I agree, but inevitable the EV decrease is very high and I did not manipulate the affected areas, would stay artificial, inconsistent. This was the best compromise between the colors and brightness, in my manipulations (and taste). -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 13:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Please Yann; Kreuzschnabel, New version: I tried to recover the contrast of the original noise texture, only in the background, and smoothing the cuts, can evaluate whether it was better? Otherwise I revert to the previous, ty -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 17:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I think it’s well acceptable now. Thanks for your efforts! --Kreuzschnabel 18:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Good also. --Mile (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support st. -- Linksfuss (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 19:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Lukewarm support It's a compromise I know, and the composition is great, but I still think we can do better. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yes for sure, but within my limitations believe that from this point on I could not get good results, I am afraid to ruin the color composition. ; ) -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 13:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 17:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Melker Altar - Flucht.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2015 at 11:04:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Melk Altar in Melk Abbey Museum: Flight into Egypt. Painted 1502 by Jörg Breu the Elder.
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 17:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe Berlin 2014-07-13.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2015 at 13:55:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Original[edit]

Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe
  •  Info The Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe or the Holocaust Memorial is a large (19,000 m2) memorial located in central Berlin and constructed 2003-2004. We have an existing FP from 2006 with a quite similar compositional idea, but in portrait format and less resolution. Created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Slaunger (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't think this composition represents this monument well. What's impressive is the size and the repetition of so many similar patterns, i.e. File:Memorial to the murdered Jews of Europe.jpg, which cannot be seen here. Sorry. regards, Yann (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry,for Yann --LivioAndronico talk 18:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support The repeating pattern of the monument is well represented. I like the simplicity of the shot a lot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Thanks for the reviews so far. By not showing how large the monument is, and not showing any boundaries in the photo, it gives a perception of infinity, and makes the observer curious just how big it is. At least that is my intention, but I respect if not all reviewers get this compositional idea. An objective is also to visualize the abstract shapes of the monument without being distracted by the surroundings. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support At all my visits to this Memorial, I always tried to understand the deeper meaning behind. And I found different answers. This picture reminds me very directl at some of the jewish cemetaries, i.e. in Praha or the old one in Vienna and makes me thoughtful. According to my experience with this "monument", its a realistic, narrow view with a lot of meanings. The one pylon (can I say pylon?), leaning right and/or the two next, leaning slightly left, makes this impression even stronger. --Hubertl (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I forgot to say, that at my first visit, this monument reminded me instantaneous at the strict geometrical order of the barracks of Auschwitz, even when you can´t see them as they were, but you see the hundreds of chimneys left. One after another, almost as far as you can see, especially, when its a foggy, cold and windy november day.--Hubertl (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment The existing FP is like a work of art and very good composition and subtle tone (though let down somewhat by the compact camera used). This one isn't working for me at the moment. I've suggested a crop that I think is stronger and enhances the "perception of infinity" (because there's no stop at the bottom). -- Colin (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe
  •  Info I made a crop below following the proposal by Colin to further emphasize the 'infiniteness' of the monument (less is more). I agree it is a good suggestion. The crop has a better composition regarding the diagonal going from the lower left corner to the upper right corner (a slightly wider crop than proposed by Colin). -- Slaunger (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Slaunger (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I didn't (intentionally) suggest cropping the width. I suggested less on the bottom but this works too. However, I took a wee bit off the top too, to avoid the distracting sliver of detail in the top left, and I still think that would help a bit. -- Colin (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Colin I actually meant wider - vertically, so I think we agree;) (Is there an English word for that?). I uploaded a new version where I took a few pixels more off at the top per your suggestion. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"taller" -- Colin (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose as above --LivioAndronico talk 08:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 17:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Paddenstoelen in verval. Locatie, De Famberhorst 05.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2015 at 06:37:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info Mushrooms in decline. Location, The Famberhorst. Shaggy parasol (Chlorophyllum rhacodes, synonym: Macrolepiota rhacodes). created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Not sure what to make of this one. High level of detail, on the other hand it looks oversharpened (see edges towards bokeh). Ground before the fungus is irritatingly black. What’s the thing on the left back, its stem? Does the cap lie flat to the ground or is it still supported from a bent stem? Unclear vantage point. Leading to a weak oppose, sorry. --Kreuzschnabel 07:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Below left is what remains of a mushroom in dissolution. My intention was to give the decay (cycle) in nature again. Since the moldy environment should also be recognized by my. It is not intended as a sweet picture.--Famberhorst (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support For me is featurable --LivioAndronico talk 10:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I get and appreciate the point that the decaying muchrrom is not supposed to look 'nice'. The detail level and DOF is good. Light and composition is too ordinary for me though for it to become featured. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ✓ Done. Background made less gloomy.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Works for me. -- Ram-Man 19:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Very good, I liked, the choice to show the cut in mushroom pileus in evidence was great. Shows the reproductive lamellae and the mushroom structure. The overall appearance is beautiful and very well photographed, ty -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 06:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 17:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC))Reply[reply]

File:Stappersven in sneeuw 09.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2015 at 09:32:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

After chrismas 2014 there was a day of heavy snowfall in Belgium and a sunny day afterwards. This is a picture of a frozen...
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Stappersven in sneeuw 10.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2015 at 09:23:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

After chrismas 2014 there was a day of heavy snowfall in Belgium and a sunny day afterwards. This is a picture of a frozen lake (ven) in the Kalmthoutse Heide.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Warm front.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2015 at 20:46:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Warm front
  •  Info Illustration of a warm front. all by Kelvinsong—Love, Kelvinsong talk 20:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support—Love, Kelvinsong talk 20:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Nikhil (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I think it is a very good illustration, but it took me a long time to understand the temperature step function graph you have tried to place in 3D. Since there is no axis indicating the direction in which the temperature increases, I feel it is ambiguous. I have two proposals: Either remove it, as I think it is clear from the graphics already that there is a temperature step in the interface, or place the temperature graph on the side cut with a directional axis indicating the direction in which the temperature increases. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I based the picture off this image which has the same temperature graph thing. The important thing that it shows isn’t how the warm air is hotter than the cold air but that it goes opposite the usual trend where it gets colder the higher up you go. You also can’t put it outside a corner of the graph bc it has to cut through a region where there’s both hot and cold air, and I’d rather not put it on the side bc then you’d have to shear it oblique to fit the perspective which would be confusing too—Love, Kelvinsong talk 15:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I see where it is coming from, but I do not think it works in the source either (for me at least it is also ambiguous). -- Slaunger (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kelvinsong, Slaunger are correct, suggestion: use a colour differentiation in the profile, on the bottom edge the temperature is high (use full red) rising the temperature down (use red to blue degrade) on inversion layer the temperature is high (reverse to red using degrade), and in the top edge direction the temperature down (reverse to full blue using degrade), I believe this helps the interpretation in a profile without reference axes, the temperature profile is relevant I think you should stay. The infographic is very good, congratulations. -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 17:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay I did as you said—Love, Kelvinsong talk 19:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Almost. I believe you are using transparent layers, the profile should "overlap almost", in the case of temperature profile in the ground has to be very strong red and much more blue at the top, there must be consistent contrast between the colors in all altitudes: The inversion layer is clear and correct other areas would improve with higher contrast. Sorry my insistence but otherwise not notice real difference in understanding the profile and thanks again for the effort, I hope it helps -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 22:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that’s because the bottom branch goes purple to blue but the top branch goes red to purple which is harder to see than the blue–red contrast at the inversion thing. The gradient goes straight horizontally it’s not like along the path or anything—Love, Kelvinsong talk 15:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kelvinsong, Ok, try it. Remember it is only a suggestion, just to help. I changed the gradient to adjust the colors vertically. I'm bad at it are not well balanced in the extremities, but may help. -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 16:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Question Just a quick technical question regarding the SVG: Is the inlaid text embedded in a manner in the SVG, which allows easy localization to other languages than English? -- Slaunger (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yep! It’s in a hidden layer in the SVG. The displayed text is an outline render of the actual text bc the wikipedia renderer sucks at text—Love, Kelvinsong talk 15:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent, and yeah, I know the renderer sucks. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 17:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:2012-impala-0.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2015 at 03:13:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Black-faced Impala
  • Link to another fp in Commons for reference. The horns seems much blue there too. Due to lighting conditions? Jee 12:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • They seem to be reflective, so they will always be blue in mixed diffuse light, especially if there is some blue sky above. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 18:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Jee, I uploaded a try. -- ChristianFerrer 12:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Christian. Jee 12:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • He can be in Africa or with family. :) Jee 12:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 06:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Interior da Catedral de Amiens by Jules Victor Genisson, 1842.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2015 at 20:25:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Interior of the Cathedral of Amiens
  •  Info Interior of the Cathedral of Amiens, by Jules Victor Génisson, oil on carvas, 1842. Located currently in Pinacoteca do Estado de São Paulo. Created and uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I heard "more paintings"? -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --LivioAndronico talk 21:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I have restored the original version uploaded by The Photographer as the edit Arion made reduced the filesize by half so must have lost information. If we think a small crop off the top is beneficial, this could be done by Wilfredo or using a lossless crop tool. (Ping @Livioandronico2013: , @Uoaei1: ) -- Colin (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I thought it was another one of David's submissions at first . Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • So did I! Detail at 100% is inferior though. Inferior 19th century technology.... ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Diliff, impressive vertical angle-of-view , no "vertical perspective distortion" and the stained glass isn't blown! He's kept the shadows dark rather than be tempted to lift them. Génisson managed to capture people in his painting, which is something you have to avoid, and he got interesting people rather than tourists in anoraks. So perhaps his technology isn't so bad. -- Colin (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Counterpoints: Stained glass is not blown but there is a lot of noise and banding in the shadows. Vertical angle of view is not more than most of my church interior panoramas (and benefits from a perspective probably 4-5 metres above the cathedral floor). 'Exposure time' is in the region of days, weeks or months rather than seconds or minutes. Tourists are not as aesthetic or aesthetic but I suppose they are no less genuine for the period. Anyway, it's silly to compare. Diliff (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • From the EXIF I see he's painting Canon and their artist materials are about 5 years behind everyone else's (though I admit they have an extensive collection of brushes). -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • I must confess I've had trouble understanding what you two are talking about. You are a hopeless case --The Photographer (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • Sorry if it doesn't translate. I'm just gently mocking Diliff's brand of camera. -- Colin (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • Yes I know :D, It is a pity that no women here, so we would have a more pleasant nominations with fresh opinions and different PoV. --The Photographer (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support. Very nice reproduction. Diliff (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Question Are dimensions stated correct ? It deosnt seem to be almost 1:1, or its cropped original ? Otherwise good photo. --Mile (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your question. This is the original photo, however, this is ~98% of the total size of the painting, at the top there is a small cut of a few pixels high, you can compare this with the other version. The court is due to brightness problems in the room , the top frame creates a dark shadow over the painting without detail. It is important to emphasize that this was not a digital cut, was a cut in the composition. I will try upload raw file to commonsarchive this weekend --The Photographer (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media#Religion

File:Juist, Watt -- 2014 -- 3546.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2015 at 06:05:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mud flat near harbour of Juist, Lower Saxony, Germany
  •  Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 06:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- XRay talk 06:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment XRay, I would (genuinely) be interested to know what you like about your photo and why you think it should be featured. I think we should do that more, and especially so for a minimalist composition like this. -- Colin (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion, it is a beautiful illustration of a sunset in the mud flat (nature reserive in Lower Saxony) at low tide. That's just a minimalist. Do you think this is too less for a nomination?--XRay talk 11:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support a really fine composition. --Hubertl (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support good -- Pierre André (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak  Support I'm not sure the motor boat is the best object for this purpose (too dark and unattractive). Would have been better with people/person. Is this the largest size you have? -- Colin (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't know. It just doesn't have that much wow for me. That dark boat is somewhat ruining this for me as it starts to dominate. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose As a sunset picture this doesn't jump out at me. Not minimalist enough for a minimalist composition (too much random stuff in the water), and not enough going on for a regular composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I can't see a educational propose here, could be any place in the world with water, and I can't identify what's the black points (birds, right? What's the specie?), and at the first look in fullscreen I thought "nice rock, wait, this is a rope?", and then I zoom in and saw the boat... why this it is so dark?  Comment For me, you could crop the button, see the wind line there? This do not add to the composition, and create a mess in the photo. The sky do not add to the photo too. I saw some sticks (I add a note in one of them), do you know what's that, it intrigued me. -- RTA 08:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sticks are branches marks the fairway. It's near the harbour. --XRay talk 10:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Nils Torvalds MEP, Strasbourg - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2015 at 22:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nils Torvalds
  •  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. Another potentially challenging nomination. This image of Finnish EU Parliamentarian Nils Torvalds was taken in Strasbourg earlier this year as part of Wiki Loves Parliaments. This was my favourite portrait. Yes, it's fairly bland as far as portraits go (we didn't have a lot of creative options), but sharpness and detail is about as good as one could expect I think and the pose is pleasant. I'm interested to see how it's received here. -- Diliff (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Diliff (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Nice detail on the face. Daniel Case (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Ivar (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Pose and expression are very good, and so is the detail rendering, including his eyes being in focus :-) I don’t like the flat lighting though. The face is too bright for me, and looks slightly blueish. --Kreuzschnabel 07:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The lighting is slightly flat, yes, owing to the two balanced flash umbrellas on either side of him. If that's a flaw, so be it, I had little control over it because we worked together in shifts and required the lighting to be calibrated and consistent so that all our cameras could be used at short notice. We had only a few days to photograph as many of the 600+ EU parliamentarians as we could. As for the brightness and white balance, I could adjust this fairly easily but I don't see it as too bright or blueish, so maybe it's better to wait for a second opinion before overwriting it with a correction. For now, here's an edited version of it with -0.2EV and 5500k white balance instead of the original 5100k. What do you think? Diliff (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support YES! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support It would be churlish of me not to support this. The image is sharp, but then I'd expect several grand of camera equipment to be able to focus on a stationary target from six feet, and the pro lighting permits f/11 to give plenty room for error :-). But that alone wouldn't make an FP, merely a QI. The thing that raises this enough (and only just enough, I'm afraid) is the subject. There's some character there with the smile and cravat. But on the negative is the unimaginative lighting and grey background that makes the images taken at this event look no more attractive than your school photo. As for colour balance, it is slightly cold/light but not necessarily wrong in that. The other one you link to has the face ok but I really don't like turning the grey background that sickly colour, or making the background any darker. -- Colin (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm the first to agree that it would likely not be FP material if Nils wasn't charming and characterful. As for the lighting, I'll see if I can selectively lighten and neutralise the background of the edit tomorrow. Diliff (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The linked image was rotated too. -- Colin (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I know, it was a quick and dirty low res process from the RAW file. The full version should be correctly rotated. Diliff (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Update: I've just uploaded a new version over the top of the previous one (refresh caches etc). Corrections made as follows: -0.2EV, warmer white balance, lighter background and slightly more of a CW rotation than the original (he was still leaning back slightly in the previous version, although it may have been an actual lean rather than a camera lean). Hopefully this hasn't introduced any new problem. Diliff (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support the new version. Yann (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Excellent skin tones. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:15, 07 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support new version looks much better. --Kadellar (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Petra Martic 1, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2015 at 22:22:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Petra Martic serving
  •  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. Petra Martic, a Croatian professional tennis player serving at Wimbledon in 2013. I figured with the recent heavy discussion regarding portraits and technical issues such as imperfect focus, I'd nominate a challenging image and see what the consensus is. Although focus is not perfectly centred on her face, I think overall sharpness is satisfactory for a non-studio 'action shot' taken in late evening light though and the lighting and composition is pleasant, but I'm interested to see what others think. -- Diliff (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Diliff (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 02:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support It's really not so much a portrait as a sports action shot. A little CA on her left arm but what can you do that you might not have already done? Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)-Reply[reply]
  •  Support that's for me a "wow(!) effect" only... --Bojars (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support In the WP:FP you said "there is strong contrast in the late afternoon light and that's what's great about the image IMO. I've got plenty of images of people serving in even, overcast lighting but that also makes the image a bit... boring and undramatic." In addition to the lighting, the subject is positioned well with no distracting background (the scoreboard adds context) and the pose is caught just right with the eyeline towards the ball in the air. -- Colin (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --El Grafo (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support For me there is no doubt that the "pose", the light and the nice background are very good. If I saw this picture on a serious news site in an usual resolution, I would rather like it and surely not notice that is wasn't shot with a 300 2.8. The only caveat is of course the sharpness. Personally, I have some experience shooting cricket at comparable focal lengths, albeit with inferior equipment and I found it hard to get perfectly sharp images and ended up with a comparable amount of remaining "not-quite-sharpness". Given the type of image we have here and the uniqueness, I think that the flaws are within an acceptable range. --DXR (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You have been photographing cricket? What kind of strange German-living-in-Paris are you? :-) Cricket must be a lot harder to shoot with 300mm actually, because the action is a lot further away than on a tennis court. I would have thought a 600mm would be more useful, but only the professionals have access to that kind of lens. Diliff (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Haha, well first of all, I'm primarily a German-living-in-Germany... just was in Paris for a semester abroad. Tbh, the cricket I photographed in Germany was pretty informal and just a team of Indian students (and me). I shot on APS-C, so it was a bit longer, but surely still too short. BTW: my very first upload here was also cricket-related ;-). --DXR (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:19, 07 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Tampa Florida November 2013-23a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2015 at 23:29:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tampa, Florida
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Volcan de boue (sites des volcans).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2015 at 07:54:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mud volcanoe in Azerbaijan
  • Scale was given. I add the height of this volcano. Actually I was there and saw all of them. --Interfase (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:2014 Goświnowice - zakład produkcji etanolu 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2015 at 19:28:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ethanol production plant "Bioagra" in Goświnowice
  •  Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment zdjęcie niezłe, ale... te dwie lampy ze środka mocno się odbiły w obiektywie --Pudelek (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Zdjęcie było robione zoomem 18-200, a on jest kiepski. Już się go po pozbyłem :-)--Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment IMHO the street on the very right deteriorates the composition (probably not avoidable). Without the street on the right I had supported. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Neutral I agree about the street; I'd like to see a version with it cropped out. Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ✓ Done--Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --LivioAndronico talk 08:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --XRay talk 10:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't think the motive and composition are strong enough to justify the quality flaws such as badly corrected clipping (color fringes) and really dominant lens artifacts from the bright sources of light. I know that it's not easy to get rid of those with a given lens, but there are ways to do it. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 11:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support D kuba (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support--NoRud (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Industry

File:Caseta cerca de Hvolsvöllur, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-16, DD 213.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2015 at 19:29:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Farm building after sunset near Hvolsvöllur, Suðurland, Iceland.
  •  Info Farm building after sunset near Hvolsvöllur, Suðurland, Iceland. Poco2 19:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Poco2 19:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Neutral I like it, but the out of focus foreground and hot spot on the sky detract for me. -- Ram-Man 19:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Support The new crop is good. Looks very nice on a 4k monitor. -- Ram-Man 21:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment The composition does not seem balanced to me. How about a crop as proposed in the annotation? -- Slaunger (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ✓ New crop addressing the issues you two mentioned. Thank you. Poco2 21:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Comment Thanks for considering my crop. I think it is much better below, but I would rather have kept the hot spot in the sky. I think the sky is cropped too much now. I do not see the hot spot at the extreme left as any real problem as Ram-Man does - at least not something worth sacrificing sky for. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Cropping out the foreground gives it a more wider view which helps the composition. I'd probably support even with the sky hotspot. Give it a try. -- Ram-Man 20:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'll upload an alternative version tomorrow, I'm travelling right now. Poco2 23:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Hmm, I don't know what the crop suggestion was but I'd have kept the sky and cropped much more off the foreground (about 3:1 aspect). -- Colin (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Tuxyso (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- RTA 00:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support · Favalli ⟡ 00:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Halavar (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Neutral I prefer the other crop. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 15:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Whatever. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Farm building after sunset near Hvolsvöllur, Suðurland, Iceland.
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Habibi2006prצילום חביבי - יוסי צבקר.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2015 at 23:26:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hakol Over Habibi
  •  Neutral Because there were no improvements in the description. --Kadellar (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Hammarby Sjöstad January 2015.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2015 at 08:13:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hammarby sjöstad
  •  Info Panorama of Hammarby sjöstad, Stockholm. A former mainly industrial zone, undergoing major urban redevelopment. The picture was taken about 20 minutes after sunset. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- ArildV (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support but could you add the camera position? --Code (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Code: Sorry I forgot. ✓ Done now.--ArildV (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak  Support: Nice light and scene, though with visible camera shake. Ok I guess due to high resolution. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 10:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Julian Herzog: Its hand held. I just walked past when I saw the reflection in the water (I had the camera, but no tripod with me). Most of the water is covered by ice (with a thin layer of water on top), which creates the strong reflections. I took the photo yesterday, and today is the most ice is gone (because of strong wind and mild weather). So it is not possible to take another images.--ArildV (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support  ■ MMXX talk 20:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Neither quality (a bit blurred, but due to the high res neglectable), nor composition (a lot of empty space at the left, no clear compositional idea, no eye-catcher), nor motive (imho some not really remarkable average buildings on the water making some reflections) do convince me. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Nice lighting. Maybe this can be brightened a bit. The shake is unfortunate but OK per Julian. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --XRay talk 10:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose A FP cannot be unsharp, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per Jebulon, I'm afraid --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Slight motion blur, per Jebulon. Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Neutral Water surface tilt to the right, D kuba (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Helsinki July 2013-29a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2015 at 23:26:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info Helsinki Luthean Cathedral (detail), Finland. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose The image quality is very good, but sorry Alvesgaspar, I think too much of the facde is in shadow as compared to the tower. Moreover the cropped building gives a for me incomplete composition. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Shame you did not get more of the building. How about cropping the bottom off, below the base of the triangle? The upper part is well side-lit. -- Colin (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry. No wow for me. I'd prefer something like this when showing the top part of the church. Not to mention that we already have 3 featured images about this cathedral, that all look very similar with this. And I'd also agree with Slaunger. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Info You are quite right @Colin: , thank you! New version below. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative[edit]

  •  Info Alternative version. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Lighting is not favorable; too much in shadow. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I think the light works for this one, the triangle at the bottom doesn't have much information anyway and the stuff on top shows good contrast. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 10:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I didn't notice the other FPs till now. This one still has merit as it seems to be from a different side and more detail. And I like the side lighting of the statues and dome. -- Colin (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Middle tower and columns are out of focus. Tigth crop above. --Mile (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Laos , Province de Champassak, Wat Khon Tai.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2015 at 10:36:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wat Khon Tai Temple


  •  InfoTemple de Wat Khon Tai.- Province de Champassak (Laos). created, uploaded ans nominated by by PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ-- Pierre André (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Pierre André (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support nice --Pudelek (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment -- The right side needs slight cropping to balance the composition.--Fotoriety (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose The crop now is better, but I don't like that the gate behind is obscured by the window frame. Point of view should have been lower and more to the left to avoid that. It would have been possible to see more of the palm trees as well (we'd lose part of the dragon, I know). --Kadellar (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per Kadellar, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Paperbark Maple Acer griseum Bark 3008px.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2015 at 00:32:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Paperbark Maple Bark
  •  Info created, uploaded, nominated by Ram-Man
  •  Support Many years ago this was nominated twice, but both times the vote got split and it never really got a fair chance to stand on its own. I've taken a lot of bark photos, this one is one of my favorites because of the texture and colors. -- Ram-Man 01:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Good light, focus, and colors. Yann (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Why did you photograph it landscape orientation rather than portrait? -- Colin (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • To show both sides of the tree and air while keeping closeup detail. I use portrait for larger trunks showing one side.-- Ram-Man 20:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Good light, focus,colors and nothing more --LivioAndronico talk 08:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Very good example of exfoliating bark -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 13:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rubik's cube v3.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2015 at 07:39:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A SVG Representation of a Rubik's cube. Showcases how realistic vector images can be.
Black areas are fine for me—you wouldn’t really be able to discern those edges. but like make the specular dots smaller and brighter—the thing looks a bit too rubber-y. Also make sure you like clip-mask the reflections in the black parts bc the gaussian blur goes on forever and you want it to stop when it reaches the edge of the black part—Love, Kelvinsong talk 14:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:2011 Pérou 166.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2015 at 14:59:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

les Îles Ballestas et la Réserve nationale de Paracas Pérou
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gjirokastër Castle (by Pudelek) 5 - Clock Tower.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2015 at 13:26:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gjirokastër Castle, Clock Tower, Albania
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Porto Palermo Castle (by Pudelek).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2015 at 19:35:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Porto Palermo Castle, Albania
  • I think so, thank you! What do you think? Maybe it wasn't the best light of the day, I'm not sure and I'm staying  Neutral. --Kadellar (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Skå kyrka September 2014 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2015 at 20:50:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info created & uploaded by ArildV - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Abstain as creator. Thanks for the nomination. I was very happy when I got the chance to photograph the church from the air, it's an old (oldest part from the 1100s) and the beautiful church and surrounded by a cemetery (which is typical for Swedish churches) and old beautiful trees.--ArildV (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment A little bit too satured IMO -- ChristianFerrer 17:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Not really special, compositionally speaking. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per Daniel Case – aerial views tend to bring their own wow along but this does not do any favour to the church IMHO. Sorry. --Kreuzschnabel 22:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:130205-A-YI554-197 (8516320302).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2015 at 10:04:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bullfinch male.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2015 at 22:26:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pyrrhula pyrrhula male
Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Crotophaga sulcirostris CR bis.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2015 at 11:33:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Groove-billed ani
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Händkakk 2014.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2015 at 22:59:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A young Ural owl who has just left the nest
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 04:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Isla Elliðaey, Islas Vestman, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-17, DD 106.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2015 at 21:41:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Elliðaey is one of the Westman Islands, and the third largest island in Iceland having an area of 0,45 km2. It is believed to have formed in an eruption about 5-6 thousand years. The island is uninhabited, but there is a hunting lodge, as you can see in the image, constructed in 1953. The island is still privately owned and operated by the Elliðaey Hunting Association and is accessible via a rope on its lower east side and by a boat from the mainland.
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Ron Lalá - 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2015 at 16:20:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ron Lalá, theatre company
  •  Info Spanish theatre company Ron Lalá posing on stage during their tour of En un lugar del Quijote ("Somewhere in El Quijote") at the Pavón Theatre in Madrid, Spain. This portrait was taken on purpose for Wikipedia, there were no more photographers. I used an external flash light softened with a diffuser, there is also a very dim stage light, not powerful enough for a picture and it's hardly visible. I think we don't have in Commons many posed group portraits of actors, musicians, dancers, etc. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Kadellar (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support  ■ MMXX talk 16:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- ChristianFerrer 11:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Pölkkyposkisolisti (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sète Harbour Sunset 04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2015 at 19:51:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sète Harbour Sunset

Alternative (not cropped version)[edit]

Sète Harbour Sunset.
  • Alchemist-hp, I think that it is what adds depth, context and perspective to the view. I think there was too much background in number 02. --Kadellar (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena
The chosen alternative is: File:Sète Harbour Sunset 04.jpg

File:Bald eagle in a nosedive.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2015 at 01:14:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bald eagle in a nosedive
  •  Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Pity it’s so small. --Kreuzschnabel 07:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Pierre André (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Impressive. I would however suggest two changes: First I would have chosen a quadratic crop since there is too much space at the bottom and the top IMO. Second I would appreciate an increase of the contrasts because the picture looks quite flat to me at the moment. Nonetheless I think the picture is already excellent as it is. What it really needs is an english description. --Code (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thank you, Code. I made a crop on the top. Below, the bald eagle needs space for his nosedive. On the File page, the image explanation is given only in your own language. Under the image you can find a link to the image explanations in other languages behind the Language select words (German: Sprachauswahl). --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Fear! ;) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PetarM (talk) --Mile (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Cane Hill Asylum water tower.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2015 at 08:56:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cane Hill Asylum water tower in Coulsdon, South London, after the hospital was demolished in 2010.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PetarM (talk) --Mile (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Preston Cenotaph with wreaths.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2015 at 20:51:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Preston Cenotaph
  •  Info Preston Cenotaph, in front of the old post office. The constituent images were taken just after the shadow of the cenotaph moved off the post office, and just before it encroached upon the wreaths. Created, uploaded and nominated by me, -- Baresi F (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Baresi F (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak  Support. It's not the most breathtaking building, but the light is probably as good as it gets for this (in daylight at least) and the quality is excellent. Composition, to be honest, is straightforward and almost plain, but there are probably not many options in these surroundings and with the architecture. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 15:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the considered review, Julian H.. You're right about the composition, in part due to the limitations of the surrounds, although I thought the "lone figure admiring the dressed cenotaph" motif added a little bit of flavour. The cenotaph - designed by Giles Gilbert Scott - is certainly of greater note than the post office. --Baresi F (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PetarM (talk) --Mile (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tuxerbach Austria 2007-05-26.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2015 at 20:58:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"The brook Tuxerbach in Austria is fed by melt water of the Hintertux glacier area."
  •  Info created by Simonizer - uploaded by Simonizer - nominated by Pine -- Pine✉ 20:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Pine✉ 20:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose because 1) the whitewater is blown in several parts, 2) the bench is distracting (and obstructing) without having any compositional use IMHO. Barely above the 2 mpix limit too. --Kreuzschnabel 22:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak  Oppose Is it really blown? Doesn't look blown to me. Still, the foreground doesn't convince me, sorry. From a higher point, this might work, but that's obviously easier said than done. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 15:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  CommentMy fault, there’s nothing blown. Still the other points remain. --Kreuzschnabel 15:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose But for the bench ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't like the composition, especially the too dominant bench in the foreground. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Andromeda Galaxy M31 - Heic1502a Full resolution.tiff, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2015 at 15:37:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Andromeda Galaxy
  •  Info This image, captured with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, is the largest and sharpest image ever taken of the Andromeda galaxy — otherwise known as M31. You would need more than 600 HD television screens to display the whole image. It is the biggest Hubble image ever released and shows over 100 million stars and thousands of star clusters embedded in a section of the galaxy’s pancake-shaped disc stretching across over 40 000 light-years. To see the image more easily, go to http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1502a/zoomable/ Created by ESA/Hubble, uploaded by Alan - nominated -- Kadellar (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Kadellar (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Question Could anyone make a .jpg out of this .tiff? Thank you. --Kadellar (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Conditional oppose Until someone changes the format. Not only can I not see it, I think at 1.69GB it's too large for Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment Other versions:
Regards, Alan (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Conditional oppose an unvisible image. Which programm can show me it? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose A truly an outstanding picture. But it makes little sense to feature at picture that cannot be viewed with a standard browser. I had to click on the link instead. If converted into a format that can be viewed, I would love to change the vote. It is really a great picture. --Pugilist (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Until someone changes the format ;) · Favalli ⟡ 02:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd like to convert, but Photoshop (last I checked) has a 30k limit on the long side. Any other programs worth using? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Gimp: See explanation: GIMP has an image size limit of 262144 by 262144 pixels. An image at that size would use 596.5GB. Alan (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Info 10k version uploaded here. Can't open the 40k version, but honestly doubt that there is much benefit in it anyway. --DXR (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • {{LargeTIFF}}+{{Compressed version}} info added. In 3 days you can vote for a POTY that is "only" the thumbnail of another large TIFF ;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Euphorbia characias, Sète 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2015 at 17:07:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Euphorbia characias
  •  Info Euphorbia characias ssp. characias (Mediterranean Spurge), an evergreen plant in habitat in winter. All by me. -- ChristianFerrer 17:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- ChristianFerrer 17:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose The plant is not entirely shown (stem cropped out), centered composition is boring, straightforward shot. Certainly QI but I don’t see anything special to feature. ‎-- Kreuzschnabel 12:10, 8 January 2015
  •  Support Tomer T (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose We need the whole plant for an encyclopedical use.--Jebulon (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Eurema blanda at Nayikayam Thattu.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2015 at 16:05:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eurema blanda
  •  Info Eurema blanda (Three-Spot Grass Yellow) puddling water and minerals absorbed in Mosses on a summer day. All by me. -- Jee 16:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Jee 16:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support--Famberhorst (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support A tighter crop would be better --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Nice, I like the contrast between the bright butterfly and the dark environment. The centered composition is not working for me, I added two suggestions, what do you think? --Kadellar (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks Kadellar, I made an attempt; will revert if inappropriate. Jee 03:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks! I think it looks better now.  Support then. --Kadellar (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Per Kadellar - lovely contrast, and the new crop works very well. --Baresi F (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks. This is one of my best photo of a butterfly having plenty of details (as Crisco commented in my Flickr stream). Here the subject perches on the joint of a moss covered retaining wall on my hip level; so an easy shot on my knees. The butterfly is perching parallel to the wall (not perpendicular); but close subject distance helps to blur the wall only an inch behind. :) Jee 03:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Schwäbisch Hall in winter.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2015 at 14:16:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Schwäbisch Hall (Marktplatz) in winter.Baden-Württemberg, Germany.
  •  Info Schwäbisch Hall in winter. Baden-Württemberg, Germany. All by --Mile (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Mile (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Very nice! Pity there’s much noise reduction visible. I’d remove the foliage on the top left (even crop it out) and try to soften the sky (there are many spots of attempted sharpening) or (better) rework it from RAW, excluding the sky from sharpening. --Kreuzschnabel 15:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Comment No sharpening, no nothing. OOC, detilted and some spots from firework removed in PS. Sky noise more than acceptable for me. I migth remove that tree on left side if any better. --Mile (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Info Tree removed, sky noise lowered. --Mile (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Not totally perfect ... there are still small blown areas where the lights agglomerate, particularly on the front of the drugstore where they're reflected by the yellow paint, and near what you correctly point out in the note is not distortion. And there's a bit of CA. But, I have learned a lot about photographing scenes with Christmas lights in the last few weeks (most of it, of course, the hard way) and based on that I'm not sure what you could do to correct those issues without compromising the rest of the image, especially when you got so many other things just right. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Kikos (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Bojars (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support but sky is still quite noisy --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ✓ Done One more deniose of sky plus some minor fixes. --Mile (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support And 7... Clin --LivioAndronico talk 17:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Kadellar (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I like the composition of this image and how it captures the mood of a German town around Christmas. Nice shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Neutral At the top of the house, is being cut out of the antennas. --The Photographer (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Simulate a cut in the antenna is not a good practice because it alters reality. On the other hand, you apply noise reduction in the sky, however, this has created a white aura on all objects where it is particularly visible in the antennae. I suggest the right job with layers to remove the white aura using cloning. --The Photographer (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Info That "auras" are called clouds, and due to snowy wather, relfections, and strong ligths in the back you can see them as such, and can be seen in original also. Just write a mail if you want to observe. --Mile (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
clouds do not generate drop shadow --The Photographer (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Wells Cathedral West Front Exterior, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2015 at 11:21:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wells Cathedral West Front
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Christopher Michel in a U-2 Dragon Lady.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2015 at 00:15:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Selfie by Christopher Michel in a Lockheed U-2 at 70,000 feet
  •  Info created and uploaded by Cmichel67 - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support has definite WOW! And not likely to be an photographic premise that we will get to see again -- russavia (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Wow3 definitely a catch of the cockpit that almost suicidal sailplane deserves a support vote despite everything. I hope it's real. : ) -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 01:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Gildir (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Nice, but do we need to keep the frame/border? --Kadellar (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Comment Kadellar I thought about that myself, and I decided not to crop it out before bringing here, merely for it is how the photograph was presented by the accomplished photographer. russavia (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support So much wow. I would actually keep the frame, it's real and it's not possible to remove it without losing a lot of information. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 15:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --El Grafo (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Code (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Be..anyone (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Je suis Charlie Strasbourg 7 janvier 2015 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2015 at 11:27:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Man holding a candle at a demonstration supporting Charlie Hebdo in Strasbout following the shooting of 7 januart 2015
  •  Info Man holding a candle at a demonstration supporting Charlie Hebdo in Strasbourg following the shooting of 7 januart 2015. Created by Ctruongngoc - uploaded by Ctruongngoc - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Rama (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I'm really not sure that we should be examining a reporter's photograph, of an event less than 24hrs old, to see if meets the "featured pictures" criteria. We aren't the picture editors of a daily newspaper. This one can sit a while so an unemotional assessment of its qualities can be made. My 2p. -- Colin (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well either the photograph is good, or it is not. The context changes nothing to that, and I trust people to have enough maturity to assess the image for its value rather than for some irrelevant criterion. I happen to be rather reserved on the hommages to Charlie Hebdo, which I have never liked, and to think that this is an excellent and exceptional photograph. Emotion is indispensable to assess the overall quality of the image, and irrelevant for everything else. Rama (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not as simple as "good or not". As a photograph in isolation, the image has some technical and artistic weaknesses, though the candle light on the guy's face is interesting. It doesn't clearly demonstrate there is more than one or two protesters never mind the scale of the crowd. It might have extra value (an FP criterion) when regarded as an image of a historical event. For for that, it needs to be "historical". It isn't about having "enough maturity" to judge this today, when the news and current-affairs conversations talk of little else: you'd have to be some kind of Vulcan. Please let this image deserve its FP status at a later time, rather than having any perception that votes are somehow influenced by recentism and emotion. Surely if it is "exceptional" then it will still be exceptional in six months. What is the rush? -- Colin (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Conversely, if the image is exceptional, it is irrespective of the context. So as much as I agree that the image will remain exceptional in six months, I think it is whatever the context is. We are not going to give featured status out of pity for the fate of other people not on the image. Rama (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, your argument is illogical: I'm arguing we can't reliably judge it today, not whether context matters to its exceptionalness. As an image of a person lit by candle, it is unexceptional and has technical issues. Perhaps as an image of this event it might gain value, but not today. -- Colin (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are contradicting yourself: you cannot state first that it is not possible to judge the image, and then that it is "unexceptional and has technical issues": you are judging the image. Which is absolutely fine, but the entire construct about "today" is empty. Rama (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read what I said. Do you spot the word "reliably". You'll have to take my unreliable "oppose" since you won't accept that today is not a good time to be doing this. -- Colin (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(I think you have one negation too many in your sentance)
If I understand you correctly, you are positing that the context should be taken into account to judge whether minor defects in a photograph should be overlooked or not. I have never observed that line of reasonning in FPs; much to the contrary, I have seen quite a number of candidates rejected on technical grounds when the chosen settings were the best possible for the shot (e.g. "too much noise" for a distant action shot in a covered arena with limited lighting). Rama (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*sigh* My grammar is fine. No you don't understand me correctly. I have better things to do with my life than continue this conversation... -- Colin (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Thibaut120094 (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment per Colin. For support, at least the black bottom part should be cropped out. --Kreuzschnabel 13:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Oppose having had a closer look. Noisy, unsharp, motion blur. We do not have to express sympathy through featuring images. --Kreuzschnabel 18:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Mike Coppolano (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support O.M.H ♦ H.M.O 16:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I agree with Colin and Kreuzschnabel and would love to see that picture nominated in a few months. --Indeedous (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm afraid this picture will be now assessed with wrong criteria. We have not to celebrate compassion here and now, I fully agree with Colin, Kreuzschnabel and Indeedous. This picture is obviously of bad quality IMO, and does not reach the current FP standards. Let nominate this picture in maybe eight months, and you will have a very nice {FPX} for technical reasons. I'm sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --HenriDavel (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Absolutely per Colin --LivioAndronico talk 17:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Too intimate to be truly representative of something, not enough quality to an intimate picture. -- ChristianFerrer 19:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Beautiful indeed. --Catarella (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Invalid vote. User has fewer than 50 edits --DXR (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per Jebulon. --Cayambe (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Neutral I'm not convinced. I would definetely support a high ISO black and white picture of a vigil, but not this one, I'm not convinced by the composition. That said, I think that looking at Ctruongngoc uploads is a good way to find black and white FPC. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose as Christian Ferrer --Hubertl (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Sète Harbour Sunset.
  •  Support Actually I wanted to nominate this one. I think it has a more attractive composition. Settings are 1/40, f/2.8, ISO3200... not plenty of light! I think technical quality is as good as it could be. This one reminds me of a black and white comic. --Kadellar (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Too intimate to be truly representative of something, not enough quality to an intimate picture. -- ChristianFerrer 19:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • also  Support. --Catarella (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Invalid vote. User has fewer than 50 edits --DXR (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Per other crop. -- Colin (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Colin and Christian Ferrer --LivioAndronico talk 21:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I prefer the cropped one. Thibaut120094 (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Neutral I'm not convinced. I would definetely support a high ISO black and white picture of a vigil, but not this one, I'm not convinced by the composition. That said, I think that looking at Ctruongngoc uploads is a good way to find black and white FPC. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose as Christian Ferrer --Hubertl (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Karja kirik Leisi vallas Saaremaal.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2015 at 22:09:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Karja Church, Saaremaa, Estonia
  •  Support an very good picture from an ordinary church, the breath of the history of 600 years of history on the edge of christianity. Sometimes, we should hold on a minute or two.--Hubertl (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Excellent light and sharpness, but I don't find this church very appealing neither charming. I think the picture deserves a better crop, and I find the shadow of the bush disturbing just in front of the entrance of the building. I'd like to see the base of it, too.--Jebulon (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Be..anyone (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Chicago 2007-21a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2015 at 19:44:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info One of two old photos retireved from the archives. Not the quality of a D800 made but lots of minimalist wow in my opinion. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Christoph 3 D-HZSO Eurocopter EC135 2012.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2015 at 16:04:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Air ambulance Cologne
  •  Info created by Flowizm on flickr - uploaded by indeedous - nominated by indeedous -- Indeedous (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I'm categorizing air ambulances since a few days and that's the best picture I've seen. -- Indeedous (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I think there is too much space at the bottom, and side crops are too tight. -Kadellar (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Kikos (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Weak oppose Nice idea but crop left/right too tight, red channel widely blown, and the rotor blade aligning with the tail is irritating. Some noise in background. --Kreuzschnabel 22:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Stronger oppose than Kreuzschnabel, for the same reasons. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose mainly because of the oversaturation/clipping. Composition isn't ideal but ok I think, the background noise doesn't worry me at all. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 15:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per other opposes: bad crop, distracting background. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:2014 Nowy Aton, Twierdza Anakopia (02).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2015 at 00:29:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Anacopia fortress. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia.
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Girl in Margarita Island.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2015 at 10:49:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Girl in Margarita Island.jpg
  •  Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Too distorted due to the wide focal length and close subject distance. Jee 11:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose What exactly is special here? I see a very noisy portrait of a girl, taken from a very short distance, therefore exaggerating her nose in an IMHO unfortunate way. The centered composition does not help either. --Kreuzschnabel 11:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do see all these very elementary mistakes so obvious. What if this had been done on purpose?. I've noticed a lot of negative comments about you and appreciate much, thank you. --The Photographer (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Way too short distance. Blown lights in background, face too dark. -- -donald- (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I like the girl's eyes, they are very strong, but the overexposed lights at the background is too distinctive, you are able to fix that in the Lightroom, or is a JPEG? This is not enough light to be as this and is too much light to make this. -- RTA 23:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its not posible fix that, thanks for your comment --The Photographer (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Actually i find this photo ok. Despite close shot it brings some good sense. --Mile (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Almeida Júnior - Saudade (Longing) - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2015 at 19:50:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Longing, by José Ferraz de Almeida Júnior, oil on carvas, 1899. Located in Pinacoteca do Estado de São Paulo.
@XRay: For original colors, see File:Almeida Júnior - Saudade, 1899.jpg. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC) In fact, for original colors, only going to the Pinacotheca. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ivar (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:BOH&MOR-1-Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia-1 Koruna-(1939)ND.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2015 at 12:25:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ivar (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Crocodylus acutus 3 CR.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2015 at 16:36:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

American crocodile, Rio Grande de Tarcoles, Costa Rica
  •  Info created by Cephas - uploaded by Cephas - nominated by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Neutral -- Cephas (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Probably a portrait format would be better. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  weak oppose Certainly a fine shot but several shortcomings in composition for me (centered, irritating downward angle, not much of the animal shown), and looks slightly overexposed (bright part of lower jaw). --Kreuzschnabel 18:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternate[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2015 at 16:36:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

American crocodile, Rio Grande de Tarcoles, Costa Rica
  •  Info created by Cephas - uploaded by Cephas - nominated by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Neutral -- Cephas (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why "only" neutral? Did you don't like your own image? So I give you only a  Neutral too. Please change your vote, so I change my vote too :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Alchemist-hp, I like very much many of my pictures, but my personal criteria are very different from those for FPs and I'm never sure my pic meets them (strangely, it gets worst with time!), hence I prefer leaving the decision to the community. If my pics don't meet FPs criteria, just oppose, that's find. --Cephas (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support - I like it - even if Alchemist does not support his own picture ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pugilist (talk • contribs)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --H. Krisp (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support - solved a problem mentioned for the alternative. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ivar (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Eurasian blue tit Lancashire.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2015 at 13:28:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cyanistes caeruleus, UK
Confirmed results:
Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ivar (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Gymnadenia conopsea - Harilik käoraamat Niitvälja.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2015 at 13:16:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The white fragrant orchid
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ivar (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Museo Príncipe Felipe, Ciudad de las Artes y las Ciencias, Valencia, España, 2014-06-29, DD 56.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2015 at 21:58:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Blue hour shot of the Prince Philip Science Museum, part of the City of Arts and Sciences, Valencia, Spain. The 40,000 m2 museum was opened on November 13th 2000 and was designed by Santiago Calatrava.
  •  Info Blue hour shot of the Prince Philip Science Museum, part of the City of Arts and Sciences, Valencia, Spain. The 40,000 m2 museum was opened on November 13th 2000 and was designed by Santiago Calatrava. All by me, Poco2 21:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Poco2 21:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support  Awesome! --LivioAndronico talk 22:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Calatrava may waste tons of money (usually taxpayers', at that) but dammit, his buildings at least photograph well. A little noise in the sky, but nothing to lose sleep over. And I wish that little cloud on the left weren't there, but it's too small to ruin this. Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have cloned out the cloud and improved the sharpening mask to reduce the noise in the sky Poco2 21:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Strong support A bit unsharp towards the edges but, my god, what a wow! --Kreuzschnabel 06:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak  Oppose. It's well captured but I can't help but think that the angle chosen really does not show the building's architecture well. The internet is overflowing with images of this building and most of them have a better angle IMO. Diliff (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Diliff: That's a matter of taste in my opinion. Evaluating the picture overall I think that the lighting and detail of this one beats those you linked. I also have one picture in Commons with the building shown from the other side and from a wider angle, but still prefer this one. Maybe you are right that a view from the other side / different angle could have more encyclopedic value showing the building better, but that isn't IMHO all that matters. Poco2 09:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Of course it's a matter of taste and I never implied otherwise - all my statements included 'I think' or 'in my opinion'. ;-) I also agree that the detail of your image beats the ones I linked as they are all downsampled web images. I did say I thought your image was well captured. It's hard to compare lighting because most of the images I linked to were taken in daylight. I was using them only to compare angles to explain that the angle you chose was not as interesting or aesthetic for me, because many of the sweeping architectural flourishes are absent or not exhibited clearly. The last linked image taken at night does have better lighting though IMO because the building is lit from the interior, although was taken a bit late in the blue hour for me. Diliff (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

* Oppose Agree with Diliff, very hard for eyes, not sure what is straigth. There is something more of an issue - PD. If you check street lamps on the left, and some sticks of rigth side, this photo need distortion correction. --Mile (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Better now, PD corrected. --Mile (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Mile: there was indeed some perspective distortion, it should look fine now in the uploaded version. Poco2 22:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Regarding the perception about what should be straight I find it easy when there is water, an object and its reflexion must always be vertical. Poco2 22:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I like the view, it is different from the typical shots. --Kadellar (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support this building is a work of art, and this perspective on it is interesting. The corners are a little soft but overall I think this is an interesting and beautiful photo. --Pine✉ 21:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I don't think it's a sin to be creative (or take the road less traveled) in your photography by using, as in this case, an unconventional perspective. I find the elements in this photo (i.e. the lighting, the angle, and the focused crop) very convincing in conveying an almost sci-fi ambiance. That is quite appropriate for a science building. Most other photos of this subject do not achieve such a reaction from the viewer. Well done.--Fotoriety (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Fotoriety, not sure if that comment was referencing my oppose based on the angle, but I thought the other angles I linked to actually gave it much more of a sci-fi ambiance. This angle, for me, looks more like we're viewing the loading docks of a transportation warehouse, albeit a fairly elaborate one. ;-) Vews such as this one really make it look sci-fi to me, like something out of the film Alien. Diliff (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @ Diliff: I can definitely appreciate your opinion and no doubt i have massive respect for you & your photography, but perhaps there is a strong element of one's own taste in determining the level of appreciation for this photograph...i can respect that too. All the positive factors in the photo (IMO), i mentioned above, simply do it for me, but perhaps not for you: there's nothing wrong with that and that doesn't make either of us right or wrong.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Agreed, please don't take me the wrong way, I wasn't trying to forcefully change your mind, I was just trying to engage with you since your comments seemed to refer to mine. I do agree that it's a matter of opinion and there is no 'right answer' and it seems clear from the other comments that I'm in a minority. Nobody else seems to have really said why they prefer this angle over the other angles possible though, so there's been little to change my mind either. ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • strong  Support absolutely awesome! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Halavar (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support  Awesome! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Pudelek (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • nice but please have a look at my annotations --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I removed the dust spot -among other improvements- but cannot increase sharpness of the background. Poco2 21:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --· Favalli ⟡ 01:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support aseptic, in a way. But Wow for me.--Hubertl (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support-- Pierre André (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Stunning. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ivar (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Museo marítimo Ósvör, Bolungarvík, Vestfirðir, Islandia, 2014-08-15, DD 066.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2015 at 21:59:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the Ósvör maritime museum, located in the village of Bolungarvík, Vestfirðir, Iceland. The museum consists of a double 19th century fishing base, a salt hut, a fish drying area, a drying hut and a typical fishing boat of that time.
  •  Info View of the Ósvör maritime museum, located in the village of Bolungarvík, Vestfirðir, Iceland. The museum consists of a double 19th century fishing base, a salt hut, a fish drying area, a drying hut and a typical fishing boat of that time. All by me, Poco2 21:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Poco2 21:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Kikos (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak  Support A little bit dusty. --XRay talk 11:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do you mean that there is dust somewhere in the image? Poco2 12:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, it's the weather. It's difficult for a photograph taken at a dusty day. But it's a goo composition, the (green) colors are good saturated depending on the dust. (But you're right, it's natural.)--XRay talk 12:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Nice atmosphere here. --Mile (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I think the sheds are a little crooked, but a beautiful picture.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support a little grainy, but given the lighting, that's probably hard to avoid. --Pine✉ 21:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose hmm, I don't know, doesn't really work for me. I think I do understand what you're trying to convey here, but I'm not convinced. The mood is overly dull. I'm sorry. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Ivar (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Jee 03:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support--JAnyone (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ivar (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Temple Church 5, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2015 at 11:29:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Temple Church Interior
  •  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Diliff (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 16:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support of course, surely. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Colin (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Is that a gift shop on the right? Daniel Case (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It is, they're fairly common in the more touristic churches and cathedrals in the UK. Temple Church was built by the Knights Templar as their English headquarters and was one of the sites in the Da Vinci Code, so it attracts its share of visitors. There's usually not much more than a few postcards, candles and religious architecture books though, to help generate funds to stay open. Many of the central London churches no longer have a congregation to pay for the church's upkeep, although I'm not sure that's the case with this church as it's still used by two of the four English Inns of Court, which are a kind of anachronistic vestige of a time when all the major professions had their own guilds in London (count them, 110 different guilds!). Diliff (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose QI. I dont like copping artifical warm ligth with strong blow of cold dayligth. Upper vitrage isnt in focus - DoF issue or focused on wall ? --Mile (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Not sure what you mean. If this is what the interior looks like, what do you expect me to do with the interior lighting/white balance? Also, the upper part is in focus, it's just softer because of the perspective distortion. This is normal for wide angle panoramas. Consider that although the top is less sharp than the middle, overall it is still sharper than what is normally possible with a single photo, and is 25 megapixels. Diliff (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I prefer warm-dark tones in church. In this situation, i would evade high noon shooting. Or would try lower temp in software a bit. Its same with facade, photo bellow. 3 pm in the end of april, not good time to get nice tones-colors. But yes, much better matrix than single shot. --Mile (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support great image. Not every church is indeed in a warm-dark tone. That's how this church is. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ivar (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Triosteum pinnatifidum 02.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2015 at 06:32:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ivar (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Vanellus armatus - Etosha 2014.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2015 at 17:21:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vanellus armatus
Cayambe, are you sure that this is CA? I would be surprised if such a professional lens had problems like this. I think it rather looks like shadows that appear very cool because the warm colors of direct sunlight have been used as neutral tone. --DXR (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DXR: you are right, shadows indeed. However, this bird has no light-blue feathers anywhere and therefore, IMO, this picture cannot be FP. --Cayambe (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The feathers part of the light blue color in the shadow is true blue. The lens is full OK. Take a look to this image, also with a blue shadow and here shadow color. You have in Namibia an extemly color temperature = colored shadows! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Alchemist for the explanation. But please, allow me to stick to my opinion, which is that those blue shadows induce us into believing that there are blue feathers in this bird. Let's see what others will say. --Cayambe (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I can remember, the light was very warm and the bird had orange/yellow feathers ;-), so I had to do a bit of color correction to cool it down to more normal colors which in turn gave the white shadow a bluish tinge. I'm currently traveling and away from the originals, but I'll be happy to post the original unprocessed form for comparison when I get back home at the end of the week. Cheers. :-) -- ~y (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does the picture make the viewer believe the rocks are blue also? -- Colin (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the reality. All people can believe what they want. Now "we" know it better!? ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point is that Cayambe argues the blue shadows make us think the plumage is blue, yet we do not think the rocks are blue. So perhaps that argument doesn't hold. -- Colin (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm glad when he contribute high resolution pictures instead of heavily downsampled one to hide all drawbacks. Pinged Yathin as he seems available now. :) Jee 02:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC) It seems lights matches with his previous fp. Jee 03:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support. My thoughts: Yes, the white balance is a little bit too cool if it was taken in late afternoon light. There's no absolutely correct method of selecting the white balance, particularly when there is both sunlight and shadows (or any other source of light), but as a rule of thumb, I usually try to find a neutral WB when the photo was taken around midday, but I leave a bit of warmth when taken in early morning or late evening because I think that's how we see it. Our eyes can partially correct the WB but we still see warm light as warm, so I think it's better to keep some of that warmth. I think this image's WB is perhaps overcorrected in this instance, but the blue shadows don't bother me too much because I'm aware of the effect. I'd still like to see an adjustment to WB though if it can be done from the RAW file. Diliff (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 04:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Cygnus olor WWT Arundel.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:58:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mute swan (Cygnus olor), WWT Arundel, West Sussex, England
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Leitura by Jose Ferraz de Almeida Júnior 1892.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2015 at 14:32:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Reading, by José Ferraz de Almeida Júnior, oil on carvas, 1892. Located currently in Pinacoteca do Estado de São Paulo.
@XRay: For original colors, see File:Almeida Júnior - Leitura.jpg. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO you can compare with the original painting only, not with a digital copy. Please have a look to the version history, the colors vary always. --XRay talk 18:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@XRay: Oh yes! But this Wilfredo's version is much better. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@XRay: I don´t know what original colors is, however, if you want, you could download the RAW file (see image description) and try revelate it by yourself and show us. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the problem. It is difficult to compare for this kind of picture. But: Your image is really good, you got a support vote.--XRay talk 04:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@XRay: I thought that reality is one, like truth, but everyone has their own interpretation. I was present in front of the original painting, but my revealed, is just my visual interpretation of the colors present and not the original colors. If you can provide some way to get the original colors from the RAW file, it would be very important. The support vote is not important to me, but to learn to get those original colors. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Münster, LVM-Versicherung -- 2014 -- 3276.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2015 at 11:46:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Crosswalk between the two towers of the LVM insurance in Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Chicago 2007-22a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2015 at 19:46:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info One of two old photos retireved from the archives. Not the quality of a D800 made but lots of minimalist wow in my opinion. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support The one grey window is a little bit disturbing, but still ok. -- -donald- (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Code (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support but I prefer the crop. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose For me, these kind of minimalist architectural shots of repetitive patterns only work when there is a significant amount of repetition. This photo fills too little in the frame i.e. 5 columns and 15 rows of the structure. Plus, the right side element unbalances the composition.--Fotoriety (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose This does not appeal to me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry,per Fotoriety --LivioAndronico talk 17:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I can see what you were thinking, but the colors are dull and the pattern does not make up for that. Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Neutral – nice work on the lines, but not a "Wow" -- Pierre André (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)wowReply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:2015 Wieża mieszkalna w Żelaźnie 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2015 at 21:35:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tower house in Żelazno
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 09:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Towers

File:Crocodylus acutus black and white.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2015 at 22:10:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
You guys are seriously missing the point. -- Colin (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, of course it is about camouflage, but I just don't find the result visually appealing, which is important for that kind of simple composition (that might be a matter of taste). And yes, the B/W is perhaps tricking our eyes here (though it is not that hard to see the animal...), but for such an image it is closer to reality (and better to reflect the actual level of camouflage) to have the image in color.
  •  Oppose --Literally couldn't tell what this was until I read the name of it, too hard to make out Lady Lotus (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pillars of creation 2014 HST WFC3-UVIS full-res denoised.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2015 at 14:37:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pillars of Creation
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 09:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Sergels torg 2015 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2015 at 10:17:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sergels torg
  •  Info Sergels torg, the the most central public square in Stockholm. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- ArildV (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --XRay talk 11:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose nice colors, but too much perspective distortion at the corners, see for example the trash can near the bottom right corner. --Pine✉ 21:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Comment You need a extreme wide-angel lens to capture this view, and all wide-angel lenses have distortion. No central part of the image is affected by distortion. No central part of the image is affected by distortion, only less relevant far corners.--ArildV (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support very nice colors --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support very nice compose and Colors--NoRud (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support per NoRud, very well-composed. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose No wow for me, just a traffic scene. The ghostly persons are disturbing. --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support WOW for me --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose A "blue hour" shot is not enough for making a FP by itself. I'm per Uoeai1.--Jebulon (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I disagree with "just a traffic" scene. It is a the most central public square, and a well know and controversial exemple of post-war architecture and urban planning. The picture is taken from the best possible position, have great educational value (show in high resolution and quality the square with the surrounding buildings), it is an important and famous place (the most central and most famous square in a capital city). To dismiss it as "just a traffic scene" with the with the only value being "a blue hour shot" is not fair imo. --ArildV (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Sorry if my words were too hard. I did not want tohurt you.--Jebulon (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Thank you Jebulon. No problem, I tried to explain why I, in this specific case, didn't agree with you. I have always known you as a serious and careful reviewer. Best regards --ArildV (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- ChristianFerrer 17:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I just do not find the composition interesting enough. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support. Nice photo and right time. It's also interesting for me, the twilight starts one hour earlier than in Moscow. --Brateevsky {talk} 11:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Cathy Richards (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 09:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Slezské Beskydy - Rytířská stezka (cesta Nýdek - Velká Čantoryje).JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2015 at 11:40:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Silesian Beskids
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 09:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:2014-Cambodge Angkor Wat (9).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2015 at 10:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bas-relief "Battle of Devas and Asuras" Temple d' Angkor Wat.- Siem_Reap (Cambodge)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Suaeda vera, Sète 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2015 at 06:29:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Suaeda vera
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:2014 Bardo, most gotycki, 10.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2015 at 20:12:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stone bridge in Bardo
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /— Revi 13:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges

File:Scallop Diagram2.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2015 at 21:09:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Scallop anatomy
  •  Info created by KDS444 - uploaded by KDS444 - nominated by KDS4444 -- KDS4444 (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC) (Note that these accounts both belong to the same user).Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- KDS4444 (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Very well! -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 13:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Whoa, that takes quite some time to render in Firefox – looks like you put a lot of work into this! One thing I noticed is that the blue dots (eyes?) turn into very small black dots if rendered in Firefox. Also, the W3C validator finds some errors concerning re-used IDs. Apart from that: Very nice work imho, though that sheer mass of text somehow distracts from the graphics. Have you thought about a plain numbered version? That would remove some of the clutter and make the whole thing language-neutral at the same time. --El Grafo (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I considered a numbered version, but ironically, as the numbers increase it becomes increasingly difficult to keep track of which number corresponds to which anatomical part! I could reduce the number of parts mentioned, but the parts mentioned here are a consistent list of those usually covered in the anatomical literature on the animal (while still leaving out many of the more obscure parts, if you can imagine!). As an SVG, it should be translatable into other languages fairly easily (which is supposed to be one of the great things about the SVG format, yes? Though it seems it is seldom enough actually done...). Also, heads-up: image now passes SVG validation! Don't know why I didn't take care of this before now. Lastly, have fixed the issue with the eyes turning out very small and black. Now they should all appear large and blue, as intended. -KDS4444 (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I can see your point. The blue circles are still black dots in my Firefox 32.0, but I just noticed that it also somehow manages to render DejaVuSans as a serif font, so that's not unlikely to be my browser's fault. →  Support --El Grafo (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now passes validation! Support vote? Yes? -KDS4444 (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KDS4444 (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Computer-generated

File:A photex involving the Hydrographic Surveying Squadron took place off the Devon coast. This was the first time that all the ships had been together in one place for sometime. MOD 45145965.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2015 at 10:51:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hydrographic surveying squadron
  •  Info created by Husbands, featuring HMS Roebuck, HMS Scott, HMS Gleaner, HMS Enterprise, HMS Echo - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Fæ (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- JAnyone (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose A fairly interesting view, but the quality is just not there (small, poor jpeg artifacts, not surprising for an image shot in 2005) --DXR (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per DXR. Interesting pic but not interesting enough to make up for the quality shortcomings. --Kreuzschnabel 06:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Baroque, beautiful and dramatic, but too many dark areas. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:British reservist soldiers training in Italy MOD 45158224.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:02:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

British Army Reservist soldiers train with the Italian Army.
  •  Info created by Corporal Andy Reddy RLC - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Fæ (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Blown sky. And, really, should we reward such careless behavior by infantrymen from a major army of the world? Silhouetting themselves against the sky? Why don't they paint bullseyes on themselves while they're at it? The only way that would be featurable would be if it were shot (ahem) through the scope cam of the sniper who was the last person to see them alive. Really, thank God for the rest of the British Army that these guys are reservists ... Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What has this got to do with FPC? -- Colin (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just thinking out loud while I was typing ... Daniel Case (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose The sky has serious posterization issues which are visible at fullscreen resolution, never mind 100%. The soldier's aren't positioned far enough to the right, for their left-looking gaze, nor are we rewarded with what they are looking at. There's some vignetting on the image too, which doesn't add anything imo. -- Colin (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose no wow for me, insufficient quality. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support ---- Gildir (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Campidoglio and Vittoriano.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2015 at 09:11:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Campidoglio and Vittoriano
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:FIFA WC-qualification 2014 - Austria vs. Germany 2012-09-11 - Thomas Müller 01 edit.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2015 at 06:11:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thomas Müller
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Feldberg - Jumping Snowboarder1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2015 at 21:46:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jumping Snowboarder
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gymnadenia odoratissima - Lõhnav käoraamat Niitvälja.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2015 at 17:50:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Short Spurred Fragrant Orchid
  •  Info Short Spurred Fragrant Orchid, created, uploaded and nominated by Ivar (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose According to the EXIF this was shot at f/14, yet the DoF is extremely shallow. It appears artificially (and poorly) blurred or else it was taken with extremely poor focus. Compare to this image which is technically superior. -- Ram-Man 03:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Comment That comparison is a bit unfair. Your "superior" favorite has over four times lower resolution with no EXIF data at all. The Orchid on my image was pretty small, so I had to get very close to take full portrait and therefore DOF was shallower than usual. But calling it artificially and poorly blurred is imho too harsh. --Ivar (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC). And that's not even important, that this species grows only in few (less than 10) places in my country and I had to hike in the Bog to find it in the perfect evening light. --Ivar (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • My apologies for the poor comparison. What I meant was this: the other image shows superior depth of field and better subject sharpness while still having a blurred background. Was this retouched? It should be declared if it was and why were the flower petals and stalk blurred (bad masking?)? But if it was not blurred, then at f/14 the focus and sharpness should be on par with the other image. Something does not add up here. And FWIW, I wouldn't support the example image as a FP. -- Ram-Man 12:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support It was in my intentions to support anyway this nomination (colors, details, composition, all work for me). But I rather agree with Ivar, the quality of the Ivar's image is far much better in all points. The exemple shown by Ram-Man is certainly downssampled, and even so downsampled that we can judge correctly about the DOF, and the quality is so poor that I'm not able to say correctly what is in really in focus. Some parts are also a bit overexposed. -- ChristianFerrer 07:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The out-of-focus/blurred petals on this image are visible at thumbnail size. It's not an issue of downsampling. The other image shows that there was no reason for this image to have out-of-focus petals. -- Ram-Man 12:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Code (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support. But as a user recently switched from a compact camera to a DSLR, I understand what Ram-Man stated above. It is very difficult to get reasonable DOF at 100mm if we are at closest subject distance. So we have two choices; increase the subject distance and crop the image, or use a longer lens. Choice two is expensive. Jee 03:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:House in Costa Oriental.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 10:24:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

House in Costa Oriental
  •  Info -- The Photographer (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Could be, but you need good sunligth - better colors (not in the middle of the day), +EV, and central position of subject. --Mile (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Very nice. This picture shows many things, and I like it very much. No light issues for me.--Jebulon (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support May be if you have ONE singel object you want to show in the picture, it is no good idea to apply the two-thirds rule.--ArishG (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Interesting door. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Katy Perry November 2014.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2015 at 13:25:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Katy Perry, November 2014
  •  Support a very good portrait with a good focus point and DoF! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support eyes on focus, that's what matters. Good photo. -- RTA 20:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I like better portraits with a dark background, but that's just a question of taste. FP any way. Yann (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Reluctrant oppose Per X-Ray. Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- wanted to nom this image before but was reluctant..technically one of the best "headshot/portrait" images around ..--Stemoc 11:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I do not like the white background. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per Uoaei1 --Code (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Comment @Uoaei1: @Code: I'm new to the FP but isn't not liking the background part of the "Unhelpful reasons for opposing"? Lady Lotus (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment The point is that a reason for opposing is given here. For me, the harsh contrast with the white background is distracting. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Lady Lotus: Hm. I don't think so. It's a matter of composition. As Uoaei1 said, the contrast between foreground and background is quite harsh when the background is simply white. This is quite distracting. If the background was different, I would certainly support the nomination. I hope you don't take my oppose personal, it's not meant this way. It's certainly a good picture but for me it doesn't meet FP standards. --Code (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No no, not personal, just trying to better understand the opposition. It's better explained after that, thank you :) Lady Lotus (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support With all that makeup not sure I wanted to kiss her, but I can support this image as a nice visual object. -- ChristianFerrer 13:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Question What is going on inside her nose by the ring? Is that a mole or a shadow or something even less appealing. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I suspect that is indeed the case. Another good reason why people shouldn't pierce their nose. Shadows become boogers. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose background --Mile (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose It's just a head--Claus (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I wonder if this weren't Katy Perry would it meet so much resistance. As to the background... it is a headshot. Fairly standard in portraiture. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Jee 15:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Technically well done red-carpet-shot, almost too sharp to be pleasing in some areas, but it's missing something special to be truly outstanding – maybe a real “Duchenne” smile. Not even the best of that series, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— Revi 14:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Laekvere mänd 04-2012.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2015 at 18:12:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Laekvere pine
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Laos Plateau des Bolovens.-Pathounphone (3).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2015 at 21:49:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Plantations de café sur le "Plateau des Bolovens" Laos.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Olustvere manor distillery in Estonia
  •  Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Plakias Beach 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2015 at 13:32:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Plakias Beach, Crete
  •  Info Plakias Beach, Crete. All by --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- ChristianFerrer 18:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I want so much to like this one, and it seems so much was done to bring it up to being presentable on first look here. But that effort may in fact be its undoing. First there are the blown clouds at the right, which tip you off that, whatever else might have looked right at the time of the shutter falling, the sun was too close to that side. Second, there seems to have been a fair degree of processing and sharpening done, evident from the ridgeline and sea in the center. That might not have been a problem except it seems to have been done to compensate for shooting a landscape like this at f/8, rather than the usual landscape sweet spot of f/11–16. Was there some reason for that aperture setting? Because I think this deserves more, and shooting with a narrower f/stop might have eliminated the need to work on it afterwards. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Promulgação-Constituição-1988.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2015 at 15:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Deputies in the Chamber of Deputies of the National Congress in Brasília, Brazil, commemorating the promulgation of the Constitution of Brazil, in 1988.
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— Revi 14:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Saint-Paul-Saint-Louis Church Interior 1, Paris, France.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2015 at 05:51:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /— Revi 14:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Shop of Tingqua, the painter.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2015 at 12:04:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Shop of Tingqua, the painter
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— Revi 14:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Skopje 2014 - Archeological Museum of Macedonia.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2015 at 18:01:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Skopje, Macedonia
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— Revi 14:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Stiftskirche Herzogenburg Deckenfresken 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2015 at 13:30:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ceiling frescos in Herzogenburg Abbey Church (Lower Austria)
  •  Info Ceiling frescos in Herzogenburg Abbey Church (Lower Austria) by Daniel Gran (left fresco) and Bartolomeo Altomonte. All by -Uoaei1 (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Wow --LivioAndronico talk 13:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Wow!! geniale picture-- Pierre André (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Some CA in the windows which are, of course, blown somewhat. But as David says, what detail are you going to recover from them in these circumstances? Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support. But I would say that I find some of the details slightly overexposed (same as this previous ceiling nomination. I noticed the problem at the time but it appears I didn't say anything!). If it were me, I would have decreased the exposure and pushed the shadow detail slightly, or reduced highlight detail. Is this possible or have you already pushed the RAW file to its limit? Diliff (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Info New version uploaded with reduced exposure and improved CA handling --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /— Revi 14:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Swiss Open Geneva - 20140712 - Semi final Quad - D. Wagner vs D. Alcott 26.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2015 at 12:03:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— Revi 14:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:The Parthenon sculptures, British Museum (14063376069).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2015 at 22:59:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Centaur and Lapith. The Parthenon sculptures, British Museum.
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— Revi 14:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Venado-Campo-UY-Ozotoceros bezoarticus.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2015 at 11:26:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Deer taken in the fields of Rocha , Uruguay. It is a kind of deer in recovery, they were near extinction.
  •  Info created by fedaro - uploaded by fedaro - nominated by fedaro -- fedaro (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- fedaro (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Love the soft colors and how they express the animal's fragility, especially when contrasted with the sharp diagonals of the deer's antlers and face. And while I'd oridinarily call out the bluish haziness and noise in the background (likely two ways of seeing the same issue), this is one of those times I sometimes mention where what is normally a flaw actually makes the image stronger. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support well said, Daniel. --El Grafo (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- ChristianFerrer 19:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Claus (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Yann (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support … and 7. The fine light and good sharpness make up for the background noise. --Kreuzschnabel 05:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Jee 15:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support. JukoFF (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /— Revi 14:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Wells Cathedral Chapter House, Somerset, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2015 at 18:13:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wells Cathedral Chapter House
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /— Revi 14:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Zaaddoos Echinacea purpurea (zonnehoed) 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2015 at 07:12:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Seed Box Echinacea purpurea (coneflower)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— Revi 14:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Basilica of Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupre in Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupre, Quebec, Canada.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2015 at 23:56:07
Beautiful Basilica Photo

  •  Support -- Desiderius1 (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose perspective distortion must be corrected, also the chromatic aberration, beside of this: this not the best viewpoint for this church I visited already --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Distortion is obvious even at thumbnail display. Daniel Case (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --DidierMoise (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per Wladyslaw and Daniel.--ArildV (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per others. Looks like a straightforward tourist shot for me, nothing outstanding, building is leaning, and poor quality ( chromatic aberration everywhere but in the center) --Kreuzschnabel 12:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Comment Poor categorization too (only one red cat is given) --Kreuzschnabel 12:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— Revi 14:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Annapurna Range and temple.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2015 at 14:01:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Annapurna Range and a temple outside Muktinath on the Annapurna Circuit
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Annapurna Range between Ledar and Thorong Phedi.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2015 at 13:57:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Annapurna Range between Ledar and Thorong Phedi on the Annapurna Circuit
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dendrogramma enigmatica sp. nov., holotype.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2015 at 23:24:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dendrogramma enigmatica holotype
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Herz-Jesu-Kirche Munich September 2014 02.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2015 at 07:31:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sacred Heart Church, Munich, exterior
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Nuevo Palacio Schleissheim, Oberschleissheim, Alemania, 2013-08-31, DD 17.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2015 at 18:22:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

West façade of the New Schleissheim Palace, one of the three palaces in a grand baroque park in the village of Oberschleißheim, a suburb of Munich, Bavaria, Germany. The palace was a summer residence of the Bavarian rulers of the House of Wittelsbach. The palace was erected by Enrico Zuccalli in 1701-1704 as the new residence, and after an interruption due to the War of the Spanish Succession, continued by Joseph Effner in 1719-1726.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Olustvere manor distillery in Estonia
  •  Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Marion Garcia, the deputy commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, poses for a command portrait in the Army portrait studio of the Pentagon in Washington Jan. 16, 2014 140116-A-SS368-003.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2015 at 09:44:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A photograph of a female American military officer in uniform, in front of the flag of the United States.
  •  Info A 2014 photograph of Marion Garcia, a U.S. military officer. Public domain photograph, created by Monica King - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Illegitimate Barrister -- Illegitimate Barrister 09:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Illegitimate Barrister 09:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Neutral No doubt that this is a technically well executed portrait. But FPC is all about outstanding pictures and this one doesn't really stand out against the hundreds of official "command portraits" of US military people we have here (or in FPC-slang: "no wow"). Well except for one thing: her facial expression. It's not really a normal smile – to me it looks as if someone was telling a good joke or pulling off a prank off-camera and she is trying very hard not to burst into laughter. Completely inappropriate for this kind of picture, but that's exactly what keeps me from opposing for now. --El Grafo (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose nothing punching in this image... Her funny face is the only thing that I like, but do not add to the pic. -- RTA 01:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per RTA.--Vikoula5 (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose --Hubertl (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC) per above.Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /— Revi 14:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Air to air image of a Spitfire, taken over RAF Coningsby. MOD 45147974.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2015 at 05:38:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Spitfire
  •  Info created by Scott Lewis - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- ChristianFerrer 05:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- ChristianFerrer 05:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Regretful oppose Loads of wow but the unsharpness is even visible in the preview (left wing). Not easy to get that right in an air-to-air shot but too big a shortcoming for me to support. Too bad. A bit tight too, but that wouldn’t bother me. But maybe I have just seen too many crisp sharp in-fly images yet :-) --Kreuzschnabel 21:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)--Kreuzschnabel 06:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support i am not sure what exactly, but for me this image made a wow(!) effect... maybe is this from a point of view to plane is for me unobvious and/ or fantastic... --Bojars (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support No doubt that this is one of the best pictures on commons. If there were any quality issues (I think the sharpness is overall sufficient) they were more than compensated by the composition IMO. --Code (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Agree with Kreuz. --Mile (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I think that the circumstances and excellent subject/framing allow the lack of sharpness, particularly on one wing, to be forgiven. However, there's something odd about the picture. The Nikon D2X is a 12MP camera and this is a 17.3MP image. Plus it is in 4:3 format rather than 3:2 native format, so would have been cropped (never mind any cropping necessary to achieve the good framing here). This suggests the image has been considerably upscaled. I suggest reviewers downsample this to around 6MP for judging. Alternatively, perhaps Fæ knows from where the original non-upscaled version might be obtained? And does this upscaling issue affect other images retrieved from that source? -- Colin (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Dizzy picture. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support big wow, can be a POTY candidate. Tomer T (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Too-tight crop on wings and background is very distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support, some unsharpness ignored as "photographer wasn't able to open the window". –Be..anyone (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Comment Poor excuse – air-to-air shots are usually taken through an open door or another opening. See here, for instance (including some perfectly sharp air-to-air shots). --Kreuzschnabel 06:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support wowoowow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support spectacular image. That made a wow(!) effect.-- Pierre André (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per others --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose The crop is too tight.  ■ MMXX talk 18:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • weak  Support, mainly due to high wow (by Commons' standards – we really need more air-to-air shots). Reminds me of one of my all-time favorites from our collection. --El Grafo (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Kikos (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Technical quality and light could be better, but given the circumstances under which the picture is taken I give my support. There is plenty of wwo. --Pugilist (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Anpecer93 (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Ralf Roleček 19:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Birger Jarlspassagen January 2015 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2015 at 22:14:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Bouzigues, Hérault 06.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2015 at 09:46:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bouzigues, Hérault, France
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Calidris alba - Laem Phak Bia.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2015 at 05:57:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sanderling
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Canterbury Cathedral Trinity Chapel Stained Glass, Kent, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2015 at 18:15:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Canterbury Cathedral Trinity Chapel
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Cappella della Madonna Del Rosario in St. Mary above Minerva.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2015 at 13:33:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cappella della Madonna Del Rosario in St. Mary above Minerva.jpg
  • Better... next time, to avoid distortion, or uses in your favour, try to be a little bit higher, or, down to the floor if something is interesting, or... buy a tilt+shift lens (2'000 USD ehehhehehe)  Support. -- RTA 23:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks RTA but unfortunately in Rome if you leave a tripod in a church that seems to have gone out a gun and I have to hurry before it gets security, though maybe that lents so I would have a lens to 2000 dollars and a Reflex to 300 dollars --LivioAndronico talk 08:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What do you mean about a tripod? They are not friendly towards photographers with tripods? I occasionally have that problem but most of the time it's fine in the UK (and also fine from my experiences in Lithuania, Latvia and France). I don't think a tilt-shift lens will really solve the problem that much though. Even if you use tilt-shift, you usually will not get the perspective correction perfectly adjusted (it's not always easy to see when it is correct in the viewfinder), and will still need to make a minor adjustment in Photoshop afterwards. Diliff (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Diliff I write what is reported on a photography site: For the City of Rome a tripod is occupation of public land. Such employment must be authorized specifically for that place and that time. On a par with a crew that has to turn the scenes for a movie.You can get around the ban by placing the tripod on benches or on the rubbish bins.Also buildings or historic fountains eg. the Fountain of Dioscuri (Piazza del Quirinale) try to come closer with a tripod, even at night. A free hand whenever we want, but with no tripod.Then it's different if you fail to establish a dialogue with the representative of the forces before checkout which, as our equipment is really a camera, allow a few moments of recovery.--LivioAndronico talk 14:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Diliff Did you saw the first version? [2], this you can easily correct with the T&S lens, tilting you could fix the perspective, and actually the lack of the floor in the picture could also be fixed by shifting creating a panoramic photo, of course it's a trick lens, and expensive one, but if you have the money, and take a lot of building photos... -- RTA 18:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, but there is nothing that a tilt-shift lens can do (perspective-wise, that is) that can't be fixed equally with software... As long as the shift is not extreme, there is no significant advantage to a tilt-shift lens for this purpose. A tilt-shift lens can actually shift the focal plane too, which is something that software cannot do, but that is not a factor in photography like this. Diliff (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • True, but in software you will lose some resolution, creating a smaller picture, nothing to worry about if you will not print... I was kidding when a suggest t&s lens, because that could solve the issue, but is ridiculous expansive, specially comparing cam+lens used here "D3200 with 18-55mm" ~450 USD versus ~2000 USD just for lens... And shift the focal plane, for me, is the only reason to have one of these. :D -- RTA 19:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment. I think it's unfortunate that you weren't able to capture any of the floor. Currently, it's hard to know if the camera viewpoint was only just above the floor, or at head-height. Diliff (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know Diliff but unfortunately my lens from that distance takes only that portion and then I had to "lock" the tourists. In addition, the pope was coming and there was security everywhere.Thanks for your opinion anyway --LivioAndronico talk 14:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should consider shooting panoramas. ;-) Then you are not so restricted by your lens angle of view. But yes, I understand why you would use this framing if there were distracting tourists in view. Better to take the photo when security is much less strict though. Perhaps you could revisit sometime? Diliff (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Totally agree... :P -- RTA 19:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, of course, but in Rome there is always the security ,especially in churches like this where there is the body of Catherine of Siena --LivioAndronico talk 20:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Cascade de Aïn Legradj à Bordj Bou Arreredj.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2015 at 22:53:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cascade in Aïn Legradj in Bordj Bou Arreredj province (Algeria)
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Church of Saint-François-Xavier Interior, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2015 at 05:50:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Faro de Holmbergs, Suðurnes, Islandia, 2014-08-15, DD 114.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2015 at 22:08:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Holmbergs lighthouse after sunset, Suðurnes region in the Southwest of Iceland.
  •  Info Holmbergs lighthouse after sunset, Suðurnes region in the Southwest of Iceland. All by me, Poco2 22:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Poco2 22:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Yes, that's better. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Blurred grass and water inevitable with one-second exposure, and worth it with this composition and the warm orange lighthouse making a nice contrast to the cooler sea and earth colors. Good to see a photo of "something beautiful in Iceland" besides waterfalls. Daniel Case (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • weak  Support maybe a bit oversaturated - still great though! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment it has minor ccw tilt (horizon is not horizontal). --Ivar (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ✓ Done, thanks, Poco2 19:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support, the fix had a minimal cost, if my eyes still get it at 100%. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support It is always a bit tilted on left. -- ChristianFerrer 11:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support It's not perfect, but good enough for me. --Ivar (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --fedaro (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Nice composition. --Code (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Ximonic (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Towers

File:Feldberg - Jumping Snowboarder5.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2015 at 21:44:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jumping Snowboarder
Funny: some would prefer a more narrow crop, others prefer the opposite. I guess I have found a pretty good compromise :-) --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Needless to say that compositional issues will always be a matter of taste. That’s why we do majority votings here, often showing divided opinions. This person hovering in the air is obviously jumping from? over? anything, and I prefer to see this anything in the image to get a full impression of the action going on, as in images like this for example. Others want to see the person isolated, flying through space – that’s a different image with different intention (and in that case, the twigs are distracting, you’d need nothing but blue sky around). Looking for compromises often results in unclear compositions :-) --Kreuzschnabel 09:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently not unclear for the majority. I think the figure of the boarder is clear and ästhetic so that a concentration on this is justified. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Olustvere manor distillery in Estonia
  •  Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Paeonia 'First Arrival' Flower.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2015 at 12:44:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Paeonia 'First Arrival'
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Playing with water, light and leaves (Fagus sylvatica).JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2015 at 11:34:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:13-08-08-hongkong-by-RalfR-087.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2015 at 13:45:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hong Kong, Tsim Sha Tsui (Kowloon), viev from 30th floor of "iSQUARE" to West at evening
  •  Info created by Ralf Roleček - uploaded by Ralf Roleček - nominated by Ralf Roleček
  •  Support --Ralf Roleček
  •  Oppose Nice idea but the sun is in the wrong place for it to work—near-blown sky just at the right, and that dark building just below it is really distracting. And then there's obvious distortion as you get out to the left. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose regretfully, because I really like the idea and the perspective works fine for me here but very dark shadows, perhaps wrong time of day.--ArildV (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Olustvere manor distillery in Estonia
  •  Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/January_2015&oldid=148694009"