Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 2015

File:Sankt Georgen am Laengsee Taggenbrunn 11 Burgruine mit Weinberg 18072015 5993.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2015 at 15:48:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz (talk) -- Johann Jaritz 15:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that this is a nice picture but taken at the wrong time of day. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It happened that I was just there at noon. Perhaps there will be another opportunity one day for an image in the late afternoon.--Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tomascastelazo, but I oppose, sorry (it's really not you, but a common voting pattern with me). - Benh (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tomas; this has potential if photographed with raking light. Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since this nomination doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast, I thought I'd experiment with drawing out the patterns in the landscape with a b&w conversion. I've posted an alternative below. Johann Jaritz, if you hate it or don't want this added to your nomination then please feel free to remove the alt, or request the image be deleted. -- Colin (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you, Colin, I am fascinated by your idea and the endeavors you made. The B&W result is far better than the color version. The crop of the sky increased the quality as well. Perhaps there is a little chance now. --Johann Jaritz 05:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Johann Jaritz, if you support the b&w version, you need to explicitly put a support vote against that version as each alt is counted separately -- but it is up to you of course. -- Colin (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I am still pondering. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 04:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not sure what the lower third and upper quarter add to the picture. — Julian H.^✈ 20:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 10:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Support The landscape has a strong pattern which the midday sun didn't help draw out. I hope a conversion to b&w works better. @Tomascastelazo, Livioandronico2013, Benh, Tremonist, and Daniel Case: -- Colin (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if the color image isn't ok so we can still made an BW image ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Alchemist-hp, I'd fall off my chair if you supported a b&w image. -- Colin (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 05:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Still missing something but if I have to lean, would be toward support. - Benh (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per above. — Julian H.^✈ 20:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist.--Jebulon (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

The chosen alternative is: File:Sankt Georgen am Laengsee Taggenbrunn 11 Burgruine mit Weinberg 18072015 5993 b&w alt.jpg

File:Angkor Wat, Camboya, 2013-08-15, DD 061.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2015 at 04:55:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Frame of the Angkor Wat ("Capital Temple") in a rainy day, former capital of the Khmer empire, today Angkor, Cambodia. Angkor Wat, built by the Khmer King Suryavarman II in the early 12th century, is a temple complex and largest religious monument in the world. Originally founded as a Hindu temple for the Khmer Empire, gradually transforming into a Buddhist temple toward the end of the 12th century.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Frame of the Angkor Wat ("Capital Temple") in a rainy day, former capital of the Khmer empire, today Angkor, Cambodia. Angkor Wat, built by the Khmer King Suryavarman II in the early 12th century, is a temple complex and largest religious monument in the world. Originally founded as a Hindu temple for the Khmer Empire, gradually transforming into a Buddhist temple toward the end of the 12th century. All by me, Poc o² 04:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 04:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It just doesn't inspire much for me. The framing is an interesting idea but it doesn't suit Angkor Wat IMO. And although it's probably an authentic view of the temple on a hazy rainy day, it isn't particularly aesthetic. The temple is too distant and the foreground brown and green grass comprises the majority of the frame. Diliff (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Framing idea is good, even though the building is not exactly centred. A more symmetric approach would have been desirable. --Tremonist (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Idea is good, but light didn't help you much. Should do stack of 2, frame and outer. --Mile (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry,per Diliff --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 04:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parque Nacional da Chapada Diamantina - Bahia - Brasil(3).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2015 at 03:16:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by Flickr - uploaded by Juniorpetjua - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 04:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this is good photo but cannot find featured factor. If this one is the featured picture, there are so many FPs on the internet. --Laitche (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Laitche: Yes, there are so many FPs on the internet. The problem is: they are not uploaded at the Commons for several reasons (copyright, etc...). About this picture: I think it has wow: composition (the textures of the rocks, the reflection in the water, light) and place (a unusual FPC place). 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think so, it's a normal shot with f/3.5 and probably PL filter for me, and too small for this type of foto in 2015, the place is no matter in other words no wow, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Laitche: I appreciate your opinion. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too little details for such a small picture of a static subject. Poor description (The description only mentions the name of the national park in which this formation is. Don't these caves have a name?). And even if the picture had a nice high resolution, the composition would not still be wow for me. --Xicotencatl (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The textures are interesting, but not FP-worthy-interesting and for this kind of shots it's much too small. --Code (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kszapsza (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is not interesting enough for me. Perhaps something closer to the rule of thirds would be better. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm very skeptical about the composition and am not even sure of what I shall look at. - Benh (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for all comments. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vesisule õied.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2015 at 20:42:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created and uploaded by Ireena - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but the parts in focus are very small compared the photo --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like the tricks of the spider. J e e 06:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lacks sharpness. --Tremonist (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors but, in addition to DoF issues noted by Livio, I'm just not feeling the wow. Looks like too many other flower photos. Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:JuminadLoojang.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2015 at 20:43:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Abrget47j - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 20:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice in thumb but in full resolution is a few blurred,sorry --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think these tides (noted) looks quite unnatural... They are strangely blurred or something. Overprocessing? -- Pofka (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Livioandronico2013: and @Pofka: , it is blurred but on purpose, ans is only a result of long exposure (0.6 sec, check exif). The rocks are sharp (not razor sharp though). It's a common practice to add sense of movement in a picture, or to create one of those surreal photos with a "creamy" sea. Livio, if you don't like it, it's fine (I'm not very found of the composition), but you can't oppose based on blurriness alone. That would be missing the point. - Benh (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- These unnatural tides simply doesn't work for me. Maybe every person assess such things differently. Though, I like everything else about this photo as it looks quite unique, so... Weak support -- Pofka (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that is blurred (purpose or not) --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe abstaining from voting or just saying you don't like it would be better. Your vote sounds like it's a technical issue, but it's not. Pretty much as if you oppose a Monet because it's a bit blurry... - Benh (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I judge the photo is taken and not as the subject. As I do not like fish eyes or the churches too distorted--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but I don't think plants should be this blurred. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there are waves, then plants should also dance with them. J e e 06:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I think the point of this kind of photo is composition but its composition is not outstanding here (mood is there). --Laitche (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, too little resolution. --Tremonist (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others (although I definitely like the mood). Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For others --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nowruz Zoroastrian (retouched).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2015 at 10:43:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Anatoly Terentiev, retouched and uploaded by MagentaGreen, nominated by Yann (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think there is a potential here. Hopefully, editing fixed the issues mentioned in the previous nomination. -- Yann (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 10:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reguyla (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Thanks for fixing CA. But it's really too soft for me to support, jpeg compression I'd say. Some good wildlife, sport and concert pictures get rejected here having MUCH more detail. Why should this have a special treatment? It is a stone with daylight, for a FP it should be razor sharp with twice the resolution we have now. --Kadellar (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strongly per Kadellar.--Jebulon (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alborzagros (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Samak (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Soft, below 4 megapixels despite static subject. Not FP to me. — Julian H.^✈ 20:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Farshid . Talk 14:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kadellar. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kadellar. --Xicotencatl (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Saghi (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too soft. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Retouching can solve the flaws but never gain the quality itself (per others). --Laitche (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thank you all for your comments and contributions. Obviously not good enough. Yann (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macaca sinica - 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2015 at 17:18:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wild toque macaque (Macaca sinica) in Yala National Park, Sri Lanka.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info Wild toque macaque (Macaca sinica) in Yala National Park, Sri Lanka. Created, uploaded, nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 04:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, sorry. Per last nomination. — Julian H.^✈ 20:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, although it seems a little overexposed. Charles (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 11:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you very much to you all for your support and comments. Why this got no votes during its first nomination (thanks Julian for your double interest! :D), no idea. --Kadellar (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Macaca fuscata meditation.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2015 at 20:49:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Daisuke tashiro - uploaded and nominated by -- The Photographer (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect and superb. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice portrait. —Bruce1ee^talk 04:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impressive ! But a portrait framing, with less hair on the sides, would have been better, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 08:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive indeed! -- Pofka (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deep in Zen meditation? --Laitche (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I agree with the crop suggestion. (And does anybody else, per an old Spy "Separated At Birth?" pairing, not think of Clint Eastwood when they see this particular species of macaque? Daniel Case (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Charles (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 03:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Men triple jump French Athletics Championships 2013 t154029.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2015 at 16:01:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Jastrow - uploaded by Jastrow - nominated by Σπάρτακος -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good jump. --Tremonist (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good jump, yes ... but it's hard to tell because of the jumper's black uniform against the cluttered background. Daniel Case (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (weak) Daniel Case has a point... but great composition, and what a quality at 100%! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't understand the cluttered background issue. Are you wanting an empty stadium? -- KTC (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I want a subject that clearly stands out. Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great action shot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Frank. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 13:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice action shot. --Laitche (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Background separation is fine at full resolution. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 03:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Lyristes plebejus, Vic-la-Gardiole 01.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2015 at 19:22:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 19:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 19:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice but lack of sharpness. --Laitche (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, but Oppose. Sharpness problem. No really focus layer available. I know, it is very difficult to catch good insect macros ... @Christian Ferrer did you use the "mirror lock-up" camera function? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Focus is on the first leg and on the head, IMO the impression of lack of sharpness come from the use of f/22 and stay acceptable, my purpose was to keep the longest possible DoF with a quite close view (DoF is here about more than 1cm). I'm not familiar with the concept of which you speak, but I will focus on it, thank you. :) -- Christian Ferrer 07:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Alchemist-hp --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Christian Ferrer 13:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- no reason to do that yet! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Խաչ, սպիտակ գնդեր1.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2015 at 19:22:28 (UTC)

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by User:6AND5 - uploaded by User:6AND5 - nominated by User:6AND5 -- 6AND5 (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 6AND5 (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing remarkable about the subject. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @6AND5: Please use {{Withdraw}} instead of {{Closed}}. --Laitche (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2015 (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: There is no featured element (wow factor) as per above comments. --Laitche (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Lagopus muta japonica Mount Tsubakuro.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2015 at 10:18:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rock ptarmigan (Lagopus muta japonica) on Mount Tsubakuro, Japan

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Daisuke Tashiro - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 10:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 10:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 63mm and no crop... I want to know how do they approach this close to the subject. --Laitche (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They lure them with food? - Benh (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Benh: Ok, I'll try that way next time :) --Laitche (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was just conjecturing! But i'd be in a portable blind, put some bread in a good spot, and wait ;) - Benh (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eeeeh thought you were joking, so I joked back! --Laitche (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We never understand each other, do we? ;) - Benh (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

y yeah... --Laitche (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo. Charles (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 04:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't normally !vote on animal photos, but this one is striking enough. I like the way its colors are echoed by the mountains behind it, showing us the connection between it and its environment. Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent shot. I agree with Daniel – the context of the habitat adds some extra value. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really impressive quality. — Julian H.^✈ 17:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 13:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Macaca fuscata juvenile yawning.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2015 at 09:02:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata) juvenile yawning at Jigokudani Monkey Park, Nagano, Japan

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Daisuke Tashiro - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 09:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info inspired by this nomination. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 09:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute. -- Pofka (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lo💜ely --Laitche (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support Although I can easily see this image being used as one of those Internet memes with "BOR-RING!" or some other such text added ... Daniel Case (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another boring human with a camera... --· Favalli ⟡ 00:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 04:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would have preferred a bit more space on the right and a bit less of it on the left, but how can you say "no" to this … (RE Daniel Case: At least it could be a meme that's not a blatant copyright violation ;-)) --El Grafo (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@El Grafo: I would honestly prefer that kind of meme, actually. Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 13:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Crab (Pachygrapsus marmoratus).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2015 at 19:29:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Crab (Pachygrapsus marmoratus) on Istrian coast, Adriatic sea

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Crustaceans
Info Crab (Pachygrapsus marmoratus) on Istrian coast, Adriatic Sea. All by --Mile (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support DM -- Mile (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support a few small but interesting --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info True, but its still 1:1. Animal is very wide and short, so you have to crop more. But you cant come much closer, they run away on movement. --Mile (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice capture. --Laitche (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice photo. Charles (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 04:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. --Yann (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Crustaceans

File:Apollo 11 Launch2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2015 at 03:58:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The launch of Apollo 11 on 16 July 1969. "At 9:32 a.m. EDT, the swing arms move away and a plume of flame signals the liftoff of the Apollo 11 Saturn V space vehicle and astronauts Neil A. Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr. from Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A."

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration#Space launch vehicles
Info created by NASA and restored by Mvuijlst - uploaded by Mvuijlst - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 03:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 03:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the flames, I think it shows the danger of space flight, like a malfunction could occur. But you can also see that some preparation went in before takeoff to make this a safe trip. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite an interesting photo of great historical significance. Although the technical quality is poor by today's standards, the FPC guidelines say something about a bad photo of a good subject is preferable to a good photo of a mundane subject. dllu (t,c) 11:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 07:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historical significance. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration#Space launch vehicles

File:Common brimstone butterfly (Gonepteryx rhamni) male.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2015 at 21:46:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created by charlesjsharp - uploaded and nominated by by charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool subject--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 04:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 06:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support good one --Mile (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ok. --Laitche (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The irridescence at full-res leaves me speechless. Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. -- Pofka (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. --Yann (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Painted ceiling of the throne room of Pope Pius VI in Rocca Abbey (Subiaco).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2015 at 21:18:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
I withdraw my nomination All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 04:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite unsharp in the lower parts. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes I know,Thanx for comment --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but this is neither convincing me as an artwork (relatively simple and in mediocre condition) or as a photo (quality issues) --DXR (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice subject, but the bottom part is not sharp enough. You should take this photo again with a better lens, I think. --Code (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is far from Rome....thanks for comment--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Kszapsza (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, the focus issues at the bottom make it difficult for me to support. What happened? Diliff (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know ... maybe the lens was dirty--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, a dirty lens would create low contrast maybe (but even then, not usually noticeable), but not focus problems. At f/8, I don't think it is because of a low DoF either. Usually poor focus on one side of the frame is because there is a problem with the lens, perhaps a lens element no aligned correctly. Have you seen this problem with any other photos before? Diliff (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know .... I sold them. Now i do works like this,this or this.Thanks.--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's quite eye catching. But the lower third part is blurry. - Benh (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above -- Christian Ferrer 11:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edible fungi in basket 2013 G2.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2015 at 16:40:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
Info created & uploaded by George Chernilevsky - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as author -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple but very good --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 20:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fungi, Fungi, Fungi... 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very average composition, unappealing background and harsh lighting of subject.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Fotoriety. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Fotoriety. --Code (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, especially due to lighting (the flash just killed it). I also think, given the preponderance of earth tones in this image, that the white balance should have been adjusted in a cooler direction. Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. — Julian H.^✈ 17:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad light, poor composition, D kuba (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nomination killed. @ Tomer T: i propose withdrawn. Thanks to all for voting. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aleja uz Lauku kapiem Jaunpils pusē.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2015 at 09:55:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Linden allee to Lauki cemetery in Jaunpils Municipality, Latvia. Nature monument.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Kikos - uploaded by Kikos - nominated by Kikos -- Kikos (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kikos (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 10:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry,not outstanding for me --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice mood but overprocessed. --Laitche (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much on the artsy side; overprocessed per Laitche and white balance seems off (perhaps deliberately?) Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others and sorry, the sharpening algorithm wasn't lucky finding out what is and what isn't an edge that needs sharpening. — Julian H.^✈ 20:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the quality isn't ok, but the idea is fantastic! Please try to do this work again and perhaps as a focus stack. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overprocessed.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Tremonist (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed. -- Pofka (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brixner Dom Deckenfresko Anbetung 2.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2015 at 08:15:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Worship of the Lamb - Ceiling fresco in Brixen Cathedral by Paul Troger (painted 1748-50)

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info The Worship of the Lamb - Ceiling fresco in Brixen Cathedral by Paul Troger (painted 1748-50). Photographed, uploaded, and nominated by --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Toll! --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Lilium martagon mit Rutpela maculata 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2015 at 08:04:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Spotted Longhorn beetle (Rutpela maculata) on a Turk's cap lily (Lilium martagon)

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info Spotted Longhorn beetle (Rutpela maculata) on a Turk's cap lily (Lilium martagon""). All by --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 08:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very nice picture. --Code (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not an excellent quality but nice mood and composition :) --Laitche (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kszapsza (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yesss! --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 19:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Münster, Torminbrücke -- 2015 -- 7447.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2015 at 05:55:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Torminbrücke (at sunrise), Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition and quality. Maybe the shadows are a little bit dark, but FP anyways. --Code (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lighting is not the best but nice symmetry. --Laitche (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect all-around. Sort of evokes this one for me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kszapsza (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent composition -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 17:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 14:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges

File:Rozenkransje (Antennaria dioica) Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonker vallei 06.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2015 at 05:03:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rozenkransje (Antennaria dioica) Locatie, Location. Garden sanctuary Jonker Valley

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Compositae Asteraceae.
InfoFlower bud of Antennaria dioica. Locatie, Location. Garden sanctuary JonkerValley. Is on the Dutch Red List of plants as very rare! created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Big Mac hamburger.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2015 at 15:31:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created by Evan-Amos - uploaded by Evan-Amos - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality,is a few small but good and original --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Makes me hungry. Mmmmm....hamburger.--Fotoriety (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Manages to be a good, attractive, but reasonably accurate view of it (unless the people making it squash it, and you get some horrible mess of food) Think the patties might be moved forwards slightly, but otherwise they'd be hidden, so I can live with that. Likewise, the pickled cucumber slices are probably a lot more visible than they'd normally be, but, again, that's acceptable enough. A definite winner. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something a little different here. Rare, but still well-done Daniel Case (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Реалистичное фото! :) Почему-то не используется в русскоязычных проектах Викимедиа... --Brateevsky {talk} 10:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beware of McD! --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
barely Support OK from a lighting point of view. But I wish we have more studio like photographs, with the background being an actual one, so we keep the shadow, instead of having to remove it. Would also be pretty interesting to have it side by side with the same subject from the McDo marketing division ;) - Benh (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Benh. Not a giant fan of objects standing on something that was cut away. — Julian H.^✈ 20:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beware of McD, but this image is good! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kszapsza (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- High Quality Alborzagros (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink

File:Containerstapler Kalmar.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2015 at 08:25:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Containerstapler auf einem Verladebahnhof

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info created by Dh1970 - uploaded by Dh1970 - nominated by Dh1970 -- Dh1970 (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dh1970 (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. But I don't like this rotation. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is good but I don't find the composition works. --Laitche (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry,for above --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Very unlikely to be FP with this rotation. Yann (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:15-07-15-Aeropuerto-Internacional-Ing-Alberto-Acuña-Ongay-RalfR-WMA 0912.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2015 at 20:31:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Suchoi Superjet 100 at Airport Campeche, Yucatan, Mexico

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info all by Ralf Roleček
Support -- Ralf Roleček 20:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition and good lighting -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is featurable here? Tourist photo of plane you are about to board? Plane is cropped, people facing away. No dynamic. -- Colin (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Ralf Roleček 20:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2015 at 07:41:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Food
Info Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus). All by --Mile (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me the category is better Animals --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was considering which category to put, but made up my mind for Animals it would be better if fish would be in whole, with tail. --Mile (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Food and drink" is better. They are dead. Yann (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition does not work for me, sorry, the plate and the lower right corner are disturbing to me.--Jebulon (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The pattern on the plate does take the eye away from the fish, but then it is a sort of swimming sea pattern, which is an interesting combination. So I think it works. -- Colin (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Soundwaweserb (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition works for me and the details are sharp. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. --Laitche (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition is fine for me. --Tremonist (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I prefer like this... --Laitche (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink

File:Vilnius N-D de la Porte d'Aurore Vilnius.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2015 at 08:44:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Notre Dame de la Porte de l'Aurore, à Vilnius, Lituanie.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Notre Dame de la Porte de l'Aurore, à Vilnius, Lituanie.- (Lietuvių: Vilniaus Aušros Vartų Švč. Mergelės Marijos) created, uploaded by PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ- nominated by --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting doesn't work for me, even if the flash was not used. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Slightly tilted! --Tremonist (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Humm! difficult to recover better, thank you for your advice.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kszapsza (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aplysia kurodai, Wakayama Japan.ogv

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2015 at 18:54:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info Kuroda's sea hare (Aplysia kurodai). c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
_weak Support -- Laitche (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Laitche (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Hausdülmen, Sonnenaufgang -- 2015 -- 4952.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2015 at 13:01:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sunrise near Hausdülmen, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 13:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 13:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Christian, for nomination.--XRay ^talk 05:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is special. The mood. The tree. Great work. --Code (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose YAFS. Like the "blue hour"-pictures, they're cliche. Kleuske (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not completely sure I know what that acronym means. I have an idea, but maybe you could be so kind to verify it. — Julian H.^✈ 20:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Definitely one of our nicer sun~~sets~~rises. Still not really much more than that. — Julian H.^✈ 20:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it's a sunrise. Read the image description before you say things like that. Please. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. — Julian H.^✈ 12:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support WoW --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, we get too many ordinary sunsets. But this is a well-done winter sunrise. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per DC. J e e 11:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support If this was sunset, I wouldn't support... --Laitche (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, I love this kind of recordings.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --· Favalli ⟡ 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Моржи на фоне мыса Останцового, остров Хейса.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2015 at 20:16:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Walruses in Franz Joseph Land Reserve, Arkhangelsk Oblast, Russia

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created and uploaded by Nixette - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 20:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 20:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Много хороших фото с севера, ну у всех света не хватает. Осветить надо, немного. --Mile (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Petar: Я сейчас понимаю очень хорошо. Daniel Case (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and good --Σπάρτακος (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but unfavorable bright. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. --Laitche (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is sufficiently blurred to be not at all sharp, but insufficiently blurred to have any sort of bokeh effect, and this middle ground makes me uneasy. Also too dark IMO, though this can be fixed. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I really think it can and should be brightened. Is there a consensus for that? — Julian H.^✈ 09:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --A.Savin 11:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks great, thanks. — Julian H.^✈ 11:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Dacelo novaeguineae waterworks.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2015 at 03:03:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Laughing Kookaburra (Dacelo novaeguineae) perched on a Silver Wattle (Acacia dealbata), Waterworks Reserve, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia"

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 03:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 03:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good subject spoiled by too tight crop. --Mile (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 11:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks just fine. --Tremonist (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Re-cropped from the first version. --Laitche (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as editor. --Laitche (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice Charles (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version also. --Pine^✉ 00:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Right crop is not perfect, but the colours are just beautiful, and so is the quality. — Julian H.^✈ 07:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

The chosen alternative is: File:Dacelo novaeguineae waterworks - edit.jpg

File:Dam at Jalpa de Canovas 2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2015 at 04:15:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect rhythm. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very well done but just ... wow's not there for me. "Definitely a QI but not an FP" again. Daniel Case (talk)
Oppose per Daniel Case. Quality is there, I miss context, composition and light. — Julian H.^✈ 07:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 13:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Leegheide-nahe-Glabbacher-Bruch-2015.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2015 at 05:01:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Leegheide inside the protected area Krickenbecker Seen und Kleiner De Wittsee in Nettetal

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting proportion but grassses on the bottom part are disturbing the composition. --Laitche (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Laitche for your comment. The grasses are placed there on purpose. Classical foreground, midground, background composition. IMHO the photo would look worse without these grasses. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guessed grasses are one of elements but in this case light green (mid) ground is too little in this composition. If there are a bit more ground (midground), I would agree :) --Laitche (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice composition and a good technical achievement but the subject is not worth a FP to me.--Jebulon (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon. While this avoids the usual pitfall of shooting almost into the sun, there are still some small blown areas in the clouds, and I'm not sure that the composition delivers enough to offset that. I don't like the crop on the cloud, for one thing, and Laitche is correct about the paucity of ground. Daniel Case (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the intention of this composition. The trees in one line similar to a pearl necklace and the cloudy look interesting. But the tree on the left is disturbing the composition. The photographer should try a different placement here. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition. --Tremonist (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. There probably is way too much of sky captured (like 4/5 of the picture?) and yet it has cropped clouds. Cropped tree doesn't help as well. Probably wrong angle... -- Pofka (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as others. Yann (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shinkansen, the Hayabusa and the Super-Komachi super express.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2015 at 04:31:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Hayabusa and the Super-Komachi 20 for Tokyo which passes Nasu-Shiobara Station at 320km (199mi) per an hour.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info created by Nanashinodensyaku - uploaded by Nanashinodensyaku - nominated by Nanashinodensyaku -- Nanashinodensyaku (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nanashinodensyaku (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, it's technically not great. The resolution is good but it needs to be significantly downsampled to avoid the strong chrominance noise. And the background is quite out of focus which I don't think works for this scene. A more shallow DoF might have actually worked better though, to emphasise the front of the train. Diliff (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Diliff. Nicest are the colours. --Tremonist (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I could enjoy many types of noises and CAs. Thanks! --Laitche (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And even considering the technical issues, it's not that great a picture. There's too much clutter, and the train, one of the world's fastest, could be parked for all we can tell. Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you ever been to Japan? It's not really possible to find this train without the "clutter", since the wires above and the signals on the ground are necessary for the train to function. As for the train being parked, my guess is that here it was slowly moving towards a station. It would take a very dedicated and skilled photographer to camp outside a high speed railway track and take the perfect panned shot during the one second that the train zips past at 300 km/h. dllu (t,c) 02:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do you explain this featured picture of a Japanese train that doesn't seem to have those issues? And BTW, overhead lines and signals are hardly issues unique to the Japanese rail system. Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm not sure how the Sony Alpha 77 can produce such poor quality images. At ISO 400 I would not expect so much noise... probably it was underexposed and then postprocessed with greatly increased saturation levels. This certainly isn't one of the finest works that Wikimedia Commons has to offer, since File:JRE-TEC-E5_omiya.JPG is of a slightly superior quality. dllu (t,c) 02:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:London MMB »1K4 Millwall Dock.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2015 at 14:00:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Mattbuck - uploaded by Mattbuck - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 14:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 14:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colors, very good -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 20:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition ok, but technically not at FP class. The sky is noisy and very posterised. Too much of the lighting is blown out. -- Colin (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin, just not exceptional enough. Daniel Case (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose technically not ok: per Collin. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as others. --Yann (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very sorry, but per Colin. --Tremonist (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Christian Ferrer 05:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pontederia, Nagai Park, Osaka.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2015 at 20:37:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Neutral Don't hate me, but the parties out of focus in the foreground are very disturbing to me,sorry --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Livio：Don't worry, cannot any more... --Laitche (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The flowers are not my field, if benh like so...maybe I was too hard--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak Support I agree with Livio. But I still think this ranks among our finest, and the blur adds a sense of depth. Nice lighting, nice background. Would focus stacking works here ? - Benh (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 04:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Livio stated; chasing bokeh you ran to too shallow DOF and stacking is needed. ~~Also crop is not so lucky here (isn't centered and tight above)~~ --Mile (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is no crop image, it's only downsampled therefore I cloned top and the left, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shallow DOF, the central flow is completely out of focus. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Benh: @Mile: I've never done focus stacking. I've shotten several different focus shot but every shot was different position by wind, so I think focus stacking is difficult for this kind of subject. If I had a chance I would try that :) --Laitche (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know that. But that's why Feautered class is someway above ordinary shot, to bring some more. In this case, portion in focus is way to small to represent this flower. I am sure it can be done much better. Positioning can be solved with underlaying layers, go to stacking, select all layers, auto-align first, then do auto-blend. This can solve some, but often manual blending is necessary. --Mile (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mile: Thanks for your kindly advice! I've never done focus stacking, so it's very helpful (: In fact, I aimed background effect here hence the subject was no matter... but course main subject is important for sure! --Laitche (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak support per others. --Tremonist (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info New version uploaded Re-processed from the raw file. This version is not downsampled so if you'd like to change your support vote, please do so. --Laitche (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Laitche (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aerial view of Capitol Hill at night, looking east from Pine and 9th.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2015 at 10:03:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aerial view of Capitol Hill (Seattle) at night, looking east from Pine and 9th.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by dllu -- dllu (t,c) 10:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- dllu (t,c) 10:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very well done technically, a QI in a heartbeat, but aesthetically undistinguished from any other nighttime cityscape. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! That there are other similar pictures is no reason for me to oppose. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Lothar. --Tremonist (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support My brains immediately told me: SUPPORT THIS. These streets lights are just stunning here. -- Pofka (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry per Daniel --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 19:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality is so-so, but I like this "urban mess" in this case, especially because you didn't undergone some heavy post processing, which often become plastic. --Mile (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, why is the quality only so-so? It's a very expensive 36 megapixel camera and lens on a tripod. To my eyes it looks very sharp without noise. The only technical defect I see is that the trees, swaying in the wind, get a bit blurred -- a trade off between car trails and noiseless ISO 100 versus sharp trees. And actually I did some post processing (it's an HDR photo from three exposures so that the roofs of the buildings aren't totally black and so that the lights aren't blown out), but I'm glad people don't notice it. Thanks! dllu (t,c) 21:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sharpness is OK, motion blurr of traffic, trees isn't problem (not extensive). But if you check the sky there is posterization and banding with some quite big smudge (posterization) on the left. Congrats on camera. --Mile (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ralf Roleček 21:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case and the sky is posterized as Mile mentioned, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose weak. I like night shots and that one is taken properly in my view (though I'd lift shadows a bit), but I'm not too sure about the composition. - Benh (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2015 at 17:05:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Ross Fowler - uploaded and nominated by The Photographer -- The Photographer (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bit overexposed? but great light! --Laitche (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 20:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 20:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 23:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 08:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support I almost expect to see the Paramount logo appear above it. But could we have at least an attempt at a description telling us what mountain we're looking at, or in what range? Daniel Case (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks @Daniel Case: , this is Mount Johnson in Matanuska-Susitna Borough, you can see more details here --The Photographer (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Julian H.^✈ 17:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course, D kuba (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting shapes. --Mile (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Santa Maria della Vittoria in Rome - Ceiling.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2015 at 13:15:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info Trivia: This fresco inspired the title of the book "Angels and Demons". All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unsurprising support I nominated this on en-wiki. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx Adam --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 09:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the way the organ pipes fit in. Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strange but interesting fresco; there are books in Biblical motif. I tried to find out what kind off, but couldn't.--Mile (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Info Demoted/Delisted to not featured per this consensus. --Cart (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gold 20-stater of Eucratides, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2015 at 16:51:05 (UTC)

recto
verso

Info created by Eucratides I / National Library of France, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Gold 20-stater of Eucratides, the largest gold coin ever minted in Antiquity. The coin weighs 169.2 grams, and has a diameter of 58 millimeters. It was originally found in Bukhara, and later acquired by Napoleon III. Cabinet des Médailles, Paris.
Support -- Yann (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 23:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gleamy. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mmm ... shiny! Daniel Case (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much more interesting than their weight is historical evidence of reach of Alexandre the Great state. --Mile (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Swedish landscape near Björnlunda (by Pudelek) 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2015 at 21:15:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not distorted, as you could erroneously assume on first glance. Ordinarily I'd want less clouds, but a bluer sky would have been overwhelming in conjunction with that green. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is very clear composition therefore the cables are too disturbing (as if to be seen the main subject). --Laitche (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The major pattern of the composition is that it's half bottom plain green, half top light grey. It could be more dynamic and interesting to me. I also think it's a bit small for a panorama, even though it's within limits. - Benh (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 11:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 05:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Kos - Panorama vom Dikeos-Gebirge.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2015 at 10:44:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view at northwest part of Kos from Dikeos mountains, Greece

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great panorama. --Tremonist (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's interesting to browse. But lighting is very harsh (I "feel hot" by just looking at it), and it's noticeably tilted. Missing color space. - Benh (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Color space info is added. The image was made on the late afternoon, so the light isn't very harsh. I can't see an significant inclination. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a note for horizon. I can't find the location on google maps if I search "Kos from Dikeos mountains". Would be nice to have the geolocation? EXIF says 1pm, so I can only guess it's close to midday without the geo location data. But the shadows under the trees on the right make me pretty confident with my assumption. - Benh (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ralf Roleček 20:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting and colors are problematic for me as well. Photos taken in afternoon mostly has such "hot" feeling and it is not pleasant, especially with such large panorama. -- Pofka (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Landscape, while not tilted, is just too flat for the most part to be interesting on its own. Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bieszczady - zielony raj.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2015 at 14:01:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bieszczady Mountains. Subcarpathian Voivodeship, Poland.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Bettomsik - nominated by Halavar -- Halavar (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Halavar (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful mountains! --Tremonist (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vivid green... but not a very interesting subject in my view : a lot of grass and forest, with little volume because of the lighting, and a centered composition make up for a little wow. - Benh (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's characteristic plant formation (and landscape) of Bieszczady Mountains, called Połonina (Polonyna). Very encyclopaedic photo in my opinion, D kuba (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 20:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With Benh.--Jebulon (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support For sure, D kuba (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This right-down-the-ridgeline view is not common in landscapes, and together with the clouds creates a great vanishing point. Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither the subject nor the composition convince me. Nice QI-Landscape, but nothing more --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. --Laitche (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I can still feel something featurable here. Maybe the mountains. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow: because too much foreground, unbalanced composition, a bit too much sky (perhaps a golden crop). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look and compare here for the golden crop: . --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much sky, the alt below is better. Yann (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Golden crop: sky/mountains + tonality correction, by Alchemist-hp. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion to @Halavar: I recommend that you nominate this edited photo. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks @ArionEstar: for thge nomination. Maybe you're right and this version is better. I got hope that this version will be FP. --Halavar (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spring in Guelma.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2015 at 15:10:22
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Algeria
Info created and uploaded by and nominated by Yaco24 - nominated by Vikoula5
Support -- Vikoula5 (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (currently). It is a lovely image. But it is only 2.45 MP and has very low JPG quality (the artefacts in the sky are clearly visible). If Yaco24 is prepared to upload a full-sized image (rather than one downsized to 1920x1280 HDTV) and save at a high quality JPG, then I may change my vote. There are simply too many lovely landscape photos nominated at 24 or 36MP that get nitpicked for sharpness/CA/noise so the standard is really quite high for technical quality in a landscape photo. -- Colin (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Colin, too small. --Mile (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What a beautiful view! When I saw this image on the QIC, thought nominate to FPC but the quality was too low. What a pity! --Laitche (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2015 (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: Nice colors, but quality and size too low to be FP. Yann (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Chevrolet Caprice Police Package.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2015 at 11:57:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by GunnerVV - uploaded and nominated by -- The Photographer (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great light effects! --Tremonist (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Bad boys, bad boys, whacha gonna do? Whacha gonna do when they come for you? ..." Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great movie! --The Photographer (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose impressive image indeed! But utterly overprocessed... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry,per Martin --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is just not there. Just too much processing, no longer convinces. -- Colin (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Have to agree with other opposers, HDR just doesn't work when there is movement in the scene. There are too many tone mapping artifacts in the light trails and cars on the left. It's a great idea though. Diliff (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Yes this nomination is too crazy style, maybe some kind of artistic classThe Photographer (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Essen Germany Interior-of-BMV-Church-01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2015 at 11:51:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created and uploaded by Cccefalon - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it slightly tilted to the right? Looks nice in general. Resolution could be a little higher, especially the windows on the upper left would need that I think. --Tremonist (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done There was a slight pincushion distortion which is now corrected. For the verticals: I used the cables of the lamps and I was assuming homogenous gravity in the church. For the resolution: As usual I uploaded the full resolution of my camera. More is not available and I think, that ISO 125 is good enough for the situation. I shot on available light and refused the offer of Sister Dorothea to switch on the lights. There are some coloured lights visible where I have to mention, that it is not a chromatic aberration but the filtered light of the stained glass. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you very much! It's a really nice photo now. --Tremonist (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice and sharp interior shot --Xicotencatl (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me take the opportunity to add some information: The church is part of the augustinian monastery in Essen. The stained glass windows show artwork of Johan Thorn Prikker which is considered to be one of the most important glass artists of 20th century. Influenced by impressionism, he pushed stained glass art from figural to ornamental. The windows in the monastery are his last work. From him is the word "Wie herrlich muss es sein, mit der Sonne selbst malen zu können" (How splendid it must be, to paint with the sun herself). Prikker had a deadly desease and it is believed, that the windows, made partly under horrible pains, depict "the antagonism of powers, the path from darkness and death to light and ressurection. The effects of the light is capturing the whole room into this movement; symbol of the big, eternal community of all released people in god." --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything right that should be ... nice to see a different sort of church interior than the ones we've been getting (not that there's anything wrong with them ...) Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose First pillar from left side has huge CA, while at second some CA is still visible, while some is like cleared but pillar is missing there, like bad retousching. Right side, strong CA on windows. See note. --Mile (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC) --Mile (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC) **Mile, I don't think this is CA but simply the strong light bleeding over the edge, which I think an effect that is hard to avoid. The second pillar has a strange stepped pattern on its left edge -- is that an effect of sharpening/clarity/rotation/etc? -- Colin (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't saw it so far to such extent-depth. I am not sure you see same with bare eye. I couldn't find any similar, like here. I will put to neutral for now. --Mile (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I liked the composition and looked at the image. Thought to myself "Nice image, but should have been shot from a tripod to avoid the high ISO". Then I looked at the exif and was in for a shock. It's a bit stunning how poor even the best Canons are at shadow recovery, but to mitigate this, HDR should have been used (the windows are also blown). The image has a lot of illustrative value for articles, but with respect to the quality, I do not think that it can really be among the best church interiors we have. I realize that perhaps I'm being a bit harsh, but the great view could be executed much better imho. --DXR (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info It was shot from tripod with mirror lock and remote control. Sure, HDR might have ended up in a better result, but I am not the big friend of HDR, that's why you rarely find a HDR among my photos. I am not sure, if everyone can imagine the light situation: It is a dim light in the church and all light is filtered through coloured glas. The very intense coloured light is also outshining the frames of the windows. It looks like CA, but it is not. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I understand that the term HDR has been spoiled for many by those who use it to make tasteless/creative (pick your flavor) unrealistic adjustments that render images useless for wiki. But the logic behind the concept is sound and shadow noise and blown windows can be easily reduced or avoided using it, and with sensible processing the results won't look fake or bad. This is especially valid for cameras with sub-par dynamic range at low ISOs. I understand people who dislike HDR, but inside the church, it very often becomes an essential tool. --DXR (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not condemn HDR in general but sometimes, I am a little bit oldschool and in my opinion, it is often possible to get a reasonable result with a single shot. Well, there are prospects for another shooting in the monastery during midday sun (the colours are different then) and I will remember to try a HDR from same position. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think HDR is usually required to get stained-glass in range. Here it could be better, it isn't too bad IMO, and I've seen too many HDR stained glass where the "Ow! Ow! My eyes hurt" bright white is rendered merely paper white. -- Colin (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the term 'HDR' is too often associated with really bad over-processed tone mapping that makes everything look muddy and weird, but it doesn't have to be that way - the result depends entirely on how strongly it is applied, the quality of the source image and what software is used to do it. To simply associate HDR so negatively is a bit like saying that a terrible photo taken with an expensive top of the line camera must mean the camera is terrible. And although the technical quality of this image is 'okay', it could have been much better. The noise levels of the shadows could have been as you would normally expect of ISO 100. Consider this recent image of mine. The exterior light wasn't as strong, but the interior was much darker so the contrast between highlights and shadows is likely to be similar. It was shot at ISO 320 which would normally result in quite a lot of shadow noise, particularly if pushed a lot. But because I used HDR with a 'slightly overexposed for shadows' bracket shot, I was able to get an image without any noise in any of the shadow areas. That simply wouldn't be possible with a single image, particularly with the low dynamic range of the Canon sensors. Diliff (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support (weak) While I agree with DXR that it could be much better, I don't find the noise is that dramatic, and it doesn't look like to come from shadow recovery (doing so on Canons usually gives you non aesthetic banding. See full size image). From a technical point of view, it's certainly at least as good -I'd say better- as many church interior which have been recently promoted and the lighting is just too good to miss. - Benh (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 04:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Surprised that Slaunger didn't already mention that it has an AdobeRGB profile embedded. But not only that, according to the exif viewer, "The embedded color profile differs from the metadata tags (sRGB (EXIF:ColorSpace))". Diliff (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Slaunger's away just now. I spotted that the other day but forgot about it till you mentioned it. Yes, there's something wrong with the JPG tags not matching the profile. Cccefalon, I had a look at some of your other photos and they have the same problem -- what are you doing that screws up the profile/tags? And see my Browser Test page for why AdobeRGB is best avoided -- about half of Wikipedia's viewers are using mobile devices, none of which are colour managed, so all display dull desaturated images if you use AdobeRGB. And only a tiny fraction of a percentage of viewers will have wide-gamut desktop displays that are actually capable of displaying any extra colours that AdobeRGB retains. -- Colin (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Upon the hints on your talk page, I found the culprit. Should be fixed now. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 17:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and good dynamic range despite some flaws. --Laitche (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Robson Square 01.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2015 at 08:32:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Robson Square, Vancouver, Canada, during a Friday evening.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Robson Square, Vancouver, Canada, during a Friday evening. Created by Xicotencatl - uploaded by Xicotencatl - nominated by Xicotencatl -- Xicotencatl (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Xicotencatl (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best crop at the bottom, overexposed lights, unsharp people, noise. Sorry, IMO not FP. --XRay ^talk 10:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are the colours real? Could be a little sharper. Looks impressive otherwise. --Tremonist (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the colors are "real" (by that I mean that these are the colors that the camera captured), in post-production I only changed white balance and exposure controls, I did not use the individual color bars. I sharpened it a bit, but it is still an ISO 800 picture on a low-end DSLR, I wished I had a tripod then, but my purpose of being there was joining the fun, not taking pictures :) --Xicotencatl (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's really a nice picture. One can feel the atmosphere and I like the colours. Unfortunately the crop at the bottom is bad and there is too much noise. Neither quality, nor composition are good enough for FP IMO. --Code (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice colors and composition. The noise doesn't bother me too much. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Slight oppose Great effort, but not quite FP thanks to the noise. Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it and think the little technical issues aren't that big a deal. - Benh (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015 Kłodzko, ul. Dusznicka, myjnia samochodowa 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2015 at 18:50:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info All by me Jacek Halicki -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 20:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unveils the hidden magic of an everyday moment. Daniel Case (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 03:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support za pomysłowość ;) --Pudelek (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Africa and Europe from a Million Miles Away.png, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2015 at 17:38:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by NASA - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better image than their first one. Disappointed Britain is under cloud, but I guess that's typical. -- Colin (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment meh... not that much photographic progress in the course of the past 40 years. C'mon NASA, give me some breathtaking resolution and stunning image quality! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is from a million miles away.Originalwana (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Martin, on the first image from this satellite, I initially thought this was another NASA "downsized for the web" images, which didn't compare well to 33 years ago. But it turns out the camera is only 4MP so we won't get any more detailed, and it is, as Originalwana says, from rather far away. This image has much better composition and light than the previous one from this satellite. -- Colin (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's true... considering that: Support, although weak --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also, if I understand, these images are made from combining red, blue and green channel, each taken separately. If this implies there's no interpolation on each channel, that would mean its resolution (in the sense real details) is effectively higher than a 2048x2048 shot taken with a standard bayer pattern sensor camera. - Benh (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I changed the FP category to Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Höxter Germany Corvey-Abbey-01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2015 at 15:40:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The princely library of Castle Corvey in Höxter, Germany

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info The princely library of Castle Corvey in Höxter, Germany. With 74.000 volumnes, it is one of the biggest and most precious private libraries in Germany. It is owned by the House of the Duke of Ratibor and Prince of Corvey.

All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Great interior! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and very good -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 20:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Lothar. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 03:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Book pr0n. --Code (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot, especially considering the obviously rather difficult circumstances for the photographer --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 11:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting perspective. --Laitche (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Martin Falbisoner: , I dont care, its very easy for me --The Photographer (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- lol! ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nice, but the right side is leaning inwards. Could be easily fixed with minor perspective correction. Diliff (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I enhanced the perspective correction. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much better. Diliff (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:McLaren mechanic on 2010 Canadian GP.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2015 at 19:44:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by ph-stop - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Σπάρτακος -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting reflections, but I don't see what the wow is beyond them. The crop at the top doesn't help, either. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DC. It's just a rare photo, that's it. --Laitche (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ??? a noisy and overexposed helmet ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, crop. --Yann (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. --Cayambe (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:White-cheeked Starling perching on a rock.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2015 at 18:41:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info Sturnus cineraceus (Hybrid). c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and very good -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 20:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Lothar. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 03:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lighting, and the contrast between the sharp bird and bokeh is just right. Daniel Case (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 18:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pine^✉ 06:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes

File:Vista 9 Lençois Maranhenses.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2015 at 10:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Cristiano Quintino - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not quite sure what this aims to show. Little wow, small size and yet poor quality at 1:1. Hope this one doesn't slip through FP. - Benh (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charlotte Perkins Gilman c. 1900.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2015 at 00:22:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by C.F. Lummis - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info There was lots of damage around the edge of the original; I think it restored pretty well, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. --Yann (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Die Wildkatze in der Wildnis.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2015 at 23:27:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit too much environment to really focus right away on the animal. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info The wildcat protects itself with two strategies: camouflage her body and defending their territory. The camouflage is done by brown color and vertical stripes on their fur and her face and by hiding behind plants and shrubs. To defend their territory, the wildcat is guarding the lowest access to their territory. In their area there is a big tree. The fur of the wildcat has the same color and the same pattern as the bark of the tree. The wildcat lives on that tree, there it is protected through the camouflage of the coat. Daniel and Livio, do you understand now why the camouflage of the wildcat must be shown by their hiding behind plants in the picture? --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem Michael? I had no oppose...I leave weak beacuse it need a crop...--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, there's a lot more green than brown in the image. And as a result I can still see the cat very easily. If the point of the image is to depict how the cat's coloring helps it conceal itself, it's not communicating that very well. And second, if that's the point of the image, then you're arguing more for it as a valued image, not an FP, since depicting its ability to camouflage itself and taking a picture with a level of "wow" adequate to FP standards here seem to be mutually exclusive if this is the best way of doing the former. Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lacks overall sharpness a bit. --Tremonist (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info I had chosen a narrow depth of focus to make the wildcat as the subject of the image visible at first glance. This is allowed in the Guidelines for nominators. See top of page under "Guidelines for nominators" and "Depth of field (DOF)": "Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment." --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support DoF is indeed very good IMO, at left the big leaf is a bit predominant (a crop maybe?). In the finest of our images of animals in natural habitat. -- Christian Ferrer 18:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. --Yann (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I really like it actually. It's not absolutely perfect but for a photo of a shy animal in its natural environment, it's excellent. Diliff (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Diliff -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 12:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not easy to take. --Code (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Bumblebee on Lavender Blossom.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2015 at 06:36:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Large earth bumblebee (bombus terrestris) on lavender blossom

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Info Large earth bumblebee (bombus terrestris) on lavender blossom. Bumblebees are rather difficult to catch (photographically, I wouldn't even try otherwise). I decided to nominate this picture because of its creamy, almost neutral background that doesn't distract the viewer from the main subject. All by myself, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the best quality but for FP is a good composition --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would crop some from above and bit of left side, see note. --Mile (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done @Mile yes, that's better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better yes. --Mile (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support new crop but a bit over-processed. --Laitche (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info new version, redeveloped. You were right, Laitche --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better :) --Laitche (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera

File:Chapultepec Zoo - Jaguar (02).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2015 at 10:34:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info Jaguar (Panthera onca) at Zoológico de Chapultepec. All by KTC -- KTC (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice yawning cat! --Tremonist (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't like zoo animals, they always have this sad look, plus they are fat, not alert. And the environment is not close to the real ones (bamboo at Amazon/Atlantic Forest?). Photos are illustrations of subjects, so... -- RTA 16:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 08:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Picture is a bit too dark imo. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For me too... lack of whites actually. -- RTA 16:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If you took this image in the wild, a would support it, D kuba (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, but I think you only get one vote. ;-) -- KTC (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment White balance seems wrong. It's too blue, IMO. Yann (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good spot Yann. How about now? -- KTC (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Better, but I would do even more. Yann (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  I've had a look. I think much more and it's getting on the yellow side, so the current version is probably correct IMO. -- KTC (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @KTC: See File:Chapultepec Zoo - Jaguar.jpg. I think the wood on the left should be brown, not green. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7....I thought a little, but I finally decided--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane (Rome) - Dome HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2015 at 11:49:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info The oval entablature to the dome has a 'crown' of foliage and frames a view of deep set interlocking coffering of octagons, crosses and hexagons which diminish in size the higher they rise. Light floods in from windows in the lower dome that are hidden by the oval opening and from windows in the side of the lantern. In a hierarchical structuring of light, the illuminated lantern with its symbol of the Holy Trinity is the most brightly lit, the coffering of the dome is thrown into sharp and deep relief and light gradually filters downwards to the darker lower body of the church.All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes! --Laitche (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad. Would it be so wrong if turned to panoramic ? --Mile (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me,What do you mean? --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you rotate it for 90°. --Mile (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little CA in some areas, but that doesn't spoil the party. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "spoil the party"??--Jebulon (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 03:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 03:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Info Demoted/Delisted to not featured per this consensus. --Cart (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Subaru Impreza WRC 2001 a.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2015 at 18:39:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hand made model Subaru Impreza WRC 2001. Scale 1:24

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, Jacek, it looks nice! --Tremonist (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought it was a real car at first. dllu (t,c) 03:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 04:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Dllu. -- Yann (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support However I think the gallery is more Commons:Featured pictures/Objects as this image is not really a vehicle (a vehicle is a mobile machine that transports...) -- Christian Ferrer 15:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Christian Ferrer: Toys? --Laitche (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Laitche: Scale models are not (at least not all) toys. I thinks here it's not a toys so I will place it in the "others" section or will maybe create a "Scale models" section, why not? -- Christian Ferrer 04:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Christian Ferrer: No problem to me. Is that OK Jacek? --Laitche (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hope he is :), I already create Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Models -- Christian Ferrer 07:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Christian Ferrer: OK, I've changed this page. @Jacek Halicki: If you had a problem, please tell us or revert that yourself :) --Laitche (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Carnavalesco.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2015 at 14:39:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created and uploaded by Gabriel Castaldini - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful photo, many details, but the beak is a bit unsharp it appears. --Tremonist (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tremonist: Yes, a bit unsharp, but I think this does not ruin the photo. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support No, it doesn't ruin it, that's right. --Tremonist (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suppose we have to have one good photo of a peacock spreading its wings. Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 23:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 08:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Tight crop, composition (f.e. object isn't in the center) doesn't work for me, sorry, D kuba (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Isasza: Thanks for your support, but could you fix your signature? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Isasza: Go to "Preferences" and "Restore all default settings (in all sections)" or copy [[User:Isasza|Isasza]] ([[User talk:Isasza|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) and put in the "Signature" section. Use --~~~~ to sign. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Isasza: Signature fixed. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Port and lighthouse overnight storm with lightning in Port-la-Nouvelle.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2015 at 14:42:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena
Info Port and lighthouse overnight storm with lightning in Port-la-Nouvelle. created by Maxime Raynal - uploaded and nominated by -- The Photographer (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! though some perspective correction would make it even better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Yann (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great find !! This is wonderful, plus it gives clues for how to take similar pictures, for those interested. - Benh (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nice idea!, the problem is the weather, you need be a storm hunter. --The Photographer (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least the exif gives the settings, and implies it's taken at night time (probably possible to achieve the same at day time with ND filter). But you're right, it's the easiest part and it doesn't say how to go after storm. - Benh (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per all comments. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support When the earth became the plasma globe? --Laitche (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in the Apocalipse --The Photographer (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Some strange artefact on right side in clouds. --Mile (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want remove it using clonning because it could be a UFO --The Photographer (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be Upper-atmospheric lightning (Sprites). --Laitche (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Code (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little grainy and posterization on the lights ... but the point was to capture the lightning with a very long exposure, and that was done quite beautifully. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow... but perspective correction is necessary. --XRay ^talk 18:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've given a minor perspective correction a try; the result is at File:Port and lighthouse overnight storm with lightning in Port-la-Nouvelle corected final.jpg. Didn't overwrite; my GIMP seems to have lost some of the Lightroom-specific EXIF. But if anybody wants to redo this in Lightroom, there's a description of what I did there (including GIMP's transformation matrix for the perspective correction). Lupo 22:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've overwritten Lupo's version (a bit cropped the bottom blank part). If there is a problem, please revert. --Laitche (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very happy with the disappearance of a ray on the left side of the picture, however, I can not think of anything. --The Photographer (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: I've tried to stitch the left side but I couldn't do it well therefore I reverted, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Crazy + per XRay Poc o² 17:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 18:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW. -- Pofka (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural_phenomena

File:Chapel of Sant'Ignazio di Loyola in Chiesa del Gesù (Rome).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2015 at 13:13:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
I withdraw my nomination All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would crop to note. Dome is disturbing because chopped. And I suppose you want to concentrate to bottom fresco. Crop to the centre of dome would work too I think. --Mile (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Petar but I don't like the "alternative".--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Hm. I don't know. The composition looks a little bit cluttered. There's too much on the picture. The window at the bottom is blown out, maybe this could have been avoided using HDR. There are several light spots in the dome, maybe reflections of sunbeams. The edges are not sharp and a little bit too dark. Concerning the postprocessing maybe you have increased contrast and clarity too much. Additionally, the picture should be a little bit brighter overall and the white balance seems a little bit too greenish. What I want to say is: The subject is certainly worth an FP (I really love this church) but this execution is not as good as it could be. You should take this picture again using your new equipment. However, plase don't take it personal. Your last nominations were much better. --Code (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ansgar don't worry to give me a negative vote, I do not take it personally if you do not enter in the personal (or insult me), if a vote is "technical" I don't offend me, I thank you indeed. Returning to the photo you rely too much on the HDR, it attenuates the light too strong and increases those too weak but don't makes miracles. Anyway thanks.--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morrão, no Parque Nacional da Chapada Diamantina - Bahia (cropped).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2015 at 12:08:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Morrão, no Parque Nacional da Chapada Diamantina - Bahia (Palmeiras-BA)

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Jeilsonandrade - cropped and nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful atmosphere and compostion. -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At least underexposure should be fixed! - Benh (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment f/22 is not very wise choice for landscape shooting and the result is lack of sharpness. --Ivar (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark and not sharp enough. However, the subject is certainly FP-worthy. --Code (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Code. I tried to fix the darkness issue here, but I can't do much about the sharpness. — Julian H.^✈ 06:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Original version. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark and not sharp enough. However, the subject is certainly FP-worthy. --Code (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Скала Рубини в районе острова Гукера, на которой находится большой птичий базар.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2015 at 09:35:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created & uploaded by Nixette - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - fantastic - but unsharp, sorry. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very sorry, it's such an impressive scene, but per Villy. --Tremonist (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too unsharp. Pity. -- Pofka (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still somewhat lacking sharpness at 6MP, could be brightened a bit in my opinion. Slight CA would be fixable. Given the equipment, this can really only be explained by a missed focus imo. Really impressive scene. — Julian H.^✈ 06:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roca de la Ley, Parque Nacional de Þingvellir, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-16, DD 019.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2015 at 04:43:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lögberg (icelandic for Law Rock), Þingvellir National Park, Southern Region, Iceland. The Lögberg was the place on which the Lawspeaker (lögsögumaður) took his seat as the presiding official of the assembly of the Althing, the national parliament, from 930 until 1262 (when Iceland took allegiance to Norway). Speeches and announcements were made from the spot and anyone attending could make their argument from the Lögberg.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Lögberg (icelandic for Law Rock), Þingvellir National Park, Southern Region, Iceland. The Lögberg was the place on which the Lawspeaker (lögsögumaður) took his seat as the presiding official of the assembly of the Althing, the national parliament, from 930 until 1262 (when Iceland took allegiance to Norway). Speeches and announcements were made from the spot and anyone attending could make their argument from the Lögberg. All by me, Poc o² 04:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 04:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting vista. --Tremonist (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Party-poop oppose Sorry, maybe it's having spent so much time in similar Arctic landscapes recently, but I'm just not awestruck, the historical importance of this site notwithstanding. In cloudy weather, colors of the ground and the sky are not differentiated enough. I know it's hard to get the right kind of weather for this and you take what you can get, but here that means only QI. Plus, we've gotten enough great Icelandic landscapes recently to know what that country can deliver for a photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 23:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case. --Code (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not per Daniel Case, D kuba (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not fan of lighting and the composition. no wow. - Benh (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Daniel Case: : What does mean "party-poop oppose", please ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebulon: It's what I put when there's been a whole run of support !votes and I'm going to break the streak with an oppose. See here ... that entry leads me to either rabat-joie or trouble-fête as a French equivalent. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answer, that is what I was afraid of...--Jebulon (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Snow in Tikjda (Djurdjura).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2015 at 22:03:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Algeria
Info created by Zisou0001 - uploaded by Zisou0001 - nominated by Vikoula5 -- Vikoula5 (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vikoula5 (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but this is heavily oversaturated and there are some lens flares. The subject is nice, perhaps it's possible to rework the picture from the RAW-file, if there's any. --Code (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per it not being up to Code . Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Code and the size is a little small for this kind of photo. --Laitche (talk) 06:48, 8 August 2015 (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: as per above comments: small size, quality issues. Yann (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Crabs (Pachygrapsus marmoratus).webm, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2015 at 08:32:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
Info Crab life. All by --Mile (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Since Wiki Commons is low on videos, i decide to make this video made of 5 sequences, last one was hardest since makroed. What to compare with...there are just 2 or 3 similar videos of animals. This, this and this. Its very illustrative. Handicap was limit of 100 MB, so i made it in HD 720p, when you open movie click in bottom right to 720p.
Support -- Mile (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's really nice Mile! Lovely to see this tiny hungry animal eat all the time. I would like to encourage producing more such illustrative videos. --Tremonist (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Soundwaweserb (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent technical quality and high EV. --Cayambe (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support My God, well done. I hopw see more in the future about your work --The Photographer (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality and also great educational value. I hope the Commons community will change its restrictive video format rules some day, so people around the world can watch videos like this on their mobile devices. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More videos! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job. --Gyrostat (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~I can not see it~~ --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow and cute factor - Benh (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice video, good light. --Laitche (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 14:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:Lourdes Domínguez Lino 2, 2015 Wimbledon Qualifying - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2015 at 08:41:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop is too tight, let it breathe. Ball is too blurry. --Mile (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Cmon, the ball is never in focus in this kind of tennis photography. We're talking about sports photography taken at 350mm focal length and a relatively wide aperture to get a fast shutter speed. You don't get unlimited depth of field. According to a depth of field calculator, there is about 20cm DoF in total. The ball cannot be in focus at the same time as the player unless they're in the middle of hitting it. Framing is perhaps a legitimate point, but I chose it to be tight to get an action portrait. It's not supposed to be a full body photo. I've uploaded a new image with a slightly wider framing anyway. Diliff (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info OK, at least remove watermark. --Mile (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What watermark?? Diliff (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I put note. Bottom left. --Mile (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks. I hadn't noticed it. I accidently set Lightroom to add the watermark, I've uploaded a new version without it now. Diliff (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to the facial expression. --Tremonist (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Xplvl (talk) 12:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry,per Mile--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean exactly? I explained that the out of focus ball is impossible to fix and is normal for sports photography. And for the tight crop, I already uploaded a new version with more space at the sides. Diliff (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,I prefer photo much broader, for this type of shots. Besides, I do not like the expression of the face (not your fault of course)--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I thought the facial expression was part of what makes it an interesting photo. :-) I have literally hundreds of broader shots from Wimbledon this year but it's most of them don't have much character like this photo does. Diliff (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I love this --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- KTC (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 18:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~EXIF Problem.~~ 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with the EXIF? Diliff (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem disappeared. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support With that look on her face, I don't want to be that ball! A great shot all-around ... if I've compared some of our past nominees to National Geographic images, this is one that goes right along with the great work by Sports Illustrated photographers. Daniel Case (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with Mile, D kuba (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As I explained already, the ball being out of focus is completely unavoidable at this focal length (it's a bit like saying the background of a macro photo should be in focus - it's just impossible) and I already uploaded a new crop with more space around her. In other words, both of the reasons that Mile gave were either refuted or corrected. It would be nice if you could elaborate on your oppose reasons taking this into consideration. Diliff (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The ball is fine, and the expression makes it special. However I'd like to have to have more space, specially on the right. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 15:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Notre Dame de France Church Interior, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

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

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. This is an interesting church in London for a few reasons. Known originally as Burford's Panorama, it was originally built in the early 1800s as a local tourist attraction using cast iron construction. It was converted into a church by the Marist Fathers in the mid 1800s to support the growing French community in London. In the Second World War, it was heavily damaged and was repaired and redecorated in the 1950s by eminent French artists, hence the modernist interior design. -- Diliff (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would crop from left some. --Mile (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Diliff (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~{Neutral}}~~ Oppose Excellent quality but too distorted to me 1: 1--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Fotoriety. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ridiculous reason for oppose. Yes, there is distortion. But there is distortion in every. single. photograph. All photographs exhibit at least some distortion, be it leaning, or broadening of a subject, or what have you. This case may seem extreme, but it's quite well managed, especially compared to images such as this. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard the most ridiculous things ... --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And still respects the opinions of others .... it seems ridiculous--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Perfect. --Code (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail all-around (like all your church interiors), complemented by the simplicity of the forms. Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have nice distorted FPs of church interiors: 1, 2, 3 (but nothing against Livio ). 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I obviously agree with Chris Woodrich. Distortions are not wrong and are always there to more or less extent. Only one may not like the result. - Benh (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although it does not surprise me in the least, I'm surprised you did not see that are three (3) .... who knows why ...--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three of what exactly? I'm not following your comment. Diliff (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Livio, "one" means "any person". I only mean anyone is free to dislike the result. I'm not necessarily aiming at the three people who opposed or went neutral. - Benh (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure,and one country means the world....but please.be serious --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 06:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained below, Benh is right. In the context he used it, one doesn't mean the number one, it means people. Benh's use of the word 'only' before it does make it extra confusing and I think replacing 'only' with 'however' would be clearer, but he has used it correctly and a native English speaker would (probably) recognise the context properly. It's no surprise that the two people arguing against it are not native speakers of English. Why can't you just trust us that you misunderstood? Diliff (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"one" means "any person"? Where? In our country probably...anyway you wrote :"Only one" but in your country what does it means? --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't really country-specific. Benh is right, it does mean "any person" in that context, generally and can easily be substituted for "you" (which in that context doesn't mean you specifically, it means people in general) and mean the same thing. See here, specifically definitions 19 to 21. I can see how it's confusing for non-native English speakers though. As you can see, the word has a lot of different definitions in different contexts. Diliff (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! A debate about word concepts at a picture nomination page. It's something new! :O 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a forum where English acts as a de facto common language and most contributors don't feel too comfortable with that language, I think it's good to take the time to clear up misunderstandings (and this is one!). Think we've all been there :) - Benh (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Livio is not a opposer of this nomination... 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But he is the reference by which the other opposers have justified their votes, and he has started a little argument about the use of English that he misunderstood... It still needs to be sorted out even if it isn't directly related to votes. Misunderstandings can quickly multiply (as the 'per' votes may show). Diliff (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I, when see that the picture is not FP, simply abstain from voting. Particularly, I was never opposer in any nomination. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For others --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As a courtesy, can you explain your reasoning a bit more thoroughly? The first oppose was slightly vague and all subsequent opposes have directly referenced it with 'as per x'. You do realise that the room is not rectangular, right? It's curved. I just want to make sure that this 'extreme distortion' that people seem to be seeing isn't actually due to a misunderstanding of the geometry of the room. Diliff (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. It's nice that FoP allows to publish such a picture, when taken in UK. Not possible this side of the pond. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, the lack of FoP in France is very disappointing. I hope they unify the laws in all EU countries to provide universal FoP but I'm pretty sure it will be difficult to convince any countries to change their national laws given the current political climate in Europe. ;-) Diliff (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hashtag: #FoPEU !!!!!!!! More FoP = More FP Challenge ;) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Too distorted. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Distortion is already Diliff style :) --Laitche (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just a wide angle perspective... Distortion is inherent in that. :-) Diliff (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think many people do not understand the meaning of distortion. This is almost a perfectly rectilinear image. There is little or no distortion. dllu (t,c) 02:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is. But not the same kind. As I already said, some projections keep lines straight, other keep proportions and/or areas... There always are some kind of tradeoff. But because we are used to small to medium FOV and rectilinear, as most lenses are, we find it unusual when seeing something fisheye, or rectilinear with a wide FOV... Just a matter of education. - Benh (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think what Dllu means is that there was no distortion other than normal rectilinear perspective distortion. I suspect he knows this as his user page says he's studied engineering physics and 3D graphics and geometry. That's a pretty good basis to understand geometric distortion. I agree that it's simply a matter of education. People are unfamiliar with views this wide. We think our eyes can see this wide (and in a weird way, they do give you that impression), but really we see a very narrow field of view at any time, and scan our eyes around a room to build a wide angle mental picture of the scene. This lets us 'cheat' perspective distortion because the image only exists as a concept in our minds. ;-) We never have to truly deal with keeping lines straight and vertical at the periphery of our vision. Diliff (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I "don't like the result", and I hope that "matter of education" is not as offensive in a french translation as it could sound at first. I don't feel "miseducated", I just feel this picture unreal, like the other opposers.--Jebulon (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not disputing that people might not like the result. I'm just trying to clarify that what people might be calling distortion is a misunderstanding that the room is actually curved and not rectangular. As for "education", it was a fellow Frenchman that mentioned it first. ;-) But read what I said above... I believe a lot of the discomfort that some people feel with a wide angle rectilinear view is because we're simply not familiar with it. It is 'real' in terms of geometry, it just isn't a view that the eye (and brain) usually sees and so I think some people have an instinctual reaction against it. I'm not saying you have to like the result. I just disagree that it isn't real. Of course less perspective distortion would be great, but you'd be sacrificing a lot of the interior space to avoid it. In a small interior, it's simply not possible to get further back to reduce the angle of view (and therefore perspective distortion) while maintaining the amount of the interior shown. Diliff (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not offensive. It's in the sense growing up with it, and so getting used to it. It's not in the sense "you are stupid and so cannot understand it. Just to be clear :) - Benh (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:15-07-30-Rohloff-Speedhub-FocusStacking-RalfR-N3S 0102 3 4 5.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2015 at 20:02:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects

Parts of a bicycle hub Rohloff Speedhub 500/14; example for https://de.wikiversity.org/wiki/Focus_stacking

Info all by Ralf Roleček
Support -- Ralf Roleček 20:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 20:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 23:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW!!! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 09:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gearhead pr0n! I can practically smell the oil ... Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know it's not such a big deal here because this is more artistic than illustrative, but wouldn't this work better with less oversharpening? — Julian H.^✈ 18:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, das Bild ist wirklich für Wikiversity entstanden, es geht um maximale Schärfe. Für ein Dokumentarfoto vielleicht zu viel aber hier halte ich es für angemessen? --Ralf Roleček 18:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose This composition does't work for me, D kuba (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Julian therefore I restacked and create the less oversharpening version and nominated the alternative. --Laitche (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The alternative below is better. Yann (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Restacked and less oversharpened. --Laitche (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as editor. --Laitche (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Better the other--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 06:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this but I won't oppose the original. — Julian H.^✈ 07:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support also fine with me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Laitche and right, a very good version. --Ralf Roleček 11:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I prefer this version too, the other version was too sharpened. Diliff (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version is better. Yann (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I still like the original more, but all the featurable elements are present here as well. Daniel Case (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also great. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

The chosen alternative is: File:15-07-30-Rohloff-Speedhub-FocusStacking-RalfR-N3S 0102 3 4 5.jpg

File:Beggar carved in pinewood Gröden.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2015 at 16:33:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created & uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and interesting. --Yann (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice object. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I'd like more history of it: This would be very hard to use in Wikipedias without discussion of - not necessarily artwork, but at least artistic movement, etc. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your wish is my command ;-) I submitted an article on the issue to the English WP for review. Thank you for giving me the suggestion. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fantastic! That will really help reuse on Wikipedias. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - And please do resubmit your article on en:wp. It's more than sufficiently sourced now. Thanks for all your effort! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 11:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 13:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Cala Tío Ximo, Benidorm, España, 2014-07-02, DD 69.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2015 at 04:53:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the Tio Ximo ("Uncle Ximo") beach in Benidorm, Spain. The beach is isolated from the crowded beaches in Benidorm and is 70 m long and 6 m wide. The sand is fine and of golden colour and the water transparent and quiet.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info View of the Tio Ximo ("Uncle Ximo") beach in Benidorm, Spain. The beach is isolated from the crowded beaches in Benidorm and is 70 m long and 6 m wide. The sand is fine and of golden colour and the water transparent and quiet. All by me, Poc o² 04:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 04:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well composed photo. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks better at full size than it does in thumbnail. Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very reminiscent of McWay Cove in California. I guess Mediterranean areas are just quite alike. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice colors and the proportion but the angle is too looking down upon, for me. --Laitche (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I think the photo could focus more on the beautiful blue water on the right and less on the harshly lit stones and vegetation on the left. I.e. I think the image would profit from cutting off about 10% on the left. — Julian H.^✈ 18:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Julian, I agree with you that the picture benefits from a crop on the left: new version uploaded Poc o² 20:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very nice. Thank you. Support. — Julian H.^✈ 20:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atamari (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 13:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Gilbert Duprez & Rosine Stoltz in Donizetti's La Favorite.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2015 at 13:46:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Title page of the first edition vocal score of Gaetano Donizetti's La favorite

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Émile Desmaisons (1812–1880) after François-Gabriel Lépaulle - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info First edition vocal score, and a rather attractive illustration compared to some. The delicacy of the lithograph shows up rather strongly in the attractive background; there is a lot of gradient of tone here, which - as each gradient in tone requires the stone have another preparation with wax and wash of acid - indicates a lot of care put into it. Compare, for example, the first edition Rigoletto, which, while still pretty good, has basically about three or four shades of grey at its disposal, at an estimate; this clearly has far more. It also helps this one is bigger, giving a lot more detail. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Wide margins are meant to balance the text at the bottom (with the added advantage that people wanting to reuse it can easily crop it into an appropriate aspect ratio for their reuse: It's far easier to remove paper than add paper.) With en:Template:CSS image crop and its other-language equivalents, we can easily derive any other useful crops without need to provide a new file for each. For example, in en:Gilbert Duprez, where the text would be illegible in thumbnail anyway, CSS crop gives a tight framing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Henry Solomon Wellcome; three-quarter length. Oil painting Wellcome L0003723.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2015 at 22:46:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Henry Solomon Wellcome: three-quarter length. Oil painting by Hugh Goldwin Riviere, 1906.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Hugh Goldwin Riviere / Wellcome Trust, uploaded by Fæ, nominated by Yann (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Italian States-Piacenza 1626 2 Doppie.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2015 at 00:46:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Italian States, Piacenza, 2 Doppie (1626). Depicting Odoardo Farnese, Duke of Parma

Category: Objects/Money & Seals
Info created by Piacenza (image by the Smithsonian Institution) - uploaded by Godot13 - nominated by Godot13 -- Godot13 (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godot13 (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support not bad. dllu (t,c) 02:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 07:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Yann (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Right on the money! Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 18:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure. --Laitche (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Petrovsky Passage interior 06-2015.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2015 at 13:24:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the southern line of Petrovsky Passage in Moscow

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by A.Savin - uploaded and nominated by A.Savin -- A.Savin 13:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wowed wow! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 03:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant! --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 04:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 18:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice but distorted Dili･･･ --Laitche (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 13:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Sztab Kompanii Kadrowej Kielce, 1914.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2015 at 19:16:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Staff of First Cadre Company near car Panhard-Levassor. Kielce, 12 August 1914.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Marian Fuks - uploaded by Andros64 and MAx 92 (new version) - nominated by MAx 92 -- MAx 92 (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MAx 92 (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it sharp enough or does it require further restoration? --Tremonist (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At least the white balance should be corrected (it looks pink). Personally, I would change it to grayscale. Yann (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I did that, and added a note where restoration is needed. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crested myna, Osaka, Japan.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2015 at 23:31:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of the bird's body is so black that detail is lost. Could you perhaps do some shadow recovery from the raw? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts: Thanks for the comment, actually I've brightened Shadow but darkened Dark with Lightroom, so I reverted Dark and

uploaded new version. The tail parts were not so illuminated like as body plus a bit oof and the image size is a little small (I didn't downsample at all) therefore the tail parts are not so detailed even in the raw. Although I think new version is much better than former version, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination a bit low res to be FP. --Laitche (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dome of Basilica of Santa Maria del Popolo HDR.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2015 at 20:07:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
I withdraw my nomination All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really thought it was going to be a support. But 1. it's really soft. Like it was upscaled or something. 2. how sad that the 4 paintings in the corners are missing a very little chunk to be complete. As a more general note, I note something must not quite be right with your HDR processing. It doesn't seem to bring any improvement over a standard shot. Dark areas are still dark, and windows are still blown out. Do you adjust curves after you blend the pictures together? - Benh (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say but it's very dark. Think you should brighten it. - Benh (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benh these are the different frames to + 2, -2 and 0. It seems to me an obvious difference, I do not know you--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a difference indeed. My suggestion : make sure to recover highlights from the RAW of the lowest exposure also (if you have the RAW). Or maybe try -3, 0 and +3 next time? Or go the diliff way and go 5 exposures :). Let me try to process the pictures. - Benh (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Benh would be beautiful but I haven't a Mark III I have an economic D5200 max 3 exposures and max +/- 2--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I also use an old Canon 7D :) I suggest you shoot RAW and recover highlights on the -2EV shot. I just did from your JPEGs and it looks good enough. Here's my quick attempt : [1]. Strangely, I lost the bottom... not sure what I missed :/. My observations : I think here your white balance is off. It's too blue. It looks better on my attempt. But you went there, so you know better. Also, your sources shots are off, making the blending tricky, and explaining why the edges are soft. If you can, you should take all the shots from the same point. Hope this helps. - Benh (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here there are the raws Benh (I shoot always in raw) if you want see --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At leat I deserve a Neutral --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I keep my oppose :) The reasons are as explained. If you can, you should take the shots again. It's always better not to introduce error from the start. But even if you can't, there's still room for improvement, as I hope I showed on my attempt : supposedly better WB, better controls of highlights and brighter corners. If I see the 3 RAW in your dropbox (I only see one now), I can try to process them tomorrow if you want ; but maybe you'd like to do it urself. - Benh (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I joked, still had fun. I've already done, let's see what comes out--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support The windows are very bright and the paintings in the corners are rather dark. Nevertheless it is a great image. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 03:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Benh's version is better. And the cut corners are not good. Sorry. Yann (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

weak oppose Here's my attempt to reprocess it from RAW. It fixes the WB (I think), has slightly better sharpness, more details in highlights, slightly less NR (and less color blotches). It has wow imo, but I still think it should be reshot to get the four paintings in the corners complete. If one should be featured, let it at least be that one. - Benh (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The light is OK now, the cut corners are not. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:White-cheeked Starling after playing with water.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2015 at 18:58:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 03:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of space above and on right, I would crop per note. --Mile (talk) 10:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PetarM: OK I cropped, thanks :) --Laitche (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Mile (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I'll try the better shot next time :) --Laitche (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Villach Peraustrasse 28 Perauhof Grabmal Anton Ghon 03082015 6438.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2015 at 16:15:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
I withdraw my nomination created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- --Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak support LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm very sorry, but I can't find what is so special about it, and am really curious if nominator would share why he thinks it should be featured. I might have missed something - Benh (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And at least you should let people know when you update the image of the nomination... you also broke the nomination subpage in the process. Usage is more to add an alternative. I've fixed that... hopefully - Benh (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologize for that, sorry.. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 03:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Alternative added by author here. - Benh (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well-done, definitely a QI but not striking enough to be an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment lack of a pleasant light -- Christian Ferrer 17:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not good enough - Benh (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emirates Airbus A380-861 A6-EER MUC 2015 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2015 at 09:01:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Emirates Airbus A380-861 departing 26L at Munich Airport.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info c/u/n by — Julian H.^✈ 09:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 09:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support sehr schön, da paßt alles. --Ralf Roleček 09:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support All perfect. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 12:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good spotting! --PierreSelim (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ✈✈✈ 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 13:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Arion. --Laitche (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little unsharp on the tower, but that's such a small part of the overall image. (See, we can get these without Russavia!) Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. As an explanation for the unsharpness: It's not possible to get a sharp tower, for two reasons. First, the aircraft is moving, so what you see in the background is motion blur. It could be reduced slightly with ISO/aperture, but it won't disappear completely. Second, the tower is 2.6 km away while the aircraft is only 600 m away. That is simply too much air in-between for good sharpness. If you have ever taken a photo over several kilometeres with a long focal length lens, you know that the heat differences, especially directly above the ground, will completely mess up the sharpness. So the buildings can only work as the backdrop for context, not as the subject itself. Which is why I didn't even try to eliminate motion blur. — Julian H.^✈ 07:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For Daniel --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too unsharp top part of the plane and all photo is too soft for me. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just keep in mind please that it is a 9MP photo of a moving subject. There are not many of those here on Commons. — Julian H.^✈ 07:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I reviewed my vote.... George is right --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 06:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It would be perfect with the bottom of the airport buildings and the grounds --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Yes, admittedly, the fence was in the way there. Should have brought a ladder. — Julian H.^✈ 07:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support For unsharpness, I guess some people are looking at a different photo to me. The tower shows the normal slight softening effects of atmosphere, which is one of the components the eye/brain uses to determine distance. -- Colin (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolutely per Colin --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely per Colin. Not sure if I looked at the good "top part" of the plane, but it's sharp to me. Blurry parts of the background are also caused by heat. - Benh (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blur well explained by Julian above. And the subject is the plane, not the airport. Yann (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 14:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. Who says that it is not sharp? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Bloem van Rozenkransje (Antennaria dioica). Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 03.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2015 at 17:32:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Compositae Asteraceae.
Info Flower of Antennaria dioica. Locatie, Location. Garden sanctuary JonkerValley. Is on the Dutch Red List of plants as very rare! created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As always, one would wish for more DoF ... But I understand the limitations on these macros, and frankly what we have is more than enough to secure my vote. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 04:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you deleted some dustspots please? (see notes) -- Christian Ferrer 05:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Spots removed.--Famberhorst (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support thank you -- Christian Ferrer 18:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice colors but the composition is a little awkward to me. --Laitche (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 22:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Aphrophora alni mating.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2015 at 14:28:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Two Aphrophora alni mating. Jance hill, Slovenia. Together they measure around 15-20 mm in length

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info Aphrophora alni mating. Jance hill, Slovenia. Together they measure around 15-20 mm in length. All by --Mile (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough to be an FP. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 15:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems too dark to me. Diliff (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had it on -0.7 (strong reflections). I put back some EV. --Mile (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you could selectively increase the brightness of the insects and keep the background darker then. The insects still look a bit dark. The reflections on the body are a bit distracting though, I guess because of the direct flash. Diliff (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So be it. No flash, wouldn't use it in nature. Sun was high, more direct, but I cant choose golden hour for this. --Mile (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I just guessed it was a flash. Direct sunlight has a similar effect too. The reflections themselves are not the main problem for me, it's the multicoloured effect of them. I sometimes have the same problem in my macro photos, I'm not sure if it's really how they look (iridescence from light interference?) or a problem with the moire on the Bayer array of the camera sensor. Diliff (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark per Johann. Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info I made one more +EV, hope last. @Dilif: I think its easier to shot at animals which have fur birds, lions etc, while bugs have some like hard coat, its reflects stronger, can spoil a lot more. But I still think this photo is good enough. I wouldn't nominate it for IQ, but it has moment. --Mile (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know how small they are and it is indeed a very valuable catch. But this angle will not work for me. I expect a side view. J e e 02:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anthophora montana, M, Face, Larimer Co, CO 2013-12-11-11.32.09 ZS PMax (11455947763).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2015 at 21:31:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Info created by USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab, uploaded by Tm, suggested by The Photographer, and nominated by Yann (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support WoW --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Uau! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lookin' pretty fly ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (completely unnecessary use of AdobeRGB, but since it's transferred from Flickr, rather than a Commons' user, suggest we just leave it alone). -- Colin (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The antennas appear to have been accommodated by the best stylist --The Photographer (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow indeed :) --Laitche (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 18:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 06:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera

File:Claude Monet - Woman with a Parasol - Madame Monet and Her Son - Google Art Project.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2015 at 22:36:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Others
Info created by Claude Monet - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 22:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 22:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

one is enough Arion--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opps! Sorry! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Julian H.^✈ 18:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media#Others

File:Masataka Yanagida 2014 Super GT Suzuka Q2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2015 at 22:47:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Morio - uploaded by Morio - nominated by Σπάρτακος -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice color and sharp on the car, but compositionally it is just too ordinary. Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. No problem that we have seen similar images. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 20:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel. Small photo. -- Colin (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight, no sense of speed. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as others. Not enough room ahead of the car. Yann (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. --Tremonist (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per opposers.--Jebulon (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Чечня 4.jpg, withdrawn

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2015 at 13:52:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lake Kezanoyam in Chechnya, Northern Caucasus, Russia

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Michael Bushmin - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 13:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hm. Sorry, but: The sky is oversaturated. There is a big dust spot or lens flare at the top. Additionally there is a lot of posterization and the picture has too much contrast overall. All in all it looks completely overprocessed. Certainly a nice landscape but this picture is not FP level IMO. --Code (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Code. I was going to say the same thing ... that particular tone of sky is a telltalle sign of overprocessing. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clearly per Code, sorry. --Tremonist (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --A.Savin 13:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:15-07-13-Teotihuacan-RalfR-WMA 0237-0246.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2015 at 19:34:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places

Teotihuacán, Mexico, 270° Panorama; Pyramides and street of the death

Info all by -- Ralf Roleček 19:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 19:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition does not work for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per Uoaei1. It seems to be a very interesting place, but the picture shows a lot of concrete. The parts that are interesting are also not lit very favourably. Additionally, the left main pyramid looks very tilted. I'm not exactly sure if that's even wrong given the projection, but it looks slightly strange. — Julian H.^✈ 08:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Julian H. above. Yann (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too wide angle. --Mile (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mile. Daniel Case (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Too wide angle, capturing everything but in the same way - nothing. -- Pofka (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Julian H, the composition does not work for me, and the projection might not be the best :) --PierreSelim (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Ralf Roleček 14:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Disa uniflora (Peter Jonas Bergius 1767).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2015 at 21:40:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family Orchidaceae
Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Using flash but looks natural although there are dark gray areas around the subject and see note. --Laitche (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 04:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The background is posterized and it looks like large halos and spots. Please check your image.--XRay ^talk 08:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info I made a better update. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 05:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family Orchidaceae

File:Gran palusc de Mont Seuc Odles.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2015 at 21:30:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Meadows of the Seiser Alm in fall. On the back the Geisler group

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, support, support! Woooooow!!!!! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wowed shot, ~~but oversatured sky.~~ 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The sky is exactly as it was at shooting, why "oversaturated"? --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - At the right the sky seems weird. Maybe the sun? I just need an explanation for me to support. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I really don't understand. Can you be more specific or use technical terms? Thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I just wanted to know what is happening in the sky. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Unfortunately there is a intense air traffic above as you can see from the contrails. Thanks for the support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        When I see this image with my projector (which cannnot display correct sRGB color), the right top sky looks purplish. @ArionEstar: I guess your monitor cannot display correct colors. Sometimes I see your strange comment, maybe that's because of your monitor, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Whatever. FP for me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bit unsharp but very nice composition. I think the colors are natural. --Laitche (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice place and good light. — Julian H.^✈ 08:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice perspective with the lines on the grassy areas in the foreground. It could perhaps have been sharpened a bit more but, given how easy it is to screw things up that way, I don't blame the photographer for leaving it as is. Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Oregon National Historic Trail in Wyoming.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2015 at 17:25:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info created by Bureau of Land Management - uploaded and nominated by -- The Photographer (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this. It's a pity the noise of the left horse is a bit blurry. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, good colors, good composition, perhaps a bit motion blur at the left horse or mule (?), but a very beautiful image. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice but I think a bit tilted cw and the top crop is a bit too tight. I've uploaded the derivative work. --Laitche (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Rain on glass from below.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2015 at 04:24:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support visually simple but impressive. I really like it. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very impressive, but there are some CAs. Can you please clean them? Bottom right also a bit unsharp. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Uploaded a new file w/o CA... The unsharp part: The planes were not parallel, but oblique, so it is a dof issue, which does not bother me. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ok --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bottom third is out of focus. --Mile (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great texture and a nice change of pace from other nominations we see here. I'm not bothered by the unsharpness at the bottom; it's not too hideous and frankly it comes with this particular territory. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support oof parts are a bit pity but nice idea and impressive colors, looks like mercury. --Laitche (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very unusual surface. --Tremonist (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice effect. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose I love it, but per Laitche (reverting).--Jebulon (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak support I don't find the little technical issues detract from the point of this image. But not sure why we have them to begin with, that doesn't seem too much of a difficult shot (what stand in the way of taking it // to the focal plan?). Something different for sure. - Benh (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 13:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Yarrow (Achillea millefolium).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2015 at 21:19:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Yarrow (Achillea millefolium) on top of Janče hill (800 m), Slovenia. Size of flower is around 3×3 cm. Stack of 9 macro photos.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Asterales
Info Yarrow (Achillea millefolium) on top of Jance hill (800 m), Slovenia. Size of flower is around 3×3 cm. Stack of 9 macro photos. All by --Mile (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should be somewhat brighter. --Code (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should, I decreased it since flowers are white and didn't want to loose texture. But I put back some +EV. --Mile (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Now. --Code (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as is. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK now. Yann (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Asterales

File:De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver N72355 Kenmore 2 crop.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2015 at 05:42:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver aircraft

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles#Propeller_aircraft
Info created by Dllu - uploaded by Dllu - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 05:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 05:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the other white balance is better. --Laitche (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tight crop. Wings a bit unsharp. --Tremonist (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Different crop and the different white balance. --Laitche (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 03:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support this also. --Pine^✉ 22:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not too bad, but more room is needed on the front, not on the back. Yann (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Altaner på søndre ringgade.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2015 at 17:24:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Balconies on Søndre Ringgade, Aarhus, Denmark

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Balconies on Søndre Ringgade, Aarhus, Denmark
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Compositionally very nice but a little bit too bright IMO. --Code (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Turned down the brightness --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, but rather unexceptional and not really aesthetic; the railings remind me of that ugly Russian carhouses. --A.Savin 18:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Renée Adorée.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2015 at 18:14:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Bain News Service - uploaded by Calliopejen - nominated by Far-gh -- Farshid . Talk 18:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Farshid . Talk 18:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice portrait, but a serious restoration is needed before nominating it here. Yann (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Supportable, but as Yann said it needs restoration. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alborzagros (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Yann. --Tremonist (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann.--Jebulon (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Täpiline sõrmkäpp (Dactylorhiza incarnata cruenta) - Niitvälja soo.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2015 at 08:21:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by Iifar - uploaded by Iifar - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 08:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 08:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 09:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Laitche (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I haven't much time to make photos in this season and even less in the future, because I'm saving the Niitvälja bog (cleaning it from brush), where those gorgeous flowers grow. --Ivar (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. Yann (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 12:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 18:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just right. Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Å i Lofoten III.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2015 at 12:43:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Å i Lofoten, a village towards the southern end of the Lofoten archipelago, Norway

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Jules Henze - uploaded by Blue Elf - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 12:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 12:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The contrast of the light white and the dark black sea is impressive, adding the bright red it's all a superb combination of colours. It just happens that the buildings don't appear horizontal! They seem to be leaning to the right. Perspective correction needed?! --Tremonist (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, they are leaning to the right. Is there a kind soul out there who can fix this? I don't have the tools. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Perspective corrected using matrix ${\begin{bmatrix}1.10039&0.09491&-190\\0.00425&1.10795&-28\\0&0.00005&1\end{bmatrix}}$ ${\begin{bmatrix}1.10039&0.09491&-190\\0.00425&1.10795&-28\\0&0.00005&1\end{bmatrix}}$ . dllu (t,c) 02:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for fixing it. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should be croped in bottom up to pillars. Dark area in left corner spoil it. --Mile (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice correction dllu! Can you fix this perspective? I've tried but I couldn't fix it... --Laitche (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I gave that one a try. Lupo 22:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks dllu and Lupo. --Laitche (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks a lot! It's nice now. --Tremonist (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great atmosphere. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. —Bruce1ee^talk 04:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As it is, there is a whole lot of CA both left and right. I don't want to edit an edited jpeg. @Dllu: , could you possibly correct that as well? — Julian H.^✈ 18:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This would be the corrected version: File:Å i Lofoten III B.jpg. I don't really want to add another alternative. — Julian H.^✈ 08:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggest that overwrites it. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

The chosen alternative is: File:Å i Lofoten III (perspective corrected).jpg

File:Leica historisch - Summe von 1200 Bildern-weißer Hintergrund.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2015 at 13:14:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by Kameraprojekt Graz 2015
Info Logo for the Wikimedia-GLAM-Projekt: Historical Cameras, Graz 2015. Focusstacking with Helicon Focus, made out of 80 different historical objects, altogether apprx. 1.200 single pictures.
Support -- Kameraprojekt Graz 2015 (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty artistic and impressive!--Tremonist (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Tremonist. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 14:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 14:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Artistic, yes, but too abstract for me. -- Christian Ferrer 19:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Christian Hard to summarize a collection of historical cameras in one expression, also the way how we pictured this collection. It´s a logo in a way, therefore we thought, an artistic transformation would be the best. --Kameraprojekt Graz 2015 (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry,for Christian --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Christian. Daniel Case (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tremonist --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see any kind of use on Wikipedia for this image, despite being interesting.--Mile (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there are also Wikiversity, Wikibooks and all the Websites, who use Commons. --Ralf Roleček 22:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks for comments! --Hubertl 07:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santuario de Las Lajas, Ipiales, Colombia, 2015-07-21, DD 19.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2015 at 09:44:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Las Lajas Sanctuary is a basilica church located in the southern Department of Nariño, municipality of Ipiales, Colombia. The place is a popular pilgrimage location since the apparition of the Virgin Mary in 1754. The first shrine was built by 1750 and was replaced by a bigger one in 1802 including a bridge over the canyon of the Guáitara River. The present temple, of Gothic Revival style, was built between 1916 and 1949.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Las Lajas Sanctuary is a basilica church located in the southern Department of Nariño, municipality of Ipiales, Colombia. The place is a popular pilgrimage location since the apparition of the Virgin Mary in 1754. The first shrine was built by 1750 and was replaced by a bigger one in 1802 including a bridge over the canyon of the Guáitara River. The present temple, of Gothic Revival style, was built between 1916 and 1949. All by me, Poc o² 09:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 09:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hmmm. Composition is good. Lighting is good. Sharpness in the centre is good. Sharpness at the edges is terrible. Whether this is important when the main subject is sharp enough, I don't know. I do find it quite off-putting though. Was this focal length necessary? According to this Google Street View panorama, you could have gotten further back which might have allowed you to use a lens with less problems at the edges. Just my thoughts anyway. Diliff (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also think the soft edges aren't a big deal, and the picture is big enough (nice camera you've got ;) ). I agree with Diliff's suggestion though. I personally think that it's a tad oversaturated, especially in the sky. Great picture otherwise. - Benh (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I also noticed the sky looked a bit oversaturated. Actually for me it looks more like the luminosity of the sky was reduced, it looks a bit dark particularly in patches. The picture is big enough for sure, and the softness at the edges is probably exaggerated because of the large resolution, but that's the thing about these super high resolution cameras, you really have to attach the best lenses to get the most from them. Diliff (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (for the time being) per BenH: Please fix saturation / luminosity a bit --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Support better now. Using your fisheye lense wasn't the best choice, though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Benh, Diliff, and Martin Falbisoner: I have uploaded a new version following your advices. Indeed, this camera is a jump in many sense and the issues of some lenses (especially this one) get now obvious along with more difficulties to stitch handheld panoramas. It is without any doubts a learning process I am going through. Regarding the location, I could have indeed got a bit further and use a different lens but the place was really crowded and this shot is the best trade off I can offer. Poc o² 12:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I allow myself an advice to you (you probably are aware of the trick, but it's free to mention it) : on crowded places, it's possible to take several shots, and then to blend them with proper masks to get rid of most tourists. I used that pretty successfully in the Vatican musuem, and I think it's at least as crowded :) I didn't even use a tripod there, but it's still better to take the shots from the exact same point of course when you can. - Benh (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I was aware of that, David mentioned it some time ago. To be honest I haven't tried it out yet, but probably I should. Poco² 12:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting. I use that for other purposes... like averaging several pictures to similate a long exposure shot if I forget my ND filter. Wonder if using it to remove people wouldn't leaves a few ghosts here and there. The way I tell you about gives you more flexibility and allows you to leave an arbitrary person (or any number of people) if you feel like it improves the composition though :) - Benh (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fine with me. Don't mind little unsharp areas on the borders (top church, and sides) or some slightly blown out details (white statues mainly). This is where shooting non Canon comes in handy : one can underexpose with more confidence ;-) But, again, great shot. - Benh (talk)
Support Although I prefer Diliff's ~~distor･･･~~ wide angle perspective :) _{P.S. There are a bit CAs.} --Laitche (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CA gone Poc o² 12:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Which magic did you use! The guy on the right side was wearing green T-shirt but now he is wearing green and gray two-tone T-shirt. --Laitche (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]
The magic is called Lightroom and Color tab in Lens correction. It looks like I just went a bit too far with it, new version Poc o² 15:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be better in some parts and that CB antenna on church roof is strange. But other part make it. --Mile (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't it a lightning rod, not an antenna? Would make more sense. Diliff (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not good enough. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 15:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The top is blurry and the image is flattened: people look more fat than they are and the circles ar not round --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Sorry,per Moroder --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Moroder and Livioandronico2013: I adressed the mentioned distortion in a new file version Poc o² 19:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, you can't just change the aspect ratio linearly to fix the perspective distortion, now the tower is squashed. I'd recommend you use software like Hugin (I assume it can do it, definitely PTGui can) to do it intelligently so it compresses the edges more than the middle. It's a bit like taking a print of this image as it is now and then curving the edges of the paper backwards. The middle remains relatively unchanged but the edges are progressively compressed. Diliff (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David, I understand what you say but since my edit targeted the distortion of the rose window, which is in the middle (and not at the saids overlooking the middle) the result shouldn't be worse than before the edit. Maybe the sides need an additional progressive correction but my target is not actually to fully de-fish the image, and cannot understand all those opposes, either, for using this lens for this shot. Poc o² 17:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK I see. Well, a fisheye lens is not really a good choice for architecture (unless you really have no other choice, but then you can't be guaranteed FP simply because it was the only option). If the rose window was squashed, then maybe the problem was with the original perspective correction? Not all perspective correction is equal - there is bad technique and good technique. Good technique uses software that factors in the angle of view/focal length when making the calculations. Simply straightening the verticals without considering the effect on the geometry is bad technique. I can't see everything you do to process the image so I cannot judge your processing directly, but every action has a consequence, and as you can see, it's quite complicated with wide angle images. :-) I appreciate that it's hard to understand some opposes though, I have the same thoughts many times too. I just think that in this case, you didn't need to use this lens and the image suffers because of it. For me with interior images, a wide angle view is very important because you have no choice to get further back to show as much of the interior as possible. But I don't think it was so simple here. Diliff (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It appearance is better but I do not like distortion as you well know, however, the subject is very nice and in the center is very sharp. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the digital correction did not worked here. The sky is super weird, and the reason is pretty obvious... -- RTA 21:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodrigo.Argenton: can you please elaborate your comment? what is that obvious reason that makes the sky weird? Poc o² 22:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fisheye lens.-- RTA 22:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image has been 'de-fished'. In fact there's some pin cusion distortion (unless the bridge is actually raised in the centre? it seems to be judging from the stops at the entrance) but that's the opposite effect of fisheye, which bulges the image outwards, not inwards. So although a fisheye lens was used to take this, the sky looks just like it would if an ultrawide rectilinear lens was used (except perhaps that when an image is de-fished, it's digitally stretched which reduces sharpness more than optically. In other words, if your main intention is to de-fish a fisheye lens, it's probably better to just get a rectilinear lens to begin with as it'll be sharper. Diliff (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I don't like the sky. --Claus 06:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I really don't know. On the one hand: The center is perfectly sharp. The building is interesting. The composition is good. The light is good as well. On the other hand: The edges are terribly unsharp. There is some aliasing at the statues on the right side. The spire is heavily distorted and not very sharp. Concerning the sky I don't know whether its great or ugly. Somewhere in between. All in all I'm somehow undecided. Maybe I'll change to support after having another look tomorrow. --Code (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I had a think about it and I have to oppose. I think the edges may not be part of the actual subject, but they are part of the composition and they are distractingly soft and unaesthetic.As I said above, many of the problems with this image could have been avoided IMO if a different lens and camera position were used. Diliff (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is fine as it is now I think. --Tremonist (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is ok, the sky work well, but side are a bit blurred, somewhat overexposed, the top of the building too. My main concern is overexposition. -- Christian Ferrer 19:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Christian: I've reworked the brigther areas, although I was surprised about that being the main reason to oppose.

Diego, It's the main reason for me because it's quite easily avoidable by playing with the time exposure after to have check on the camera if the image is correctly exposed. And you can not rework the brigther areas, as details are lost, it's the reason of an oppose and not a comment. -- Christian Ferrer 04:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diego, In summary, if you try to include statues in your composition if you need to expose them too correctly, IMO it's quite easy in exterior photography. -- Christian Ferrer 17:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@All: I've done some editing to reduce distortions on top and sides. That's all I can offer herefor. Poc o² 19:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 18:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Himalaya Mountains seen at sunset in Kaule Nepal.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2015 at 13:38:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Himalaya seen at sunset from Kaule, Nepal

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Jules Henze - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 13:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 13:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors, but not sharp, noisy. Yann (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weaker oppose I'm not as bothered by the sharpness issues. But the tree going right through the middle detracts enough from this to bar it from FP, for me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per nearly Daniel, the quality issue is also minus factor for me. --Laitche (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Neither the overall quality nor the tree bother me so much, but it really could be a little sharper. --Tremonist (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a good idea, but I think with this focal length and this composition of the foreground, it doesn't work. There is just a little too much foreground, it cuts through the background in too many places and the background itself is very horizontal in its main feature. If it was a little less horizontal, I feel like it wouldn't feel so out of place being framed by this foreground with many vertical lines. — Julian H.^✈ 18:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp. Though, looks nice in low resolution. -- Pofka (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deux grandes courses extraordinaires de taureaux.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2015 at 20:55:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Two great bull races, Bois de Boulogne, Paris, 20 and 21 August 1889

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Esteban, R. & Perea, P. / National Library of France, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is even better than my last nomination. -- Yann (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Honest and perhaps naive question: The image is far from pixel-sharp at a more common resolution such as 4000x7000, and at full size it clearly looks upsampled. It's not like a clear point pattern or anything like this becomes apparent. What is the benefit of uploading such a ludicrous resolution that makes e.g. firefox incapable of displaying the image? --DXR (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @DXR: that's because this picture was uploaded at the maximum size (zoom) offered by "Gallica". But I understand what you mean.--Jebulon (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, thanks Jebulon for the hint. The file size in MB is not too bad, but I just feel it would be like uploading Diliffs churches at 300MP, possible, but a bit pointless. --DXR (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks quite nice. --Tremonist (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I will renominate this (or another of this style) later. Yann (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015 Wapiennik w Żelaźnie.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2015 at 19:20:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad harsh lighting, washed out, boring centered composition, and generally no wow. - Benh (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh.--Jebulon (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh. Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh, minus maybe the compositional aspect. I don't think it's too bad, although less space on the right would help. — Julian H.^✈ 17:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Motor boat and sailing yacht (Adriatic Sea).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2015 at 14:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Motor boat and sailing yacht in Adriatic Sea

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info Motor boat and sailing yacht in Adriatic Sea. All by --Mile (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice composition but the quality at full resolution. --Laitche (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Laitche. --Tremonist (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow in the composition for me. I think having the sailboat right behind (and so close to) the person makes for a rather static image. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Göversheide -- 2015 -- 7718-22.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2015 at 18:21:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created & uploaded by XRay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful light. Might be even better if shot using a lens with an odd number of blades. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having spent a little time this weekend trying to get similar shots, I deeply appreciate this one. What was the source of the mist in the forest? Or was it smoke? Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mist early in the morning. --XRay ^talk 04:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Charming and beautiful. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 03:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel Case. Great quality that is not easy to reproduce at all, as simple as the idea might seem at first glance --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood. --Code (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 14:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice light makes this one special. Diliff (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice impression, good momentum --Hubertl 12:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:The central oval room of dawn.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2015 at 21:36:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
InfoIn Palazzo Farnese (Caprarola) it was probably painted by Taddeo Zuccari following an iconographic program dictated by Annibale Caro. At center stage of the central oval is depicted Twilight that turns its two torches toward the night and the other towards the dawn; the sides are the Moon, on a cart pulled by oxen, and Mercury holding the Caduceus.All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bravo! --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice colors ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Not fan of the oval crop (which doesn't look centered), but you did a really nice job with the fixes! Pretty good quality overall. - Benh (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd mind less about the oval if it matched the oval in the scene. Here it just looks like an arbitrary selection. There's no colourspace tag or profile -- you've been using paint.net again. Please uninstall that program -- it's for editing screenshots and icons, not photographs. I suspect you may have boosted the clarity and saturation a bit too much, but who knows what colours I should see if they are not defined. -- Colin (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done No Colin, just photoshop when I open the photos ask me if I plan to manage the color space and probably I will put no ... however solved in 30 seconds ...Thanks for visiting--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

The exif said "Creator Tool paint.net 4.0.5", and I don't think it just imagined that. Photoshop only asks you if the image you give it has lost the colourspace info (or is not using your working colourspace). So some part of your workflow is losing it... and I blame Paint.Net 4.0.5! -- Colin (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the English (as a my friend of Birmingham says) you live too much in the past. The image has been reworked in Photoshop to me says:

Extended content

Camera: Nikon D3200

Lens: 18 mm

(Max aperture f/3.5)

Exposure: Auto exposure, Aperture-priority AE, 1/6 sec, f/8, ISO 100, Compensation: -1

Flash: none

Date: June 7, 2015 12:55:57PM (timezone not specified)

(1 month, 28 days, 14 hours, 34 minutes, 34 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of US Pacific)

File: 3,325 × 5,748 JPEG (19.1 megapixels)

12,431,427 bytes (11.9 megabytes)

and more:

XMP

Date Created 2015:06:07 12:55:57

1 month, 28 days, 14 hours, 34 minutes, 34 seconds ago

XMP Toolkit Adobe XMP Core 5.5-c021 79.154911, 2013/10/29-11:47:16

Legacy IPTC Digest B8435B0C8E614A7BEE4983E25799EBF8

Color Mode RGB

ICC Profile Name sRGB IEC61966-2.1

Creator Tool Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows)

Modify Date 2015:08:06 12:21:18+02:00

9 minutes, 13 seconds ago

Metadata Date 2015:08:06 12:21:18+02:00

9 minutes, 13 seconds ago

Document ID F31F6912C8DE7EDEF87A2062BD07EB57

Instance ID xmp.iid:29ae66d2-5970-b04d-abbf-f7947db113e9

Original Document ID F31F6912C8DE7EDEF87A2062BD07EB57

Format image/jpeg

History Action saved

History Instance ID xmp.iid:29ae66d2-5970-b04d-abbf-f7947db113e9

History When 2015:08:06 12:21:18+02:00

9 minutes, 13 seconds ago

History Software Agent Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)

History Changed /

Have a good day --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, LivioAndronico, is that I really don't appreciate you lying. At the time I made my comment, the image had been edited in paint.net, hence the lack of colourspace. You replied "No Colin, just photoshop". Grow up a bit and stop lying. I can see it has been reworked twice since then; I'm not blind. This isn't the first time you've been dishonest when challenged. Stop it. -- Colin (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem Colin you do not like me and your opinion does not interest me. I explained to you and you do not want to understand (?) I reworked the image and you do not want to understand. How do I explain that your opinion does not give a damn? Your opinion to me is hot air, useless, empty words ... how to be more explicit? I do not know and do not care. Come down from the pedestal because you're not nothing for me.--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How said the great Johnny Rotten We don't care --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For your taste is better this

--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting and very good. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop has aliasing artifacts. And I don't understand the context of the crop. Is this really where the fresco ends? That seems very unlikely. If it isn't, then there should definitely be no oval crop there. — Julian H.^✈ 18:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the points about the crop are fair, and I'm even thinking about changing my vote as well. Why not providing an uncropped version, at least as an alternative ? We can always crop if we feel like it, but adding back the missing areas is not possible. - Benh (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because is the union of several photos without cropping would be like this,thanks (Tell me if you do not understand my English, because it is poor) --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or similar this ot this--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you didn't take enough frames to generate a rectangular crop is something very easy to fix -- take it again properly. I don't see Diliff offering up diamond shaped church interiors or oval formal gardens simply because he misjudged how many photos were required. -- Colin (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Colin. Would you share how the uncropped version looks like? We might suggests alternatives crops, and as for me I think sometimes switching projection help getting a proper rop, and would like to see the feasibility before. - Benh (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A sacrifice of the two little motives up and down seems necessary IMO, as some other painted details are already cropped left and right. An oval crop symmetric along the oval main fresco could maybe work better. Anyway, this one does not work for me as it is.--Jebulon (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was considering, since I get some similar advice on ceiling not long ago, to put color around it, which is so wrong for me. In this case, because you want it oval, you put rectangular crop, maybe would work better. Put some alternative. --Mile (talk) 06:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support good idea, well done. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose switch my vote to oppose, per my above reasoning. - Benh (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don´t understand the discussion, I even don´t want to understand it. PS or Paint.net. --Hubertl 22:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Jean11 (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Info Demoted/Delisted to not featured per this consensus. --Cart (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Papilio polymnestor by Kadavoor.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2015 at 05:52:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info A sleepy Papilio polymnestor (Blue Mormon) in a rainy morning. C/U/N by Jkadavoor -- J e e 05:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J e e 05:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support well though just a little too much of contrat IMO -- Christian Ferrer 09:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bit dark, isn't? --Yann (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was 6:37am; so the only source of light is from the flash. :) J e e 14:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Think Yann means you could brighten it. - Benh (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll loss details on white parts, I afraid. Further there a re lot of reflections from the wet leaves and butterfly. (More important; I'm not so good in processing. Will share the Raw if anyone can help.) J e e 15:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can give it a try... it's free :) - Benh (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've a mail. Thanks. :) J e e 16:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the others, this could be brightened significantly without losing detail. — Julian H.^✈ 16:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. I played with WB, lift shadow, slightly reduce noise because of that, and sharpened it a bit. Maybe you won't be happy with it, but it proves you can brighten it without losing details in the white parts. - Benh (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Benh; I like the details in the dark parts of the wings. But it is a very dark butterfly with a blue tint all over it's wings (in black and white parts). Human eyes can easily detect it; but camera not. Flash makes the situation even worse. Here the colors are more natural; fortunately the flash didn't fire here. J e e 03:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That one is much nicer in my opinion (color wise). As per my below comment, I think it's worth a try with a tripod :) I'm fairly certain this is what separates a Richard Bartz shot from the crowd. - Benh (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC) - Benh (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way this was shot with a tripod and no flash. Has plenty of flaws, but I think it illustrates my point well: I prefer that kind of natural lighting. - Benh (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Yes; natural lighting is much pleasing than with flash. This may be a good example where same camera and lens used. Here flash resulted a dull background, even though I'm able to grab a lot of more details. To sum up; flash is good, but not for FPs. ;) J e e 11:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak oppose My oppose probably is severe, and I'm not really a macro photo guy but the flash light is too prominent IMO. Very distracting shadow. Couldn't you bump ISO and open lens a bit more (I don't feel you need so much DOF here), so environment lighting shows more ? Or alternatively use a tripod and leave flash on the side (or reflect it or whatever) ? - Benh (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the choice of aperture; f/8-11 may enough. DOF dramatically decreases when I approach closer; but stopping down to f/16 is not giving much advantage. I hope I can improve in future shots. J e e 03:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This equipment might be useful :) --Laitche (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; that link lead me here. I agree with JJH that flash zoom can be used to soften the lights. TTL always put my fash at 105mm as my focal length is 150mm which is not good. I manually change (or by pulling out the Wide Panel) it to 24mm. An umbrella must be useful for plants and sleepy bugs (as here); but it will (even my small diffuser) frighten active bugs. I experience the difference in field while I wear white/colorful cloths compared to shady. ;) J e e 03:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkadavoor: If it was asleep, wouldn't it be better to set your camera on a tripod? In addition to getting more environment light, you could focus stack. (when necessary). Your thoughts? - Benh (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; I have a good tripod now and it was wise to experiment with it. But it was just an incidental shot. I was going to church in the Sunday morning and just saw it on the muddy fence. I returned home, took a few shots and went again. I even forgot to use my cheap diffuser too. Otherwise I can avoid that harsh shadows. :) J e e 11:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks all for the valuable feedback. J e e 02:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Megistocera on Kadavoor.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2015 at 03:18:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera
Info Megistocera species; not described so far. Megistocera has two species, filipes and longipennis. M. longipennis recorded from North and Central America and the male has short antennae. Megistocera filipes filipes recorded in Africa, and Megistocera filipes fuscana from Asia and Australia. Tipulidae expert Pjotr Oosterbroek confirmed that "the colour characters of your specimens are very specific and certainly not as in filipes". God's another wonder; just photographed by me. -- J e e 03:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know the quality is not so good; but we've only one Tipulidae fp so far. Need to collect a specimen and hand over to local experts for further studies. -- J e e 03:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the moment, this is just an OK picture of an unidentified insect. If it turns out to be the first picture of a newly discovered species, the "wow" would probably be much higher. Why not wait for it? --El Grafo (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; this is just a funny nom. :) J e e 10:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks all for the valuable feedback. J e e 02:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:12-10-13-kongreszhalle-nuernberg-by-RalfR-01.jpg, featured , featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2015 at 22:44:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kongreßhalle Nuremberg at the Reichsparteitagsgelände

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created and uploaded by Ralf Roletschek - nominated by Σπάρτακος -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the asymetric composition. --Hubertl 16:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and nice mood :) --Laitche (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The top crop is slightly awkward, but excellent photo nonetheless. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool Poc o² 16:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Jean11 (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Basics of photography – how you learn to shoot better photos.webm, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2015 at 14:20:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
Info The basics of photography, a short video about the key functions of a camera. Target audience are photographers with little expereance as typical Wikipedians (not the photographers here at FPC ;).

idea, content, text: Ralf Roleček implementation, drawing, production: Monika Pfau & Waldemar Solotowizki

Support -- Ralf Roleček 14:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and funny --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 11:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 14:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support Great work and I can see it getting a lot of viewing through WLM and similar events. But ... it should at least have TimedText subtitles in English. Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty good ! I believe though that the lens is actually wide open the whole time and shrinks to specified aperture during the time of exposure (otherwise, dark viewfinder, and bye bye live views). But for simplification sake :) - Benh (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Jean11 (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:Chocolatebrownie.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2015 at 14:33:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A photograph of a homemade chocolate brownie.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ɱ -- ɱ (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ɱ (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support YUM! Daniel Case (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. --Tremonist (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice. —Bruce1ee^talk 04:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm hungry. --Pine^✉ 05:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I struggle to find this appealing both as a scrumptious treat and as a photo with any wow factor.--Fotoriety (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The photo's appeal is from wanting to eat the food, so I understand if you don't see the wow factor if you don't want to eat it at all. On the other hand, most featured pictures of food completely lack that element, simply having excellent technical quality. ɱ (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For Foto --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? This is an empty assessment... Please give me feedback.--ɱ (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think he wants to say that he agrees with the statement by Fotoriety. — Julian H.^✈ 14:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Has wow potential, but somehow the overall sharpness does not satisfy me, sorry. --A.Savin 18:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. I can see the need for a high F-number for sufficient DOF, but it looks like f/25 introduced quite some diffraction. --El Grafo (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. Focus stacking would have been necessary here. The sharpness is not sufficient. --Code (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Focus stacking is overrated. This is a single photograph I took, which should be given some merit. I also don't see any lack of sharpness.--ɱ (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not overrated if it produces better results than a single photo. The fact that it was a single photo when focus stacking is possible doesn't mean it should be given particular merit. I'm not saying you absolutely had to use focus stacking, but if the image suffers because you didn't, you can't really argue "but it's good for what it is". It's like me saying that I took a photo of a flying bird at dusk at ISO 6400 and managed to freeze the movement. Yes, great, but it's very noisy and not as useful as it could otherwise be, and unless there's something inherently special about the fact that it was taken at dusk (perhaps it exhibited special behaviour only seen at dusk), then the counter-argument will be "why didn't you take it during the day when the sun was shining and you could have used ISO 400 or lower instead?". And rightly so. Likewise, if you'd used focus stacking, you could have had a much wider aperture which would have increased sharpness considerably (if you don't see a diffraction related softening at f/25 then I don't really know what else to say). For me, if I had to give you one piece of advice.... You should have either used focus stacking and got the whole brownie in good focus and sharpness, or you should have gone for a narrow depth of field and tried for a more artistic 'food photography' style. This image, for me, is in between. Neither one or the other. It's a good image (and it is appetising looking!) but not a great image. Diliff (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right.--ɱ (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to clarify that I don't think focus stacking would be necessary. Here's a good example with similar motif, afaik no FS. --A.Savin 14:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't compare them. This image is of a small object that needs macro photography (and therefore depth of field is much smaller). Jebulon's image is taken from much further back and was therefore able to get the entire cake in focus with just f/9. It's apples and oranges. Actually, looking closely at Jebulon's image, I wonder if maybe he did actually use focus stacking. Look at the details just below the main body of the cake. There are duplicates of everything. All the dots and dust particles. Perhaps it's not because of focus stacking, but there's something strange going on in that image. Diliff (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be surprised if any commercial stock photo of food "XX on White" is focus stacked. Most use of such images are for web illustration or thumbnail sized photos in books, both of which do not require high resolution. The need for stacking such images seems to me to be a Commons artefact. IIRC, I did focus stack my File:Electric steam iron.jpg photo, but that was mostly out of curiosity about the technique rather than thinking all product shots need to be stacked. So I think we should be wary about insisting on (or even recommending) focus stacking for non-macro photography. A plain "XX on White" photograph probably has to be technically perfect these days to wow anyone on Commons FP, though there's certainly value in that kind of image for Wikipedia and similar publications. I'd love to see more of the kind of food shots that don't look like they were taken in a laboratory, for example, this kind of photography. -- Colin (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right that commercial stock photos of food are likely not focus stacked. But they also tend to be more artistically presented, even when a simple 'xx on white'. Also, I don't think we should assume that most commercial stock photos of food would and should be FP quality either - we have different standards, rightly or wrongly. But yes, as I said in my comments above, a photo of this sort should either be artistically presented (in a homely or restaurant environment to elicit a sense of belonging to a meal or a location or even a memory) or be a technically perfect image. This image is neither one nor the other. Probably the reason why most people were suggesting focus stacking instead of a more artistic presentation is because it seems, from the image above, that the photographer was going for the sterile, technical shot, so the voters suggested what would allow it to it pass muster as a technical shot. If it had been a flawed artistic shot, the advice would have centred around how to improve it artistically. Diliff (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but the quality is not sufficient enough. needs focus stacking. --Hubertl 15:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comments above. Diliff (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Jean11 (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Esprit nomade.JPG, featured , featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2015 at 15:53:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Algeria
Info created by Hamdanmourad - uploaded by Hamdanmourad - nominated by Vikoula5 -- Vikoula5 (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Photo of an Tuareg, in here free land between Algeria and Lybia, for me this photo is a story Vikoula5 (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. --Laitche (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a composition! --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Giddily enthusiastic support I can't say enough things about what is likely to be a PotY finalist at least. Such colors! Such shapes! Such abstract beauty! If this were an album cover I'd buy it without caring if the music inside were any good. Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support fantastic! --Hubertl 13:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean11 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tiny quality issues and missing color space... but obviously. - Benh (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive! --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Jean11 (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Algeria

File:John's Lane Church Interior 2, Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2015 at 13:07:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This I really like both as a subject and as a photo, it is not distorted as your others (excuse my pitiful English). Hoping Laitche doesn't "切腹" --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- True, it isn't as distorted. It's a narrow view looking at the altar. I have another wider view (which I guess you won't prefer) linked on the image page. Diliff (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- When I've got to do it, ask Livio to be kaishakunin --Laitche (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Rome we've Mastro Tritta --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, and my wife is a black belt in Iaido (really), I'm sure she will give me the honour when the time comes for me. ;-) Diliff (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Of course. Just for curiosity: Why f/18? --Code (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- to maximise depth of field. It was taken at about 120mm focal length, and I wanted to ensure that the altar and the pillars were in focus. Yes, it affected the sharpness a bit, but not too much. Diliff (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support we need a workshop with Diliff about photographing churches. --Ralf Roleček 14:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 15:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful church. --Laitche (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some +EV perhaps. --Mile (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More churchy goodness. Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ralf Roletschek --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 11:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 14:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just returned from Ireland, family vacation didn't allow any proper work, so very happy that the master himself took care of this dilemma :D. On a more serious note, I'm slightly worried that after switching from 35mm to 50mm, I'm again lagging in quality, let alone subjects. I also wonder how you dealt with the Irish, who seemed to pray much more in the benches than either French or Germans. --DXR (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, I was in Ireland for a family vacation too, but I still managed to get some photography done (still much more to upload). Anyway, you have your higher resolution D800, you don't need to match the focal length ;-). It's hard to run out of subjects though, there's a lot still in Germany that I'm sure are deserving of your skills. I've still got many on my list in the UK too, but it's hard to justify a bit drive across the country just to see them so for now, they can wait. :-) Yes, I noticed that about the Irish churches too. The two cathedrals in Dublin were 100% tourist attractions (with their €6 admission charge!) with not many people sitting and praying, just a lot of tourists walking around constantly. But the parish churches were always quite busy (sadly with many heroin addicts half awake, half asleep). I managed to get some photos without anyone in them (by visiting early in the day), but most had quite a few people which as you know causes problems with ghosting unless they sit very still for 10+ seconds. I haven't visited many German churches but I assume that since they're mostly Protestant, they're similar to the UK - not very busy except on Sundays. I tried to visit a few Church of Ireland (Protestant) churches but most were completely shut. Diliff (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Very curious why you would be lagging in quality because of a switch to 50mm... Is your lens that crap? Have you tried going very early ? (I don't know if this change something, I don't really do churches). - Benh (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think DXR was joking that he was trying to match my 'moves' in panoramas. I started doing HDR church interiors with my Sigma 35mm, then switched up to the Sigma 50mm. DXR also did the same. I've been experimenting with larger focal lengths (85mm to 130mm) recently. This nomination is an example, this image is another. So I understood it to mean that now DXR feels under pressure to increase the focal lengths in his panoramas to match me. I'm sure he meant it as a joke though. Diliff (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - How naive of me :) This looks like a men's contest though :D. As for me, I can't go higher until I get an SSD and more RAM. - Benh (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Haha, sorry for causing confusion here, Diliff is right, that was not 100% serious. I'm quite happy with the 50mm, even though it is the cheap Nikon 1.8G (at f/11 it hardly matters). By the way. I am now working my way through my hometown of Würzburg, which is certainly not protestant (we even had a freaking Prince-Bishop) but unfortunately full of rather boring white-walled churches, an ugly cathedral, or those that were built after the bombings of 1945 and are not okay with FOP. Nevertheless, the pure density of churches is rather awesome, we apparently have 59 for 120.000 people. --DXR (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        You don't have FoP for interiors in Germany? Damn... We really need to organise universal EU-wide FoP! It depresses me how restrictive it is in some countries. Anyway White-walled churches aren't too bad if they're ornamental (Baroque), I remember seeing some nice ones in Munich. I don't know exactly how many churches we have in London, would be tricky to get an exact number. The List of churches in London article suggests we have at least 1700 though - it might not be a complete list. But anyway, that makes it one church for every 4600 people, and Würzburg wins with one church for every 2000 people. :-) London probably wins for diversity though! We've got Catholic cathedrals, Church of England cathedrals, Greek-Orthodox cathedrals, Coptic Christian churches, Joint Romanian Orthodox and Church of England churches, Childrens Hospital chapels, Knights Templar churches.... OK OK, I'll stop. ;-) Diliff (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        We also have Hindu temples, Buddhist temples and plenty of mosques but I haven't photographed any of those yet. ;-) Diliff (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, that's the advantage of living in a metropolis (don't tell him though). I'm not a big fan of baroque, I'm in the camp "build exciting, save the kitsch" and the stuff we have around here tends to be the opposite... Also the variety of churches you shoot makes me feel guilty, so I will do some more work today :D --DXR (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmm yeah I know, nobody in London would vote for him. He just appeals to the kind of country bumpkin voter that doesn't actually know any immigrants. I actually feel a bit guilty about that portrait. We were given strict instructions apolitical during our time in Strasbourg, but I feel like somehow I've contributed in my little way to making 'him' look respectable and mainstream. It's actually probably the best portrait of the major party leaders in the UK (I don't know why David Cameron's office would release this as their official potrait as the lighting is terrible). I tend to agree with you about some baroque, it can be very kitschy and overly flamboyant (this just makes my eyes hurt). But if it's done well, it can look quite spectacularly artistic without looking like a mess of colour and swirls. Looking forward to seeing what you shoot today. ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I strongly oppose all this baroque-bashing! ;-) If I just had the expertise (and equipment) to enter the church-interior-business... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        C'mon Martin, can you honestly say that you thinkthis looks aesthetic? It's like God vomited angels and gold leaf on the ceiling! ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Jean11 (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska 2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2015 at 15:50:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Ross Fowler, uploaded and nominated by -- The Photographer (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 15:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support want a bit more space on the top but very nice composition. --Laitche (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Neumagen-Dhron, Mosel -- 2015 -- 7556.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2015 at 05:02:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mosel (and bridge), Neumagen-Dhron, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 08:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A pretty landscape but not FP level. The foreground, in particular, is unattractive. -- Colin (talk) 08:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good impression of Mosel. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Mosel is like that. --Tremonist (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Likewise, this reminds me of similar vistas in the Hudson Highlands near where I lve (although the mountains over the Hudson are still covered almost entirely in forest). I have no problem with the foliage in the front as it doesn't break the river surface plane. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP level sure--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. The landscape itself is nice. The foreground is not ideal, partly because it is in the shadow. A higher point of view would probably help, but I don't know how high the exisitng photo was taken. It's also a problem that the foreground obstructs the background towards the right edge of the frame, which is the direction in which the eye is guided by the composition. — Julian H.^✈ 18:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Simply composition issue... --Laitche (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very nice landscape, obvious QI, but no vibrations for me.--Jebulon (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foreground is too dark. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. --Ivar (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautfiul scene. It's particularly the foreground that lifts it above QI in my opinion. Anyways: XRay, I don't see any reason for using the FoP-template in this case. --Code (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I too like the foreground than the alt below. J e e 02:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but mostly per other opposers. I also miss a more side lighting. - Benh (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

I've made nearly the same picture at nearly the same place (3 meters left) without the foreground; may be better with less water - I'll reduce the part with the water within the next days --XRay ^talk 19:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Part of water is now reduced. --XRay ^talk 05:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per my above comment - Benh (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 22:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Jean11 (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:منظر طبيعي من الريف المغربي، 11 05 2013.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2015 at 15:25:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Harvest time approaching for chaoui growers 2013. This is a featured picture on the Arabic language Wikipedia.

Category: Objects/Harvest Time
Category: Objects/sky

Info created by Md Boualam/simo - uploaded by Md Boualam/simo - nominated by Md Boualam/simo -- Md Boualam/simo (talk)

--محمد بوعلام عصامي «Md.Boualam» (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- محمد بوعلام عصامي «Md.Boualam» (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Horizont line centered [2] --The Photographer (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As mentioned, the composition is at least unconventional. That doesn't have to be bad, but I don't see a reason for it here. Unfortunately, especially the foreground is also not very sharp while the whole image shows considerable amounts of noise. The composition doesn't present me with a good subject or interesting shapes and feels quite random. — Julian H.^✈ 18:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy, per Julian. Daniel Case (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice photo, but per others. --Tremonist (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Jean11 (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015 Grupa rekontrukcji historycznej w Kłodzku.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2015 at 13:02:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Reenactments of the battle of Kłodzko Fortess from 1807

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting scene. Pls give the viewer the date of the battle reenacted here. --Tremonist (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Well done, QI for sure, but no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For this small size, detail and sharpness should be better. I also find it to be a bit of a mess compositionally (very little space all around the right, would overall probably be more impressive taken slightly more from the right). — Julian H.^✈ 17:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014.07.11.-17-Eilenburg Hainichen--Blutrote Heidelibelle-Paarung.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2015 at 14:53:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family_:_Libellulidae_.28Skimmers.29
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors. --Mile (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I prefer this one :) --Laitche (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dragonfly tandem pose is rare compared to damselflies. So I prefer this. J e e 03:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 17:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata

File:2014.08.29.-2-Mannheim Vogelstang--Kraeuseljagdspinne-Zoropsis spinimana-Weibchen.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2015 at 15:17:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Zoropsidae
Info All by me -- Hockei (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose certainly a QI, but for FP all that fabric below the spider is too unattractive for my taste. Sorry, --El Grafo (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really nice portrait, but especially the hind legs are out of focus what is a little bit disturbing. The photo has many good aspects though. --Tremonist (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This kind of spider is very rare in Germany. AFAIK all findings in Germany came from buildings. It is not a good idea to take this spider in the hand. It can bite through the human skin. As I heard the effect is maybe like a sting of a wasp. Therefore it has been sitting on an umbrella. ;-) The distance between the camera and this big spider was very short (macro shot). So it was (and is) impossible to get it sharp from cover to cover. All in all I thought I'll give it a try because I'm a bit proud of it. :) --Hockei (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh sure you can be proud of it, it's certainly a good photo. And thank you for the explanations, they are appreciated. --Tremonist (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015-06-04 16-42-31 piece.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2015 at 11:44:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically ok, on the subject somebody might have issues--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not nice but interesting subject, though I think the top part of the left image and the bottom part of the right image aren't really in focus. — Julian H.^✈ 06:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 05:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Bald eagle at the Hawk Conservancy Trust 2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2015 at 20:02:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Lewis Hulbert - uploaded by Lewis Hulbert - nominated by Σπάρτακος -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The eye and half of the face are in shadow but nice portrait (format is landscape though...), imho. --Laitche (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Majestic. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a very nice portrait without a doubt, but we have a few very similar photos as FPs and in my eyes, many of them have similar quality and better light. — Julian H.^✈ 06:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition and sharpness, but simply too dark. I would change my vote to support if anyone would brighten the picture a little bit (without loss of quality, of course). --Code (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a brightened version, how's that? --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian H. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This version anyway. Not sure yet about the alt below. -- Yann (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Eyes too dark. -- RTA 21:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark for FP, only QI --Atamari (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Code. --Tremonist (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Brightened version. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great close-up. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Eyes also too dark. This should be the bights part of the photo, with some burn and dodge tools (a more pro edition), this could be a good photo. -- RTA 21:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark for FP, only QI --Atamari (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

The chosen alternative is: File:Bald eagle at the Hawk Conservancy Trust 2-2.jpg

File:Billet de 5000 mark.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2015 at 11:46:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I expect higher resolution here. Yann (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann, sorry. — Julian H.^✈ 06:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yann. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 15:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann. Also seems a bit over-exposed, and the JPG lacks any colourspace tag or profile, which is required by our image guidelines and especially so for photographing artworks. -- Colin (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Cephalaria dipsacoides. Locatie, De Kruidhof Buitenpost.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2015 at 04:56:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family: Dipsacaceae (Teasel)
Info Cephalaria dipsacoides. Location, The Kruidhof in the Netherlands. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charming. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subtle. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support elegant. --Pine^✉ 18:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. The noise is too strong for me, and I propose to crop the right side - too much empty space there. I would be happy to support if this is fixed. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is fine now. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose Agree with Uoaei1, noisy and should be cropped, too much space on right side. --Mile (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC) int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 15:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC) A bit better. --Mile (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cutting and noise reduction. Thanks for advice.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bit more exposure would make it even better. --Ivar (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: You mean something lighter?--Famberhorst (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes. --Ivar (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Clouded yellow (Colias croceus) male.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2015 at 06:31:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info all by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is one big smudge (like missing part of stack) on animals wing. --Mile (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Yes; it seems there are some unfocused foreground objects between the lens and subject? J e e 07:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Notes added. J e e 10:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some blurred spot in the middle. Yann (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mile and Jee. --Laitche (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mile . --Ivar (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jee, very pity. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jee. — Julian H.^✈ 08:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dactylorhiza majalis Spechtensee 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2015 at 09:01:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Western Marsh Orchid (Dactylorhiza majalis)

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info Western Marsh Orchid (Dactylorhiza majalis). All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the glittering pollen. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Aura petals, especially upstairs.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looking at Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Orchidaceae, this doesn't stand out positively, the wow is low compared to similar images. Reasons are the relatively busy background and the harsh light. — Julian H.^✈ 05:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background is a little too busy for me. Little wow overall. - Benh (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Famberhorst and Julian. --Ivar (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 22:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian. --El Grafo (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Dune de sable au parc Culturel De l'Ahaggar.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2015 at 07:17:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sand dune in the national park of Ahaggar

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Others
Info created by Hamza-sia - uploaded by Hamza-sia - nominated by Vikoula5 -- Vikoula5 (talk) 07:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vikoula5 (talk) 07:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted a lot. I really like the scene though, alternative suggestion below. — Julian H.^✈ 09:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian. --Tremonist (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Rotated, cropped, some minor adjustments. Converted to sRGB because that way most people can see the intended colours. — Julian H.^✈ 09:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. The quality isn't ideal towards the edge of the frame. However, the scene is beautiful enough for me to accept that. — Julian H.^✈ 09:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Look like another planet --The Photographer (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great mood. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Arion. --Tremonist (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds me of photos taken by Lucag which was one of the finest contributors over here imo. - Benh (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support In league with some of our best photos of Wadi Rum (which, BTW, has been used as "another Planet" in quite a few movies). Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. --Laitche (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vikoula5 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice colors. --Ivar (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great scene. --Code (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Code. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit unsharp but OK. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose I think I could remove this as FPX (non appropriate image description )...file description is useless, wanted to put it as POTD, but where is it, what state, country, geolocation would help but none there. --Mile (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC) --Mile (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I think the approximate location is given pretty clearly: fr:Parc culturel de l'Ahaggar. Now the exact location is probably almost impossible to find without some information from a local or the photographer since this park is huge. But southern Algeria it is. — Julian H.^✈ 14:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That should be stated in image description, to know without further searcing where that park is. Not asking exact geolocation, country would do. --Mile (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I added the country if that helps. — Julian H.^✈ 15:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 05:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 22:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Look like a Forbidden Planet...! ;-) $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 13:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean11 (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural_phenomena

The chosen alternative is: File:Dune de sable au parc Culturel De l'Ahaggar crop.jpg

File:Dustin Brown 14, 2015 Wimbledon Qualifying - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2015 at 13:02:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. I think it's one of my better (non-studio) portraits with good sharpness and resolution, and plenty of character. Please consider that this isn't posed and was taken during a tennis match so I wasn't able to get perfect lighting or tell him what to do. As some background to the photo, Dustin Brown is a Jamaican-German tennis player who has never really settled into the top 50, but has a really flamboyant style (his volleys, drop shots and forehands are incredible) and occasionally shows flashes of absolute brilliance. This photo was taken at the Wimbledon qualifying (where the second-tier pro players fight to qualify for the main draw of Wimbledon). He then went on to Beat Raphael Nadal (if you want to see some really entertaining tennis, watch the highlights of this match on YouTube or this eye-boggling drop shot service return) in the second round of Wimbledon proper, before being knocked out in the following round. -- Diliff (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 14:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pretty impressed by the C-lens, too, at this focal length. — Julian H.^✈ 15:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it's excellent. I've got a lot of portraits taken at the full reach of 600mm that are just as good, technically speaking. The problem is (at least, from my experience with sports photography) actually getting them in focus and keeping them there, as the DoF is so narrow and they tend to move around constantly, giving the autofocus a tough time keeping up. Diliff (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's great to hear, thanks for the details. AF issues might vary between bodies, altough I would expect no issues from a 5DIII, so maybe it is a little slow. — Julian H.^✈ 19:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I don't know, sudden movements are always a problem for any AF, even the 5DIII. Maybe with an f/2.8 lens it would be more accurate and quicker to respond as it would detect focus changes quicker, but I also have 70-300mm f/4-5.6L lens and it doesn't seem much different to the Sigma 150-600mm. Both are quite fast, but not magic. The Sigma is much more difficult to hand-hold though. ;-) It's not so much a problem for hand shake, because the shutter speed is usually fast enough for that for sports photography, but it is difficult to zoom in and out. The ring is a bit stiff and requires about two large turns of the wrist from 150mm to 600mm, and doing so at large focal lengths makes maintaining the framing difficult. Also, the weight makes it difficult to hold for long periods of time (like during a tennis match waiting for the right moment). I had a sore back by the end of the day! I used a monopod for most of these shots though which was a big help but you still need to hold your arm forward to frame the shot and zoom (the zoom ring is a long way forward due to the size of the lens) which unbalances your body and strains your back. Some of them were hand-held and the quality was not much different. Really it's just a comfort problem. It's a great quality lens for the price. Diliff (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for the intensity of his stare alone ... that takes this from being a very good quality image to featurable. This guy is definitely in the zone, and portraits of athletes don't always manage to get that. Daniel Case (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel. Superb. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 10:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ericsfr (talk)
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Dülmen, Dernekamp, Strohballen -- 2015 -- 7838.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2015 at 08:14:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Straw bales in a field in the hamlet Dernekamp, Kirchspiel, Dulmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 08:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 08:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion it needs a cut, the part in the foreground is disturbing--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like the foreground, but you're right too. I've centered the image vertically, so the foreground is smaller now.--XRay ^talk 12:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blurred foreground doesn't work for me. Yann (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely and good quality. I would have cloned out the birds. --Code (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Thanks. Birds are nor cloned out (and a better resolution).--XRay ^talk 05:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but I think I should oppose. Neutral Nice idea but proportion and balance (foreground, main subject and background) and the composition are not FP level, I think that's why this photo does not give impressive feeling. --Laitche (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Laitche and Yann, sorry. The low point of view appears arbitrary here and generates the aforementioned foreground that I also find quite distracting. — Julian H.^✈ 11:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 13:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The direction of light don't work for me. -- Christian Ferrer 17:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kameraprojekt Graz 2015 (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 22:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looking for a wow --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others; maybe a less centered composition would've worked better. --El Grafo (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Gymnothorax javanicus (by night).webm, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2015 at 12:04:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated or Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
Info created by Ericsfr - uploaded by Ericsfr - nominated by Ericsfr -- Ericsfr (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ericsfr (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Als33120
Support Really nice and impressive little film, very illustrative! Well done, congratulations. --Tremonist (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd like to see more high quality videos here. This one has high quality video (1080p) and a reasonably steady video footage. Audio is clear and although basically just sounds made by the diver, is better than no audio at all as it gives more of a sensory experience of being there. Diliff (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 12:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jarillon (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Very impressive, clear, beautiful.[reply]
Support--Vikoula5 (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice vid :) --Laitche (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:Iglesia de San Francisco, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 159-161 HDR.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2015 at 12:31:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created and uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Nice ceiling! More good pictures from South America! -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you Arion! I've made some slight perspective adjustments Poc o² 13:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Oppose~~. It just seems like it's a bit overexposed and oversaturated to me. I see that HDR was used and I know from experience that gold is a tricky thing to photography but large areas of the image just don't look that good to me, like sharpness at the edges (which does matter a lot on this image unlike the below image), the borders of the windows and the blown highlights on the gold. I just think if you're going to do HDR, you should at least ensure that the highlights are not blown. What HDR tone mapping processing was used? Diliff (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral based on the new edit. Not enough to oppose, not enough to support. Diliff (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David: I have uploaded a new version with a colder WB, and also reworked the exposure. For HDR I used LR6 and regardind sharpness I am not so sure in this case, to me it looks distorted, but not lacking sharpness. Poc o² 15:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new version is an improvement. There's still a bit of overexposure in the gold highlights but I suppose this shows the reflection of light (gold leaf is quite reflective) so it's acceptable (if not understandable) to be slightly blown, although in an ideal world it would still have some detail in it. Was your darkest exposure able to capture the details in the gold highlights? If so, it could probably be recovered further. You could try using the adjustment brush to paint a negative highlights value over the gold area, so it only affects that without also affecting the rest of the image. As for the sharpness, it's not just distorted. There's also a loss of resolution/sharpness at the edges. The effect is similar to motion blur as there's less spatial resolution on the horizontal axis, a bit like you've moved the camera horizontally, but it cannot be motion blur since the centre is sharp. I suppose it's relatively minor given the total resolution and the angle of view (my wide angle images are also softer at the edges, although they are often the equivalent of 9-11mm focal lengths so it's more expected). It's just the typical result of a wide angle zoom lens. They just aren't quite as sharp as primes, especially at the edges. Diliff (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Diliff --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 15:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's an incredible ceiling. Technically it's certainly not worse than the other recently promoted ceilings. It sure looks a bit yellowish (too saturated again?) but Poco knows better than us. - Benh (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the proof of trust, I tried to make it cooler and it doesn't look the way I recall it and whites start also getting blueish, therefore I think that the current colors are pretty realistic Poc o² 20:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I suggested above though, you don't have to apply global white balance changes, you can apply adjustment brush white balance so that the whites don't start getting blueish. Or alternatively, you can apply global white balance changes, and then apply warmer white balance adjustment brushes to the parts that start to look too blueish. There are many ways of approaching it so that you get the right colours in different parts of the image. It's really the only way to do it properly when there are multiple light sources (cool light from outside and warm light from incandescent interior lighting). Diliff (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me is good --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm sufficiently wowed. Minor technical shortcomings don't matter. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 12:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Katie Swan 3, 2015 Wimbledon Qualifying - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2015 at 17:24:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Katie Swan competing in the first round of the 2015 Wimbledon Qualifying Tournament.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Created and uploaded by Diliff - Nominated by Laitche (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice portrait in Wimbledon color. -- Laitche (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Laitche, it was an image that I was considering nominating myself. For those wondering who Katie Swan is, she is a 16 year old British girl, one of the top ranked junior tennis players and probably one to look out for in the top womens competition in coming years. She's easy on the eye too (!), which will probably help with her popularity in the future. Diliff (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would have had a great action photo of her too, but the damn camera mis-focused on the background at the wrong moment. Diliff (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Diliff (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support oppose, this pictures of Tennis aren't typical Diliffs! --Ralf Roleček 21:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another Sports Illustrated-level shot. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Btw, how did you manage to get your pro-level equipment into the stadium? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this was at the qualifying for Wimbledon, which is actually extremely relaxed. Anyone can come (for free!) and there is no security. So I could always get a perfect seat right at the edge of the courts (see a photo here showing the courts - there's a small strip of grass between each court for spectators). It's much harder at the actual Wimbledon tournament because you have to line up for four to five hours in the morning to get a ticket and security is tight. But actually I did get into Wimbledon with a 150-600mm lens. Security did check it, but they were not very smart about it. The rules say you cannot take a lens greater than 300mm. But actually my lens is about 280mm in length when not extended. So they said I could take it in. ;-) They didn't realise that 300mm was focal length, not physical length! Also I guess they didn't know it extends quite a lot at 600mm. Next year I want to try to get a press pass through Wikimedia though, it would be much easier (no more waiting 5 hours for tickets) and the court access would be much better too. Diliff (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks David. Interesting system... Nur die Harten kommen in den Garten, I'm tempted to quip ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a crazy system, and it gets busier and more popular every year (and therefore you have to arrive earlier every year). But at least you can always get a ticket on the day, unlike many other major tournaments like Roland Garros, and that means you can get the right ticket to support your favourite players, which isn't possible if you have to buy the ticket for a specific day months in advance. Diliff (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 10:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 11:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --· Favalli ⟡ 02:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 13:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:LEI0060 186 Leica I Sn.5193 1927 Originalzustand Front top view-FS 5644-Bearbeitet.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2015 at 13:21:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by Kameraprojekt Graz 2015
Info Leica I, 1927, front view with 35° angle
Support -- Kameraprojekt Graz 2015 (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty good photo, high resolution. --Tremonist (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Tremonist. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 14:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 14:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 19:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Damn, what a good product shot! It makes justices to all the scratches on the body :) - Benh (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the best of these shots of old cameras and stuff from that theme contest a few months back. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ausgezeichnet. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually I've a few niggles about it : it's slightly leaning to the right. Somehow I now only see that. Also, wonder if you didn't mean the background to be a bit whiter. - Benh (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have two hardware calibrated monitors here. One is colder, one is warmer - after calibration. When I lighten the picture up at the colder one, I have some problems with overexposing of some metal parts. As it always is with chrom areas. It did it somehow in the middle. --Hubertl 19:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 17:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Laitche 🚀 09:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Spodoptera eridania (Southern armyworm) pupae lateral view.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2015 at 14:39:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created by Sam Droege - uploaded by Natuur12 - nominated by Natuur12

Support A high quality and very usefull imageof the pupea of Spodoptera eridania. Every single detail of the pupea is quite visible and the colors are natural. I espescially like it that this is a shot of the lateral side. File is highly usefull. -- Natuur12 (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't all sides lateral sides, if you really think about it?

Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support If framing would be more wide would be even better. --Mile (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely, please fix name --The Photographer (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Natuur12 (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 19:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I want to sleep and transform like this... --Laitche (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support High EV --· Favalli ⟡ 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 17:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 00:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Stiftskirche Herzogenburg Deckenfresko Pfingstwunder 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2015 at 09:06:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info The Miracle of Pentecost - ceiling fresco in Herzogenburg Abbey Church (Lower Austria) by Daniel Gran. Photo, upload and nomination by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 11:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice ceiling for sure and it's properly taken, but it doesn't stand out amongst the many ones we currently have here. As a photo itself, it doesn't strike me as being exceptional. Long form for "no wow" ;) - Benh (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean11 (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 15:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Sunset over the North Pole at the International Date line at 20,000 feet Aug 6th 2015 by D Ramey Logan.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2015 at 16:06:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places
Info created by WPPilot - uploaded by WPPilot - nominated by WPPilot -- WPPilot (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WPPilot (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but another uninteresting sunset with no wow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry per Alchemist --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pleasing colors but not technically adept enough to avoid the YAFS designation. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably a great experience and a COM:VI, but otherwise just a sunset. Sorry. Yann (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not even a QI. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 15:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The photo should be called Sunset & Sunrise as this was just before the low point in its arc for the morning. (see alt)
The North Pole ALT
that shows more of the arctic tundra as well as the unaffected color spectrum of the northern atmosphere, something that few will ever experience and removed it from the "Just Another Sunset" classification. I did not really do any clean up, its a natural photo with well defined colors that you wont see anywhere on earth. --WPPilot (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What is so different about the colour spectrum of the northern atmosphere, compared to the colour spectrum elsewhere? Apart from the sky looking a bit more purple (which I would actually attribute to bad colour balance rather than a natural phenomenon but if you say there is something special about it then ok) than I would normally consider natural, I can't see anything different about it. Diliff (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Tremonist (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tamm Albus.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2015 at 18:19:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Ireena - uploaded by Ireena - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 18:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light, colors and the composition. --Laitche (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Lovely composition,quality a little less --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support, but maybe better with less sky. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Arion, whom I agree with, I have suggested a crop. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, since the crop has been proposed and withdrawn. Daniel Case (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Better with the suggested crop.--XRay ^talk 08:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice but there are at least two dust spots which should be cloned out. --Code (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add notes please? and I will ask the author if they can upload a fixed version, and if no answer from them I will correct it myself. -- Christian Ferrer 21:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked to the author for a correction, however these dustspots are nearly unvisible and if the author don't answer, this do not deserve to overwrite this image (edited jpg = irremediable little lost of quality). -- Christian Ferrer 15:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Code (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Villach Kirchenplatz Pfarrkirche hl Jakob 07082015 6568.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2015 at 14:29:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Main parish church Saint James the Greater, city Villach, Carinthia, Austria

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too distorted, too tide crop on right and left. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. But it is very distorted indeed and the tower is too bright. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Spurzem: : Why do you find the tower to be too bright? — Julian H.^✈ 08:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Julian Herzog: Die Umrahmung des Fensters unter der Uhr und die Lisenen bzw. Mauerstreifen an den Ecken des Turms heben sich nicht oder nicht genügend vom übrigen Mauerwerk ab. Die Kirche ist insgesamt ziemlich hell und speziell der Turm ist zu hell. Freundlichen Gruß und bitte nichts für ungut -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks, Lothar, for for your constructive assessment. I acted on your hints and charged an altered version. --Johann Jaritz 10:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Support Well done. --Tremonist (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 13:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 15:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too distorted. It looks wrong, and the EXIF confirms some unusual perspective changes (horizontal perspective and significant changes to aspect ratio don't appear compatible with a faithful representation of a 3D object). -- Colin (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --El Grafo (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vincent van Gogh - De slaapkamer - Google Art Project.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2015 at 19:24:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bedroom in Arles (French: La Chambre à Arles; Dutch: Slaapkamer te Arles) is the title given to each of three similar paintings by 19th-century Dutch Post-Impressionist painter Vincent van Gogh.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic media

Info created by Vincent van Gogh / Google Art Project, uploaded by Dcoetzee, nominated by Md Boualam -- محمد بوعلام عصامي «Md.Boualam» (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- محمد بوعلام عصامي «Md.Boualam» (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category problems in this nomination --The Photographer (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We already have File:La Chambre à Arles, by Vincent van Gogh, from C2RMF.jpg as FP, but it's another version of this painting. Yann (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it looks different:light and colour.--محمد بوعلام عصامي «Md.Boualam» (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Marbie Hemispheres, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2015 at 12:20:06 (UTC)

Blue Marble Western Hemisphere
Blue Marble Eastern Hemisphere

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Szczureq - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support, I wish they would have skipped the city lights layer. — Julian H.^✈ 16:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

Hudson's Soap, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2015 at 13:00:41 (UTC)

Hudson's Soap advert, c. 1910
Front
Back

Info Anonymous creator; restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Oh, god, so much dirt on the front of these. Took almost a week to restore. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 15:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why Johann? --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~A photo of a poster or another photo is not what I understand about photography. It is just a reproduction. Sorry about my harsh opinion.~~ --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 03:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johann Jaritz: But this isn't, and never has been solely about photography. It's meant to include all images: graphs, photography, illustrations, and, yes, reproductions of historic advertisements. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: Then I take my harsh critics back and I apologize for that. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 11:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johann Jeritz: No worries! Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. The cuts are a bit crude. Kleuske (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kleuske: While I agree, that's fairly typical of ephemera; it would be misleading to change that. Restoration is one thing: these were mass produced, after all, so we can reasonably ask for an idealised copy. Changing them into something else is misleading, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a fine reasoning for keeping (and using) this image. However, we're talking about "some of the finest on Commons". This just doesn't qualify as such for the reasons mentioned. Kleuske (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Kleuske: I would have said this was one of the finest images of display advertising from the early 20th century we had. But, then, I'm more used to en-wiki, where encyclopedic and illustrative value are actually considered. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As on the English Wikipedia. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very nicely restored too by the looks of it. Diliff (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hafspajen 02:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

L’Afficheur, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2015 at 18:27:48 (UTC)

L’Afficheur by Anne Claude de Caylus, 1742
Man posting an advertisement for "La publicité en France par Emile Mermet", between 1870 and 1900

Info Copyright infringement in the 19th century. Uploaded by Paris 16 - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and good work. Yann (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure if the 'copyright infringement' is just a joke or if it's really what the images are supposed to show.. but according to this Wiki article, Copyright laws in France didn't really exist until 1793, and only for 10 years after the death of the author, so this certainly wouldn't have been a copyright infringment. "Inspired by" is probably a better phrase. ;-) Diliff (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a joke. But thanks for the information--Paris 16 (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good idea --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Where a set shines :) - Benh (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Als33120, 13 August 2015
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Tanjung-Badak Sabah P&H-Crane-02.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2015 at 04:50:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
Info created by Cccefalon - uploaded by Cccefalon - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 04:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 04:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing remarkable in this image for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's interesting enough. --Tremonist (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1. A QI maybe, but not a FP IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Biblioteca Vasconcelos, Ciudad de México, México, 2015-07-20, DD 16-18 HDR.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2015 at 15:51:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info A very interesting view of Vasconcelos library in Mexico City. Very high level of detail and resolution. Created and uploaded by Diego Delso. Nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Uhuauh! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed, a great motif to take a picture of :) I was fascinated by this place, that can host up to 5000 people. Thanks for the nomination Arild! Poc o² 16:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support However, I preffer the version where you are there --The Photographer (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure that I can improve the picture with me in it :) Poc o² 16:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its not because are you, its because the humman body could be used to percibe the size --The Photographer (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I should have supposed that :) Well, I think that the size of a average book is more or less familiar. Poc o² 17:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea which images you are discussing (therefore, very difficult to follow for the rest of us), but I think the people on the floor here tell us about the size of the library.--ArildV (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I published a picture of myself in Facebook in the library Poc o² 18:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~nice composition, but soft, and the people walking at the base of the photo have pretty bad motion blur. --Pine^✉ 18:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

I'm sorry, but I think that is not a very informed critique: Have you looked at the size of the image? This is not a 10MP image, so of course it will not be as pixel sharp. Also the blurred people are probably an effort to make them less distracting. If anything, they serve as a reference for the size of the location, but making them sharp would not make this a better photo of the library imho. --DXR (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a 10 MPx, but a 47 MPx image. Still, I saw room for sharpening and have uploaded a new version, but cannot share this critique. Poc o² 19:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, not a valid critique really, but there are ways of avoiding people in the scene as we've discussed in the other nomination of Poco's. I think he should consider using that technique in future as it would help. The blurry people are inconsequential though in this image IMO. Diliff (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support after sharpening. I'm still a bit bothered by the moving people, but at least one of my two concerns has been addressed. --Pine^✉ 20:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ralf Roleček 19:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice. Excellent composition. A bit noisy (not sure what ISO was used as the EXIF data is wiped) but still great. Diliff (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also another issue on second viewing... Edges of high contrast have strong aliasing. I guess it's due to the HDR processing. And the highlights that I imagine should look basically white are a slightly dull grey (indicating you brought the highlights down a bit too far). Diliff (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 21:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very good composition. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Wikimania 2015 venue that might have been. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done :) --Laitche (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 08:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Staggering. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 12:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reminds me of a Borg ship for some reason …[reply]

Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Vikoula5 (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support you are on fire or something. - Benh (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

haha, this is the beginning, I am just ramping up :) Poc o² 12:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Caupolicana electa, f, ga, baker, side 2015-01-08-09.24.44 ZS PMax (16394012107).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2015 at 19:49:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

a highly detailed and sharp picture of Caupolicana electa. The file is high quality and for me it has the WOW-factor. Every bodypart of the subject is clearly visible.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Info created by Sam Droege - uploaded by Natuur12 - nominated by Natuur12
Support -- a highly detailed and sharp picture of Caupolicana electa. The file is high quality and for me it has the WOW-factor. Every bodypart of the subject is clearly visible. Natuur12 (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but an antenna and a paw are blurred also the body (at the top) is too worked. Anyway in thumb is nice indeed. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Livio, shooting small objects isn't quite as easy as shooting, say, a ceiling. Give it a try someday to realise. You can't expect to get same DOF here and on a landscape, church or ceiling subject. One could argue that there are tricks to work around this issue, but do we really need both antennas to be sharp? It's very likely it's symmetrical with the other one so we can somehow "figure it out". I agree with the strange artifacts over the rest of the body though. - Benh (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

throughout it is posterized, easy or difficult it is (Although for somebodies it is a problem and other not)--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and more is a dead insect...is so difficult shoot a dead insect? --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer:Yes,like any other photo --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: Yes, it is difficult to shoot a dead insect to the standards you want to apply to it. Depth of field is still a problem even when the subject is not moving. There are ways to bypass this (focus stacking) but even this is not a perfect method. It is difficult indeed. Diliff (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the filename, I can see that actually it was focus stacked already (Pmax is a focus stacking algorithm). So.... it could have been completely in focus. I don't think it's a problem that it wasn't, but I don't know why the photographer didn't try. Diliff (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am busy right know, I am cooking --The Photographer (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(was editing at same time) Well I think it's hard to get this nice position (don't you wonder how it has this position? Does it lies on the side? Is it hanged?). But just try to shoot any object this small as home, with the same nice lighting, and same DOF, and I feel confident you'll agree with me. - Benh (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I could do it fairly easily. It would be pretty easy to pin it (through its abdomen) and then clone out the pin afterwards (which is maybe what the photographer did). The lighting wouldn't be difficult. Just shine an incandescent light (or two) onto it from the sides in a dark room. Instant warm light and black background. ;-) Diliff (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; it is a pinned specimen. All info how it is photographed is available in the Flickr page with Youtube and PDF links. J e e 07:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good work. Yann (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 22:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, indeed. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 03:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very weak support~~ Neutral I'm not a fan of dead insect photos and there are lots of posterized parts esp. on the top caused by over-processing but wow indeed. --Laitche (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC) _{--Laitche (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)}[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 06:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I really wanted to support it as it looks great in thumbnail but the image quality at 100% is terrible. This is completely separate from the issues about macro photography mentioned above, which would be mitigating factors. It seems to be a processing problem (oversharpening and posterisation) rather than a photographic problem. Diliff (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpened. Otherwise very good. --Code (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose For Code --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Striked --Cart (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's a really good image for Wikispecies I suppose. --Tremonist (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Tremonist --Böhringer (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Diliff. --DXR (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Diliff. --Ivar (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info Post-promoted due to sock double vote. 12 October 2018 --Cart (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)}}[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera

File:Färila kyrka December 2014 03.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2015 at 20:31:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Winter view Färila parish church in Färila, Sweden. The church was built 1781 - 1783. I like the subtle winter light, and that the last rays of sunshine light up the church tower.Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting light – very good -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Delicate pastel colors. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 03:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood. --Laitche (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shooting at tall subject bellow its ground level is bad idea. So you had to evaluate tower to such shape it look very unnatural. Also composition could be more from left, still some trees are between subject and viewer. Trees could be more in focus. f/4 on FF for panorama is way too big diaphragma. --Mile (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry Mile, but I disagree. The architects chose to build the church on a hill (it is impossible to avoid), the church is surrounded by trees (the composition is chosen to avoid the trees obscuring the church). The photo was taken with an old-fashioned prime lens (Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AI-s) with huge DOF, and very sharp even wide open. In other words, F/4 is enough and everything from a few meters away to infinity is in focus and sharp. In my experience this lens outperforms Nikon's pro 24-70 F/2.8 zoom lens (which for example, has a poor corner sharpness, even stopped down. Not to mention more heavy, expensive, and much more distortion ).--ArildV (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Rotkehlchenportrait aus ca. 1 Meter Entfernung.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2015 at 21:54:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

European robin (Erithacus rubecula), Berkelaue II nature reserve, Vreden, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created and uploaded by Joefrei, nominated by Yann (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sharpness could be better, but this is a small bird, the composition is good, and the colors are wonderful. -- Yann (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice and wonderful colors -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question little blurred around the eye? --Atamari (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the juxtaposition of colors between the bird's cheek and the bokeh. Daniel Case (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Lothar. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 03:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice and per Daniel but upscaled image? and definitely over-compression. --Laitche (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak support Quality isn't the best but I love the "Pettirosso"!--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality good but not excellent compared to similar photos (especially colour information), quite tightly cropped. — Julian H.^✈ 19:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support colors are the colors are bright and harmonious----Isasza (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Sant'Ignazio (Rome) -False Dome.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2015 at 19:16:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice "dome"! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Bottom is overexposed. Not symmetric, etc. Generally much lower quality than the rest of your work. Sorry. Yann (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean for "etc"? --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And honestly do not understand where is overexposed--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to neutral. Yann (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose per Yann. Weak support now Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel now? thanks--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support FP for me. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 03:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about a 90°CW rotation to make the most out of the trompe l'oeil ? - Benh (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice etc. --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is impressive. --Tremonist (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Temporary oppose~~ Tons of CA! I am a bit surprised that you would nominate an image that obviously hasn't been properly checked for such an obvious flaw. --DXR (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done DXR More than tons ..... a dome of CAs. See the bright side, I know always surprise you! I joke,thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick correction. To be honest, the image is nice, but not wow enough for me, so I stay neutral. --DXR (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice and useful --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

Info Demoted/Delisted to not featured per this consensus. --Cart (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015-08-13 - Leica I, 1927 - lange Fassung mit Musik.webm, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2015 at 08:02:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects

Leica Mod. Ia (1927), production number 5193, production time 1925-1936, Leitz Elmar 50mm, f3.5

Info created by Kameraprojekt Graz 2015 - uploaded by Kameraprojekt Graz 2015 - nominated by Ralf Roleček
Support -- Ralf Roleček 08:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 12:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Johann. --Tremonist (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Vikoula5 (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Isiwal (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute video :) --Laitche (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 7 --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Kameraprojekt Graz 2015: Tolles Video, würde ein Pro geben, aber ist der Untertitel "Produktionsnumber" ein Versehen oder gewollt? Müsste wohl eher "Produktionsnummer" oder "production number" heißen, denke ich? --Code (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Code neue Version, Buchstaben getauscht. Es ist eine Tragödie, Videos auf Commons zu konvertieren und hochzuladen. Eigentlich eine Frechheit! --Hubertl 23:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...But same comments as in QIC.--Jebulon (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the final creator, I give me a pro too. ;-) --Hubertl 11:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:An RAF Chinook helicopter in silhouette, flying over Afghanistan. MOD 45158742.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2015 at 05:12:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chinook helicopter firing flares over Afghanistan.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles#Helicopters
Info created by Lee Goddard - uploaded by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. -- Fæ (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 15:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in silhouette?!--Fotoriety (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to remove "in silhouette" from the filename, though my presumption is that this should be avoided while this FPC is running. --Fæ (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ans seven --The Photographer (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pine^✉ 18:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles#Helicopters

File:Col Turond Ciampanil de Lietres Val Sëlva Gherdëina.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2015 at 07:39:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Col Turond bastion in the Langental in Gröden - UNESCO world heritage site

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Place and composition are really nice. Sadly, the subject is pretty much completely in the shadow. I realize that it would have to be late evening for some sun to reach this side of the mountain, but as it is, I don't find the light to be appealing. It also considerably reduces the contrast for sky and subject. — Julian H.^✈ 15:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the comment. IMO the fact that the rocks are in shadow, but still with all detail visible gives the image more contrast (Spannung) compared to a view in full sunshine. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously, full flat sunlight would be bad (and also not possible since this is almost north-facing), but light from the side would definitely create more contrast and make the air more transparent. — Julian H.^✈ 12:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wonder if there will ever be light from the side since the other part of the narrow valley is flanked by the Stevia Massif and the even higher Col dala Pieres. Cheers --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The shadow isn't the problem for me, but I think the decisions that were made to make sure it wasn't resulted in an image that's not as sharp as I'd like. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Scuse me Daniel! Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by "not sharp"? The camera was on a tripod, the shutter release was delayed by 5 seconds and the mirror up 2 seconds before, the aperture is f/10 and there was no seismic activitiy in the area at that moment, as far as I know ;-) I appreciate your comments as always. Cheers --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel Case, the image doesn't have the pixel-peeping sharpness we often see at FP, but many of them are stitched panoramas that have been downsized. That slight softness might be due to the quality of the lens or not applying a standard amount of sharpening in Lightroom/etc appropriate for landscape images. But the image is perfectly capable of being sharpened and looks very sharp if downsized a little while applying some sharpening. So please don't oppose because a 36MP image isn't sharp on your monitor at 100%: some of our FP regulars already only upload small images for FP because of opposes like this, so it is harming the project. Btw, Wolfgang Moroder, your image description page says "Multi-license with GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY 2.5" but the template is for the CC 3.0 licence and no GFDL template used. -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry Colin but I don't follow you for the part regardin the licence, I'm too ignorant for that --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't worry about the shadow, Wolfgang, the photo is great. --Tremonist (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I mean this picture is real great. --Isasza (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in shadow ? Yes. And so what ? This makes me feel something special. Support.--Jebulon (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this image tilted slightly to the right? Look at the trees in the foreground. --Pine^✉ 18:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the comment, Pine. I don't think it is tilted. I use regularly the internal level of the camera and the picture was taken with a tripod. The vertical lines are convergent below on both sides. I didn't correct the perspective on purpose because it gives a better sense of beeing high up. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Es muß nicht immer alles bei strahlendem Sonnenschein fotografiert werden, im Gegenteil. --Ralf Roleček 17:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Giuseppe Barberis - Carlo Cornaglia - Giuseppe Verdi's Don Carlo at La Scala.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2015 at 10:44:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Advertisement for the 1884 Milan production of Giuseppe Verdi's Don Carlo

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media
Info created by Giuseppe Barberis and Carlo Cornaglia - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info A nice example of historic posters, with the standard flaws of ephemera. The colouring job is generally pretty good for the time, with the typical issues. The floor is a bit slapdash, mind, but, of course, one can't take a historic artwork and manipulate it arbitrarily - this is what posters of the time looked like; therefore, it would be misleading to "fix" issues like that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Anyway, not the worst restoration. It had some sort of fold damage or the like in the middle, creating a dark brown horizontal line; it had the usual library stamp; the rest was fairly standard dust spot removal and such, as I recall.
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Adam Cuerden. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 11:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info Demoted to 'not featured' due to sock double vote. 4 October 2018. --Cart (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indígenas contemplando Quito desde El Panecillo, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 44.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2015 at 05:42:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Indigenous people peeling maize while overlooking Quito from El Panecillo, Ecuador.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Indigenous people peeling maize while overlooking Quito from El Panecillo, Ecuador. All by me, Poc o² 05:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 05:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good idea, but I do not like the lighting.--Claus 06:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Claus Obana: I've lightened it a bit up, it was in fact a bit underexposed Poc o² 06:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support something different! Lighting could be better, true, as could be the quality of the "bokeh" (wrong term in this context, but you'll get my point). Still...! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree about lighting. A proper one could have added drama. But guess you can't ask the people to wait for the sun to set down can you ? ;) I think I would have gone wider (or stepped back) to make people smaller a bit. Anyhow, I want to encourage that kind of pictures. Very nice idea. - Benh (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 11:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition is great. A pity that the light wasn't better. --Code (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support +1 great composition, this pic have a WOW to me. --Ralf Roleček 14:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know the magic of that place for having been there several times. Two of my FPs come from there, see here and here. --Cayambe (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely :) --Laitche (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice. Something a bit different but it works great, compositionally. Diliff (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another one of our images that ranks right up there with the best of National Geographic. I love the story it tells, of the encounter between rural migrants to rapidly, almost uncontrollably, expanding cities in the developing world and those cities themselves. Daniel Case (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds me to my first journey to South America. Very, very long ago. Good work, good composition. --Hubertl 11:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --· Favalli ⟡ 02:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Le chameau et la grande dune.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2015 at 07:21:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

South east of the Algerian desert in the Grand Erg Oriental

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Algeria
Info created by Eagleyes* - uploaded by Eagleyes* - nominated by Vikoula5 -- Vikoula5 (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Support Beautiful composition.-- Vikoula5 (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination Vikoula5 (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice mood but miss the sky! --Laitche (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually crop it as suggested. Would make it much more powerful and get rid of the overexposed sky. - Benh (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overexposed sky --The Photographer (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As I said in QIC: Sky is completely blown and there are JPEG artefacts everywhere. Dark parts very noisy. Nice composition however. --Code (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Code. --Tremonist (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Done, @Laitche: ; @Benh: ; @The Photographer: ;

* Support--Vikoula5 (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination Vikoula5 (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Satured, hard contrast, left white line border, jpg artifacts, oversharpening. If its fixed, I will change my vote to support --The Photographer (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are JPEG artefacts everywhere. Dark parts very noisy. Composition not as good as above. --Code (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Code. --Tremonist (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support to me is the wow more important. --Ralf Roleček 16:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to reprocess it, but it would be really better if you can get in touch with author and ask him to do something about the mentioned issues. That picture is amazing in its lighting, mood, and composition. - Benh (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Add posterized highlights to the list of technical flaws already enumerated. Great composition but seems to have been undermined by getting carried away with being artsy when editing. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hanomag Kommissbrot (05), 500 cm³, Bj. 1927 (2007-06-17).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2015 at 20:15:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Race version of Hanomag 2/15 PS from 1927

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles

I withdraw my nomination

Info created by Spurzem - uploaded by Spurzem - nominated by Spurzem -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Three of those small cars started at the first race on Nürburgring in 1927.
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral High value, but quality could be better (not that sharp), IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it's all that special compositionally, and that aethetic judgement is compounded by the clipping in the image (I did, however, add an English description and more categories, for those who factor that into their !votes). Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The quality isn't very good but this car is very rare,accetable wow for me--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light is not very appealing, sharpness is quite bad despite strong sharpening. — Julian H.^✈ 10:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that's for people like me with a low-price camera is not efficient to canvass here. I withdraw. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said anything about a low-price camera... The opposers only mentioned quality and sharpness and composition. Diliff (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there are two sides to this: One one hand, the photo could be improved in many ways that have nothing to do with the equipment (composition, light, quality to some extent). On the other hand, it is true that shooting fast moving objects with good sharpness is indeed among the things in photography that probably benefit most from good (and yes, expensive) eqipment. This means that some subjects are not or only with a lot of trickery and experience within the realm of what can be captured at FP quality, with the given eqipment. Now the image doesn't have any EXIF info, so I don't know where that limit may be, but I'm pretty confident that there are things that you can capture with your tools at a sufficient quality level. Your user page mentions an EOS 550D, which is a great camera and I'm pretty sure we have many FPs from similar and much cheaper cameras. If that's what you were referring to as being a "low-price camera", I'm actually confused. — Julian H.^✈ 12:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Praia do Cachorro, Fernando de Noronha 01.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2015 at 16:23:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Marina Feldhues - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pine^✉ 18:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wow is low level and the quality is not so good, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 08:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 11:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose I so badly want to support this one, but while I think there's plenty of wow Laitche has a point. The sea and sky at the right especially are wanting in quality. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Daniel. Yann (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice view, but lack of quality pe Daniel Case. Please see note. And cropped rock in foreground is not the best choice IMO (composition).--Jebulon (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cascade à Yakouren.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2015 at 14:24:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Algeria
Info created by Chettouh Nabil - uploaded by Chettouh Nabil - nominated by Vikoula5 -- Vikoula5 (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Splendid photo. -- Vikoula5 (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this all real, especially with the water? Looks blurred a lot. --Tremonist (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is real, you can see the other photo of the user like this File:Cascade de Aïn Legradj à Bordj Bou Arreredj.jpg, there are the same effect of water.--Vikoula5 (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But is the effect on both photos real? --Tremonist (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a simple waterfall effect

.--Vikoula5 (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Formosa lily, Nagai Park, Osaka.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2015 at 22:15:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info Lilium formosanum. Focus stack of 5 photos. c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Soft and gentle. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 09:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 10:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As this is a focus stack, it seems that there is a problem with the tip of the bottom leaf. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Uoaei1: No, that is not a problem of stacking, there's other leaf in front of tip of the bottom leaf. You can see the source imege (one of five), Regards :) --Laitche (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Uoaei1: That tip of petal (which you've noted) is also not an error of stacking, that part is actually like that (curved). The other one of sources. --Laitche (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for clarification, then it is for sure FP --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 12:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment I put you note, some minor missing part of stack. Can you put it manually, if you have it ? --Mile (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC) --Mile (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mile：Thanks for the comment.

Done (I hope). --Laitche (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Jean11 (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Lothar Spurzem You forget to put the vote ? --Mile (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC) --Mile (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Bruce1ee^talk 04:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting composition and everything is in focus. Wonder if it's not slightly underexposed. - Benh (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Germany champions 2014 FIFA World Cup.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2015 at 19:10:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Germany, winner of the 2014 FIFA World Cup.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Danilo Borges/Portal da Copa - uploaded by Stemoc - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but cropped too tightly on the sides. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King, unfortunately --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but per others. Not outstanding quality either, even though quite well done. --Tremonist (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Per above. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:St Patrick's Cathedral Lady Chapel, Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2015 at 05:22:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The lady chapel of St Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin, Ireland.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Code -- Code (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 09:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WB is off. A bit lower. --Mile (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't even open it full size (fairly certain it's sharp and all) but it doesn't seem like it's taken at day time. Windows/stained glasses should be brighter. Your thoughts? - Benh (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It was taken on a very cloudy and overcast morning (9:30am) and there are large trees directly outside the stained glass windows (this photo was taken the same morning). I don't think they should be brighter to be honest. As for the WB, I also think this is pretty representative of it. The whole cathedral was lit in a very warm lighting, but particularly the lady chapel which is much more strongly lit than the rest of the building (it's actually somewhat blinding coming from other parts of the cathedral). Already, the white balance was set to a colour temperature of 3100K, which if you've done many interiors, you would probably know is very cold. I could bring the colour temperature down even further but the problem with this is that it makes the stained glass windows far too blue (as you can see, particularly in the side windows, they are already strongly on the blue side), but also, the colours will look faded with a WB colour temp of less than 3000K. I don't know precisely what kind of lighting this is (it appears halogen but not sure), but according to this article on the colour rendering index, incandescent/halogen lighting has a colour temperature of 3200K which is almost exactly what I've used. So to make a long story short, I don't think there's a problem with the stained glass windows or the WB. Diliff (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 12:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks for the nomination. Diliff (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More FPs from Ireland. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I still have some more to come. :-) Diliff (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually think the attenuated exterior light helps in this case. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Especially the light.--Jebulon (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File: 2007-06-16 Veritas RS (05b), Bj. 1948, Start-Nr. 97 (ausgangs Brünnchen) ret.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2015 at 10:28:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info created by Lothar Spurzem - uploaded by Lothar Spurzem - nominated by Spurzem -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good action picture, perfect position! --Hubertl 13:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support It has a "wow", but probably could be sharper in parts. --Tremonist (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support There`s something about this photograph I like. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 14:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Das ist ja wie gemalt, sehr schön. --Ralf Roleček 14:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The picture reflects atmosphere. --CHK46 (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean11 (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Tremonist. Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is not good enough scaled down to 2 megapixels in my opinion. — Julian H.^✈ 17:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really wowed by the image (subject facing away, lots of grey). Image quality terrible. Image size tiny. No colourspace tag or profile, which is part of the image guidelines for FP. -- Colin (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A super impression of a vintage car race. Outweighs by far the relatively low resolution. --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Coccinelidae larvae Campinas.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2015 at 20:26:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info created and uploaded by Leonardorejorge - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp! If this was a newly‐discovered species of ladybird, I would support :) --Laitche (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carina Nebula by ESO.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2015 at 18:37:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Colour-composite image of the Carina Nebula...Several well known astronomical objects can be seen in this wide field image : to the bottom left of the image is one of the most impressive binary stars in the Universe, Eta Carinae, with the famous Keyhole Nebula just adjacent to the star. The collection of very bright, young stars above and to the right of Eta Carinae is the open star cluster Trumpler 14. A second open star cluster, Collinder 228 is also seen in the image, just below Eta Carinae...The field of view is 0.55 x 0.55 degrees, covering a 72 x 72 light-year region at the distance of the nebula."

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Nebulae
Info created by The European Southern Observatory (ESO) - uploaded by Tryphon - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 18:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 18:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 17:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean11 (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't see any difference with the bunch of similar pictures we already have here.--Jebulon (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agama agama (Carl Linnaeus, 1758).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2015 at 18:21:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Agama agama at the Zoo Schmiding in Schmiding near Bad Schallerbach, Austria.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed -- Christian Ferrer 19:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure I get you here. Where is this overexposed? A bit of a contrasty scene, but I see nothing wrong otherwise. - Benh (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Benh: Maybe the word "overexposition" is not the same in my mind and in yours. What I call overexposition here are the incandescent scales of the lizard above, on the head, leg and body. If there is another technical term to describe that, please tell me, that I will not commit this error another. -- Christian Ferrer 04:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that if this minor flaw was enough compensated by a wow from my point of view, I would have not oppose. Thus maybe I'll had to say : "From my point of view there is no wow enough in this image to compensate the minor flaws about the lightning. And insofar details, light not the composition (not entire animals), are not outstanding, the image don't deserve the statut of "featured picture". This is of course only my point of view and this is why I oppose". I'm not good at English language, and for this both last sentences I spend more than 40 minutes, so excuse me just having writing "overexposed", the first time. -- Christian Ferrer 11:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pas sûr de te suivre :) je continue en français. Surexp, c'est quand la scène est globalement trop claire. Parfois, c'est même irrattrapable car on a des pixels blancs (alors qu'il ne devraient pas). Ici, rien ne me semble trop clair, bien que ça ressorte par rapport aux parties sombres. - Benh (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benh, Une partie de la tete, de la pate et certaines du corps sont pour moi trop claires et ont l'air incandescantes (alors qu'elles ne devraient pas), et les détails ont disparus sur ces zones. Le terme surexp. est donc fidèle à mon impression. Et si l'interet visuel de cette photo qui certe est indéniable avait eu suffisement d'impact sur moi, je n'aurai pas opposé. Donc en anglais, c'est pour moi beaucoup plus simple de dire "overexposed". -- Christian Ferrer 17:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for imposing myself on your French conversation but I (Through basic understanding and Google Translate) understand what you are saying, and I think you both have some valid points but are also missing others. Benh, overexposure isn't just blown highlights, it can also mean that the scene/object looks unnaturally or unrealistically bright. Christian, I don't think that the 'overexposure' is actually causing the air to incandesce (literally or not). The glow around the highlights is most likely lens flare. It could happen even without overexposure if the lens design is bad or if the lens is not clean. Anyway, I think it's quite minor but you're of course entitled to your opinion. Diliff (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation, I would not die stupid, and I want to trust you as you are all both more experienced photographers, thanks :) -- Christian Ferrer 18:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup Diliff, that's what I meant with "la scène est globalement trop claire" (globally too bright). But I meant that here we can still recover the bright parts (in case it's too much for some). Actually I've looked more closely again, and it's true that the small bright dots seem to be clipped area which where darkened (and which aren't glow to me). So I'm sorry I was too hasty in my previous comment. Christian, il y a des points qui paraissent vraiment trop clairs (et que je n'avais pas vu car par ouvert l'image à 100%), et sur lesquels on perd les détails fins. Donc oui il aurait dû sous exposer un peu, quite à éclaircir les ombres après. Bon rien de rédhibitoire, mais je pense que tu avais bon, et le terme me parait approprié. Mes excuses. - Benh (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Minor problems with the light, but sharp enough overall. Funny photo. --Tremonist (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd have liked to have seen the tail too, but if it's quite long, it would unbalance the composition so maybe it's best like this. I actually like the lighting. It's moody, suitable for such an act. ;-) Diliff (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Diliff. I suppose, then, that because of the lighting we can call this lizard er0tica rather than lizard pr0n? . Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support; but not sure whether this is a mating picture (as many commented above). No colors of breeding season; not exactly a mating position. No clue about mating in file description too. Jee 15:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, good point. I wouldn't know if it's really a mating position, but it does seem strange for them to be on top of each other if they're not mating. Unless the one on top wanted to maximise its warmth (I'm guessing it's being lit but a heat-lamp). Diliff (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it can be a social behaviour; especially in a crowded limited space in a zoo. Not sure though. J e e 01:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did some search, and it seems to be a basking moment under artificial (?) lights. Hope Michael can describe/explain the situation better than me. (Mating or reptiles is a bit more complicated due to the tail; but it can be a moment of foreplay if true.) J e e 06:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad lighting for FP, only QI --Atamari (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles

File:Ebenthal Radsberg Pfarrkirche heiliger Lambert Eingang stufenfoermiger Ueberbau 13022010 588.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2015 at 17:24:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portal to the parish church Saint Lambertus and the cemetery at Radsberg, Ebenthal, Carinthia, Austria

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit of refreshing :) Somehow I'm having a hard time reading the volume of that wall... - Benh (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful and very sharp -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! --Hubertl 23:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Famberhorst (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rhythmic and nice off centered composition though the colors look a bit faded to me. --Laitche (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 09:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent rendering of the snow but the backwall left is very illogical for me --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ach! I got you , it's the sky!--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, the fog was about to clear, it was a cold February morning with foggy parts under and above the blueing of the sky. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 13:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought it was a gingerbread house or something like that at first ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support very interesting, both beautiful and playful with different layers.--ArildV (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean11 (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Good Morning From the International Space Station.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2015 at 18:37:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
Info created by Scott Kelly - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can already see the bad quality and noisy opposes... but if I get it right, this picture features visible atmosphere layer, night lights, storms and a sunrise... I think it's quite incredible. - Benh (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Attention, l'arrogance te guette...--Jebulon (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah bon... Je dirais quand même plutôt la lassitude. Fatigué de voir des images comme celle de dessus passer (plus entre les mailles du filet qu'autre chose) et des choses comme celle là bloquer pour des détails. - Benh (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Celle du dessus ne passera pas... Et tu sais bien aussi parfois fustiger les détails, toi-même. N'oublie pas la part de subjectivité que chacun est libre d'exprimer, comme tu le fais pour le cycliste de Hué...--Jebulon (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Pour le cycliste, ça n'est pas un détail, c'est tout le concept même de l'image qui ne me revient pas. Les détails c'est plutôt là. c'est un peu flou sur les côtés, mais l'image fait 30mpix (sans mentionner la beauté du lieu, la lumière... le truc qui fait que ça sort de l'ordinaire). Par contre quand on abuse sur la balance des blancs ou sur la réduction du bruit, ou qu'on a de grosse erreurs de collage, qu'on a oublié l'espace de couleur, il y a moins de monde. On a un peu tendance à ne regarder que la netteté, et on trouve plus facilement des raisons contre que des raisons pour. Et c'est bien ce qui me fait peur ici. - Benh (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mais oui pour le subjectivité, au fait. Je n'ai pas dit le contraire, et ça n'est pas tout à fait le propos. - Benh (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        "le cycliste" n'est pas dans la phrase du "détail". Il est dans celle de la "subjectivité".--Jebulon (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree with Benh, what it shows outweighs the technical faults, and looking at the camera settings used, there's absolutely nothing that could be done about it - the photographer was pushing up against every exposure limit imaginable to achieve this shot. The motion blur is simply the movement of the ISS in orbit, and it was not possible to reduce the shutter speed or increase the ISO or widen the aperture. As such, I'd be more than happy to make an exception and excuse the blur and the noise. Diliff (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Diliff. Love the way the upper atmosphere makes Earth seem like a fragile soap bubble. Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry but for me it's just a bunch of blurry lights.Anyway very pretty in thumb --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I changed the FP Category to Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This image does not featuring a sunrise but a moonrise. It is impossible to see stars and the sun at the same time with the naked eye as well as with photographic illustration. See here at paragraph 4, the difference from the bright sunlight to the faint starlight is too big. This photo has an exposure time of a half second with direct view to the allegedly sun, those photo would be completely overexposed. You can observe the other photos of the category Sunrises from orbit for real sunrises, an other example for a similar moon photo is here. --Ras67 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're right actually, it's more likely a moonrise. But I disagree that it's completely impossible to see stars and the sun at the same time in a photo. It's just difficult. Obviously the sun will considerably drown out anything nearby it and the lens elements will reflect the sunlight around inside and create mammoth lens flares, but with a long enough exposure and a lens that handles flare well, there's no reason why you couldn't see the stars that are a reasonable distance from the sun. The only reason you can't see stars in the examples you gave is because the exposures are set to expose the scene correctly for the sunrise (a fraction of a second) as opposed to the stars (1 second plus). Diliff (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ericsfr (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Satellite images

File:2013 Longines Global Champions - Lausanne - 14-09-2013 - Rodrigo Pessoa et Tinkabell 12.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2015 at 23:46:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created and uploaded by Pleclown - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 08:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support a very good work! --Hubertl 10:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The angle doesn't really work that well for me. I think a ground level view would be better. Diliff (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with a ground view level is the background. It's very difficult to have a clear background (without any other obstacle or without the public) at ground level (see other pictures in the cat) in a non staged jumping picture (This is taken during a round of the en:Global Champions Tour, the top of the top in show jumping.). Pleclown (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate that when voting, I don't know what logistical reasons you have for not getting a nice shot at ground level, but conceivably with a nice wide aperture lens, you could get a shot that is aesthetically pleasing with a nice blurred background. These images were probably taken (Ha! Just kidding about this one) by professional photographers with better access than general members of the public, but I think that's the sort of shot I'd be looking for. Something with a bit of flair. I certainly appreciate it's tricky to get a shot like that though. Diliff (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, we were accredited on this event (The picture is taken from the TV tower, I was right next the cameraman). There is no ground access to photographers at this level, or a very limited one (Do not get in the frame of the TV cameras, do not stay in the way of the horses and do not do any noise with your camera). All the pictures you've selected (expect the two last ones) were staged pictures (except maybe the one with the red girl, probably taken with a remote operated camera), not taken during an event (the second to last is actually cross, a different type of discipline). Pleclown (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Diliff and this cut off obstacle is unattractive. --Laitche (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good work in capturing the horse in a nice pose, but like Laitche I'm bothered by the crop. Daniel Case (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can only say: Sad! I don't understand the negative votes. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dropping In Silverton Mountain.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2015 at 09:46:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Zach Dischner - uploaded and nominated by -- The Photographer (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This photo quite has its "wow". --Tremonist (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems a bit overexposed to me... It's hard to see any texture in the sun-lit snow. I didn't measure it so I can't be sure it's literally blown, but it must be close. Diliff (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The texture of the snow is only visible when the snow is horizontal and not inclined territory Firn hours and the sun hits aside, this is due to the soft nature of the snow makes a smooth surface when it is tilted with the wind goes through the mountains this creates a smooth surface that reflects sunlight very well generate a white color. Most of the people who frequented these places use special lenses for sun protection due to sunlight bouncing on the surface of the snow. --The Photographer (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that snow is reflective and therefore people use googles and glasses to protect their eyes, but good photography of snow should still show some texture - not overexposed (if anything, a photo in the snow is usually underexposed because the camera will meter the snow as a grey). But snow is rarely a smooth surface with no texture. There is often (at close range) some crystalline texture to it (like this) or wavy and undulating (like this). This does look like very fresh powder snow so I understand there won't be as much texture as in the examples below, but ultimately I still think it's slightly overexposed. Diliff (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are differents types of snow, this example, this snow has virtually no texture. I am the red guy :)--The Photographer (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in that photo, there is still some texture and the snow isn't overexposed! ;-) Diliff (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because this photo was taken in sunset --The Photographer (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Diliff. Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Diliff. Laitche (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hue Vietnam Citadel-of-Huế-21.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2015 at 06:45:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Cccefalon - uploaded by Cccefalon - nominated by Quoc-Phong NGUYEN -- Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 06:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 06:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support great composition! --Hubertl 12:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Hubertl. --Tremonist (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing wrong, but I fail to get what "story" this tells. A guy on bicycle and surrounded by doors smiling at us ? Sounds more like he lost his way. - Benh (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, good colors, nice boy. I need no story to decide that it is a very good image. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite the technical defects I find this to be a very interesting image. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 10:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice boy but no wow for me. --Laitche (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disconnected subjects, and the face is too dark. -- RTA 18:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Sunrise and cloud shadows on the Tonquin Valley Ramparts.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2015 at 11:58:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by ThartmannWiki - uploaded by ThartmannWiki - nominated by ThartmannWiki (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ThartmannWiki (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too dark overall, even though the light effects look, if real, nice. Overexposure? --Tremonist (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It has wow, and I like the golden hour lighting, even though I would have prefered that the summits are lit instead. But it's pretty small for a panorama, and still low quality at 100%. I also think it's too dark. Lifting the shadows ~~a bit~~ significantly and shifting tint toward red give a better result IMO. - Benh (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry,too dark and small --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chicago and Northwestern railroad locomotive shop fsac.1a34676u.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2015 at 20:31:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chicago and North Western Railway locomotive shops, Chicago.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by US Farm Security Administration, uploaded by Trialsanderrors, nominated by Yann (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Chicago and North Western Railway locomotive shops, Chicago, December 1942
Support -- Yann (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like this one, historic. But needs rotation, look at windows in back. --Mile (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Mile: OK, new version uploaded. Yann (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trains...--Mile (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support What the past looked like ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 08:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful composition and lighting make up for a nice mood. Could be sharpened a bit I think. - Benh (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vikoula5 (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm not a restoration guy, but as I mentioned, I thought it could be sharpened a bit. I also noticed the WB is a bit warm, so I've experimented a bit : [3]. Is it worth an upload, or have I pushed it too far? @Yann: - Benh (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- May be a bit warm, but yours is too cold. ;o) I uploaded a new version. Yann (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer Benhs version, it shows much more nuanced colours. I actually think his version is still pretty warm in absolute terms, just not compared to the current version. — Julian H.^✈ 14:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Propose an alternative? Yann (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Support Sorry, I accidentally deleted the tiff file I restored and worked on... so I had to complete the job from the jpeg I had. Hope it's still good enough. - Benh (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging everyone in case they are interested : @Yann: @PetarM: @Tomascastelazo: @Martin Falbisoner: @Kikos: @Livioandronico2013: @Tremonist: @Daniel Case: @Julian Herzog: @Vikoula5: . - Benh (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its much better, I think @Yann: could simply overwrite original. --Mile (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I said. — Julian H.^✈ 09:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Yann: , there's not much interest in it, but so far all votes say this is a better version. Shouldn't we overwrite, as Mile suggests? - Benh (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a new version, closer to yours. If we go this far, we might as well desaturate completely: File:Chicago and Northwestern railroad locomotive shop fsac.1a34676u-BW.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a sepia category for this picture, but this is not sepia. Also there already was a FP (I just discovered it now), File:JackDelanolocomotiveshop.jpg, but of lower resolution. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Yann: Désolé de te le demander, mais je vais être loin d'un ordinateur 2-3 jours (ouf!). À priori, cette version reste plus intéressante vu que personne n'a dit le contraire. Donc il faudrait vérifier lors de la promotion effective. D'ailleurs, ça n'est pas de la désaturation, mais un correction de balance des blancs vers le bleu. Au contraire j'ai bien saturé (tu le vois sur les parties orange-rouge). Je ne sais pas ce qu'en pense @Adam Cuerden: , il a l'air aussi de s'y connaître en restauration de vieilles photos. - Benh (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Justement, à mon avis, ta version est trop rouge. ;o) La couleur de la photo vient probablement de l'air saturé de poussières, non d'un tirage mal réglé. Yann (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: , I'm going to be away for a few days, but since you are probably the restauration guy, think your input would be much appreciated on whether we should promote that alternative or the original nom. Thanks! - Benh (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Benh: I'd say original. Alt looks over-saturated and unnatural. Also, it's been horizontally stretched compared to height: ???.

Oppose Alt. I'm not always sure about Trialsanderrors' colour choices, but with Yann's tweaks, and having been to stockyards, it does look believable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

The chosen alternative is: File:Chicago and Northwestern railroad locomotive shop fsac.1a34676u.jpg

File:IpomoeaPurpurea.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2015 at 17:18:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Morning Glory with all of it's beauty.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Leyth -- Leyth (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Leyth (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral only a word:"small" --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed (see blown center of flower). Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice subject, but blown center of flower, depth of field problem, cluttered background. --Cayambe (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really nice colours, but too little sharpness and resolution. --Tremonist (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pont de la Machine Genève BLS.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2015 at 18:12:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Benh - uploaded and nominated by Claus Obana -- Claus 18:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Claus 18:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you Claus... not sure this will succeed, but I sure do like the sunset and the rays in the sky. - Benh (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love "Ginevra" --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice crepuscular rays. dllu (t,c) 21:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support But please add a description in a second language. --Code (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I altered it to add a reference to crepuscular rays, as mentioned above. - Benh (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support definitely --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 07:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Laitche (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty, a bit unrealistic (shadows are quite bright), but overall very appealing. Also calming to see that there are at least three banks and one watch shop in the image :D --DXR (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to tell you the truth, I spent a bit of time in fine tuning how bright (or dark) the dark parts should be. I even let a few nights go to clean up my mind and come back. I darkened twice compared to my first version and the best compromise I came up with is this. My thinking is if I darken further, I loose visibility on the building, and there's no point in using HDR. But I agree with you darkening a bit more could be more realistic. - Benh (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as an artwork to hang on the wall it is great. I feel we sometimes optimize such images a bit too much towards what can be done to get ideal levels of brightness on the sky and shadows without considering that the reality is suboptimal. But for COM:FPC it is quite acceptable to do that. --DXR (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ralf Roleček 11:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 10:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean11 (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Puderovas vecticībnieku baznīca.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2015 at 13:50:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Old believers church in Lielā Puderova village, Rēzekne Municipality, Latvia

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Kikos - uploaded by Kikos - nominated by Kikos -- Kikos (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kikos (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice building, nice light --- and much air traffic. Sharpness could be improved a bit. --Tremonist (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but insufficient quality --A.Savin 15:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose...and perspective --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems to be too much about the sky and not enough about the church. Daniel Case (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Luigi dei Francesi (Rome) - Ceiling HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2015 at 14:19:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a proper brightening of the bottom part, and I think it'll be perfect (gradient filter) - Benh (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough ;) better like that. You should do it urself from RAW : add gradient filter on half bottom part. Make sure to leave a large enough transition. Then brighten + boost saturation + set WB warmer, and whatever you feel necessary. It's really worth it, that ceiling has wow to me. - Benh (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok now? Thanks--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

much better, but too pink to me at the bottom. Another gradient on top and move tint to green, and it should be great. - Benh (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Better?--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm to me still a biiiit pink, and you should lower the clarity (it looks it's been bumped up). - Benh (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok low pink and clarity,now?--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's now almost as dark as in the beginning again. — Julian H.^✈ 06:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Julien, the quarter lowest part is brighter than the quarter above which is darker than the rest. Now at work, but I'll send you my own settings tonight if you want to compare. I think I still have the lightroom file. Don't be afraid to play with it in LR since it's non destructive. - Benh (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the max that I can--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'd say use the version from yesterday evening with the slight magenta tint. The brightness was good there. Correcting the tint should be possible though with all versions of Lightroom or Photoshop. — Julian H.^✈ 09:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Benh. — Julian H.^✈ 16:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now. — Julian H.^✈ 18:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support But crop it some, from both sides. Fresco is main interest. --Mile (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Provided the tiny issue is fixed.~~ Great framing (please don't crop) and nice processing. - Benh (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 04:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 08:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK now. --Yann (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, and great efforts in (successful) improvements.--Jebulon (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Info Demoted/Delisted to not featured per this consensus. --Cart (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santuario de Las Lajas, Ipiales, Colombia, 2015-07-21, DD 21-23 HDR.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2015 at 19:46:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Las Lajas Sanctuary is a basilica church located in the southern Department of Nariño, municipality of Ipiales, Colombia. The place is a popular pilgrimage location since the apparition of the Virgin Mary in 1754. The first shrine was built by 1750 and was replaced by a bigger one in 1802 including a bridge over the canyon of the Guáitara River. The present temple, of Gothic Revival style, was built between 1916 and 1949. All by me, Poc o² 19:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support After the unsuccesful nomination of the previous picture of this amaizing building I try it again with a more spectacular view of it and an overall better quality. Poc o² 19:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. The railing at the bottom left is distracting; perhaps you could do a crop on the left without taking away too much from the composition? Anyways, the lighting is great. Maybe a bit oversharpened in the center, but within my range of tolerance. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More fantastic this way. Not perfect—distortion and some noise at edges—but it looks like there were tradeoffs. You could have played it safe and cropped down to just the church, but I can see why you'd want the context. Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a few comments: First, I am having a very hard time believing the colors, especially given the fact that the image is a HDR (I hope referring to this this is not taken as bad faith, but in your colombia cat you have two identical images that are HDR and normal and here again the oversaturation effect seems way above merely solving high-/lowlight challenges). Of course I have never been there, but both the blue and the greens appear just too vivid to be true and even if they are, they kind of drown the monochromatic main subject in a sea of color. You solved the issue of the far-from-ideal light pretty well. Beyond that, the crop is really not convincing to me right now. I have added a note crop that removes the distracting parts at the left and helps put the main subject into focus without losing actual context. As it is, it would probably be a weak oppose from me right now. --DXR (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The amount of local contrast and saturation enhancement also worries me a bit, mostly in the background and the sky. The latter look natural on the right and around the tower but becomes quite strange-looking towards the top and left. The subject itself looks fantastic. — Julian H.^✈ 17:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with both of you. I don't know exactly what workflow Poco uses for his HDR work (previously it was Tufuse I believe?), but from my experience, when processing an HDR file in Lightroom, it's usually necessary to increase the contrast quite a bit (I often need somewhere between +20 and +40). However, this has the knock-on effect of increasing saturation considerably (they should really fix this because contrast shouldn't mean saturation). I also find that with the usual Lightroom HDR processing method of decreasing highlights and increasing shadows, the microcontrast is also automatically increased, and needs to be countered with negative clarity. If Poco is using Lightroom now, it might be that he needs to consider the effects that I mention. Diliff (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems oversaturated and the sharpness at the edges is really bad (could be solved if you would crop as suggested by DXR). However, nice subject and composition. Looks like a fairytale setting. --Code (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support WoW --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much more impressive than way, but as others, it would be much better with a crop on the left. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose has a fisheye effect. I think that cropping the left and right edges would be helpful. --Pine^✉ 18:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Edges are too soft. Diliff (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colors look too artificial --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
strong support I hope we have an FP for this beautiful church. The setting, the weather, lighting, superbe dramatic perspective, composition (big wow in short)... all compensate the slight bluriness on the sides IMO. And I'd rather have a picture with little technical issues which wows me than the opposite. - Benh (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that its a worthy subject and good composition, but considering how critical you've been of my HDR processing the past, I'm surprised that you haven't said anything about the processing used here - it doesn't look that realistic to me. Oversaturated and strange variances in contrast. Diliff (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You must be talking about a rood screen nom of yours, and I remember the overprocessing could be seen even on the thumbnail. I don't think it's overdone here (but author has since reduce saturation) and wow would largely compensates. - Benh (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that's the one. But I think the overprocessing can be seen very clearly in the thumbnail of this image too. It's not just the saturation, it's the tonality too, you can see strong haloes where the trees and the sky meet. Anyway, just thought it was interesting the comparison. Diliff (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah yes, didn't see that part. Not a bad faith comment, but unless I look at that part, it doesn't scream overprocessed. Wonder how the unprocessed one looks like though. Rest of my comment still stands - Benh (talk) 10:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have reduced saturation in both versions Poc o² 20:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems oversaturated to me (I don't say "it is"). I'm not comfortable with the colors, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 09:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Comment As suggested, an alternative version with a tigther crop Poc o² 16:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose has a fisheye effect still. Can you fix that? --Pine^✉ 18:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that you are using the right term? A fisheye lens distorts in a very obvious way, like this. Although this image was taken with a fisheye lens, it has been corrected to remove the effects. --DXR (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The tower is tilted to the right, so maybe it's more of a tilt than a fisheye. --Pine^✉ 18:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Thanks for the crop. It still looks very colorful to me, but the wow is overriding that imo. --DXR (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Agree with DXR above, it has a bit of an overdone HDR look to it to me (particularly in the thumbnail) with irregular sky and slightly oversaturated colours, but other than that, an interesting view, better than the straight on view. Diliff (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Improved. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like more above version, but HDR looking is too strong and some oversaturation. This is what could look like in start, but I think concept is wrong, going with fisheye/wide angle into panorama, where main subject is so far. Now you cropped, to what should be done in start with some 24-28 mm and panorama stitch of few frames. I am sure it would be much better. Wide angle is more for some narrow spaces where subject is close. --Mile (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colors look too artificial --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support either is fine (slight preference for the original) - Benh (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 12:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vikoula5 (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have reduced saturation in both versions Poc o² 20:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Pinging Uoaei1[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. --Code (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same as above.--Jebulon (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 09:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support prefer this one. --Laitche (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

The chosen alternative is: File:Santuario de Las Lajas, Ipiales, Colombia, 2015-07-21, DD 21-23 HDR-Edit.JPG

File:Taraxacum officinale (Slovenia).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2015 at 17:36:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), Golovec, Slovenia. Flower in around 25-30 mm in diameter. Stack of 4 photos.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Asteraceae
Info Common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), Golovec, Slovenia. Flower in around 25-30 mm in diameter. OOC, stack of 4 photos, cropped, not downsized.
Support -- Mile (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love that drop of water ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but maybe it could be a bit more brighter --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Maybe a tad brighter, but I'd rather we not lose any details from the petals. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral too dark -- RTA 18:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Édouard Manet, The Rue Mosnier with Flags, 1878.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2015 at 18:51:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Édouard Manet - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support WoW--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 07:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Swedish landscape near Mjölby (by Pudelek) 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2015 at 22:17:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A simple but effective composition. Nice lighting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes, simple but good. --Ralf Roleček 10:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this is landscape minimalism I can get into. Looks almost like it was designed by IKEA. Daniel Case (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree with Daniel, there's a real minimalist vibe to this one. Diliff (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice but don't think the aspect-ratio is best, and the patch of blue sky at top reduced the "minimalist" effect. Suggest a 16:9 or 2:1 crop with the horizon on the lower rule-of-thirds line. -- Colin (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vikoula5 (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not impressed. --Kikos (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither am I. Not minimalist enough if that was the aim. - Benh (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not really convinced, I'd crop the top blue sky and would have probably chosen a POV closer to the wheat field. Poc o² 18:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Igreja de Nossa Senhora do Rosário (São Luiz do Paraitinga).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2015 at 17:50:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created and uploaded by Rodrigo.Argenton (edited by Julian Herzog) - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't see the details because of noise! --Laitche (talk.) 18:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't believe that the 100D is this noisy at only ISO 400! Can it be the noise comes from postprocessing? --Code (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, Seems even Julian could not fix the issues. --Laitche (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC) ~~I guess this is stitching (maybe or/and stacking) and HDR image, the creator knows the reason :)~~ I'm unsure. --Laitche (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, not much I can do about that noise level without losing a lot of detail. — Julian H.^✈ 19:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Noise. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise. Btw: the exposure has been raised 1.36 stops in Lightroom and the shadows lifted 100%. You can't really do that with Canon EOS 100D ;-). Also the original was saved in ProPhoto RGB colorspace, which is simply stupid for a JPG an a reason to oppose in itself. -- Colin (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ArionEstar, come on, why you do that? This is not a good photo, and you expose me to volunteers that thinks that he superior enough to say that some action are "simply stupid" even not knowing shit about what his is talking about e.g. "shadows lifted 100%"...
- And yes Code 100D is that noisy, and this place is pretty dark, hand hold, plus lack time... only 3 shots stacked, that's it. And this is a piece of the original raw file, without any change [4], if you want I can send to Julian Herzog all the raw files to try, but this came from the camera... -- RTA 20:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:15-07-14-Edzna-Campeche-Mexico-RalfR-WMA 0700.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2015 at 06:58:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Building Five Storeys, Edzná, Yucatan, Mexico

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Building Five Storeys, Edzná, Yucatan, Mexico - all by -- Ralf Roleček 06:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 06:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Beautiful photo of a great place! --Tremonist (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sorry, but Colin is right. --Tremonist (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The third right is blurry, and there are green fringes in the trees at left. (Please see notes).--Jebulon (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Info new version uploaded. --Ralf Roleček 16:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Vikoula5 (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The right part is still very blurry, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Good light, interesting. Not the most spectacular composition but it works. — Julian H.^✈ 10:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose I've noticed the blurry area now, it's indeed still visible at the now much smaller resolution. Sorry. — Julian H.^✈ 22:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose Please add a free suitable licence for FP (GFDL 1.2 only is insufficient). The are several very blurry areas, as Jebulon notes, which I suspect are problems with stitching. The quality of light, sharpness, contrast is ok but not outstanding. But my main objection is that the image has been reduced from 25+MP to 6.5MP during the nomination without pinging those who have already voted (and after the above "new version" comment, which is insufficient notification anyway). @Spurzem, Tremonist, Jebulon, Daniel Case, and Vikoula5: , @Julian Herzog: . -- Colin (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 18:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I need a viable and meaningful license and not what you here later or in future on your mood change ("Migration"). That's important to me, I do not need FP, i need a good license. --Ralf Roleček 18:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ralf that's a long time to continue to hold a grudge about "migration": many of the people on Commons won't even remember that far back. You've dual licensed images at FP before. If you actually were concerned that your images could be "used by anyone for any purpose" then you wouldn't restrict your photos in this way. There's nothing that a "free content" project should be celebrating about this restricted practice. -- Colin (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - GFDL is a free license. --Ralf Roleček 18:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - ... but not a license suitable for images. — Julian H.^✈ 09:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:15-07-Mexico-Vorauswahl-RalfR-N3S 9228.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2015 at 09:48:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vendedores de souvenirs en las pirámides de Teotihuacán; derecho la Pirámide del Sol, en el fondo la pirámide de la luna

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Vendedores de souvenirs en las pirámides de Teotihuacán; derecho la Pirámide del Sol, en el fondo la pirámide de la luna; all by --Ralf Roleček
Support -- Ralf Roleček 09:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please remove two round dust spots from the sky. --Cayambe (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Der Dateiname sollte geändert werden. / Please change to a meaningful filename. --Code (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow; seems a little underexposed. Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main subject is not enough detailed, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks nice enough. --Tremonist (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Also, please add a free suitable licence for FP (GFDL 1.2 only is insufficient). -- Colin (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, and not suitable license. This should be a "FPX" reason, even with support votes...--Jebulon (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I need a viable and meaningful license and not what you here later or in future on your mood change ("Migration"). That's important to me, I do not need FP, i need a good license. --Ralf Roleček 18:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver N72355 Kenmore 2 II.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2015 at 18:34:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A "De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver" aircraft in Seattle, registry N72355. This image was previously proposed as an alt, but was short of the 7 support votes required.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles#Propeller aircraft
Info created by Dllu - uploaded by Dllu - crop by Laitche - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 18:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, This nomination was closed yesterday as "Not featured" Yann (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)}}[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 18:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as creator. dllu (t,c) 02:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 04:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as... cropper? --Laitche (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On procedural grounds. The alternative had plenty of time (really great images often crack seven supports in a day) Also I think the crop is rather deceptive given that the plane is in a very urban location. --DXR (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad framing, colors could be better - weather. --Mile (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing extraordinary --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good for me. Why should only extraordinary images get featured? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Because it is the goal of this page !!--Jebulon (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 11:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 12:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Possibly a good candidate for COM:QI, COM:VI or Wikipedia's FPC, but for Commons FPC it's imho lacking the required wow-factor. We have thousands of similar images of small airplanes, and this one doesn't stand out among them in any kind of way. --El Grafo (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per DXR. --Code (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose light too dark.--Jebulon (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:St Mary's Church Altar, Drogheda, Ireland - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2015 at 13:11:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 14:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Woaaaaaaaaau! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent. --Laitche (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like I said on your talk page: Outstanding in composition and detail. --DXR (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 11:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems so easy...--Jebulon (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 10:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 18:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:The Aguelmim Lake, Tikjda, Algeria.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2015 at 17:59:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Sports#Team_sports & Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Algeria
Info created by KEBIR - uploaded by KEBIR - nominated by Vikoula5 -- Vikoula5 (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support you have just to see the mix of people playing football, cows in the lake and the fabulous landscape.-- Vikoula5 (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~nice composition, but a bit soft. --Pine^✉ 18:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changed to weak support after reconsideration. I like the colors and composition. --Pine^✉ 18:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm OK with it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was prepared to oppose until I discovered all the lovely details --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and very interesting lighting. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting and well composed. Unusual.--Jebulon (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Jebulon --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe a slight crop out of the empty grass in foreground could make the picture better ?--Jebulon (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, this one is not a FP to me. The result is too cluttered in my eyes. A lake, people playing football, rocks, cows in a lake. I don't see the point here. Detail is good but some areas are overexposed. Poc o² 18:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Algeria

File:Река Иркут в районе Шаманского утёса.Вид с левого берега..jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2015 at 14:30:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Irkut River near Shaman Rock. Irkutsk Oblast, Russia

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Eugene ostroumov - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 14:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a beautiful Russian landscape. --Tremonist (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Tremonist. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great composition, but color sort of fades to almost-grey in the furthest background. Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 21:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much vignetting, either not corrected or more likely added in post. — Julian H.^✈ 08:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks too artificial for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose underexposed - Benh (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a bit dark, because of PL filter? --Laitche (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree colours look odd and reminiscent of the problems one gets with a polariser + wide angle lens. -- Colin (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 13:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition though a bit underexposed IMO. -- Christian Ferrer 09:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sky is a bit of a problem for me... A bit too dark for the scene, like it's been artificially enhanced. Doesn't look like the effect of a circular polariser. Diliff (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A little darkness not influence to good, quality photo, I think. --Brateevsky {talk} 13:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the composition but the right part is rather dark and lacks detail. Poc o² 18:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:View SW down Prestbury Road, Macclesfield.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2015 at 21:32:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Looking southwest along Prestbury Road in Macclesfield, Cheshire.

Category: Architecture
Info created & uploaded by Daniel Case - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXX ^talk 21:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ■ MMXX ^talk 21:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A QI image, but there's no wow in it. Diliff (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support primarily because I took this, and I'm flattered that someone else has chosen to nominate it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Diliff --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice colours, and well composed. Wow enough for me. Thennicke (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice red brick lane. --Tremonist (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cable is distracting. Yann (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The left part is leaning in. I'd cropped the bottom a bit. I find this picture charming, but not enough for FP.--Jebulon (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Colin (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:View into vista from rear of Palm House, Kew Gardens.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2015 at 21:41:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Looking down one of the vistas at Kew Gardens from the back of the Palm House (Note airliner in upper left bound for nearby Heathrow Airport

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created & uploaded by Daniel Case - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXX ^talk 21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ■ MMXX ^talk 21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Hmmm, just not an interesting enough view for me, I'm afraid. Diliff (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support primarily because I took this, and I'm flattered that someone else has chosen to nominate it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Diliff, sorry. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition with beautiful clouds (no distorted walls anywhere), good lighting, beautiful colors and very sharp. Why should it be not featured? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there's more to a featured picture than that (IMO). For me, there has to be a notable subject, motif or conceptual idea to make the image stand out. Of course not every FP should have to be of one of the wonders of the world, but I just don't see any notability of this view. It could be almost anywhere. Anyway, just my opinion. I guess ultimately we all have our own ideas about what a FP is. Diliff (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Lothar. --Tremonist (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, too much detail is 100% black. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quarter below is empty, and the rest is...per Diliff.--Jebulon (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Diliff. --El Grafo (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think Lothar Spurzem must be looking at a different picture to me. It's a nice sunny day in Kew Gardens, but is it an exceptional image? Lothar, you really need to raise your threshold: this is for the "finest on Commons", not just "quite nice". Have a look at other recent FPs and look at some recent QIs and work out what is different. FP is not QI. -- Colin (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: Thank you for the advice. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But may I ask you to look at this nice and beautiful photo: [5] What is exceptional? The tree? The lady with the dogs? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The autumn colours and the composition. You asked in another FP, "Why should only extraordinary images get featured". Because that's the definition. Please, if you just want to support "very good", then that's what QI is for. We all vary in our estimation what what is "extraordinary" but if you have to ask if even "extraordinary" is required, then you are on the wrong forum. -- Colin (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) It's hard to explain beauty to someone who doesn't see beauty. The photo of Colin's that you linked to is special because of the simplicity of the composition and the technical quality (IMO). Ultimately we can't tell you how to judge an image, and your vote is completely legitimate if it's well-considered and genuine. All we can do is suggest that you got it wrong, and point to the chorus of people around you that agree you got it wrong. In the end, majority rules. Diliff (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Main du juive à Tikjda.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2015 at 19:37:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Algeria
Info created by Chettouh Nabil - uploaded by Chettouh Nabil - nominated by Vikoula5 -- Vikoula5 (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support one of the winner of WLE 2014. -- Vikoula5 (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry the quality isn't enough for FP to me --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 23:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak support It has huge wow to me, but the selective blur to reduce noise in the sky could be improved. Hope author (@Chettouh Nabil: ) sees us. - Benh (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great idea, but I'd have preferred it without the fireworks. And there are the technical issues noted by Benh. Daniel Case (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive shot. Even when the lack of quality hurts. --Code (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak support nice wow, although could use greater clarity. --Pine^✉ 18:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A picture may have as much wow and beauty as you like; still it is no FP for me if its technical quality is far below QI standards, like here, obviously. --A.Savin 22:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin --Pudelek (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral after comparing all pros and cons. It has a "wow", but it has technical problems, too. Great idea, but needs improvements. --Tremonist (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support Great vow, but quality issues (noise, etc.). Yann (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mount Tsubakuro June 2014.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2015 at 12:51:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Daisuke Tashiro - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 12:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 12:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive photo of this respective mountain. --Tremonist (talk)
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice composition, but I wish the lighting could be better. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice, per King. --Laitche (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prayer flags in Nepal.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2015 at 06:56:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Jules Henze - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 06:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 06:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support So many prayers! --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Om mani padme hum. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 12:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am Nepal. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition lacks wow.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Fotoriety. Beautiful color but cluttered. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. --Cayambe (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the (intentional) composition works very well here, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The quality is not good enough for an FP (including composition) but this deserve FP, imho. --Laitche (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Women's Memorial Under Rainy Sky.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2015 at 17:50:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

From the English Wikipedia "The National Women's Monument": the monument "in Bloemfontein, South Africa (commemorates) the suffering of some 27,000 Boer women and children who died in British concentration camps during the Second Boer War."

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Leanri van Heerden - uploaded by Leanri van Heerden - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 17:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 17:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks very cool, but the picture is a heavily processed composite and I do not think that it realistically depicts the subject. First, there is clearly a layer produced by "radial blur" as it is far too smooth to be actual rain. Second, there is no way the 1/30 s exposure can create such rain effects. Third, the monument is cut out from a different background, as can be seen by errors near the bottom right. Fourth, the fact that the "center" of the rain drops is different from the vanishing point of the monument means either that the monument is seriously tilted (which is not the case), or there is an impossibly consistent wind making all the rain slanted. Fifth, the technical quality of the image has numerous flaws such as chromatic aberration. Sixth, rain is not usually so bright in the air unless it is illuminated by, say, a spotlight, which would not be consistent with the lighting on the monument. As such the picture is extremely misleading; perhaps the description should be edited to emphasize that it is a piece of digital artwork produced by compositing different photos and effects rather than the faithful depiction of a subject that is usually expected for Commons photos. dllu (t,c) 04:29, 22 August 2015 (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: Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer.

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.

I think it's better to call this a work of digital art, rather than an attempt at deceiving the viewer. The FP guidelines don't seem to prohibit this kind of nomination. That said, since this seems to be novel, I withdraw my nomination for now. --Pine^✉ 05:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure this does fall within the Guidelines or not, but when nominate this kind of photos, I think the category should be Non-photographic media/Computer-generated like this one. And {{Retouched picture}} must be used :) --Laitche (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colored pencils (дрвене бојице).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2015 at 11:05:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Colored pencils. Macro stack of 7 images.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info Colored pencils. Macro stack of 7 images.
Support -- Mile (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors, but I don't like the composition.--Claus 11:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose I like the idea, but given that this was shot in a controlled studio environment the lighting doesn't really convince me. The shadows are quite harsh, which could have been avoided by putting a diffuser in front of the light source (a sheet of white paper might have been enough). --El Grafo (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Choice of colours and framing seems a bit arbitrary. It's a fairly easy macro shot, so I'd be looking for some creative arrangement at FP. Btw, I recently took some coloured pencil photos myself, though I wasn't aiming for macro detail. -- Colin (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Soundwaweserb (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info El Grafo No studio, nor studio light, sun light it was, soft as it should be. Of course, diffuser, few lights, huge studio room...that should make it. Its a wish. Colin Since when 7 stacked macro is easy shot ?! What you have there is not even QI with bad composition, non macro single shot with medicore quality. This are feautered by now 1, 2. Macro in whole is never easy shot, because its almost never one shot, but more. That's why we grade even single shot photos of flower here as Feautered, why if this should be easy. I think you completely missed grading here. I will be happy to see your pencils. Till then, you reconsider what you write, do take survey again; what we have in that category, what you made and what I made. Creative arrangement, you mean rounded in circle of course, I like to be more original than to copy others. --Mile (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Mile, I wasn't comparing my photos with yours wrt feature quality. It was just a coincidence that I was remarking on (hence, "Btw, ..."). Sunlight is not soft light, but on a clear blue sky is as hard as can be. You can see it in the shadows -- they have a hard edge. It isn't expensive to create soft light, especially for a small subject. I used a home-made softbox for this photo. Or go outdoors with an overcast sky (though one can't really control the direction of light outside). I know that preparing a subject and camera position for product photography is tedious and not trivial like getting out your camera and going "snap". But it isn't rocket science either, and for the fairly unoriginal subject of "coloured pencils", it isn't exactly a hard subject to come by. Do a Google Image search for "coloured pencils" and you'll see dozens of interesting arrangements, and many where focus stacking isn't even required. -- Colin (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Mile, when I wrote "Studio", I didn't necessarily mean tons of expensive equipment. Maybe I should've written "studio-like", as I was thinking about a situation where the photographer has full control over all photographic variables such as arrangement of the subject or lighting. Using the sun as a light source has some advantages (virtually no fall-off), but it may be a bit more difficult to control. But it is controllable. For instance, one could use a sheet of en:Tracing paper or en:Greaseproof paper to soften it. Another possibility is to use a makeshift reflector to brighten up the shadows (there are tons of HOW-TOs like this out there, but a piece of white cardboard might actually be all you need). --El Grafo (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per others. --Tremonist (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original,good quality --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop on the left and right is awkward. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as King of Hearts. --Hubertl 12:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hubertl, King of : left-right is continuous pattern, how would you crop it to be different ? --Mile (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion, compositions like those has to be perfectly straight. The composer wanted to do this, but he failed, IMO. --Hubertl 08:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it could be cropped better, but just because it can't be improved in its current state doesn't mean the composition is good. File:Colouring pencils.jpg is an example of a good composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support NIce work technically. I don't honestly see how it could be cropped in any way that would be ideal. Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Open it at full size !--Jebulon (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many details! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice details and not convinced either about the lateral crops, I also agree with Colin that the choice of colors and composition of other FPs in this category is better than this one. Poc o² 18:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lobatus gallus 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2015 at 16:40:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created and uploaded by Llez - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 18:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Top quality as usual, btw Llez, have you described somewhere how you do that (setting, technique in Photoshop,...)? Your crops look really good maybe that could help others here. Poc o² 19:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils

File:Ophrys insectifera - Kärbesõis Niitvälja 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2015 at 18:52:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info Fly orchid. Created, uploaded and nominated by Ivar (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I think the lighting is not optimal but interesting four-step direction flowers composition :) --Laitche (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 19:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Schlern aus Tisens Kastelruth.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2015 at 17:14:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info The Schiliar from Kastelruth, created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by --Ralf Roleček
Support -- Ralf Roleček 17:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Dolomites. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Vikoula5 (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 18:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rare example of the successful use of noon backlight. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm sure it could be possible to add a bit of contrast to the mountains, but what a nice landscape, well captured.--Jebulon (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great background but ordinary foreground for me... --Laitche (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Bückeburger Festtagstracht in Kleinenbremen.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2015 at 23:36:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This "Bückeburger Tracht" was formerly worn by women on festive days in the town Bückeburg and in the surroundings of the town in Lower Saxony.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler] -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 09:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funny clothing. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support more for the topic than for the execution (slightly blurred) - Benh (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Benh. --Hubertl 11:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice but technically pretty week (noisy, no texture), sorry --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Moroder. --Kikos (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Moroder. Unsharp.--Jebulon (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wolfgang. --Laitche (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wolfgang. --El Grafo (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral at most due to quality problems, even though the idea is great. --Tremonist (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The red skirt has no texture, because it consists of iridescent silk. The apron is about 120 years old. The fabric has only one color at the same brightness. The floral patterns arise because the apron is woven in different directions: the thread runs vertically or horizontally (see "Warp (weaving)" in the English Wikipedia). The resulting image depends on the angle of incidence of light. If the image is flashed, the pattern of the flower is dark mirrored from the substance. This image is not flashed. Therefore sunlight strikes from different directions on the apron, and a blurred image of the flower appears in different levels of brightness. This skirt gets a vivid and iridescent appearance. The red skirt is therefore not out of focus, but the photo shows the apron as the light is reflected in the iridescent silk and is thrown into the camera. For the rest, the apron is in the depth of field of f / 8 (see "Metadata", see also the materials above and below the red skirt and the leaves beneath the apron and the woman). - If the skirt has no sharp pattern, then the subject of the image (festive costume from Bückeburg) is still not out of focus. The background of the picture may be blurred but. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, the face of the lady looks blurry for me...--Jebulon (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info Jebulon please see the new update. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as per Tremonist. Yann (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Пмз-интерьер-18-собор-1341.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2015 at 23:51:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Graffiti in Spaso-Preobrazhensky cathedral in Pereslavl-Zalessky (XII century).

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by PereslavlFoto - uploaded by PereslavlFoto - nominated by PereslavlFoto -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Please add a category above. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, but perhaps some problems with contrast and sharpness. --Tremonist (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Useful but not an exceptional photograph/subject for FP. -- Colin (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ru: Хорошая фотография, но воздержусь от голосования За, учитывая возможное появление иллюстрации на заглавной странице. А вот в Valued images я бы выдвинул фотографию. — Good photo, but I refrain to vote for the photo. But I think the photo should have VI status. --Brateevsky {talk} 13:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corpse of a donkey in the Ahaggar Cultural Park.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2015 at 07:22:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created by Hamza-sia - uploaded by Hamza-sia - nominated by Vikoula5 -- Vikoula5 (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vikoula5 (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Insufficient categorization. BtW, I tend to think it is (was...) a dromedary, not a donkey. But I'm not a specialist. Could anybody help ?--Jebulon (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebulon: There are an other file like this File:Zoom in the corpse of a donkey.jpg, this fils is winner in WLE Algeria. I am the orginizer of the contest in this contry. and the author of the photo sad, it is a donkey. (I am not an expert of course). Cat adding

Done.--Vikoula5 (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the main subject is bones and the focus is on, this category : Bones, shells and fossils is better IMO Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The teeth are blurred. --Tremonist (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info THIS is camelus dromedarius skull (teeth up are missing), and THAT is Equus asinus skull, from my own collection. But both are profile, and older than a century ago... Make your choice ! --Jebulon (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ebenthal Radsberg Pfarrkirche hl Lambert 13022010 1675.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2015 at 05:38:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Parish church Saint Lambertus at Radsberg, Ebenthal, Carinthia, Austria

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz (talk) -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful image. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bravo! --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The crop is a few tight but nice--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose Tight crop above. --Mile (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)--Mile (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Spurzem. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are you absolutely sure there is not some room on top to recover? Just asking because Lightroom tends to cut something off around the top through perspective correction, sometimes making it necessary to use scaling to recover that. — Julian H.^✈ 10:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately those are the 100% of the photograph. No way to crank out more. Sorry! --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 11:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If really necessary, one can easily add room from cloning anyways :) - Benh (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Support Yeah, works. Looks like some line is repeated three times in the top left, but not too obvious. — Julian H.^✈ 18:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now I get the volume of that wall! - Benh (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done @Johann Jaritz: sky added with photoshop, you can revert if you don't like Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Christian Ferrer: I am in debt of gratitude to you! Thank you very much! I am beaming with delight by the result. Marvellous! --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 12:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nothing, the pleasure is for me, sorry for the white lines at top left, they are more visible after uploading (?!), I've a lot of work but if I can do better I will upload the result. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Now, thanks to Christian Ferrer. --Code (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 18:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this light. --Laitche (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice contrast between the glimmer of light and the gloomy atmosphere around. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support now is much better. --Mile (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per King. Love that diffuse spot sunlight on the tower. Perhaps God was checking the time ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Inspiring Poc o² 19:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Iguana marina (Amblyrhynchus cristatus), Las Bachas, isla Baltra, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-23, DD 23.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2015 at 08:55:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Exemplar of marine iguana (Amblyrhynchus cristatus) laying on a rock in the coast of Las Bachas, Baltra Island, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info Exemplar of marine iguana (Amblyrhynchus cristatus) laying on a rock in the coast of Las Bachas, Baltra Island, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. Poc o² 08:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 08:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Godzilla! Yann (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Yann. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 09:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. — Julian H.^✈ 10:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This Godzilla is smiling :) --Laitche (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More good pictures from Ecuador! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support stimmt der Weißabgleich? --Ralf Roleček 21:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ralf Roleček: Meines Erachtens schon. Es sieht realistisch aus, und nachdem ich ein bisschen damit gespielt habe, kann ich mit gutem Gewissen behaupten, dass es passt. Poc o² 17:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I didn't like the thumbnail at all, but at 100% the image is just astonishing! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it a bit cold... And could you remove the slight blue fringe along the chin of the monster ?--Jebulon (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulon: I've performed some slights adjustments Poc o² 21:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, I think my request was not as useless as my support... Thanks, much better IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles

File:Lake Hume from the air in summer.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2015 at 12:32:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An aerial photograph of Lake Hume, taken on a flight from Sydney to Albury (Australia). The Bethanga Bridge is visible in the bottom left.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Lake Hume is an artificial lake in the south-east of Australia. Created by Thennicke - uploaded by Thennicke - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry,bad quality --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition but the quality is too low, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, unsharp and doesn't stand out compositionally from other aerial photos of lakes. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Tremonist (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:St. Burkard, Würzburg, Crossing and Altar 20150729 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2015 at 05:05:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An interior view of the crossing and the altar of St. Burkard

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by DXR - uploaded by DXR - nominated by Code -- Code (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! --DXR (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nice, although it seems like it could be a bit brighter. Was the slightly dull ambience the intention DXR? Diliff (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I think it is pretty representative for the actual look of the place. It was a very overcast day and although I could push it 0.3 EV or so, I'm not sure if that would be closer to reality. I'm rather agnostic about that, so if people like it to be brighter, I can do that. --DXR (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You should put some EV, and maybe increase vibrance (colors). --Mile (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks for your comments. --DXR (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distorted and unreal.--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Childish revenge vote, especially the now redacted part ", by a expensive camera.". Instead of improving your processes, you act in this way. It's your choice. --DXR (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: This was taken with a 175€ lens and is equivalent to a view with a 14mm lens or so (the exif is before crop). Completely normal super wide angle. Canon now has normal lenses that are much wider than this--DXR (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Childish revenge answer....who care the lens? Talk of your expensive camera,Nikon D800. Be serious --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Livio, does it matter what camera was used if the result is good? This is just as distorted as many of Poco's recent nominations (many you supported) and is of a far higher technical quality - less unsharpness at the edges. It's far too easy to just say 'distorted and unreal' without having to really justify your answer. Diliff (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a distraction that shouldn't affect Code's nomination. I have posted on Livio's talk page with a longer explanation and hope that this drama is not continued here... --DXR (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, you're right, it's not the first time this has happened and it's better to continue on his talk page. Livio, if you wish to respond to my comment above, I'm happy to discuss it on your talk page, just ping me. Diliff (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mostly to nullify the above vote (not that I wouldn't vote for it, but I'm seeing too many churches :) ). - Benh (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well what Livio stated I did notice before, if you check that wooden stuff in corners, but since interesting part is the middle and some level is normal. Often have in my mind it is safe bet on Churchopedia Commons. --Mile (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Splendid. --Laitche (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 12:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Right up there with David's church interiors. I like the perspective lines. I don't mind the slightly blown back window panes. Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear windows are just white anyway, so blown or not blown, it doesn't really change anything. It's actually a bit more of a problem when they are so darkened (as with some HDR tone mapping) that they look like a dull grey. So I agree with you, it's not a problem. Diliff (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 09:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support definitely --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:LEI0150 198 Leica II schwarz - Sn. 67777 1931-M39 front view Umbau von Ic-0.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2015 at 17:36:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by Kameraprojekt Graz 2015 -- Kameraprojekt Graz 2015 (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Leica II black - Sn. 67777, Mount M39, rebuild of Leica Ic (1931)
Support -- Kameraprojekt Graz 2015 (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support That fingerprint? is a bit distracting but well done. Is this a focus stacking image? --Laitche (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Laitche, the complete serial is made with focus stacking. In this case 12 single pictures. Fingerprints removed. --Kameraprojekt Graz 2015 (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Laitche (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 08:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support top high quality, nice object.--Jebulon (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support you don't really need my support, but I'd like to mention that I prefer this one's lighting over the last candidate (body front more illuminated). May I ask what material you used to place the subject on? --El Grafo (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your support, El Grafo, it is a simple case board, made of almost white glass from Ikea (pretty cheap). 48x80cm, with a white cloth backgroundsystem and four softboxes (2400 W). search for "Malm" Glasplatte --Hubertl 10:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! I've experimented with clear acrylic glass with a sheet of paper beneath it to get those reflections. The good thing is that you can change the color quite easily by choosing a differently colored paper. Unfortunately, static electricity makes it almost impossible to keep clean of dust. I'm a bit hesitant to using real glass because I don't really have a place to store it safely when not in use :-/ --El Grafo (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

In fact, a very good idea, but I stopped working with acrylic glass, I couldn´t avoid the scratches after a short time of use. This is far more difficult to repair later than dust on a white glass surface. Glass is easy to store, its leaning on the wall. Even my big round one (1 meter). BTW, the handlamp picture ist really good! 100mm prime lens, I love it! --Hubertl 16:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für die Blumen! Yes, I really love that lens: Certainly one of the sharpest Pentax lenses available, a joy to focus manually and it didn't even cost me an arm and a leg ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support have you consider a set nomination for each camera?--ArildV (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Quite a good idea, but right now I have no concentration left in my mind to think about something, which is beside my straight working plan (and I´m happy to have one ;-) We have about 180 different cameras left and four to eight single pictures for each piece for postprocessing. Alltogether about 15K pictures to manage. --Hubertl 16:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Support If someone could remove the little dirtspots on the background left side of the camera it would be even cooler! --Superbass (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Done thanks for reminding me! --Kameraprojekt Graz 2015 (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:South African Airways Airbus A340-313 ZS-SXE MUC 2015 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2015 at 15:05:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

South African Airways Airbus A340-313 (reg. ZS-SXE, msn 646) at Munich Airport.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info c/u/n by me. I know the quality is not comparable to an equivalent photo in daylight, but I really like the light here. The freezing cold might have messed with my panning abilities. — Julian H.^✈ 15:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 15:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressiv, interesting colors – beautiful. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Uau! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Lothar. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 16:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very nice photo, both with EV and artistic value. Great winter light and the sharpness is not too bad at all. --DXR (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow --Laitche (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support biouuuutifoul lighting - Benh (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, usual subject (a bit boring to me), the light is not mitigating enough.--Jebulon (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light makes it special. Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jeb --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great moment, great light, great sharpness (considering the panning and shutter speed). Diliff (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thennicke (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 08:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't get your EXIF but its still OK. --Mile (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it possible that I can clarify something about the EXIF info? — Julian H.^✈ 10:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As last photo of plane, which was in motion, you put low ISO (100). Any particular reason, or you tried panning ? --Mile (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mile: The ISO value may actually be misleading here. As the camera is pretty much ISO invariant, it hardly matters if I use ISO 100 or 400, so setting it to 100 really doesn't have any disatvantage. The result you see is probably closer to ISO 300-400, at least in some areas. This wouldn't work with most Canon cameras for example, but with Sony sensors, this decision can mostly be made in editing. That being said, it might have been better to use a slightly shorter shutter speed and to close the aperature a bit more for better sharpness in exchange for more noise. Then again, that would make the background more distracting. But if the ISO value confuses you, which I fully understand, take it with a grain of salt because it doesn't actually represent the gain that you see in the photo. — Julian H.^✈ 13:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the opposers--Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case. —Bruce1ee^talk 04:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you please specify whether this is a take-off or a landing? Based on the angle of attack I'd guess it's a landing, but I don't know much about airliners (didn't even notice the A340 had this strange 3-legged main landing gear until now ;-)) --El Grafo (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I've added the fact that it's a landing to the description page. — Julian H.^✈ 10:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's definitely a good one, but still I'm not wow-ed. However, given the number of supporters so far I think that might be because of me rather than the picture. --El Grafo (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC) a) I find airliners incredibly boring compared to almost anything else that flies. b) I've spend too much time on pages like airliners.net, where I've seen too many extremely spectacular shots of otherwise boring airplanes ;-)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great lighting, detail ok but low resolution is low, but as others I find the subject really boooring Poc o² 18:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Sarcophaga carnaria, Sète 05.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2015 at 09:35:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera
Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 09:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 09:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 11:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 13:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice capture. --Laitche (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose Nice attempt, but not sure this ranks among our best (see File:Sarcophaga sp male.jpg). Background is too cluttered, I'm not a fan of front flash light, and the details are missing (and it's already quite small to begin with). - Benh (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The example is too good, Christian is not Makro Freak :) --Laitche (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Mmm... not yet. --Laitche (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better to set the bar high right ? ;) Yes I'm pretty sure one has to be very skilled to get this result. But getting a better background and lighting is possible. Stopping down to f/22.0 might have been too much. The supposed gain in DOF is cancelled by quality lost. - Benh (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I thought f/22 and busy background when I voted but I ventured to support. And yes, your thoughts and opinions are yours, no problem :) --Laitche (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good, but the specimen noticed by Benh is better, therefore I think in this case that one FP in enough.--Jebulon (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Diptera

File:Airplaning around Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2015 at 20:52:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info created by Ross Fowler - uploaded and nominated by The Photographer -- The Photographer (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really? Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice view outside the airplane, but as a photograph.... -- KTC (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Neutral Per Daniel. But maybe I miss the point, so if you're willing to share why you nominated it? - Benh (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found that this view from inside the cockpit, would be interesting. Pilot contrast with mountains in the front seems a good composition. --The Photographer (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah after a second thought and after reading you, think the idea is interesting. But I'm missing something with the composition. Tried to crop it to a wider format? - Benh (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It really has to be seen on a wide screen to make the most of it. - Benh (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your cut is most better than original composition, if you want, you could create a alt nomination, I will support you. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Works much better for me like that, might consider supporting this if you'd nominate it as an alternative. Taking the Cloud base as a reference, it seems quite heavily tilted clockwise, though (ca. 3°). --El Grafo (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that "tilt" is relevant in a three-dimensions picture... The pic could be tilted "inside" the plane, but not outside (IMO)--Jebulon (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice comment Jebulon, I never thought that --The Photographer (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebulon: Well, it depends … Looking at it more closely now, I see that the aircraft is in a very slight left turn. You can see that on the artificial horizon; the pilot is currently working against that, turning the yoke to the right. If you take the aircraft as your reference, the picture is actually quite well-aligned to that – using the yellow bar representing the wings on the artificial horizon as a reference (which is quite short, so my measurement might be off by about +/- 1°). If you prefer the outside world as your reference, the picture is tilted as evidenced by the cloud-base or the thinner white line on the artificial horizon (above the yellow one, representing the actual horizon). Which one you prefer as a reference in an image is a matter of taste. Flying gliders myself, I'm used to thinking of the horizon as the reference system for determining whether my wings are level (as well as estimating my angle of attack). But then again, I don't tilt my head in a turn to have the horizon level. I guess as long as the image is aligned with one of the two possible reference systems, it doesn't really matter which one it is. At least in this case; it would certainly be a different thing if the aircraft was in a much steeper turn ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends... For the nominated picture, you are looking at the man who is looking outside. In your example (Nice city airport), you are looking outside yourself... Anyway, one can rotate ad libitum without any tlit (IMO). It is a matter of perception of the space...--Jebulon (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might be that I just used the word "tilt" incorrectly, meant "rotate". FWIW, Here's another example with pilot.Finding things like this at Commons is surprisingly difficult, one would think we'd have something like Category:Cockpit views of aircraft in flight. --El Grafo (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support composition is interesting, and I like the view from inside the cockpit. --Pine^✉ 18:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too dark inside, sorry. --Tremonist (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contrast between fore and back ground is important in this composition --The Photographer (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @The Photographer: sorry to ask, but I'm going to be away for a few days, and I had to pack yesterday. Could you create the alternative nom yourself if you think it's worth it? Maybe the tilt should be fixed. I left it because it gives me vertigo and I felt it was nice that the photo conveys such a feeling. - Benh (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, take care by yourself. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1

Support --Pine^✉ 06:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Editing File-El Tovar Hotel inside staircase.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2015 at 15:58:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created and uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Σπάρτακος -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The dynamic range of the scene isn't captured very well, the clipped areas are too prominent. I also don't find the architecture very appealing or interesting. — Julian H.^✈ 16:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The architecture is interesting for me LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow in its magnitude. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support An example to aspire to. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 08:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 11:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Julian H.--Jebulon (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Succisa pratensis - Apis mellifera mellifera - Keila2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2015 at 20:07:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

European honey bee on the white-flowered devil's-bit scabious

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info European honey bee on the white-flowered devil's-bit scabious. Created, uploaded and nominated by Ivar (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great natural scene! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support !! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question When I saw pic I thought its about flower, but name suggests its about bee. Isnt subject of interest too much in the corner ? --Mile (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Main subject is the rare white-flowered plant and the honey bee is just a bonus. --Ivar (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not sure what is in focus more. But still good. --Mile (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice though I want a bit more space on the top and bottom. --Laitche (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 19:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kameraprojekt Graz 2015 (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Night scenes of Gloucester Road, Hong Kong.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2015 at 07:57:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Exploringlife ) 07:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Exploringlife ) 07:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice light trails from the cars, but the rest of the image is not so good - lots of underexposure and overexposure and fairly low sharpness/resolution. Diliff (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, your signature is a bit.... brash and distracting. Diliff (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Calm down please, you're misunderstanding of my signature design, my signature uses green background colour is to carry out comfort feeling. The "Exploringlife" shows by hand-written words but not "Arial", "Times New Roman" or other traditional computer fonts, is just showing sincerity and making relax feel. Finally linking user talk page via symbol of "talking cloud", just want to look brand-new, don't want to make the same with others like "(talk)", so boring. Yes, the signature is a bit bigger, but surely not brash, also can reduce the size to minimize the special or distracting feels. Anyway, I feel weird because here is discussing the picture achieve feature level or not, don't know why interfere with my signature together, become digression. Exploringlife (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Calm down? I was perfectly calm - I simply expressed my opinion. I'm not misunderstanding the signature, I just dislike its visuals. It doesn't need to carry out any 'comfort feelings', its purpose is simply to identify the owner of the comments. I stand by my comments, I think it is brash and distracting. You say you don't know why I 'interfere' with your signature... it's because everyone else has to put up with it. It actually bleeds onto other people's text. It's a scourge if you ask me. I was perfectly calm before, but your response has made me less so. :-P Diliff (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Exploringlife: Thanks for changing signature. Diliff simply expressed what many people think about "eye catching" signatures. Yarl ✉ 06:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per David. Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the others, even though I like photos taken by night. --Tremonist (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination No matter how many oppose votes, now I withdraw this voting and closing the discussion. If my photo become Commons FPC again, that means my camera has replaced by a high definition one. Exploringlife (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a good idea. A modern high resolution camera has a much better chance of reaching FP standards. Diliff (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Although the Canon EOS 5D Mark III that you're using has the highest resolution compare with other cameras until now, still has a disadvantage of taking panorama, need to take different shots and combine them together by software, a bit trouble. So I'm thinking of a camera which can take panorama in one shot, also have a close resolution to your camera. Besides, my camera Olympic SP570UZ has accompany with me for 7 years already, which built up profound sentiments with loving memories, also it's functions still keeps very well, therefore I'm reluctant to throw it into rubbish bin. I think I'll use 2 cameras, the new one specially for taking featured level/landscape/long-ranged view/complicated pictures, and the old one takes close-range view and simple composition photos. Exploringlife (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exploringlife, although many cameras have a panorma mode (which also takes multiple photos but combines them in the camera rather than later on computer) the results are unlikely to reach Featured Picture quality. Of the different brands, Sony seem to have the best reputation for their implementation of "Sweep panorama". They always output JPG rather than RAW files, which can limit one's options for making alterations to exposure (such as to rescue blown white clouds), and on close examination they usually have small "stitching errors" where the software doesn't align the frames perfectly, and interior shots are bound to exhibit parallax errors. Some examples I have taken with this camera feature are File:Colosseum exterior rear 2012 sweep panorama.jpg, File:Colosseum interior 2012 sweep panorama.jpg, and File:Waterloo Bridge Panorama.jpg. Alternatively one can use a fisheye lens to get a wide angle-of-view such as File:Colosseum interior 2012.jpg and File:Westminster from the dome on Methodist Central Hall.jpg, though distortions are a consequence of such an extreme lens.

Any modern DSLR or mirrorless interchangeable-lens-camera will improve the quality of your photos provided you use high-quality lenses. If you are prepared to take the time to stitch panoramas on computer (and there's a lot to learn and it is time-consuming) then you can achieve much finer results (e.g. File:Tower Bridge view at dawn crop.jpg). For interior panoramas, it is almost essential to use a tripod with panoramic head, combined with stitching software on computer. For a light-trail photo like above, it is hard but not impossible to get this right in the camera. It is easier to handle the extremes of bright lights and dark buildings using software like Lightroom and Photoshop. It also helps to ensure the photo has something of interest other than just the car light trails, such as with File:Big Ben at sunset - 2014-10-27 17-30.jpg. Hope this helps. If you want more advice on choosing a camera, ask on my talk page and I'm sure several people will offer advice. -- Colin (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Altun Ha Belize 6.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2015 at 01:13:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Front wall of the Temple of the Sun God/Temple of the masonry altars at Altun Ha archeological site, Belize

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Front of Structure B4 (Temple of the Sun God/Temple of the masonry altars) at Altun Ha archeological site, Belize - All by Denis Barthel (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Denis Barthel (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition. That's a lot of grass. Also, I'm not so sure about the perspective. The base is tilting up left to right, but the top is tilting down. -- KTC (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agreed, composition is not great. Diliff (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to the noted composition problems, it looks a little underexposed to me. 1/500 with ISO 125 in what seems to be broad daylight? Hmm? Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination - Thanx for the votes. I understand the point concerning the composition and agree. The "underexposure" is a result of postprocessing, as the picture would be way to bright else. This is Belize at the equator in full sun in July. Regards, Denis Barthel (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ossiach Tauern Filialkirche hl Antonius 22082015 6923.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2015 at 05:42:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Subsidiary church Saint Anthony at Tauern, Ossiach, Carinthia, Austria,

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz (talk) -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is good, the subject is nice but not outstanding and it is covering most of the picture (too predominant), so that's a composition issue to me. I don't know what was left and right of the church, but this picture would have need a bit more of landscape, as itself, as said, it is not featurable to me, sorry. Poc o² 09:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very sorry Johann ,but I agree with Poco --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Behind the church there are mountains? --Tremonist (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The church is on top of a mountain back, behind there is a valley and then another mountain. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 14:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you guys for your honest opinions, I withdraw that image. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 14:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oscar Niemeyer, Pic, 9 - Restoration.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2015 at 14:01:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Roger Pic - uploaded by Pmx (restored by Adam Cuerden) - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good restoration, nice pose. -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously. Erg. Poking around in the Oscar Niemeyer category is not for the faint of heart, though. Some of the most used images are almost certainly copyvios. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good restoration but the original quality is too low in 1977. --Laitche (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I realize that it may come off as presumptuous to criticize a professional, but: I don't like it. I don't like the mixed light (blue from outside vs. tungsten (?) inside). I don't like that nothing but the head and hand is discernible. Sharpness is not that great either, but that's probably at least in part due to the need for high-ISO film, so I won't complain about that. Can't really judge this without knowing what gear this was shot with. --El Grafo (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a lack of contrast, the arm and the body can't be differenciated. --Tremonist (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bumblebee on Hibiscus Blossom.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2015 at 17:10:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Large earth bumblebee (bombus terrestris) on hibiscus blossom

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Info Pollen. The main reason why I'd like to nominate this picture - though I'm actually more than just mildly allergic to pollen... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm really sorry to oppose, but the scene is so promising that the d*mn front petal really frustrates me... - Benh (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Agree with Benh of the da*n front petal. --Laitche (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This front petal keeps a little secret. --Tremonist (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Poc o² 18:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pasque Flower (Pulsatilla vulgaris) (8338456438).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2015 at 12:56:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by Bernard Dupont - uploaded by Josve05a - nominated by Josve05a -- Josve05a (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Josve05a (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very low resolution, strong noise, compression artifacts, harsh light (and therefore distracting background), composition doesn't add interest. — Julian H.^✈ 10:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is beautiful, but unfortunately some areas are blurred. --Tremonist (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poc o² 18:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Highland cattle Secëda Gherdëina.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2015 at 12:51:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info created and uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Σπάρτακος -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really nice animals! But some parts are blurred, e. g. the right horn near the viewer. --Tremonist (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good for me. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is nice to have mum + dad + baby but the composition isn't successful (would be better if bull facing the other way) and the background is not well arranged, with distracting elements at the top. -- Colin (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dad needs a hair cut. ;o) Seriously, per Colin. Yann (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok for me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support though not the sharpest (should have used a faster shutter speed than 1/160 for animals). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Measured support While I see Colin's points, for me they are not fatal. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good composition--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin, also daddy's slightly out of focus (less sharp than the grass behind him). --El Grafo (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, I don't care a hair cut... but composition and the focus. --Laitche (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose that left corner with sky spoiled it. --Mile (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This family needs some support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per opposers.--Jebulon (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poc o² 18:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polystichum setiferum 'Pulcherrimum Bevis'. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 03.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2015 at 04:56:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

new leaf unfurling of sterile fern Polystichum setiferum 'Bevis Pulcherrimum'

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info Beautiful new leaf unfurling of sterile fern Polystichum setiferum 'Bevis Pulcherrimum'. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 08:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment even when it´s not a hotpixel, but the white point is disturbing and unnecessary. Good image, beyond that, it´s FP for me. --Hubertl 08:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you. --Famberhorst (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really sharp --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. New version.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose How nice and delicate ! A pity it is unsharp, could you try another shot ?--Jebulon (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Last attempt. More shots I did not.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with comments, its unsharp. --Mile (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for me it is a FP.--Hubertl 10:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like camera wasn't completly steady at 1/4 seconds. --Ivar (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's some considerable motion blur. Also, I don't really get the idea behind the framing: It's neither really centered nor does the way the is off-center seem to follow any specific rule or idea? --El Grafo (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: all my photos are taken on tripod with remote control.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Even if you could freeze the camera, but you can't avoid motion blur of the subject :) --Laitche (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice subject and bokeh, but the quality level is just not there, even for QI, sorry. Poc o² 18:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you all for the comments. --Famberhorst (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poc o² 18:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellowstone-0179.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2015 at 17:25:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created & uploaded by Hans Stieglitz - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Over-sharpened, too shallow DOF, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Besides what Laitche noted, the picture really isn't interesting enough to reach FP standards, for me. Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting it is, but not sharp enough overall. --Tremonist (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poc o² 18:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capri Portrait2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2015 at 05:09:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mайкл Гиммельфарб -- Mайкл Гиммельфарб (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mайкл Гиммельфарб (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For a landscape, this is mostly sea, and not particularly striking at that. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Taken from too far a distance and too little resolution for that. --Tremonist (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rabengeier-001.jpg, not featured

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

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created & uploaded by Hans Stieglitz - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment f/233,993??? --Laitche (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shallow DOF (The eye is in focus but the beaks are out of focus) and too aggressive denoising (loss details). --Laitche (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad framing --Mile (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why the crop? The entire bird would look even nicer. --Tremonist (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 08:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poc o² 18:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane (Rome) - Intern.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2015 at 21:23:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
I withdraw my nomination The church of San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane (Saint Charles at the Four Fountains), also called San Carlino, is a Roman Catholic church in Rome, Italy. The church was designed by the architect Francesco Borromini and it was his first independent commission. It is an iconic masterpiece of Baroque architecture, built as part of a complex of monastic buildings on the Quirinal Hill for the Spanish Trinitarians, an order dedicated to the freeing of Christian slaves. He received the commission in 1634, under the patronage of Cardinal Francesco Barberini, whose palace was across the road. However, this financial backing did not last and subsequently the building project suffered various financial difficulties. All by -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice white! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I suspect that it is leaning outwards a bit. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 03:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I feel like the framing is not ideal. It's too tight, with the columns on the top and the seating at the bottom being cropped out. Diliff (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the beauty of this church and a challenge to Borromini. The space was small and no one wanted to build a church (given the small space available) and he accept and exploit the height and not the depth (like the others church of the moment). In this way the people were pushed to look to the other masterpiece that is the dome. Then I do not have a wide angle and or I cut the floor and took the columns (with later: "Why did you cut the floor?"). Greetings.--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. My question would then be "why don't you get a wide angle lens?" or "Why don't you try stitching?" :-) Diliff (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, but in this case I would take the bottom of the dome and preferred to cut the columns and not the beautiful dome. Regards. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's your choice, but I don't see a problem with including a partially cropped dome - nobody expects to see a complete dome when looking horizontally straight down the nave, but it's usually better to see at least some of the ceiling. Anyway, the cropped columns is only one half of the issue. The other half is that you don't have enough foreground (IMO). Diliff (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can see a part of ceiling,is that "triangle" on. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hubertl 06:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Soundwaweserb (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that the bottom crop is not really convincing, quality is good, but not extraordinary (considering what we are used to see here) but my reason to oppose is just the subject. It is a church like many other without anything that amazes me and that I expect here, sorry. Poc o² 18:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really others think this or this...only for say...--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then that doesn't speak for you, since I cannot confirm that based on what I see above. That's just my opinion and FPC is a place where I can express it. Poc o² 21:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

certainly, but that does not mean is right--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And there is nothing about the reviews you provided that suggests they are right either. Besides, we tend to be a bit more analytical in our critiques of church interiors than the average tourist. Diliff (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of the most beautiful churches in Rome as well as tourists from architects. I did not say I'm right, I said it is not said that you have!--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak oppose I've googled a bit and I agree with Diliff that a wider view would definitely be nicer. It feels very tight as it is And since quality isn't on par with what we have best, I weak oppose. But I think it's worth a reshot if you want to give it a try with a wider framing. I like the white. - Benh (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Diliff, Poco and Benh. I think a view like that would be better. In your version the paintings on the sides can't be seen. Your picture just shows too much plain white and the crop at the bottom is not the best either. The church itself is featurable, of course. --Code (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePer others with regrets, as a reshot is possible. I like the white too. Lack of sharpness at the top of the altarpiece.--Jebulon (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but FP should be our finest images. What makes this picture to one of our finest interior photos? QI yes, but every QI of a nice church is not FP. Neither quality or composition is outstanding. In other words, sorry but no WOW for me.--ArildV (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What questions ArildV, what is special about an insect, a building, a car or anything that I do not think it's great, but I have the decency to respect the opinion of others (although I put voted against). However, it is one of the most beautiful churches of Rome, is the last work of Borromini, is the only baroque church higher than wide, I do not know... you choose.--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read again LivioAndronico. I wrote: what makes this picture to one of our finest interior photos? I never asked what is special about the church. I asked what is special about your image! I think the composition and quality is average QI. And as I wrote every QI of a nice church is not FP. --ArildV (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read again ArildV, and I asked "what is special about an insect, a building, a car or anything that I do not think it's great"? Is the same,for you this isn't this interior as the same time I don't find outstanding other things that you like but I don't ask for why nominee it--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No LivioAndronico. My review is about your photo, its not about the church. The church is outstanding, the images is not outstanding.--ArildV (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Starry Night at La Silla.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2015 at 06:07:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"A piercingly bright curtain of stars is the backdrop for this beautiful image taken by astronomer Håkon Dahle. The silhouetted figure in the foreground is Håkon himself surrounded by just a couple of the great dark domes that litter the mountain of ESO’s La Silla Observatory."

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Space exploration#Others
Info created by ESO/H. Dahle - uploaded by Stas1995 - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 06:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 06:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 07:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One out of many, not even among good. --Mile (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose Well, per Mile actually. It's still out of reach for most of us to get a sky this pure, and hence to get so many stars to appear on a photo. But it's become not too hard to shoot a milky way with modern gear, so it has to stand out with composition or any other distinctive feature. This one doesn't, composition is random. And ESO has so many other beautiful pictures... [6] - Benh (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good photo with that many stars, but per others. --Tremonist (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination given lack of support above. --Pine^✉ 20:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:PNSC Veado Campeiro Correndo.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2015 at 16:40:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pampas deer running at Serra da Canastra National Park.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created and uploaded by Halleypo - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It could be cropped a bit at left. Yann (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Because I love the animal's pose and it was obviously difficult to capture, I'm willing to overlook the the unsharp areas and the reeds in front of it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Agree that this shot is a different light than objects in a photo studio, but still we have examples in FP like this one, but are IMHO a step higher Poc o² 17:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice capture but quality issue. @Arion：I think you a bit underestimate FP standards :) --Laitche (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prades-sur-Vernazobre, Hérault 01.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2015 at 11:01:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The village of Prades-sur-Vernazobre (Hérault, France), surrounded by the Saint-Chinian vineyards. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnifique! --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 11:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely Lovely --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing to "wow". --Kikos (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice quality and clouds, but those are too far from the camera to achieve wow enough for me Poc o² 17:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too homogeneous a landscape, and seems a little underexposed. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Maybe a bit underexposed, but weak~~ FP for me without doubt.--Hubertl 11:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done I maybe dropped too much the brightness, I hand as it was originally, thank you. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Je trouve que Daniel Case a bien résumé la chose : trop "homogène", pas de motif fort, et pas de réelle ambiance, même si un effort a été fait pour avoir cette brume du matin. Un peu plus tôt, ou au coucher du soleil, et c'est lumière rasante + orange, voire rose ! (et plus de chance d'attraper la brume accessoirement). Si tu ne connais pas, je te recommande fortement ce site qui devrait être un outil obligatoire pour tous les photographes de paysage :) - Benh (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Benh: Thanks for the link but this photo was not specifically planned, I visited just. When I want to know the direction (and hours) of the sun rays I use this --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your link is aimed at photographers. The one I give you lets you anticipate direction of the sun, sunrises, sunsets, but also moonrise, moonset, dawn, and gives you exact time for dusk, blue hours, astronomical twilights... which is useful when you do astrophotography. - Benh (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Krafla power plant - Kröflustöð.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2015 at 16:50:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Industry
Info all by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's a bit unfortunate that the most 'power plant looking' part of the scene is a bit cropped out on the left. A slightly wider view (or panoramic) would have suited I think. Diliff (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Power plant" occupies a very large area, it is run by 18 wells and 44 boreholes (as I read it on a poster there) at a great distance from the turbines found in the building on the right. se Krafla Power Station. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Diliff, but it still fascinates me, so in the hope of seeing more of that kind (might even inspires me :) ). - Benh (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see how you would have seen a possible FP in this scene, but it's not this one. Perhaps without the clouds in the sky ... as it is, with them you've got blown spots in the smoke/vapor plume, and the ground is generally too dark. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting scenery. --Tremonist (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO you should withdraw both, and renominate only the so-called alternative as an original nom. It is going to be confusing...--Jebulon (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Yes Jebulon is right --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Another shot at shorter focal length, and the foreground lightned. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could support this one, but as you say yourself, this is "another shot" with "a shorter focal lenght". Therefore, this is not an alternative, and I cannot chose between two different images, only between two different versions of the same image. Please, nominate it as a separate file.--Jebulon (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oaky - I will nominate this later I have two nominations right now. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would probably support this version too, but as Jebulon said, it should be nominated separately. Also, it's quite tilted. Can you fix the tilt without looking too much resolution? Diliff (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thx - I have corrected the tilt now. And will nominate it later. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per others (Support probable). --Tremonist (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 14:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 14:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weaker oppose It's improved, but I still don't like the sky. Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO you should withdraw both, and renominate only the so-called alternative as an original nom. It is going to be confusing...--Jebulon (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Yes Jebulon is right --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015 Poręba, kościół św. Sebastiana 01.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2015 at 07:43:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 07:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 07:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No clear composition: the church is mostly obstructed by bushes. Yann (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The church isn't the main motive. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Yann. There is a doubt about "what is the main motive ?"--Jebulon (talk) 11:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]