Info The engraving is as it was scanned; the hue/slight colour is the same as how it appears in the newsmagazine. And the original engraving is not perfectly rectangular, hence it may appear as though the crop is too tight. However, you may perhaps prefer the second version; black and white with a wider crop. :) RedCoat21:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Moire pattern in hills of the top image; the scan needs more resolution. There's dots instead of lines in a couple of the others. Is this from the original print, or a reproduction? Because that's a common reproduction error for engravings. Adam Cuerden11:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oops, I hadn't noticed that; the moire pattern can really be detrimental. The thin lines cause it in this case don't they? And it's an original engraving though. RedCoat15:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, Moire's a problem with engravings. I don't mind if it shows Moire when shrunk by wikipedia - hell, one of my uploaded engravings does that - but it shouldn't have it at full, and this one does. Still, if you have the original, it shouldn't be too hard to scan it at a somewhat higher resolution, in which case I'll definitely support. Forgive the questioning about the dots in those grey skies - it's not a common engraving technique, so it's better to double check it's not an artefact of reproduction. (But I'm happy to believe you that it's not) Adam Cuerden11:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like this picture. It's nice and clear and sharp, with enough light where it needs to be and a good composition, IMHO. But should I oppose to cancel out your vote? I have put up many of my own pictures for FP candidates, and so far, I have not succeeded. Is it because people don't like me? I don't think so. I think it is because they don't like my photos, as you say, they keep finding problems with them. So I listen, and I learn, and I think I am getting better at taking photos with less problems. People here want good pictures. It doesn't matter where they come from. Support. Ben Aveling10:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support His position is a little unusual, but I like it. It's dynamic, and shows everything we need to see. Plus everything's wonderfully sharp and focused. Great work! Adam Cuerden14:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Lycaon followed one of the most important rules of composition - don't place the main subject in the centre. ...I think it worked well. --AngMoKio09:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the image is a bit oversaturated now. Gemsbok tend to be rather greyish than brown. Of course the rich morning light would slightly alter that impression... Lycaon12:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know enough about them to decide which is more accurate. I'll let others decide, but one version should definitely be promoted. Adam Cuerden14:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this version, even if I've never seen a Gemsbock I believe there's no unreal colors. - Keta18:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is difficult. Technically quite good, and it has wow too. I'm not to sure about the cylindrical projection though, I have problems visualizing the bridge in real life. So I won't vote as yet. Lycaon17:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is a valid argument for opposing the picture. Would have you supported the same picture, if it was taken by a South American tourist? --Mbz116:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
I agry we need more high value pictures from all over the world including Latin American subjects. Yet I'm not sure how opposing of that European picture could help to introduce the pictures from Latin America? There's no limit in the pictures that could get FP status.--Mbz116:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Well' you're right, but until we have a more fair distribution I'll oppose all European and North American picture. That's my personal opinion. Dantadd✉16:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody could have their own opinion and, if I were you, I would have tried to find some interesting Latin America pictures, which are in public domain, upload them to Wikipedia and nominate them on FP simply because opposing all European and North American pictures will not help your couse while nominating more Latin America pictures could help.--Mbz117:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
I think it would be a pity if this forum became a place for fighting over national or continental representation. So far I thought this was about good pics, but I just learned that you can't hide from politics :-) --Christoph Michels20:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we must have to things in mind: good pictures and fair representation. If the election is just a matter of quality we already have the Quality Picture nomination. Please, take a look on the FP category: it's not fair what we see there. It's not a matter of politics, but everybody wants to feel represented. Dantadd✉22:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be a matter of representation without being a matter of politics? And how can you then demand one sort of politics (continentalism?)only? If we start this debate here we should also take into consideration all issues of fair representation, e.g. gender, nations, continents, species, humans/non-humans, classes, ethnic groups, religions, political parties (you could extend this list endlessly depending what kind of politics you are interested in.)But I think this issue (for this forum) had been settled long time ago. And at least I understood that FP is about (a politics of) representing high quality images with an encyclopedic value. If you have the feeling that some pictures are discriminated due to their origin you are right in yelling out loud. But: From looking at the way people argue here I do not share your perception. And: I can't understand why you then start to discriminate others due to their origin. --Christoph Michels09:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have never seen such a ridiculous argument on Commons. Perhaps Europe simply does have more interesting subjects to be photographed? More skilled photographs?
I think this vote should be crossed out and not counted as Featured pictures is not about expressing personal political/ideological views, but selecting good quality pictures. What if somebody votes against a picture of a politican saying "I don't like him, he's a liar"? This vote is a dangerous precedent. --Derbethtalk09:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dangerous precedent has already been set. Just look at the FP category. Ridiculous argument is "Perhaps Europe simply does have more interesting subjects to be photographed? More skilled photographs?" This is not a political or ideological view, it's just a matter of equity, but it seems that a lot of people is getting angry because somebody noticed that there's is a wrong systematic in play here. Dantadd✉12:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are really funny. Now YOU (Dantadd) are the only one who opposes a picture because of the country where it is coming from (what a disgusting reason). If we all start a behaviour like you are doing here, we will soon have a mess here. That you as a Commons Administrator give such statements here is quite shocking for me. Again the nationality is of no matter here...i don't care if we have many pictures from Europe here...i want that commons becomes a source for good pictures. If we give low quality pictures with no composition the FP-status, then the FP in general will lose its value and we can close it down all together. But you don't seem to understand that - FP-status is only for the best pictures. --AngMoKio12:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm really wrong. I tried, but you seem not to agree that there's an absurd and blatant inequity in the features pictures. I'm not here by myself. This problem was brought to me by two editors on pt.wiki. There's just a sentiment of impotence and impossibility of a even minor representation here. But, you won. Keep going and thinking that everything is perfect. This is not a matter of electing bad pictures, I'm not asking that. I'm asking to little techinal flaws to be forgiven in order to have more equity. Just that. If it's just a matter of quality, why have two parallel elections to decide it?. I don't understand. That's my final comment on this. Dantadd✉13:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dantadd, we have more FPs of mammals (even without counting pictures of humans) than of beetles, while there can be aroung 350,000 species of choleoptera in the world, but less than 5,000 species of mammals. If this was a matter of fair representation, we should oppose every nomination of pics of mammals, and forgive flaws on beetle pictures until we reached equity among subjects. But we don't. We apply the same criteria (not just quality but also interestingness, uniqueness and usefulness - differences between QIs and FPs can be read in the instructions) to images, regardless of taxonomic class, order, or continent. Opposing a picture just with the comment too many European FP pictures looks as strange as opposing a pic of an oryx commenting too many FP of mammals. It's true that we have a bigger want of images of Latin American beetles than of European mammals, but we should have more FP of both types. --Javier ME22:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What if we sought equity among cities instead of among continents? If I found a second excellent and informative image of Brasilia, should I abstain of featuring it until we featured at least one of all the other cities which currently have none? I think we should feature more images, even if they were from Segovia , a minor European city of which there is already one FP. The problem with Image:Revolução de 1930.jpg was neither its continent nor it had a hundred of unforgivable flaws. It was that its values were not enough to overcome the certain flaws it had. I agree with Dantadd, however, in that the first questioned reason of the amount of European FPs were not probable "Europe simply does have more interesting subjects to be photographed?". It's very difficult to say if Europe has more skilled photographers than America, but it's easy to guess that the proportion of people with good photographical equipment and affordable access to Internet is higher in Japan, Western Europe or North America than in parts of Latin America or Africa. I also understand that taking photos of humans is easier than taking photos of insects without the proper makro equipment and skills, but anyway I suspect there is specism here and some voters are more interested in images of humans than of beetles, so we'll hardly reach equity in this :P --Javier ME22:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dislike this projection. For architecture such as this, one cannot truly appreciate what this looks like, which dramatically detracts from its value. It may have lots of detail, but what good is detail if you don't know what it really looks like to the human eye? I prefer the projection used in this version. Its technical quality is why it is a QI, but IMO it's not a FP. -- Ram-Man17:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Ram-Man. Judging from some of the other votes, people don't realize what is depicted here. Quality and wow are high though. Lycaon09:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That is just too huge an angle of view to be projected usefully on a flat surface. Is there no possibility to go further away and shoot this with a more tele lens? --MichaD | Michael Apel10:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Not really, short of a completely different view. I had the time to wander around. As Ram-Man has found here and here one can go slightly back, but bushes start blocking the view. Further back the village starts, and from the other side you get no sunlight onto the bridge. And this photo may help to explain effects of cylindrical projection. -- Klaus with K11:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What if we trimmed a bit off the sides of the rectilinear, to remove the heavily distorted trees, then nominated it? Adam Cuerden18:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It still leaves the distorted pillars on the rectilinear. I think I am finding out the hard way that a mere flat screen is inadequate to display a panorama. -- Klaus with K12:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Acknowledging some private discussions I feel that these are justification enough for me to say that illustrating the railway viaduct from the gallery above the right photo is presumably the best choice (unless one prints the image on a semicircular screen) but imaging the viaduct with its dominant horizontal and vertical components and also some fine structure in the girders the left photo can well illustrate the properties of a cylindrical projection. Rectilinear and equirectangular projections to serve as comparisons are now available as well. -- Klaus with K19:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ack Ram-Man - so I normally would Oppose, but I marked my vote as neutral because there is one more Oppose listed here than it should be. Now the final calculation should be fair again. Andreas Tille10:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's l'art pour l'art, no information value, on the contrary. On the other hand, the argumentation of Dantadd is very dangerous and inacceptable. In football it is Latin America, which is overrepresented, but nobody in his healthy mind would consider to limit their participation.--Szilas09:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is too small. -- Lycaon22:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Oppose Atrocious quality!! Look at it full res ppl. Coming from a EOS 1D II N and a high end 16-35 (presumably) someone must have really butchered this in PS. Massive haloing from I suspect unsharp filter of amount 60-100%, 40-60 radius and threshold around 1 --Fir0002www08:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Full res on this is a lot of pixels. We are allowed to promote something if it looks good enough at > 2M, even if it doesn't look so good at the full 8M. Question Is it just me, or is it tilted? Regards, Ben Aveling16:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's not bad, but the DoF seems a little shallow without EXIF information to verify. I'd expect the wings to be out of focus, but not the abdomen. -- Ram-Man23:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like a lot of engravings, the borders are a little off. I've partially straightened the captions, though there's a bit of a compromise in not making the unparallel bottom line look too tilted. I swear, how could Victorians be this good at engraving, but unable to make parallel lines in the frames for their exquisite art? Adam Cuerden07:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nice picture, but terrible description "Panorama of the region". What region? Country? And more: no categorization and not "subst:" personal license. Dantadd✉12:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fantastic picture. I like it very much. It's also fantastic, because according to its data it is taken in the future (August 2007)--Szilas14:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Aside from the noise, it's not sharp/lacking in detail, especially since it's a (down sampled) panorama. Also am I the only one who sees a wierd glow along the ridges between the far mountains and the sky? And too be even more picky, you should remove the three (dust?) spots in the sky on top of the mountain near the RHS of the pano... --Fir0002www22:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added it to the gallery Swifts Creek, Victoria and put a link to there in the description. And it is in the category:Victoria, Australia --benjamint
Comment Doesn't anyone other than me look at this pictures full res? I hate to say this, particularly since I'm quite pro-Photoshop editing/cloning/whatever and Ben is a friend of mine, but I can't stand by and see this get FP status without bringing this up. As can be seen by the separation b/w mountains and sky (white fuzz) the sky is almost certainly courtesy of PS gradient tool - ie it is fake. Looks to me as though the sky was completely blown in the image, and a simply blue gradient has been used (and a rather poor cut out spoiling the image). Note: if it was well done (unlike it's current state!) so that you couldn't tell I wouldn't have any problem with this. --Fir0002www08:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Fir0002, there is a definite glow around the hills on the far side. Please correct it so I can change my vote on this otherwise fine picture. --Nattfodd00:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Faint horizontal structures/lines in the sky (I presume from horizontal blurring). Also not fully convinced about parts of the horizon line. Apart from that a fine view, I like the colours. -- Klaus with K13:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely painting, but if you look at in in full resolution, everything's full of red, green and blue flecks, like a George Seurrat painting. I'd be extremely surprised if an early 19th-century painting really looked like that up close. Adam Cuerden18:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love J L David, but colours of this reproduction fail. I have an illustration of this work on a book and colours look softer. --Javier ME22:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lot of chromatic noise. I thought that he EOS400D at 1600ISO was better than this (I have the 20D, older). -- J-Luc11:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently, he used DPP to process a RAW file, and maybe noise are that visible because of the NR settings. Benh18:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the original. I improved a bit the colours in the Commons, but I didn't re-load the picture here. It is a more than 3 meter high painting, it is no use to get too close to it, not even when studying the full resolution...--Szilas11:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can find the left upper part of the backrgound structure curved in printed versions of the picture, too. --Javier ME16:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice painting but a bad reproduction. I'd wish an accurate colour rendering in a reproduction like this. Sharpness is substandard too. --Ikiwaner20:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Portraits are always deeply subjective, but I don't think this picture of a monk captures any particularly strong human emotion, which is needed for a wow-factor. -- Ram-Man19:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Face and hands look good. But very white behind her head and arms - is that an accurate reproduction of the original? Ben Aveling17:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check the feet and the area around that. It appears to be the sort of cracking you get in lots of oil paintings, but I can't find any copy that's not from the ARC as well. It doesn't look like it was scanned from a book (the ARC scans from some books, and the results show artifacts); I think this is part of the actual painting. grendel|khan23:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Presuming noone finds some error in reproduction compared to the original, of course, but it looks like all oddities are just normal effects of age. Adam Cuerden04:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - The texture and colours of the animal's hair are beautifully rendered in the photograph. But the composition is not good enough mainly because of the distrating background. Maybe it could be artificialy blurred? - Alvesgaspar17:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the background is a bit distracting and i would prefer to see the zebra a bit more from the front...but sharpness of the zebra is great--AngMoKio09:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lycaon 06:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC) I seem to have problems judging the suitability of my own pictures for FP. I guess I should leave that more to others :-)). Thanks for the critics.Lycaon06:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
InfoA great white shark at Isla Guadalupe, Mexico. Please note, we did not try to catch a shark. We did try to bring sharks closer to the cages. No shark was hurt. The picture is a digital copy of my old film picture.
Comment I know that one will be very hard for you to support. After all it is a digigat copy of my old film picture. I know that community will rather support a sharp and common flower, than that rare image. Still I'd like to remind everybody one criteria of Guidelines for nominators, which states: "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." The nominated picture is not a bad picture, yet it is a digital copy of an old film picture. --Mbz104:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
No surprise here. Oh well,I guess you're right. It is not fp picture. Anyway it would have been out of place between sharp flowers and bugs, but I still believe that this image is much more encyclopedic, has much more value(which in my opinion is the most important thing) than many FP pictures both on Wikipedia and Commons do.--Mbz104:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Comment I'd like to explain what I meant under digital copy. That image is a digital picture of my old film picture, in other words it is a picture of a picture (I have no scanner)--Mbz112:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Question Can you try to make a new scan of the neg, with a new lab or with the same but asking them to make no correction on it, in particular the contrast ? Because I'm sure that with a good lab, the photograph will be much, much better, the problem coming from the digitalization. Sting13:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remember it is not a scan at all. It is a picture of a picture. I'm not sure where to look for the lab that does neg scans and besides I'm too laizy to bother, but maybe I will for that picture. Thanks--Mbz116:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Opposeboth. Low quality image, and doesn't strike me as being very good compositionally either. It looks to me a pretty standard shot [1][2][3][4][5][6] from one of these diving trips. Would have liked to see one with a bit more action [7][8] or at least minus the obviously unnatural rope line [9] --Fir0002www01:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
#3 is not bad, only too small. #7 and 8 are great.I like #9 too. I wonder, if the guy will agree to upload it to Wikipedia with a free licence and without a water mark. #1,2,4,5 and 6 also nice images, but in my opinion my image is much more interesing. Anyway you did your homework. Thanks and have a nice day.--Mbz102:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
not because it is not passing. I knew from the beginning it will not pass, not even because it gets opposed(you know I do like opposes almost as much as I like supports), but rather because the way it gets opposed especially by fir0002. Of course user made some progress and instead of commenting on my spelling, like he's done on other occasion, he tries to comment on the image. Well for some reason, his comments do not feel right. I would not mind any comments from one, who was in cage with sharks. I would not mind valid comments from everybody else.I do mind sarcastic and unfair comments from the one, whos very best wild life image is a supper quality and a supper no value (in my opinion) image of a head of giraffe taken in a nearby zoo.What was also rather surprising that all very nice samples, which fir0002 shared with us were taken not from Wikipedia. It is really strange to me because just few days ago fir0002 wrote to me: "Wikipedia doesn't want people to get the info from another site, it wants to give the people the information." Thanks to all, who wanted to oppose the image, but never did.
Info I think it's a very interesting picture.I propose an edit; I reduced it,I smoothed the sea and I sharpened the shark (some parts more than others).It isn't really sharp yet, but it's absolutely shark! Vassil14:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. -- Lycaon06:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Info This is kind of unique image as it is a 'photograph' of an artist making a copy of a 'painting' which depicts an artist 'drawing' an image of a 'sculpture'
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. -- Lycaon13:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Comment I like the concept Satyakam proposed but it is not unique enough to compensate the size and some distracting elements. Agree with Lycaon. --Javier ME22:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info As Szilas said, there doesn't need to be a specific subject here other than the valley extending into infinity. What I tried to express through this shot was the very particular mood we were into after getting through this pretty hard pass (the highest point of the whole trail) and seeing this endless valley unroll upon us, with evening light and a really peaceful/melancholic set of mind. I guess the real subject is the perspective and the mood. --Nattfodd23:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's exactly the speciality of this part of the world, that you won't find anything interesting for the first sight. Emptyness and tranquillity prevail. Very characteristic and very good picture.--Szilas19:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too shallow DoF resulting in unsharpness, especially in the foreground. Most landscapes need both tripods and small apertures. This picture has been either cropped or downsampled as well, for some reason. Special note should be made though that this is perfect use of a human subject to provide scale. -- Ram-Man23:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Mbz1 already mentioned, this is a quite a common solitary coral from the genus Fungia. Moreover, it is not the back or the front side but the top which is showing ;-). They are rather odd amongst corals, because they move around over the bottom of the sea. Please change the name of the file at earliest convenience. Lycaon08:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Light is rather vivid than harsh (in fact: I like it!), but the composition is a little bit problematical. -- MJJR20:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same like the other picture of this animal: I think the picture is just not good enough to be a featured picture. The composition and the perspective are bad, and it looks like a snapshot. -- Christoph Leeb13:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know that this picture is a little bit dark, but maybe there is somebody out there who can bright it up :-) --D-Kuru23:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: underexposed. -- Lycaon15:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: not sharp and the subject has not been identified. -- Lycaon15:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Comment It doesn't seem to be a Rainbow Lorikeet. Please don't close the nomination yet, as I will ask someone at my local Wikipedia. Is there someone here that is good in editing images, then please make it sharper around the head and other important places. — H92 (t · c · no) 18:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They should be different enough. One is about the butterfly, the other is about the context: the flower, the eating, etc. They serve different purposes. If you look at that other nomination, it's almost the exact same issue, and we decided to keep both. -- Ram-Man22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's composition: if you would crop that, the composition would fail as the attention would be drawn outside of the picture... (my 5 €-cents) Lycaon08:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am aware, that lighting and sharpness are not the best (it was an open-air concert in the shadow of a building, not a portrait-shooting in a studio). As far as the edited version is concerned: in my eyes, while the light may be "better", the image loses most of its atmosphere when cropped and color-edited (and the noise increases). --Tsui21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an extremely graceful and, may I say it, soulful pose and the opposers are a bunch of accountants who miss the intricate beauty of the image in their search for technical flaws :) I'd consider alternative edits though. ~ trialsanderrors05:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great facial expression. Some technical flaws but they are all tolerable for a event shot in my opinion. The light is not unfortunate, it fits the impression. The face is visible, thats important. I dont care if the headress is cut. Thats very common in portrait photography. But i also would like to see a vertical format. --Simonizer09:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral First of all: This picture is great! But i would really prefer a color-improved version of this one. I prefer this uncroped version in this format...maybe it is possible to crop a little on the right side to move her a bit to the right side in order to "de-center" her a bit. But you have my support if you upload a color-improved version of this one. --AngMoKio19:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did an edit here, trying to focus on the skin tone and reduce pixel grain. I'm still not perfectly satisfied, and if people keep complaining about the cropped headdress it might not be worth nominating. ~ trialsanderrors16:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit is not bad. Though I have to say I like the format of this original picture. Well about the cropped headdress...the crop of the head is perfect and has to be like that. To crop upper parts of heads is a very common composition for portraits.--AngMoKio08:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info After reading and considering the comments above I was tempted to load up another edited version. But there are too many different recommendations: vertical or horizontal format (on de.wikipedia someone also mentioned square), more or less correction of color and/or light etc. ... there does not seem to be one version to satisfy all viewers (for enzyklopedic use, there are already two edited images, one by myself, one by by trialsanderrors). Personally I like the image just as it is, with the blurry background (including the black area at the left, which, to me, works as a visual completion of the image), with the cut headdress (otherwise the bust-like portrait would lose its vertical balance) and the bluish-pale colors which support the atmosphere); so I wont load up another edit for FPC. Nevertheless: thank you for all comments, feedback is always very welcome :-) Tsui17:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good portrait of a nice lady in a beatiful posture. Unfortunately the photographic quality is far from adequate for FP status. The edited version has better colours and crop but the chromatic noise is just too much. - Alvesgaspar18:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weak composition: the image is mostly wall; also the BW, imho, does not contribute extra value to the picture. Lycaon06:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop, noise, picture has still a harsh lighting and a not in the imagedescription declared edited background --Simonizer13:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: considered not featured just a few days ago. -- Lycaon13:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Oppose The color is much better and it now looks like it was taken in warm evening light streaming through trees or something similar. However, the noise and lack of detail, especially in that of the swan's underside, prevents me from supporting. This should be closer to perfection for an FP, but the picture is certainly now more useful. -- Ram-Man12:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Lycaon, clearly much improved. The original image is straight from camera, except for cropping. (The original, uncropped, is at Image:Swan displaying.6669.JPG) The light was mid afternoon, through trees. So basically shade, but not completely. Regards, Ben Aveling07:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he is a male (Quail not Quayle) and he was watching over his family, who was feeding in the grass just below him. It is what they usually do, when they have chiks.--Mbz102:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Thank you, Digon3. I have no idea what downsampling means. I'm not very good with PS and I do not really have a nice PS anyway--Mbz116:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Comment Downsampling simply means reducing the resolution of a picture from 3888 × 2916 to, say, 2000 x 1500. Its simple and increases sharpness in most cases, and even a bad PS should be able to do it. --Digon3talk01:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I do not see noise being a big problem here, after having seen too many "noise-free" overprocessed flat-looking images. Maybe crop 10-15% at the bottom. -- Klaus with K12:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like the arrangement of the flowers, but I dont like the background. I would prefer a more blurry background --Simonizer07:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should a have a new picture with a blurred and darkened background uploaded soon, and I will nominate that. Consider this Withdrawn and thanks for the comments and suggestions. --Digon3talk18:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support That thing just blends right in. The unfocused flowers in the background are a bit distracting, but its still a great picture. --Digon3talk14:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the third in a series of FP-quality pictures of this very popular and diverse species. The pictures are all very different aspects of the same species, so there is no issue with too many similar pictures. -- Ram-Man15:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there are two reasons it wasn't lightened more: 1) The pink colors look more washed or a little less intense and 2) The dried flower on the right will then have an overexposed hotspot. Perhaps you just want a brighter background? -- Ram-Man15:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeno proper identification (if confirmed it is L. ridibundus can you add it to the description?), not categorized and not sharp. Lycaon17:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can someone please explain what is shown here and add it to the image description page? I don't really have a clue what I see here. Furthermore I think, this image is not very usable for other wikimedia projects if there is no explaination about its content. --norro19:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I talking about this . There is a lots of dragonfly pictures, and some is sharper then this. Now can be need more to be featured like this, I think. --Beyond silence19:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there are sharper images does not mean this is unsharp. You said the same thing about this and it is a QI (but it is a bit noisy, I'll download an edit soon). --Digon3talk19:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Amazing picture, but I agree with Beyond silence, this is a bit soft. Lycaon's picture is similar, and much sharper (tough I prefer the composition here), so I don't see the need to feature this one. Benh21:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, it's a lovely map, but it's not the whole map: look at the right edge. The key is cut off in a way that removes the explanation of what things are. Adam Cuerden20:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apologize friend, but not everything is English. The image has excellent resolution and an unique quality for a map of a city where the material historical lack. Greetings Fidelmoquegua02:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight crop and overexposure of the background. Also the unfortunate attempt at removal of the dust spots reduces its FP chances :-(. Lycaon10:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe I am just too picky but I now see horizontal streaks in the sky, and there is no fine grain/noise in the sky. -- Klaus with K 16:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. I may change to neutral if the oppose above continues to have no reasoning given. -- Klaus with K17:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Image is pixelated (look at the interface between the mountains and the sky) and I don't like the dune in the foreground, right on the center of the picture. But the colours are quite beautiful, I wonder if there are other versions. - Alvesgaspar11:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had hoped the visible vignetting in the image as first submitted would be dealt with in rerunning the stitch with vignetting correction included (like in hugin 0.6 or 0.7) and not applying a blurring filter on the output. -- Klaus with K13:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was there at the same day as Ikiwaner just a few hours earlier. What a accident. If i had known that, Ikiwaner and i could have made some kind of Wikimedia meeting there. ;-) I have some pictures of that glacier, too. I will upload them in a few days. The cavern is beautiful. The ice looks blue and glowing from inside. Very spectacular. Some words about the picture: Its a little pity that the beautiful summits in the background are covered by a big cloud, but anyway a good panorama. --Simonizer08:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bleak impression when noticing the signs that the glacier extended further in the past chimes in with the dark cloud over the scene. -- Klaus with K09:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice panorama, good DoF. I especially like the two tiny human figures, reminds you of the size of this monster. --Nattfodd10:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crisp, clean - even has a fellow under the tree, to give the scale. However, where IS Fountains Abbey? The picture information doesn't say. Adam Cuerden18:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Created, uploaded and nominated by Peter Isotalo; a picture of the museum ship Vasa shot from the catwalk used to service the lighting fixtures below the ceiling of the Vasa Museum. The platform is off limits to visitors and is otherwise only accessible to postcard photographers. / PeterIsotalo10:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the settings can be improved upon. Check the ISO settings an put them as low as possible. If it is on Auto, it will probably revert to ISO 400 in such circumstances. With a lower ISO you will get longer shutter times, but I assume your using a tripod already anyway. The Canon PowerShot A610 can be set as ISO 50, that should reduce the grain. Illumination of the ship will always be a problem though, I'm afraid. Lycaon16:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually know diddly about photography and I don't even own a tripod so I guess it might be difficult to get it up to featured quality. Especially considering how shaky one gets when hobbling about on a steel catwalk some 30 meters above the museum floor... :-) I'll see what I can do about getting the AV tech guy to get me a a few shots worth of extra photo lighting (they really only turn it on for press photos as far as I know). One thing, though: is the composition okay? PeterIsotalo17:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lucky you, I have been looking for this angle all the time I was in there! But noise is really too high for FP. --Nattfodd07:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to apply some technical adjustments, but unfortunately I could not make it any better than the version I uploaded. Apparently this is extremely hard image to improve regarding noise. Unfortunately the orginal has a lot of noise, which obviously can be reduced in both luminance chrominance channels. However, what makes this tricky, is that when the noise is reduced, the detail in deck and other parts of the image starts to dissapear. Which is a really, really pity. The angle is good and such image is certainly needed by the projects. In any case, thank you Peter for contributing the image. --Thermos09:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Oppose It's quite nice, but for me too many parts of the frog are out of focus and the framing is really unfortunate. --startaq16:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this image. Unfortunately, the frog's back leg is out of focus, but I think it's OK. — H92 (t · c · no) 18:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As stated above, it's a very nice picture in which main parts of the frog are well focused while other are not. Focus cannot be fixed now, but framing can. Why should we feature a picture with a failure which is so easy to fix? --Javier ME22:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it "is so easy to fix" fix it and upload it :-)
Oppose I think the picture is just not good enough to be a featured picture. The composition and the perspective are bad, and it looks like a snapshot. -- Christoph Leeb13:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is the first night pic that I support. Nicely sharp and no grain. And with proper geotag. Well done!. Lycaon10:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's a lovely way to bring out the three-dimensionalness of the statue, and remove distracting backgrounds. Great work! Adam Cuerden04:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If this was a wild animal then it would probably be good enough, but this is a very very common animal, and I expect absolute technical perfection in a shot like this. -- Ram-Man16:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technicallly, if this is Felis sylvestris, not Felis catus, it is a wild animal. That said, although Felis sylvestris does have that pattern quite often, "street she-cat" doesn't quite sound right as a description. Adam Cuerden07:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe this picture lacks the necessary wow factor for FP status, that is easy to accept. But I don't understand why it is being rejected on the basis of technical reasons. The image is sharp, detailed, well composed, and the colours are nice and natural. DOF was carefully chosen to keep the background blurred and give some depth to the head, even at the expense of some slightly unfocused areas. I went through all pictures listed in the Felis silvestris catus page and, frankly, I couldn't find a better one (including Fir0002's). Adam Cuerten is right, the sub-species should read "Felis silvestris catus". - Alvesgaspar11:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photo's not too dark, the frog has a dark color, i think! I may support , but has lower resolution than 2 million pixels (e.g. 1600 x 1200 = 1.92 million). Sorry --Beyond silence00:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yeah it is a bit noisy...but that wouldn't be a problem for me. It is still acceptable. But I am not convinced by the composition. I think the angle of view is not good. Btw: impressive camera...is it new? --AngMoKio21:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nein, ich hab mir die mal flux ausgeliehen um zu sehen ob die Kamera die 14 mal mehr kostet als meine, 14 mal bessere Bilder macht. Ich war ein bischen enttäuscht und hab danach einen Muskelkater gehabt. Aber tolles Maschinchen, trotzdem. --Richard Bartz22:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the red background, but it's the reflections from the lighting that made me oppose. It is also unsharp on the ends of the Tektites and there is alot of noise in and around the shadows. I did enjoy read about the Tektites and Zircons though. --Digon3talk23:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was the idea, I mean to make people, who are interested in minerals, to learn about tektites. I like mysteries and they are mystery. Have you known about them before?--Mbz123:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Oppose Redo them on a neutral coloured background, keep the reflections a bit down and I'll support. Nice topic, great potential. Lycaon08:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info It is so called Australite (came from Australia) tektite, which demostrates a really rare shape - shallow bowl.--Mbz122:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Oppose A prime example of what I was talking about here, sorry Alvesgasper but the quality at full res is not FP standard. It's full of artefacts and lacking in detail. --Fir0002www22:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the text you are referring to, you say: People just click on a image on the thumbnail, have a look at it on the image description page, see it's nice there, note that it is larger than 2000 pix and support without ever looking at it full res -that is a quite comtemptuous comment and a wild extrapolation about Commons reviewers' behaviour. You may of course, like any other user, explain the reasons behind your opposing votes on Commons FPC. But to disdain the whole FPC project just because you think the people reviewing here is careless and incompetent, is not only rude, it is false. - Alvesgaspar23:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very very nice catch but, again, not sharp enough. This picture could be half-scaled without loss of detail. Strange "ghosting" effect at the bottom part of the picture on the plant (excuse my poor english !). -- Benh07:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Female red-veined darter (Sympetrum fonscolombii). I thought the darter season was over for me, but then I saw these two gorgeous ladies and I couldn't resist. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar19:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I prefer these sort of things with context on the page, if it relates to them. It's interesting as a photo, but even more interesting with period thoughts on the person attached. That said, I'd be quite happy to upload a text-free version, for use on foreign wikis. Adam Cuerden15:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Very nice quality and value. However, I would recommend the picture to be downsampled to the original's size due to the type of engraving used. In this case a bigger picture doesn't add any value, on the contrary. - Alvesgaspar18:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original is a full A3 newspaper page print, so it's not actually made that much bigger. Also, you can't get the necessary detail if downsampled so that it shows on the screen at the original size: Distinct lines become patches of grey, or, worse, moiré. If you'll look, many of the lines - especially in the hair - are only seperated by a pixel. Adam Cuerden22:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I prefer version 1, for Commons, I suppose it makes sense to go with the version that can be used on any language's wiki. Adam Cuerden05:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry to go against the flood, but I think that the composition and DOF solutions are not the best. This way, the subject of the picture (the head of the snake) doesn't come out sharply against the background. A neutral background would be much better - Alvesgaspar18:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe a neutral background, like Alvesgaspar mentioned, would emphasize the head of the snake more, but this way it gives you a impression what the snake is doing at the moment. About DOF i agree with Lycaon. --Simonizer09:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although this image is of low resolution and quality, it captures a historical moment excellently. This is the only known footage of the bridge's collapse, and that should be taken into account when rating this picture. It has huge historical significance and cannot be replicated, and I feel that those are strong, migrating reasons. KULSHRAX17:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I don't really see anything that can be done to fix that now, unless more footage surfaces, but this is the only know footage of the event, and footage of this kind is extremely rare, so I feel that it is acceptable, because it is possible the the security camera that caught this footage could only produce this resolution. Also, when you think about it, it is remarkable that this is in color, because the majority of security cameras are in black and white. KULSHRAX18:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with lycaon, I also can't see the "huge historical significance" of this event. It's really great to have this video here on commons but that doesn't mean it has to be featured, there are tons of pictures that are unique here. -- Gorgo00:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I mean, people still talk about the Tay Bridge disaster (Victorian era), and various other fallen bridges. I can't help but think that this will be similar, at least in its local area. Adam Cuerden01:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is really extraordinary, but I think a bridge disaster not have enough historical value to counterweight the low resolution and bad composition. Sorry --Beyond silence02:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support At the moment, the rules (guidelines) say that FP is about valuable pictures. This is clearly an important image, and a valuable image. If this nomination fails, then I suggest we change the written guidelines to make it clear that we want pretty pictures, and that things like historical value are nice to have, but not as important as being pretty. Regards, Ben Aveling23:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think too the value is more important than being pretty. But I am not agree with you, this isn't a very important image. A war, an invention or revolution changes the history, and has a historical value. A bridge collapse is terrible, but don't change the going of world - to being terrible don't more than being pretty! --Beyond silence00:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support-i do think it has an historical value, but would agree to demote it as soon as a better animations comes up... it is not only about world history but also about tecnical history. LadyofHats00:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the background shapes. It seems very distracting to me, but perhaps I'm the only one... -- Ram-Man 02:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Voting time was allready over --Simonizer07:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll grant it's hard to make a bible verse dramatic, and you manage fairly well, but that's kind of an awkward printing. Dividing Jesus into "Je-" and "sus", using him instead of Him, and so on. Also, the file name is obviously inaccurate (9 for 19), and leaves out the book it's from. Adam Cuerden18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Your concerns have been fixed. How on Earth I saw 'chapter 9' I have no idea! I have also noted the Gospel of John, however I am afraid I can't do anything about the printing - it's a direct transcription of the King James Version which was first published in 1611. RedCoat22:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While shallow DoF is a pretty obvious choice, I think there should either be a clear subject (chapter 19, a given word/sentence) or none (so just a paragraph of text with no big typesetting changes). Interesting lighting, but unfortunate crop which kills the left directing line. This kind of shot can have a very high impact, but this one lacks too much in composition and choice of the subject for a FP, imho. --Nattfodd22:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its a very good motif. Unfortunately the author didnt choose a good composition. Furthermore the sky is overexposed and there is chromatic aberration visible --Simonizer11:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info I agree that this white sky is unaesthetic, but it was cloudy so it's impossible to get something else.I propose an edit: I cropped the picture and I adjusted the levels. It's still rather dark, but the monastery is in the shadow. Vassil07:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice work and a spectacular view rare to see. Great Wow effect! -- Mattes 09:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC) looks great now except it is not upright anymore... Thanks Vassi! -- Mattes12:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Talking in the evening near the sea. Though not as good as The photographer (which I believe it is my best picture ever), this is a nice coloured example of the contre-jour photographic technique. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar18:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral i think that couple is a bit too much centered and there is a bit too much space around them. But I really like the picture...it has a nice atmosphere. --AngMoKio09:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is really a great photo. But not enough valuable. "Beautiful does not always mean valuable." It really has a photographic technique value, but after an other good example as The photographer it inflated. Sorry. --Beyond silence02:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is really a great photo. But not enough valuable. "Beautiful does not always mean valuable." It really has a photographic technique value, but after an other good example as The photographer it inflated. Sorry. --Beyond silence02:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Value is a very vague word. For someone, who wants to know how a wonderful evening at the coast near Porto Covo looks like, this picture has value. So i concentrate on the picture. Beautiful Contre-jour! --Simonizer08:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Caterpillar of the Spurge Hawk-moth, seen in Kriegtal near Binn, Valais, Switzerland at approx. 2000m altitude. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen
Support - Excellent sharpness and detail. Are you sure about the species, the pattern is OK but the colors seem different? - Alvesgaspar19:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was confirmed on the german taxo page, and the plant it is sitting on was identified to be the typical food plant of this caterpillar species too. --Dschwen20:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. Dont like the head of the caterpillar squeezed in the lower right corner. But the picture has great detail --Simonizer08:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The head is a bit unclear, and I agree with Simonizer, the head is squeezed in the lower right corner. Too bad, 'cause the picture could be very nice. — H92 (t · c · no) 18:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info I uploaded another shot from this series here if you'd like a comparison. Note that I have not yet edited out the dust specs on that one.--Dschwen18:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It seems to me that the plane of optimal DoF is not situated properly, resulting in the out-of-focus head. The composition is unfortunate. As a butterfly/caterpillar photographer myself, I wouldn't be disappointed with a shot like this, but I wouldn't expect it be a FP either. -- Ram-Man02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would anyone be able to sharpen it up a bit, i have had a go (not this edit though, but it looked ok) but i don't know if it might be going too far. Chris_huhtalk11:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Barely enough for QI but far from FP status. Main flaw is the tight crop. I would suggest more space around the flower, specially at the bottom, remember the flower is "looking down". Alvesgaspar23:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small --Simonizer16:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Oppose - Image is pixelated. Also, if the picture was manipulated to get a black background (as it appears to be), it should be stated with a "Retouched" template. - Alvesgaspar22:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Damn good origami, but the picture of it is not. Especially the light is very unfortunate. Dont like the composition either. Picture has no depth --Simonizer08:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI think that is my best work.I used a composed lighting because I thought it was the best lighting for the picture.--Archivaldo14:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info I propose an edit: I smoothed the inside to remove the pixelisation then I sharpened the contours.It's a beautiful origami, the light of copia is better, but I'm not sure that this edit is technically good enough for an FP. Vassil15:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentEy thanks,Can you told me how you remove the pixels?I have tryed it but I didn´t know.
Oppose-same as above, the composition is straight foward and boring, too much empty space, not enough contrast in the main object. general bad quality LadyofHats00:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support New lens (my first macro lens with a fix focal lenght), difficult light situation and uncomfortable terrain (stinging-nettles), but i think I made the best of a bad job, so i try a FP nomination--Simonizer10:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support My vote isn't needed, but I wanted so much to tell how I actually find the lighting great... what a nice atmosphere it gives to the picture... Wonderful lighting, composition, technical qualities and so on Benh21:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not that it makes a difference, but the DoF is too shallow and the backlighting obscures the insect's details. A few months ago it might have been a featured picture, but we have more perfect insect photos. I'm not sure why people like Alvesgaspar support despite the lighting. -- Ram-Man02:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Because heart (the artsy side) has prevailed over reason (the technical side). And I like to believe that I'm more on the first side... With the present hight of the bar I consider this one to be on the borderline. And though the lighting is not the best it doesn't affect much the detail on the hopper's body. Alvesgaspar11:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can tell you why I supported. We also judge the composition here...and in my opinion this is one of the very few pictures of an insect that really has a thought-out composition. For most insect pictures i can't really give a vote at all. They are quality-wise very good but seldom have a convincing composition - that's why I dont know how to handle them. --AngMoKio19:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The picture have some minor technical problems, but I think it is a hard shot. But the value is really good, and the compistion I like very much too (can see two view of turtle at once!). The lighting is good, at specialy on the main part the face too. And the resulotion is high, so I support. --Beyond silence00:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both are cut; composition (too much space on the left, angle of top turtle); color/quality of lower turtle is also not that great -- Gorgo18:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course in my opinion your image is much worse than my image you compare yours to. More turtles not always equal better. Yet because it is an underwater image, and I could corespond with taking underwater pictures, I support it.--Mbz121:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Question hmm (again, sorry): is this a bend, a corner or is this a straight part with an exotic (excusez le mot) projection? Lycaon22:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it is a cylindrical projection, but you would have to ask Klaus with K. For this picture I think a cylindrical projection is better than a straight, equirectangular projection, which IMO would make it boring. --Digon3talk22:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmmm, I just wanted to illustrate here how to remove some dust...and now that. Yes it is a cylindrical projection, in panorama context I would call that a bog-standard projection. The horizontal angle covered is 180 degrees, too much for a rectilinear projection. -- Klaus with K13:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot be rectilinear. My guess is its cylindrical too, wit a semistatistical distribution of trees you just don't notice it. In Klaus' picture there are many straight and linear elements which get distorted by the projection. No biggie for me, I prefer conserved proportions over straight lines in this case. --Dschwen20:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of the projection used (building don't look vertical), unsharpness and slight purple fringing. Benh20:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vertical features do show as vertical. Some old buildings are simply not vertical. -- Klaus with K
Info Buds of a pink oleander (Nerium oleander), Lisboa, Portugal. Still taken with my old Konica Minolta. I think that the composition and colours are worth a try. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar23:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Beyond silence. The reflection from the sun gives it distracting overexposed spots and the lighting is a bit harsh for a FP. --Digon3talk17:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i also have to oppose bcs of the composition. The wasp points somehow out of the picture. Welcome back Richard... --AngMoKio20:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The DoF is a little shallow, but this image looks like an oversharpened unsharp image. Right or wrong, it's not the best we have. -- Ram-Man02:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs noise reduction and perhaps some background-only lightening. I don't like how the image below loses contrast in the insect. Even so, I'm not convinced this is quite FP material. -- Ram-Man02:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though the image description could use a lot more detail, particularly "How big is it?" and, perhaps describe Władysław Jagiełło on the lines of "King Władysław II Jagiełło of Poland" or suchlike, to give context? Adam Cuerden01:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is getting destroyed :-). It is focussed on the foreground region, the bright bg is deliberately unsharp to make the fg stand out. It was probably a mistake to upload the whole 12.8 Megapixels. --Dschwen20:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info there you got it! I uploaded a downsampled version over the old one. It is still way bigger than the minimum dimensions here and the subject is razor sharp. --Dschwen20:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DoF is too shallow for a shot like this. Lacks sufficient wow factor. Exposure isn't great, although I wouldn't oppose because HDR techniques were not used. -- Ram-Man02:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At the risk of shocking some people over here, I (weakly) oppose too, although I start to realise (just bought a macro lens) how hard it must have been to catch that one... Some people manage to catch much sharper subjects in similar conditions Image:Hoverflies_mating_midair.jpg -- Benh20:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know that it is a fair comparison, different insects, different behaviour, dragon flies fly very fast, do mating hover flies fly at full speed ? (might they just hover :-) --Tony Wills22:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a brutally difficult shot, and I wouldn't be sad if it becomes a FP despite my vote. Still the resolution is too low (because of the insane difficulty of getting closer!) and it's just not sharp enough. Impressive, but not an FP for me. -- Ram-Man02:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks oversharpened and has blown highlights. I would have loved a bit more DOF and a landscape layout instead of a portrait view, preferably seeing the whole critter. Lycaon12:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not sure why the comment above was crossed out. I am opposing for DoF reasons and because of what appears to be oversharpening. I'm unsure why EXIF information was not provided, since this allows me to make sure I don't oppose for bad reasons. -- Ram-Man02:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I'm going to buck the trend, but the dark areas of it's feathers have been lifted way too much resulting in a v. unnatural colour and high levels of noise --Fir0002www09:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neutral until the saturation is more natural Not only because it is cute, but because it is technically and compositionally good. --Digon3talk13:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry to have to go against the current, but this image is oversaturated. The original has far more natural colours. Support (of course) when corrected. Lycaon16:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn't this be an invasion of privacy? -- Catちぃ？ 18:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
So edit 3 has 8 support-votes, too. So the situation is the same. Personally i find the colours in this version oversaturated. So i decided to feature the other version. But I dont know what to do in such a situation. The guidlines say we should feature only one picture of the same motif. So i decided to feature the last one. But if you dont agree with this decision, what else can we do? Should we consider a new nomination of both edits? --Simonizer 13:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Iam confused. I copy Digons Support vote and feature this one. --Simonizer13:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reconstitution of the background tree is a great work! But a sign of the crime remains: the onlooker's tail... Vassil12:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shurely it was possible to take this butterfly with 100ISO, a ring flash, from a sideview or topview for low noise and "perfekt?" DoF, but this causes in a very dark background, boring composition and unnatural colors. What i tried and still try is to display the 100% brightness of the background, i mean the state i have seen at the place. Its not possible with my cheaper 400D, so i used 800ISO which causes a slight noise. DoF: the most FP butterflies are from a sideview, so taking one from diagonal view by this distance and no crop at a apperature of 14 which is 3x higher than your eye (another unnatural thing) result in this image. As a example, this one is in apple-pie order with a greater distance, but very boring for me. --Richard Bartz16:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The human eye works differently than a lens because the brain sees perceived sharpness differently than just whatever the aperture is.
Oppose As a butterfly photographer, the quality isn't high enough. It feels unsharp, noisy, or maybe it's just the DoF. I expect a high standard for insect photos, and a different angle could have produced a better picture without killing the soul of the picture, but that's just my opinion. -- Ram-Man02:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as I can remember there are not many featured pictures of this kind (river- or forest- or similar detailpictures ) at wikimedia. And i thought this one is pretty good because of the composition and the strong contrasts of dark and bright areas. But now I see how wrong i could be. ;-) --Simonizer07:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Red-veined darter. If this one suffers from unsharpness or any other unexpected and disgusting sin, there are some more coming up. These are indeed amazing creatures. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar16:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I will admit great pickiness in my evaluation of insect photos, but this composition is better than many, but the DoF could be higher, and certainly the resolution as well. Is this a crop or a downsample? I would have liked to see a smaller aperture for more DoF. The composition, however, is excellent and should be the benchmark for future insect photos of this type. -- Ram-Man03:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info - This is a crop, not a downsample. Maybe I could get a little closer with my macro lens (not much) but then the DOF limitations would be even worse. The only way to get the whole insect in focus is to take him from above. Yes, I believe there is some pickiness in your evaluation, this is one of my best (two) dragonflies photo. The other one was opposed because the wings were distracting (?). Perhaps there is some irritation in the reviewers because I nominated so many dragonflies in a short time. Even if none of them is promoted (the most certain thing) I'm sure they have contributed for raising the bar in this particular subject. - Alvesgaspar11:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This would have been a neutral vote for me a couple months ago, but I think I'm trying to raise the bar a little so that only perfect pictures get through. Unless this insect is smaller than I think it is, you could have gotten closer (theoretically) for more resolution. The composition makes the DoF issue less important, although I would have shot the picture at f/13 (if given the choice). Also, the focus is not on the eye, which is a bit distracting. For me it was very close, but just not quite there. -- Ram-Man01:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A prime example of what I was talking about here, sorry Alvesgasper but the quality at full res is not FP standard. It's full of artefacts especially on the wings --Fir0002www22:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the text you are referring to, you say: People just click on a image on the thumbnail, have a look at it on the image description page, see it's nice there, note that it is larger than 2000 pix and support without ever looking at it full res -that is a quite comtemptuous comment and a wild extrapolation about Commons reviewers' behaviour. You may of course, like any other user, explain the reasons behind your opposing votes on Commons FPC. But to disdain the whole FPC project just because you think the people reviewing here is careless and incompetent, is not only rude, it is false. Alvesgaspar23:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, raising the bar here. This is not sharp enough. Also, for future reference, please pick one or two of your best pictures and nominate those, instead of trying to nominate each one to try to increase the odds of success. I've been lectured about that before. -- Ram-Man03:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)#[reply]
Support They are actually no such things as juvenile dragonflies (juvenile dragonflies are the larvae that live in the ponds). It takes some time for them to get their full colours, that's all ;-). -- Lycaon20:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is the best one of the bunch sharpness-wise, but not compositionally. It's a good shot of record, but the head is obscured (which is unfortunate) and the tail is blurred (which is ok). Another angle, such as a front view, could have still shown the colors and been stronger compositionally. -- Ram-Man03:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sharp on the wings, yes, but most of the rest is not in the focal plane (such as the reproductive parts at the bottom), which makes the image encyclopedically useless. --Dschwen22:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Tender and beautifull picture, ruined by an unfortunate crop. With the both feet visible and more space above it would be almost perfect (although dad's bag is ugly!) - Alvesgaspar18:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIn my opinion it is the crop, which makes the picture so touching, tender, beautiful and powerful. The subject of the picture is the girl.--Mbz119:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Oppose The composition renders the image ununderstandable. The subject of the image is the interaction of the girl and the grunt, not a little girl clutching to fatigue pants from which something green is hanging. Rama20:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully beg to differ. The subject of the image is not the interaction of the girl and the grunt, but the childs emotions as her father leaves to fight a war. The child is the subject. Smokizzy (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The child would not be doing this for any pair of camouflage pants, she's clutching at them because her father is inside. An image for "war-torn child" would be the child sitting alone with some military background. The introduction of the father in the image not only changes the subject into the relationship, which is then poorly rendered, but also makes the image less readable because of the "near-human" nature of the father (as he is framed) and the bottom of his bag, which is not immediately identifiable. Rama08:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For Rama> The little girl as tall she is only catch on his father leg. This enlarges the drama of situation: the girl looks very little with his emotion at the big world big troubles, his father's leg symbolize the WAR, the FEAR, the SACRIFICE (for me). --Beyond silence02:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what ? Can't the grunt duck to level with the girl ? If that thing symbolises anything to me, it's the dehumanising which produces faceless people unable to look at their children in the eyes.
But the point on featured picture review is not what things represent, it's more whether it's a good idea the make portrait of people which cut them at their crotch. Rama08:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I am not immune to emotions convoyed by photos of children torn by war, at the image on the right shows. But you can witness that this works better when 1) it looks less cheesy 2) the grunt is shown as a human being whose humanity shows through the uniform, rather than just the bottom part of a combat droid. Rama08:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you oppose every military-themed pic based on that rational? If yes, fine. If not, please explain why you think it is "an artificial composition by the USAF". Smokizzy (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a staged photo, the angle would be less lousy. It is probably a candid, and yes it is propaganda, which is fine in itself. The problem is that it is cheap and mediocre propaganda. Rama08:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bag is a bit unfortunate, but the hand on her head is beautiful, and the expression on her face is wonderful. ~ Riana ⁂01:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's the bag, the feet of the grunt and the teddy are cut, the background is disturbing, and the composition is lousy. Sharpness and lightning are passable, hooray! Rama07:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's powerful, even if it is propaganda or posed. I'm not sure why posing would be a problem: most portraits are posed, but they often make good FPs. -- Ram-Man03:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To whoever says the picture is "propaganda", this picture could probably be used by either pro or anti-war people. I.e. "Honor the sacrifice of our military and their families" or "Please don't harm military families by sending them off to an unjustified war." Hard to call something propaganda when it has no clear bias. Smokizzy (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree with Smokizzy in that the meaning of an image is always depending on the context it is presented in, and how it is interpreted. However, to me this image feels staged, overromantic and somehow like a "cliché". That is what makes me associate it with propaganda. This does neither mean that the image actually is any of that, nor that it was intended in such a way or that no other interpretation would be possible. Sorry if I offended somebody. --Christoph Michels00:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perfectly dubious message for most of the world. Only the poor little girl looks understandable for everyone, she ought to have 90% of the subject.--Benwik21:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The interesting aspect about this picture is, that it can be interpreted as pro-war or anti-war. I tend to anti-war. However: the picture makes you think. A few pictures are able to do this. Metoc19:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suspect it's not posed, otherwise the crop would be better, and the 3rd person would be left out. Either way, it has emotional impact. Ben Aveling 09:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Voting time was allready over --Simonizer17:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great portrait. I don't mind the slightly grainy BG, you'd get that on analog film too. Has some sensor dust though... --Dschwen22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you have any sort of improvement in mind ? I tried the fiddling with the curves, but I am colour-blind so it might look strange to people with normal vision. Rama07:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great informative, professional-looking image. As always. I'm a little unsure about the colours, but they are the sort used in modern biology textbook illustrations, so... Adam Cuerden19:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Maybe I'm too picky, but I don't like the apparently random orientation of the segments. For example, why aren't the "Cecum" and "Appendix" segments horizontal? Yes, this is not the first time I make this kind of comment... Alvesgaspar23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, it is not the first time you make this coment, it is also true i have already changed the image several times acording to your sugestion. but sorry to say this time i do disagree in your apreciation and that is the reason why i have not changed the image. the reason why the line is not horizontal is becouse none of the other lines are horizontal.-LadyofHats23:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
um... how does he breath? His liver is up at his armpits.
there is a propositive increased space between the organs so that the Pancreas is visible as well as the bile duct. this change of place has as a result a decreased space in the chest, yet this is something you can also find in many other images about the subgect. it is also something allowed in a diagram, since what stays of interest right now is the digestive track and not the respiratory organs, if i was to add the lungs i would have to lower everything to their usual place wich would mean the bile duct would be hardly visible-LadyofHats23:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
explained above why. the real place of the liver would be on top and infront of the stomach, covering the gallblader and the bile duct -LadyofHats23:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It takes a hell of lot more effort to produce this kind of artwork than it does to make a small microscope image... ;) Lycaon11:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this diagram is nothing special, actually is a quite usual diagram, it is used in more than 20 pages in 7 diferent projects, and has been translated to 7 languages. and still i think you are right...on the other hand , diagrams are not done to be special, but to be usefull.-LadyofHats23:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, very useful. But it just falls short on wow factor for me. I guess there are two ways a diagram like this could work: it could show accurate spatial relationship, or it could show a functional relationship, what feeds into what for example. I'm not sure about the first, but I don't think it achieves the second. I agree it's useful, I just think it might be a little more beautiful as well. The colors seem chosen to distinguish the differences between the organs, which they do, but the resulting image, it, well, I just think it could be prettier without detracting from its usefulness. And such a diagram could show flow, if desired. Add a little whitespace between organs that don't 'communicate' with each other in some meaningful way. And/or add little arrows showing the passage of food, and/or the passage of bile, and/or whatever else is of interest. It's not bad. I just think it could be better. My apologies for not explaining my vote more fully earlier. Regards, Ben Aveling12:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I Don't think that would improve the picture. As the Lady has stated above this is a schematic representation of the digestive system not a real life reproduction. The aim is to show all organs involved and their connections. It is NOT meant to be an anatomical correct drawing. Lycaon09:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info- here is a picture of the actual arrengment of organs in the human body,it is in fact a picture of an actual body. and still half of the liver in this picture was removed to have some view in the stomach. if you can understand what is there , how they concet to each other, and where a organ ends and the next starts. then i will do you a diagram that looks this way. Increasing the size of the surrounding outline would result again in organs that are far too small for the body.so it is not the solution... if this is not enough to convince you, then i sugest you google an image on the digestive system. and tell me how this : [10],[11],[12],[13], [14], [15],[16],[17],[18], [19],[20] people can breath.. I mean couldnt you at least make a little bit of research before giving your opinion on a diagram?. (ok the last one was a chiken but wanted to see if you were looking all of them :P)
i really dont want to be agresive nor pushy, but sometimes you really seem to have no idea what you are talking about. Isnt there a doctor in between you? havent you at least look for your high school book and double check? arent you at least a bit curious? Making this diagrams takes a hell of a lot of work, and time. To come and simply kick it back with a "is nothing special" is more than just ofensive. if it is really nothing special then ok with me, next time i make it with 2 hearts surely you will think it is special then. the point here is that some things doesnt need to be special, diagrams must be simple, clear and illustrative. they should Explain something. the reason why people uses diagrams now a days, even when they require far more work than a picture is becouse in many cases they are more clear, more simple and more illustrative than a picture....I just dont understand you. really-LadyofHats10:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info I'm very close to supporting this, and I don't underestimate how much time and skill it has taken, nor do I think it 'not special'. My point is a narrow one: that the outline of the body down both sides gives a misleading impression of where the organs actually go, and suggests a physical position which - as LadyofHats points out - was never the intention. Could you not simply remove the body outline, so that there's no implication of where the organs fit - as for example with [21] ? I would happily then support. But in any event, even if this does not pass, I for one very much appreciate the high level of skill that's been dispayed here. --MichaelMaggs16:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A few slight luminance stitching artefacts in the sky, but only distracting if looking at the sky only at full resolution. -- Klaus with K12:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technical quality. Borderline wow factor. I'm only supporting because it's better technically than other equally boring existing FPs of similar subjects. -- Ram-Man03:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, wow factor is missing. If a picture like mine which has high enough technical quality (here) can't become a featured picture just by being a) architecture and b) technically good, then this can't either. It needs that wow factor, and the extremely sharp image isn't enough for a FP. For me, that tilted clock tower is very distracting. -- Ram-Man03:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just took the time to have a look at it at pixel size : It's amazingly detailed, clean and sharp ! WOW ! I would have loved the framing slightly less tight, but this won't detract me from supporting it -- Benh22:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info A hornet with the upper torso of a honeybee, which she gathers for her breed. Trenching the bee in a Bat-like posture lasts less then 20 hectic seconds. Adult Hornets just eat plants-juice.
Support After a string of insect picture oppositions, I like this one. And please nominate your good pictures. There are times when nominating a couple less-good pictures first is ok, but if you do it too much, it just gets tedious. -- Ram-Man03:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of the noise. Should be fixed first. Oh and BTW, when fixing the noise, could you please give the file a better name? -- Lycaon21:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wouldn't it fit better into wiki pages with a white background ? IMHO on a white background with a soft shadow the image would look globally better. --Atoma 08:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Votingtime was allready over --Simonizer20:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree. Adding more of the bottom of the chérubin would break the symmetry with the cross, and the composition wouldn't be as effective. --Nattfodd09:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition doesn't convince, in particular the way the subject is cut. That may be the only way to take it, but I'm afraid it doesn't make FP standards for me --MichaelMaggs 17:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Voting time was allready over --Simonizer20:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionCould you explanin me (and probably many others), what you mean with word oversharpened? And from which did you recognize, that picture is oversharpened? --Karelj22:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both the highlights and the small hairs appear oversharpened. The highlights are very bright relative to their surroundings. The pixel to pixel contrast is appears too high. It's hard to put it into words, but it doesn't look natural. Most natural subjects have much smoother transitions from pixel to pixel. The image was processed in photoshop, as per the EXIF information. -- Ram-Man23:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think, that more than 90% snaps in this section was processed by photoshop or similar programs and I dońt mind. The reason of this pictures is to show visitors of wikipedia, how some subject look like and this is also case of our picture here, I believe. To say, that insect looks annaturally could enthomologist, but that is not case of another of us, isn´t it? --Karelj15:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good sharpness/colors but very poor composition. The "backside" view is not appealing at all. Should have been taken front on with the insect --Fir0002www23:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Come on! I'm sorry, but the diagram seems carelessly done, it is not self-explanatory (what is the meaning of the symbols?) and it is not even beautiful! - Alvesgaspar23:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- IMHO, a diagram is good if it is suitable for printing, including in grayscale. Color gradations are inessential. ♦Pabixℹ06:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like a businesslike "concrete gray" Powerpoint chart to me, which i saw very often in my business career. Can you please explicate to me why you think this should be a FP, and where you see the big WOW on this illustration --Richard Bartz00:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yours seems to need to be rotated 90 degrees CCW and has alot of noise. See this to get a perfect white background for future macros. As for the DOF, both of ours may fall a little short. :) --Digon3talk01:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Has it been cleaned? It has scattered particles on its surface in full-scale. Are they an integral part of the mineral sample? -- Slaunger01:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is why I posted mine in fron of yours - to take all Opposes to myself and let your picture a green light :)--Mbz101:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Support Superb details, excellent light, fascinating subject, deep DOF. I could only wish for a slightly larger resolution and the exact date in the image page description (although with a fossil this age it isn't that relevant). -- Slaunger01:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The black background still has a few non-black parts that you may want to edit out. Also the lower half of the outside piece is in shadow. Maybe a different lighting arrangment?--Digon3talk01:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we have the inside view from the original (suitably cleaned) next to the outside view from the new image (rotated to be in the same orientation? I think that would look best. I think this is going to be an FP, but it'll need a little work. - consider running it by en:WP:GL/IMPROVE or another graphics lab? Adam Cuerden18:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose that portrait isn't above average to me... which is enough for me to oppose featuring it. And that plastic cup on the right doesn't help in my mind... Benh20:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I love photos of children (... and children) and we need more high quality portraits in Commons. But this one is not good enough due to some technical and artistic flaws. The crop is unfortunate and the lighting is wrong, with the faces in the shadow (note that the eyes have no detail). And the cup, of course... - Alvesgaspar21:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO The colours looks nice, but at full res there is a lot of noise in the image and a strange, thin white line at the edge of the tall tower. A processing artifact? -- Slaunger03:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too noisy. -- Lycaon08:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Oppose Just to say that I love the colours, lighting and atmosphere on that picture. Unfortunately, it is too weak on the technical side (noise and softness) and there is that unfortunate tree right in the middle of the foreground... so bad... Benh13:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. Lycaon08:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Comment We've had a lengthy discussion about image sizes in QI. In this case composition, subject and rareness (a such detailed photo of the calyptra of the moss Orthotrichum anomalum is pretty unique on the internet) outweighs image size. Fabelfroh09:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question What size is the moss? How was the image taken? The metadata says it was with a Canon PowerShot A80? If so, why isn't it possible to get a larger image? Regards, Ben Aveling09:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The capsulas of the moss we're about 1 mm. The photo already shows a 80% crop. I could upload a full version with about 900 x 650 pixel. But the resulting image will have high noise levels which I have removed in the version above. As I recall correctly the image was taken with ISO 200 which is a lot for a compact camera from 2003. Fabelfroh14:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's no big deal. Some photos are good without being great. If this had been nominated in 2003, it might have been an FP for a while. But I don't think this one cuts it in in 2007. Better luck next time. Ben Aveling12:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dark is on purpose, to make the lights 'pop out'. Tripod is impossible to use on the top floor (there's a grid through which you have to pass the lens, and besides it's forbidden and there are usually too many people to be able to unfold it). I'm not sure I could have done much better. --Nattfodd20:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, it's really hard to take good pictures at night, but maybe it's possible to use the railing to stabilize the camera (with longer exposure and smaller ISO value)? -- Gorgo21:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me, it's a good night picture: good composition, sharp details (columns, obelisk) and good colours too (the river and the sky). Vassil21:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not Moire, I fear: It didn't print particularly well so the background is heavily artefacted. But, despite the funny printing - which does not, thankfully, affect Longfellow himself - it's better than any other image of Longfellow we have. Adam Cuerden01:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ay, that's just how they did engravings, though it was probably similar in the photograph: One of the reasons I like engravings for Victorian subjects is that photographs of that time are often in pretty bad shape by now, but the engravings keep very well, and often have more detail. Adam Cuerden15:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would have been better if the lighting was reversed, e.g. the white building was in the shadows and the dark building had the sun reflection off of it. --Digon3talk13:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral That's a picture of my town! I like the light and especially the sky. Composition is very 'classic' but good. Some noise however, and a strange impression of unsharpness, although actually sharp at full res. Contrast in the lighting of the left and right buildings: yes, but 'reversing' the lighting by choosing another moment of the day is not possible. The buildings on the left are lit by the sun only on late summer evenings in june and july, and then the tower is only a silhouette because of the sun behind it... Conclusion: nice picture, but just not good enough for FP nomination, I'm afraid. -- MJJR21:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sorry I'm biased too, I used to live 150 m from there at some time... But I agree with MJJR. Let's try to make a better one of this place, Marc. Lycaon08:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is a HDR version of a picture I nominated for QI a few days ago. Alvesgaspar thinks it will not be enough for FP (hope he isn't right this time ! ;)) but I would like to give it a try because I think it's technically good, and has a nice mood. According to a lot of people, this building doesn't look as "good" at day time, which is why I shot it at night (they say Paris shows its best at night). Also, there still isn't a "WOW" picture which illustrate the subject on commons.
Info Sorry to have to strike a negative note here. France has no Freedom of Panorama, unfortunately, and as an image of a building on which copyright still subsists, I'm afraid it is a copvio. Otherwise, I would most certainly support. --MichaelMaggs16:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
InfoThere is, but for buildings which are less than 20 years old as far as I know, and Centre Georges Pompidou was built before 1987. Benh 19:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC). Hmm, I should ask my colleague who told me about the 20 years, but I checked more carefully, and actually, rights apply until 70 years after the architect's death. I now wonder if this picture should be kept here ??? Is the copyright warning enough ? Benh20:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is a category for this building, with a copyright warning, so I think that we may support this picture. Vassil18:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Sadly, file was deleted by D-Kuru because of potential copvio (in that case, all pictures of the same category should be deleted too). After several checks and talks, I came to the conclusion that this picture was well a copyright violation, (it's in a public place, but the focus is too much on the building, and the picture permits recognising the building easily even though it's a small part of it) so for now I won't upload it again. I wrote an email to the appropriate person to try to solve this issue. Still thanks anyone for the supports. Benh20:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sharp enough to keep until we get a better picture of the same species (of hoverfly, daisy still remains unidentified :) --Javier ME16:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Female red-veined darter (Sympetrum fonscolombii). I thought the darter season was over for me, but then I saw these two gorgeous ladies and I couldn't resist. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar19:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have to accept the votes from Beyond silence like any other contribution, those are the ways of the wiki world. But I don't feel obliged to respect his opinions for they often demonstrate rudness, bad faith and a considerable igorance on the matters under evaluation. Fortunately this kind of behaviour is not too common here and normally doesn't last long. - Alvesgaspar23:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious about it when he will contribute a picture to this list, and if, i guarantee, we will look veeeeeeeeery closely. :-)) --Richard Bartz23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport This is nice, but be careful: At f/16 you lose image sharpness from diffraction that can't be fully recovered by image sharpening:
f/10 -> 10MP maximum resolution
f/13 -> 6MP maximum resolution
f/16 -> 4MP maximum resolution
So unless you are downsampling to those resolutions, the DoF increase may not be worth it, especially if you crop a lot. (See here for calculations). -- Ram-Man03:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just aComment This looks like a vector graphic for me, sowhat postprocessed, I would say this is cheating, sportsmanlike. If this is your definition of your thrown in "raised bar", na servus. --Richard Bartz17:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know the reason for this "painted" look, it is in the raw file also! I will have to verify if there is some noise reduction process active in the camera. Alvesgaspar18:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be surprised it's due to some noise reduction process if it's already in the RAW file. As the name suggests, RAW files contain unprocessed datas from the sensor. -- Benh22:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Loss of any detail/structure, due very excessive postproduction. I hold it with the classic style and see this very sportsmanlike, sorry. But indeed a very nice picture. --Richard Bartz00:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ack Richard. Might not have been intentional, but you only got your camera very recently, maybe you'll find out what happened. --Dschwen22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've changed my vote to raise the bar. I originally evaluated this image at 2MP, and it is indeed acceptable at my standard viewing requirements. I didn't even notice and/or care about the overprocessing. But an exception to my standards should be made for insect photos: they should look better at higher resolutions based on the quality body of work that we already have. -- Ram-Man00:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Loss of detail/structure, due postproduction. I would prefer slight noise rather than this, cause for me it looks like a rubberlike darter, especially on the eyes, sorry. --Richard Bartz00:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ack Richard. Might not have been intentional, but you only got your camera very recently, maybe you'll find out what happened. --Dschwen22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insect quality is only average. Background is noisy, murky, and soft. Minor color fringing. Overall composition isn't that great. This isn't raising the bar. -- Ram-Man04:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is average at best and the distortion could probably be fixed, although it might not be good enough anyway. -- Ram-Man04:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Impressive shot. Unfortunately the quality is not good enough (exposure, noise) and the extreme crop ruins the composition. Alvesgaspar13:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Compositionally, I like this type of shot. Sharpness is good enough. Noise is fine-grained and not distracting. -- Ram-Man04:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is sth wrong with this nomination (technically). It seems to be created within the following nomination. Can also be that i don't get it currently... :)--AngMoKio20:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's probably QI although I find the composition a little boring. Sharp and good DOF, but not enough wow for me. -- Slaunger02:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both have been approved in the original nomination 5 months ago. I see no radical change in criteria or error of judgement that would supercede that decision. This is a borderline troll nomination. ~ trialsanderrors19:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not wikipedia FP, so no value is not valid IMO. This is also large enough for me not to delist, and nobody had a problem with size when it was promoted in march. --Digon3talk14:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aerogels of any size are almost strictly limited to NASA and JPL use (due to rarity), so it would be impossible to make a better shot for some time in the future. Adam Cuerden20:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Rarity or not, it's not high enough quality and not special enough to compensate for the size, despite the difficulty of a shot. A lot of shots are difficult, but this one isn't special enough. -- Ram-Man02:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vladsinger02:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC) This user needs to stop being so trigger happy on delist nominations that he doesn't have the time to provide a decent rationale for deletion before considering the inherent value of an image. This image is fine.[reply]
Delist Resolution not up to current standards. Fir0002's pictures are the benchmark for ~2MP images, and this one doesn't cut it. -- Ram-Man02:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why do we insist in killing the history of FP? This was not an error of judgement, just the result of quick technological advances. Alvesgaspar11:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is not enough good. What do you like in that history? Some weak picture was been one of best? What are you talking about! If anybody thinking about my technical possibilities then I will thinking about it. --Beyond silence13:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Too low resolution, ack Digon3. Also, the DoF may be too shallow. EXIF information should be provided with FPs if possible. -- Ram-Man02:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, small images are unsharp and blurry at larger magnifications, which affects their usefulness. They do not qualify as "best we have to offer" for that reason. -- Ram-Man14:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why do we insist in killing the history of FP? This was not an error of judgement, just the esult of quick technological advances. Alvesgaspar11:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? You're back to commons! So fast? We even have not had a chance to miss you yet. Oh, an btw Delist Noise, size the subject is not represnted well. There's nothing special in this picture to keep a picture with the resolution less than 2 mega pixels.--Mbz112:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Neutral It's not fantastic, but the twins somewhat makes up for this due to rarity of getting such a good shot. Also, the nomination is here - User:Adam Cuerden
Because, frankly, the featured picture template is broken. If an edit is proposed, and is the one that makes FP (not uncommon) the template links to the nomination as if it was nominated under the new filename. Adam Cuerden23:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cars really disturb me which give the picture a unfortunately holiday/touristic touch, plus I was in kroatia often, and think there would be more impressive locations to show the walls of dubrovnik, without tourists/visitors and in a more encyclopedic fortification context.--Richard Bartz08:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think either more cars or fewer cars would make for a better pictures. All the bright colors attract the eye. Calibas00:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How did you guess I was talking about your image? Maybe because it is the only one image of a frog on a white paper? As I mentioned earlier I nominated your image with the only reason, which is to learn, if it gets promoted or not. I have many encyclopedies of animals and bugs, but none show a bug, or a frog, or any life creature for that matter at a white paper. In my opinion it is just boring and not encyclopedic. Yet I guess I'd like to learn how you do it. I mean how you take a bee or a wasp or a frog and put them on white paper?--Mbz104:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Actually I do see a bit of what I believe to be noise, or some kind of artifact which are not desired. Maybe it's the kind of noise more due to compression than sensor. -- Benh09:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not as good as I would expect (macro shots of still subjects is much easier and should deliver the very best of sharpness and details) but good enough, especially the lighting, and I guess we don't have better pic of similar subjects for now. -- Benh09:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a reproducible macro shot like this should be perfect, this is off center has soft focus, the light could come a little more from the front etc. Good QI but not excellent. --Dschwen21:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least I now this has a chance now. I'll wait for my new camera to come and then I will reshoot this. Does anyone else have preferences on different lighting? --Digon3talk13:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support To change from the insects/flowers pictures a bit. Maybe this picture misses a bit of colour, maybe we can see the effects of rectilinear projection at the left and right borders (stretched pixels), but the building itself is beautiful, lighting is good, stitching is nicely done and it's sharp. Also, we don't have pictures illustrating the subject better than this one -- Benh22:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks good technically. Compositionally it is a still just a relatively boring building, but it lacks any major distracting elements, so I'd say it's good enough. I also prefer this type of projection, even with a little stretching. It seems more natural to me. -- Ram-Man04:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hard to see the fossil well??? Oh well, this is one of those pictures that downsampling will help get rid of the unsharpness. --Digon3talk13:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how you could judge the sharpness of the image, if you have not seen how it looks in a real life. You see, it is kind of very, very old and the sharpness tend to erode with the time.--Mbz117:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Oppose The context is completly wrong. A white box and a frog. It may be nice for lots of other subjects but not for a frog. Show me mud, dirt and nature! But not a sterile white box. Metoc19:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
be gentle, please. After all the picture is FP picture and was selected as a picture of the day just few days ago.--Mbz119:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
note this is an encyclopedia, not a art gallery. For enc reasons objects are very often photographed on a neutral background, allowing the viewer the best uninterrupted and objective view of the subject. For example, take a look at the CSIRO factfiles... --Fir0002www23:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do not intend to vote on this picture because I don't agree with the reasons for nominating it. If the nominator really wants to get it promoted, please begin by supporting it. Alvesgaspar20:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all nominators support the nominated pictures. You could find quite a few pictures at that very page that were not supported by the nominators. I'm not sure what my reasons for nominating the picture have to do with your vote. If you like the picture, then support it. If you do not like the picture, then oppose it or skip the vote. By the way my only reason for nominating the picture was to see, if it gets promoted.--Mbz121:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Oppose due to white background. This is the type of shot for an obvious and unashamed QI and easily has lots of encyclopedic value. My own FP frog has a natural background that compliments the frog and is a better example than the one above. -- Ram-Man03:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't mind the white background. It has wow and is valuable (and it is an unashamed QI attempt). The only thing that bugs me though for an object this size is the limited DOF. Lycaon08:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my opinion the size alone cannot be the reason. The rulls are: "Resolution - Photographs of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (e.g. 1600 x 1200 = 1.92 million) are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'." The nominated picture is displayed at Wikipedia Main Page. Few days ago it was a picture of the day. Isn't this enough 'strong mitigating reasons'?--Mbz112:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Comment I',m not sure - there's a mist that makes it seem a little undersaturated, but on the other hand, it does give the picture a nice sense of depth. Adam Cuerden16:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The railcar's undercarriage is hidden in the dark, there's a half hidden car on the rigth side. A useful image indeed, but nothing special. --Herbert Ortner16:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThanks for the comments, everybody. I agree the image is overexposed. I've just nominated it because it shows some interesting(in my opinion) details in the eye that other images of a dragonfly eye do not.--Mbz116:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)mbz1[reply]
Keep - Have you ever read George Orwell's "1984", the part about permanently revising History? Where is the original nomination? Alvesgaspar11:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the background is unatural (concrete) and the tilted fence and overexposed sky is disturbing. As for the lighting, the use of a flash really ruins it for me. Great focus on the Mantis though. --Digon3talk13:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The background is concrete and not nature..ok... but what's the problem with that? It is part of the composition and furthermore insects also exists in cities not only in nature. The sky is maybe a little overexposed, but it is also totally out of focus and at least the sky is still blue and not white. The photographer used flash and f/8 and thus got the sky blue...how would you make that shot without a little overexposure in the sky? And what is the problem with overexposure anyway? Overexposure in general is nothing bad...especially in not relevant parts of the picture. --AngMoKio14:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Exposure isn't great, but I mostly don't like the unnatural elements. A shot like this should be better. -- Ram-Man04:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice capture, but the lighting is really bad... the nasty flash plus the burnt background unfortunately devalues the great details of the creature. - Noumenontalk22:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe it's not featured for you but my best photo work. Because my lightening choise can't be much better than this at that time.--Maderibeyza06:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the alleged lack of quality is probably the side effect of the smoke obstructing the sunlight. "Correcting" it digitally would reduce image quality as it would no longer be realistic. -- Catちぃ？ 11:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment The reason for bad quality is not relevant, it is the result that counts. BTW, what with the last 4 supporting votes who only ever seem to have voted for this (and one more picture) ever. Smells like sockpuppetry... Lycaon11:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that some unactive users supporting these two pictures. These two pictures especially the other one are discussed too much in Turkish wikipedia, for this reason these people need support them, I think. No sockpuppetry but these votes aren't healthy ok. I accept that the other one has some bad flash and lighting problems, but this picture can be featured, I think. I'm a new user in commons and don't know much about featured pictures. But I believe this photo has specialities for being featured. --Maderibeyza07:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well its look likes Türkish Wikipedia here.Someone looking to under the ox for heifer. I'm not puppet. I'm real one. when I want I can come to here and I can use my vote...--Alperx08:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love this picture (that was me who promoted it to QI if I'm not wrong) despite the unfortunate backgroun at right. Not having a sense of scale adds to its charm. Alvesgaspar17:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the background and foreground busyness; this is a rare case where lots of extra action adds to the composition.--Ragesoss03:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should have a better look at it. This litho is quite particular. It is signed Vasily TIMM, well knowned russian ilustrator. The composition is perfect, very rich in movement. And mostly, it depicts war violence more crudely than in other contemporary works. Compare it with the french iconography on napoleonic wars. I think it is worth showing.--Benwik16:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There's some decent art hidden in there, and the reproduction is good, but the poor use of the lithograph technique in the original makes it look like it's being viewed through static. Perhaps a downsample could save it. Adam Cuerden22:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info I replaced the image, resized to 2000x2600px, slightly added brightness and contrast and cleaned the background.Benwik05:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a higher size at some time but not a higher resolution. It looked like an upscaled version, unless the current one is the resampled one of the grainy larger original (hope you can follow). Lycaon21:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too noisy. Lycaon17:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: overexposed and has a poor background. --MichaelMaggs08:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Oppose First it would better be described as some kind of butterfly (probably colourful on top side of wings) not a moth (details of season & place photographed would help id it), second it is indeed out of focus. --Tony Wills08:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Support This is neither the clearest nor the most informative view of the plane, but the bizarre lighting makes it more atractive. --Javier ME15:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low resolution, visible artifacts, subject made difficult to read because of the militaro-lyrical composition. Rama14:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You withdrew too early in my opinion. I really like the composition and there is no noise. To criticise the overexposure here is simply ridiculous. The only problem with the photo is that it is not too sharp and I think there are some jpeg artefacts. Maybe a size reduction can help. --AngMoKio09:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that it is a good picture of a difficult subject.For me it has the wow factor.But it would be better without the lines at the bottom. Vassil12:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you, everybody. I will let it stay not because I believe it will pass, but rather because I'd like to share with you wonderful world of amber for few more days. I'm going to post few more pictures here not to vote, but to look and to see. I hope the other pictures will also help you to understand how dificult the subject is. Once again, I know that in the end it is result what matters. The second picture shows a fly in my necklace. It is a very interesting piece because you could see "the crater" created, when a fly hit the resin. The third picture is the ant from the nominated picture again, but now you could better see the size. The fourth picture is mosquito from the same necklace as a fly. Please, note that mosquito survived the hole that was drilled, when the necklace was made. By the way, when I bougt the necklace, I have not look for insects in it. I found insects much later, when I looked every piece through 16x magnifier glass. One more picture shows few ants in amber. Once again these pictures posted here not to vote, but to better introduce the topic.--Mbz123:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Comment I would like to support the third image in the top row. It is really nice - I think. And since we have so many insects featured here I think this would be a very good contribution to FP.--Christoph Michels09:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Christoph Michels. An insect in amber will be very good contribution. If nothing else it will be something different and quite unique for FR. I do not think #3 is to pass with my fingers in the image.--Mbz115:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Actually, I like the fingers. They somehow give a scale to the subject. The compression might be more of a problem to me. Your fingers seem to have "stripes". --Christoph Michels23:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish it was withdrown, when I've done it first time.
Oppose Very noisy, I'm afraid, and too large an area of the stones is not in focus. The subject matter would benefit from a much smaller aperture (and a tripod?). --MichaelMaggs17:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Considerably better, but noise and focus problems still remain. Such issues simply shouldn't arise in an FP of a stationary subject where the photographer has plenty of time to set up the camera for an optimal image. --MichaelMaggs21:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline for the nomination states: Every important object on the picture should be sharp. Important objects of the pictures are insects and they are sharp.I also do not consider that statement of yours: "Such issues simply shouldn't arise in an FP of a stationary subject where the photographer has plenty of time to set up the camera for an optimal image" to be polite. I believe we shuold discuss the image and not "the photographer" and not even his camera. How do you know what camera was used? How could you tell, if it could have been put at tripod? How do you know, if I have a macro lens for such small objects, or I do not.I'd also like to remind you that "stationary subject" are kind of very, very smal and just btw are inside amber (2 different pieces of amber, with different colors and a very different structure). How could you possibly know how much time I spent to take these pictures and what it took to take them? If you'd like to oppose every one of my images, please do so, yet I'd like to ask you to stop discussing my photography skills. I do not consider it to be polite.I guess what I meant to say is: "Welcome back, MichaelMaggs"--Mbz121:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
My comments were intended to be constructive criticism as to how the image might be improved. Sorry if they didn't come over that way.--MichaelMaggs05:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure in what aspect you agree with MichaelMaggs: that "noise and focus problems still remain" or that "Such issues simply shouldn't arise in an FP of a stationary subject where the photographer has plenty of time to set up the camera for an optimal image.", or maybe both? Yet somehow I do not really care. I guess the most important thing is that you agree with MichaelMaggs.--Mbz120:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
I'm not sure, if it is still my nomination, or Richard is the one, who is the nominator on it now. Richard, if it is the case, please, withdraw it. Thank you, everybody for votes and for comments.
I don't see any tilt. And since it's been stitched and perspective corrected, I don't see how it could be tilted (unless the author did a bad job, which isn't the case here :) ) Benh06:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, lighting which does not accurately represent the subject would illustrate it better? This is a 100 ft tall building, not a table top object. The drab and solemn lighting is part of the memorial and it's widely mentioned in discussions of the building, to remove it would be to create a lie. I'm okay with the notion that we won't feature images of some subjects if they accurately represent reality, but please don't go so far as to claim that an image must be a fabrication to well illustrate its subject.--Gmaxwell06:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just discovered this technique you probably know so : I do suggest you make three shots with different exposure (bracketing ?) of this (I know it's a stitched pic, so this will be harder for you) and combine them to get a HDR picture. This way, the room will appear brighter, but the ceiling won't be overexposed. Also, Would taking this pic at another moment change something ? Benh08:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is one of those wonderfully detailed shots that is likely unique on the internet and of great encyclopedic value, but it is more suited to QI, because it lacks sufficient wow. I know people want FP because it's more "prestigious" than QI, but that's not what this is about. The lighting is somewhat problematic, but I'm not sure how you'd go around fixing it. -- Ram-Man05:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree a little. Some kind of picture aren't "WOW" by nature, but I think this should not detract us from promoting them. That is why I voted for this nomination of yours : it's the best we have of the subject for now and as far as I know, and it's good enough. FP should cover the largest range. But here I guess the lighting killed it for many. -- Benh08:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We both have different standards, but I did support this building panorama because I believe it had fewer weaknesses than others in its category, despite not being the most exciting for me. My image is a natural texture, which is different in my mind from man-made subject matter. This is why I vote differently. For what it's worth, I might support this one with better lighting. -- Ram-Man14:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I think there might be a tiny bit of distortion in the windows at the top: The flower-pattern is stretched into elipses. Adam Cuerden00:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Something is wrong. The light and the reflections are lacking although the subject is monomental. This version looks unnatural. Something is wrong about the lighting. Metoc09:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bit soft and noisy... but amazing point of view and DOF. I guess noise was the price to pay for the DOF (?). Very nice colours also. wow ! Benh22:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting silly... People give you a hand, you ask for the whole arm. OK I don't know if this can be said in english, but you got me I guess. Always asking for more isn't true to the spirit of wikipedia/wikimedia IMO. I think we must see EXIF as a bonus only. Benh12:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the hand and the arm are not really for me but for the Wikimedia project. If basic tecnical information about the pictures is normally included in photo magazines why should our best photographers hide it from the rest of us? That is indeed a good way to learn from them. Anyway I don't believe that Richard was chocked or offended with my "demand"... - Alvesgaspar22:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly won't oppose on the basis of lack of EXIF, but it is helpful with macro shots because it allows us to confirm DoF. I'd be happy even if those numbers were published and we just took your word for it (same thing as an EXIF editor anyway). -- Ram-Man22:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I optimize them for webusage with Adobe Image Ready and then the exif data is lost. Should organise an Exif Editor, will do that, promissed ;) --Richard Bartz15:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info First this is not Ramaria stricta, it is Calocera viscosa, second the resolution is to low (800x600). This fungus is very common in Middle Europe, sothat we can expect better images in the future. (Original nomination) --LC-de12:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Nunâ is a small island in North-Western Greenland inhabited by gulls. It extends 270 m above sea level. The orange areas on the rocks are specialized lichen feasting on the white bird droppings. >10MPixels. -- Slaunger03:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose needs a bit of noise reduction in the sky and you should get rid of the stitching errors (e.g. 15% from the right at the rock/air interface). Lycaon08:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info In this new addition I have fixed the stitching errors mentioned by Lycaon. It is tricky because I was in a boat that drifted and could not be anchored. In addition I have reduced the noise in the sky, carefully sharpened the rocks, and the crop is not that tight anymore. I have had to fill in some "missing sky" in the upper left corner, hope it is not a disaster. -- Slaunger17:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Really nice, but I'm not going to support because of a few blown highlights and because I think that there still should be more space above the rock. --che12:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We've had a lengthy discussion about image sizes in QI. In this case composition, subject and rareness (a photo of lamina cells of the moss Plagiomnium affine is pretty unique on the internet) outweighs image size. Fabelfroh09:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is FP, there are size requirement, whether you like it or not. For encyclopaedic value, try en:FPC: I'd support for biological value over there (also on de:FPC) but surely not on commons. Lycaon15:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've converted Lycaon's FPX into an oppose vote. I'm prepared to be persuaded that we should expect microscopic photography to deliver more pixels that this picture does, but I don't see it as automatically given. The picture is well composed, pretty, well labeled and all the things we could want. More pixels would be nice, but even as is, it's a great image. Regards, Ben Aveling09:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support not so wow to me, but probably nicely taken. Also, I don't think bigger size would help, elements being repetitive here, they would just repeat a bit more :) Benh20:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 800x600 is far too small for FP, sorry. The fact that it's a photomicrograph can't excuse the very low resolution: it simply shows that the equipment used was not up to the job of providing an image of the required quality. --MichaelMaggs06:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've done pictures using a microscope myself... it's not a big problem to do them in a proper size.... --Jeses22:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice picture, I couldn't find a better pic in the category. Although, if Jeses will be able to provide better version, I'd probably support delisting. --che12:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i can't. The pictures i've taken had a different subject and are copyrighted, as part of a university project. --Jeses21:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is unreasonable to fail a FPC on size grounds alone, evaluate the image, does it have 'wow' is it a good image? The size guideline is a hint to nominators and evaluators, it is not a 'rule' (I say for the 1000th time :-). It may be technically possible to have much higher resolution micrographs, but where are our best micrographs, why aren't they in FP? Perhaps this nomination will encourage more. --Tony Wills07:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comme d'habitude, superbe photo d'un sujet très original ! Tu devrais indiquer sur quelle planète tu prends tes photos ;) -- Benh20:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Certainly has the wow effect when viewed in thumb and preview sizes, but in full res the DOF is a little too shallow for my taste and it looks a little oversaturated IMO. But it seems like I am pretty alone with that point of view. But hey, it would be boring if everyone supported. -- Slaunger20:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm finding it funny. But or course, lighting, composition and technical qualities are also on the good side ! This could be used for some kind of advertisement, dschwen even let enough room above the cow for a slogan :) -- Benh11:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sensational!! That's picture post card perfect - well done Dschwen! Although I think a bit more saturation could be helpful, but I'll refrain from an edit since you usually prefer images aren't "sexed up" :) --Fir0002www22:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info created and uploaded by Waugsberg - nominated by Adam Cuerden --Adam Cuerden 06:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Support I love this wonderfully informative image. We don't have enough insect pictures that show the non-imago phases. --Adam Cuerden 06:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC).jpg)
Questions Why is this one in colour? And why is the crop so tight (left and bottom)? Lycaon 19:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Moire pattern in hills of the top image; the scan needs more resolution. There's dots instead of lines in a couple of the others. Is this from the original print, or a reproduction? Because that's a common reproduction error for engravings. Adam Cuerden 11:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC).svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment Oops, I hadn't noticed that; the moire pattern can really be detrimental. The thin lines cause it in this case don't they? And it's an original engraving though. RedCoat 15:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
.jpg)
_edit.jpg)
Question: Please elaborate on this. --norro 14:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
cylindrical projection, the FP candidate
equirectangular projection
rectilinear projection
the bridge seen from the opposite site looking South
Neutral It's not bad, but the DoF seems a little shallow without EXIF information to verify. I'd expect the wings to be out of focus, but not the abdomen. -- Ram-Man 23:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
_-_The_Shepherdess_(1889).jpg)
Lycaon 06:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC) I seem to have problems judging the suitability of my own pictures for FP. I guess I should leave that more to others :-)). Thanks for the critics.Lycaon 06:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
--Mbz1 02:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
Done File name changed. --Digon3 talk 14:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
*
yakafaucon 08:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
. There is a lots of dragonfly pictures, and some is sharper then this. Now can be need more to be featured like this, I think. --Beyond silence 19:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
.jpg)
you compare yours to. More turtles not always equal better. Yet because it is an underwater image, and I could corespond with taking underwater pictures, I support it.--Mbz1 21:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
.jpg/300px-Majestic_Seal_of_the_Realm_of_Wladislaus_II_of_Poland_(16th_century_copy).jpg)
***
--Richard Bartz 18:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
.jpg/300px-Werdau_-_townhall_(aka).jpg)
Keep Yes good enough (sharp). --Beyond silence 23:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
.JPG/300px-Sž_series_711_train_(05).JPG)
.jpg/300px-Mantis_religiosa_(Peygamberdevesi).jpg)
.JPG/300px-Abies_koreana_(szyszki).JPG)
.jpg/300px-Lincoln_Memorial_(south_wall_interior).jpg)
Eh? For some reason, it will not show at full size. Adam Cuerden 00:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)-b.jpg/300px-Lincoln_Memorial_(south_wall_interior)-b.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
-b.jpg)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
_-_The_Shepherdess_(1889).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_The_Shepherdess_(1889).jpg,_not_f){kind=link}
_-_The_Shepherdess_(1889).jpg,_not_f){kind=link}
![[1]](http://www.mamlambo.com/writing/articles/shark_article1/img/SharkBait.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://mitsloan.mit.edu/mba/images/studentlife/zhiying-02.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.destinationelsewhere.com/images/articleimages/shark3.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://www.ultimate-animals.com/img/research_breach2.gif){kind=link}
![[8]](http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1006/images/1006feature3.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/images/ency/fullsize/8710.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/images/ency/fullsize/1090.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/anatomy/digestive/color.GIF){kind=link}
![[13]](http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/anatomy/digestive/label/label.GIF){kind=link}
![[14]](http://www.teachnet.ie/farmnet/images/Digest3.gif){kind=link}
![[15]](http://www.westhoughton-high.bolton.sch.uk/primary science network/mission2files/digestive_system4.gif){kind=link}
![[16]](https://www.bbc.co.uk/health/images/300/digest.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](http://www.proctitispages.co.uk/digestive system.gif){kind=link}
![[18]](http://www.free-ed.net/sweethaven/MedTech/NurseCare/fig91801_01.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](http://www.cudahychamber.com/images/digestive_system.gif){kind=link}
![[20]](http://library.thinkquest.org/15873/media/chooken.gif){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
