Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2008

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


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


Image:turdusmerula.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description 

1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 23:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Listi vrtnic in kapljice.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description

To get a good depth of field you need a smaller aperture, say f20 rather than f8. That will mean a slower shutter speed and of course a tripod which you'll find essential for photos like this. --MichaelMaggs 20:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks it helped for newest pear flowers shoots. After next rain I'll try this with roses. Just a question which lens are good for macro on Nikon D series (I'm going to buy new lens this year, because now I have just Nikon D40's kit lens). --Mihael Simonic 12:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 23:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chelonia mydas albino p1440273.jpg - featured

[edit]

An albino green turtle

I have wider shots but... This turtle was surfacing in a shallow basin and was very close to the edge, so wider shots show some unpleasant concrete wall. :-) David.Monniaux 09:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That couldn't be cropped out? Cirt 11:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I enhanced the contrast. David.Monniaux 19:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 9 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Larus michahellis LC0046.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Yellow-legged gull (Larus michahellis) 

3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hite Crossing Bridge HWY95 view2 MC.jpg - featured

[edit]

Short description 

20 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ptilinopus melanospilus male.jpg - not featured

[edit]

South-East Asian bird

FPX| out of focus --Richard Bartz 13:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Magalhães is certain that the focus is sufficient for FP --Richard Bartz 15:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

2 support, 7 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WMAP spacecraft.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Artist's impression of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.

  • What clutter? Do you mean the instrument at the centre of the spacecraft? That's like objecting to a picture of Paris due to that pointy tower thing in the middle... Mike Peel 08:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that aesthetically the image is not strong enough to be featured. FYI, this image looks much less cluttered: [2]. Barabas
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Illustration of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe spacecraft receivers 

1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image: EPO 2537.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Louis XIV and Marie-Antoinette in front of Versailles Palace 

9 support, 10 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cuphea pn.JPG -not featured

[edit]

A Cuphea hyssopifolia‎ blooming

{{FPX|out of focus and a confusing composition -- [[User:Alvesgaspar|Alvesgaspar]] 23:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)}}

This image is not out of focus and it being of confusing composition is an opinion. --penubag 00:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2 support, 1 neutral, 5 oppose >> not featured

Image:Istanbul1.jpg -not featured

[edit]

View from Galata 

4 support, 2 neutral, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 16:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Below Chestnut & Broad.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description 

3 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

image:Ouareau JPS0029.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Ouareau River Quebec

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the DOF is too shallow 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.

--Freedom to share 06:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

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

Lycaon 22:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

 1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:718smiley.svg - not featured

[edit]

awesome

It looks like we finally found an image to replace all the other comment images. I made you a template. Rocket000 09:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 support, 6 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NMMP dolphin with locator.jpeg - kept

[edit]

dolphin with locator

Please note that delisting does not mean to delete the image. The image still could be uniq image without being a FP. --Manco Capac 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I please ask you what do you think about this Commons FPC selection criteria "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." ?Isn't this a picture of s very difficult subject ?--Mbz1 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe this is a hard to reproduce shot, these are trained dolphins and probably do tricks like this on a regular basis (as opposed to a wild dolphin), so the technical flaws of a 2003 image can't be forgiven so easily since the U.S military has expensive equipment to produce high quality images but this looks rather poor for a 1/500 shutter speed, also very noisy and oversharpened. Movieevery 17:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe U.S military has "expensive equipment" maybe not, maybe U.S military did not care to let their "expensive equipment" to get wet in order the picture would pass FPC, maybe it is easy to reproduce, maybe not. I do not know. What I know that right now Commons do not have a better image of the unique and interesting subject and IMO the image should stay at least untill a better one will be availabale.Thank you.--Mbz1 18:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)17:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Very good, valuable and high wow image. This is what an FP is about, not constant bickering about technical quality. --Freedom to share 15:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist Strange discussion about whether it's hard to reproduce, like the picture gets burned and destroyed when it's no longer an FP? FRZ 02:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Very interesting capture; the composition is very good also. Technical imperfections are not that bad and should not outweigh in this case. Barabas
  •  Keep The uniqness of this situation makes up for the techical "mishaps". --Hebster 12:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8 keep, 6 delist >> kept -- Alvesgaspar 21:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ophelia - Hybrid Tea.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Ophelia - Hybrid Tea 

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mandarin drake.JPG - not featured

[edit]

Mandarin drake duck

Sorry, you should try Commons:Quality images candidates first! --Beyond silence 17:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to withdraw the nomination. Many thanks to those whose supported the picture. This was my first pic with a new camera - and I like it! I won't bother again - you people are just unbelievably snooty! (And, having seen some of your pics, without any justification in some cases) --Seahamlass 19:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For withdraw just type {{withdraw}} --Richard Bartz 23:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think human being is not perfect creature. Please don't be disappointed. This pic's composition is very good, anyway. :) -- Laitche 20:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Laitche. Such short statements behind an opposing vote sometimes seem harsh. But they are not meant mean or something. Your picture really has artefacts that shouldn't be in an FP. I am sure those artefacts are not from your camera (I have the same)...you did a wrong move in the post-processing. This happens... But when you nominate a picture you have to expect that you also get opposing votes. Don't take it hard and try again with another photo. In the end all this is helpful for you to improve. --AngMoKio 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you come back with new contributions because this image is very nice; although I too agree about the noise issue mentioned. And always remember that images might be just as valuable to Wikimedia Commons even if they are not promoted to FP. And note that FP is supposed to be some of the finest on Commons, not just good images. /Daniel78 22:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't take offence. The most important thing in the image - the composition - is great. Had you selected 100 ISO rather than 400 ISO the noise would have been much lower and I strongly suspect you would have been successful. Do please try again. --MichaelMaggs 22:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the fault of the ISO - even my D50 gives far less noise than this at ISO 400 and the 40D is much better at ISO 400 and up than a D50. I think it's just too much compression combined with oversharpening of the compression artefacts. --Aqwis 22:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose There is no need to come unglued and call opposers snobbish. Let's call a spade a spade - yes, there is a heavy amount of noise/artefacts caused by sharpening the image, furthermore the white feathers on the neck lost any drawing caused by slight overexposure. As we have a ringed bird here a location info in which zoo you took the picture would be great --Richard Bartz 05:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{withdraw}} 

5 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Lake Kreda (NW Slovenia) - Bufo bufo mating.jpg

Image:Enfant d'Ouzbékistan-691bis.JPG - not featured

[edit]

Mère et enfant à la fenêtre à Bukhara

{FPX} *  OpposeNot a good composition: the baby's face is partially hidden and the window grating is distracting -- Alvesgaspar 10:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

 Comment J'ai parlé avec cette femme, ravie qu'on la prenne en photo avec son enfant (ça se voit sur son visage, non?). Mais je n'ai évidemment pas son autorisation formelle quant au dépôt sur Wikimedia ! Si cela doit poser problème, je commence à comprendre pourquoi on voit si peu de photos de personnes de chair et de sang sur les galeries! Quant à l'avis d'Alvesgaspar je le trouve très "théorique" et un peu formaliste : visage partiellement caché? oui, mais as-tu vu ses yeux? La grille, elle, me semble justement faire la petite originalité "technique" (et peut-être symbolique) de la prise de vue! Amicalement ! --ANGLO 13:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Legal perhaps, but a little stupid! Long live insects, wasps, crabs, dragonflies, beetles, big butterflies and small flowers!

I withdraw my nomination.--Anglo 23:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sunset from Internation space station.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Clone war of sea anemones 2-17-08-2 edit.jpg - kept

[edit]

Short description

  •  Info Dear all,
    I've decided to stop my contributions to Commons because uploading images without nominating them on FP is boring, while nominating them on FP is depressing to me. I am probably not right, but it is the way I am, and I cannot change it. Sorry. I will continue upload my images to Wikipedia, but not to Commons. Here's one last thing that I believe I should do before I go, and it is about the image, which I am nominating for delisting. Before I nominated the image to get FP status I e-mailed it to the expert, who wrote a book about sea anemones in California. He said the image was of Anthopleura elegantissima engaged in a clone war. After the image passed I found more info about Anthopleura elegantissima and now I believe my image is of Anthopleura sola (not of Anthopleura elegantissima). I did e-mail image to other expert, who also believes that the image is of Anthopleura elegantissima, but he did not convinced me. I am almost positive that my image is of Anthopleura sola. If it is the case, it means, that not only ID was made incorectly, but it is not a clone war, but simply a war because Anthopleura sola do not clone. Sorry for the confusing explanation. Richard, you've done a great job with the image and I am sorry I have to nominate it for the delisting. It is still a rare and very interesting IMO image of sea anemones action, but, if you decide to keep it, I believe it should be renamed (I mean I believe it should be renamed in any case). Thank you.--Mbz1 04:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Original nomination)

Thank you for your comment, Benh and Daniel78. I will continue to upload my images to Commons and sooner or later I probably will nominate one on FP. The thing I have no interest in taking pictures at all, if I do not upload them to Commons.--Mbz1 19:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4 keep, 1 oppose >> kept -- Alvesgaspar 09:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ischgl church interior from below.jpeg

[edit]
Ischgl Ischgl Edit2
Original Edit2 by wau

Original - not featured

[edit]
1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) -- Alvesgaspar 23:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - not featured

[edit]
4 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oxya yezoensis November 2007 WUXGA.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Oxya yezoensis 

7 support, 7 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WMAP 2008.png - not featured

[edit]

The Cosmic Microwave Background as seen by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. Projected from full-sky using the Mollweide projection.

  • By the way, for the photographers: this picture is the result of 5 years' cumulative exposure on a camera with effectively 16 pixels continually being sampled, which have a resolution around 10 times worse than the human eye . While it does have a lens that is one and a half metres wide, the photons it is collecting have a wavelength of around 1-15 mm, about 2,000 times longer than visible light, making it an effective optical lens of about 0.75mm in width. The image is after subtracting off a baseline that is over a thousand times stronger than the signal. The camera cost a couple of billion dollars, and made a trip of over 1,500,000 kilometers to take the photo. Oh, and the image has been used to weigh the universe, and to calculate its age. Mike Peel 22:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Glen Canyon Dam MC.jpg - featured

[edit]

Short description 

9 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Orchid blue.JPG - not featured

[edit]

Profile of an orchid

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of insufficient depth of field and the orchid is unidentified 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.

Freedom to share 07:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:barbula_fallax.jpeg - not featured

[edit]
  •  Comment Sorry for uncommenting you, but I've made up that license text to be compatible with both flickr, korseby and private websites. I'm really tired of all these license discussions here on the commons that arise from time to time. If you and other people think that this license is incompatible with the commons, then please go on and delete all the other 1888 photos (including Featured and QI) I've uploaded so far. Your oppose vote is a non-issue here. Fabelfroh 12:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's why custom licenses suck. People can just change them at will. Fortunately, you can't add restrictions on top of cc-by-sa-3.0. All that text after the "cc-by-sa-3.0" means nothing. Either it is or it isn't under that license. Since we know the author's intent, is it legally binding? ...probably not since she didn't fully understand what the license entailed. Rocket000 16:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Fortunately, you can't add restrictions on top of cc-by-sa-3.0." Of course you can. The CC licenses can be treated as templates, and nothing stops you from adding additional restrictions on top of them. --Aqwis 16:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There's no "can't" here: a copyright holder can do whatever he or she pleases. If he says it's under "cc-by-sa plus a ton of restrictions", then it's under cc-by-sa plus a ton of restrictions. That's just how licensing works. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What!? If you say it's under a specific Creative Commons license, then that's it. If you add anything on top of that then it's not really under that license. Those license tags are "templates" but the legal document it links to isn't. You can't just customize it to your liking. They mean something. Otherwise, I could say my work was CC-BY plus all rights reserved. Yeah, that doesn't make sense. Anyway, I just noticed the EXIF data: The author of this image is Kristian Peters. He owns the original copyright. This work is licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 cc-by-sa-nc license. Rocket000 16:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you add anything on top of that, then it's not really that license anymore. You're right on that count: the license grant that the copyright holder has given will consist of the terms of that license, plus those restrictions. To use a dodgy analogy, if I say "you can eat this whole cake, but save the cherry on it for me" you can't go and eat the cake, cherry included, and say in your defense "but you said I could eat the whole cake!". Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is he did release under that license. So the rest is meaningless. This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You. - Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported §8(e) Rocket000 16:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing he didn't read that bit. That, I think, is where we run into informed-consent-type issues. The intent of the copyright holder is clear: he doesn't want it to be used for commercial purposes. That intent is also clear to anybody that has read the image description page. He could very easily argue that he didn't understand what he was consenting to (and before you say anything, I find that troubling too -- as far as consequences go, the difference between this and revocation is rather small). Courts won't look too well on license "traps" given that he has clearly stated his intent so clearly... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not saying we should (or could) hold him to the license. At least not in good faith. But it is the licensor's responsibility to understand the terms and conditions they are willfully agreeing to. Otherwise, there'd always be a easy way out. All you would need to do is plead ignorance. And how many people do you think that use these licenses have actually read the legal code? How many really understand the implications? Rocket000 17:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crap. I forgot where we were. Sorry everyone else for the copyright talk. :) Rocket000 17:52, 4 May 2008 (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: subject of licensing issues. --norro 15:33, 4 May 2008 (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. 
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dyavolski bridge.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Devil's bridge in autumn

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

Freedom to share 10:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment It is with great pity that I insert this FPX tag, for this is a truly amazing image, with an excellent composition and atmosphere. Freedom to share 10:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It is an amazing composition indeed, although I'd recommend less post-processing which is very visibly in the clouds, in case the author were to upload a higher resolution image. -- Klaus with K 11:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Petrovatnight.JPG- not featured

[edit]

Cathedral of St. Peter and Paul in Brno city, CZ at night

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

Do you have a larger version? -βαςεLXIV™ 14:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Question Excuse me, but I mean that the picture is big enough to see if it´s good or not! For what do you need a bigger resolution? --Gothic2 15:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you read the guidelines, please: Resolution - Photographs of lower resolution than 2 million pixels are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'. Note that a 1600 x 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level. --QWerk 16:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man (QWerk) RELAX, RELAX :-) --Gothic2 16:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures just ain't high quality if they are low-res... The guidelines are there for a reason. 81.224.104.150 15:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vendeuse d'arachides.jpg

[edit]

original - featured

[edit]

Peanuts seller in Ouagadougou 

8 support, 3 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit 1 - not featured

[edit]

Peanuts seller in Ouagadougou                      Peanuts seller in Ouagadougou

  •  Comment a great composition, I also noticed it in the QICs. I added a new version. I am not the best concerning colour-balancing...maybe someone can make it better (Richard..are you there? ;)) but i thought that the sky is too brown in the original version. --AngMoKio 17:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment _Please_ link all edits/versions with each other. It's so often forgotten. /Daniel78 19:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did it. /Daniel78 10:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit looks good. --Richard Bartz 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice new balance but the "true" colors are more like in the original ; sky isn't blue in Ouagadougou. --Romanceor 17:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the colors could be more like in the original, but the original has not the original/true colors IMO. When looking at the histogram on circle1 the blue channel isn't congruent like it should. Furthermore its hardly imaginable 4 me that we have a twilight or a rainy situation here as the shadows in circle2 are nicely drawn and the afternoon sun (arrow4) causing overexposed highlights in circle3, even at 1/1000s. The truth is somewhere between the original and AngMoKio's edit --Richard Bartz 04:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At 18:18 under tropics night is very soon, you can also see that by the enlightening of the cushion very horizontally. And you can have dusty clouds in the background but not necessary around you. --B.navez 15:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit 2 - not featured

[edit]

Peanuts seller in Ouagadougou 

4 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ap4-s67-50531.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Saturn V rocket

I guess I looked at it when my monitor was too dark. The top of the mast blended with the dark sky. I retract that. Barabas 23:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3 support, 8 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Temple Saint Sava.jpg - not featured

[edit]
4 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:EtaCarinae.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description

Depending on how you define color, all of these space photographs are subjective versions of the object. If you define color as what a human eye would see looking through an eyepiece attached to Hubble (and that would have been really awesome, btw!) you would see this object as mostly white with the darker regions going towards green. Back in the days of images on film, the colors of the astrophotography depended greatly on the brand of film that was being used, for instance. One of the major brands captured more blue than its rival which grabbed the reds. I have no idea what to expect from digital image grabs -- is it dependent on the brand of camera or on the brand of the cf card? I was and still somewhat unclear with the explanation for this human eye phenomena; the explanation was that the eye sees more green -- the color that is inbetween the color of the sun and the color of the sky and the predominate color on the planet (I think). Then, ten or twelve years after that, I learned that the moon is not larger on the horizon due to refractive things with the atmosphere as I had thought and taught, but instead due to a psychological thing that the brain does when it makes object that are on the horizon bigger than objects that are more towards the zenith. Our bodies are sad excuses for measuring tools, it is somewhat impressive that our toys work at all. -- carol 23:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question/ Comment
    1. I have done a little research on the subject and I am now quite sure this picture is a mix between Image:Eta Carinae.jpg and Image:Etacarinae-001.jpg. I would like to have confirmation on that.
    2. That leads me to a first question : what is the purpose and scientific interest of such an edit, when each of the two pictures is useful in itself, and shows different things.
    3. Then, I think the author of that edition should at least be mentioned (it seems to come from the University of São Paulo [3]) ? Can we still consider that it is a NASA image, hence in the public domain ? Vol de nuit 15:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sd.Kfz. 250-1 (alt) 01.png - not featured

[edit]

Sd.Kfz. 250/1 (alt)

{{FPX|too small and lacking proper image description. --[[User:Norro|norro]] 09:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)}}

  • FPX can't be used when there are already two support votes. --MichaelMaggs 11:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I've just added sources. Render at 2000x1500px is in prograss (it will take a couple of hours). Im waiting for more conclusions, so I could correct/unify rest of my work. Spike78 11:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Theres a small technical problem with bigger render. Ill try to fix it but ill take some more time. Spike78 17:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Could you please supply more detail about what is shown and why it's of interest, and also about the program you used to create it? I'm a bit concerned about the sources you used; you give ISBNs but not titles and dates of publication. Were the sources within those books photographs or drawings, and are you able to show that they are out of copyright? Otherwise, there may be a copyright infringement problem. --MichaelMaggs 11:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this is a 3D model drawn in Autodesk Autocad 2007, i dont understand Your concerns about copyright: 2D plans were published as well as photos as copyrighted. So I redrawned 2D plans in acad and then made 3D model and then corrected the model by comparing it to several photos... well I think details of whole algorithm isn't worth writing. This picture isn't even similar to any of graphics nor photos published in sources. I will add full (and then redundant) information about sources and anything You like. I've (unfortunately) never disputed seriously about these works so im grateful for Your comments. Spike78 12:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Has been contructed, as I understand it, essentially from plans and photos published in two recent books. Unless we have a reason to suppose those plans and photos are in the public domain my concerns that this is a copyright infringement remain. --MichaelMaggs 17:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Errrr... if I'd do a photo of modern building would You be concerned if "plans are copyrighted" because building is "recent"? I don't undersand it. Oh, do You have a permission to use this for a photo from the manufacturer? 'cause there may be a copyright infringement problem. Spike78 01:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Completely irrelevant. 3D based on published 2D plans cannot be a subject of any "copyrights" (regarding 2D plans authors). If so, all models (especially modern ones, like airliners) would be violating these, because we dont think that Boeing has relased its design and plans into PD? 3D modelling of any form is far beyond of any "derivativeness". Please think about it, and verify your vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masur (talk • contribs) 05:39, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
      • My oppose is based on the copying of 2D plans into another 2D form in acad. That is copyright infringement unless the original plans can be shown to be in the public domain, or you have a licence. The chess example is different since (a) I did not do any 2D -> 2D copying of any original plans, and (b) that design is out of copyright. To answer the question about buildings: yes, buildings do have copyright, which normally expires 70 years after the death of the architect. There are special provisions in some countries, though, which allow photographs to be freely taken in spite of that. See Commons:Freedom of panorama. --MichaelMaggs 06:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So? Plans were coppied and? We don't have them anymore in the final work. Pls think about those Boeing models. One can say, that capturing and publishing a photo of that models was a copyrights violation of 2d plans, because 2D plans were included in a box with model and "derivative" work (3D model, not even 3D, but photo of it) was finally released under GNU license. Dont be ridiculous. In your oppinion, as far as I understood it, ANY 2D/3D work based on existing template is copyvio... What concerns also buildings, airplanes, models, and so on... photos. Oh, another example - one can buy a architectonic plans and legally build a house based on them. And now, when I take a photo of that house, and relase it, i will make a copyvio? I think that somewhere is a limit of "derivativeness", and it is closer than you think. Otherwise we wouldnt be allowed to build any models! Masur 06:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please see Commons:Derivative works. --MichaelMaggs 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • So i think all is about: In short, all transfers of a creative, copyrightable work into a new media count as derivative works. But creating (because its creating! not reproducing or simply changing media) 3d model basing on 2d plans, is, IMO, not a transfer to a new media. Because I create (build) sth completely new and uniqe, as well as my interpretation of those plans is original (i.e. color schemes, details). And you just gave me the link to that page , but you didnt answer what about other models? Those plastics ones i.e. If this particular work (3D digital construction based on 2D (i dont go deep into how accurate is that reconstruction, cosit may be that changes of original concept from plans can be so large that no copyrights can be potentially aplied anyway) printed plans) is for you copyvio, ANY other model is a copyvio too. Cos in most cases they are constructed basing on plans prepared and sold by certain company (i.e. Italeri, if I remember the name of one of them). Pls notice also that those plan were not intended to be basis of any 3D digital reconstruction, I assume that they were more or less simple profile drawings or projections. And once again - plans are only recipe and NOT a work themselves. Masur 18:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support PMG 12:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't like it for FP, because it does not WOW me. --Taraxacum 14:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Wow for me though -βαςεLXIV™ 14:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Ala z talk 14:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Good modeling but standard rendering & cheap lighting. The wood shader is very poor, same for the metal shader on the tools. The MG 42 has a poor antialiasing same here with the shader. I miss decals. It's 2008 now and there are much better renderer around such as Maxwell or Vray. --Richard Bartz 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Decals hmmm... I've done models with and without them. If theres a need (and I also like them) i can make them. But i wanted to show "standard vehicle". Spike78 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Johney (T∀LK) 17:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nice idea for a rendering, but would need a bit more work done on it such as lighting etc. --Freedom to share 18:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ill try to make better ambient. Spike78 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Good but I agree it needs a bit more work. /Daniel78 19:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Work on what? Spike78 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I should be more clear :) I was mostly thinking about the lighting as mentioned by others. And perhaps there could be some sort of texture on the metal plates ? I do not know how it looks in reality but currently it looks slightly plastic instead of metallic to me. /Daniel78 11:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ill try to find better texture for it. Using better lightning is now for me out of question. I've rendered this under Acad (and the ambient light is simulated by approx. 100 point lights placed spherically), now i will do it (and the others) on my gf comp under 3dmax. I didn't care about it 'cause I've allways considered these works as "technical" not "artistic". Take a look at my earlier models - they have even more simplified lightning, Ill correct them too after this discussion but I want to "collect" any "cons" so I could do it absolutely-total-good-and-nice. I just want Wiki to have the best pics in this matter all over the net. That's why I'm asking about any "cons" to be precise. And thank You for Your opinion. Spike78 12:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral for now --Amazing 3D model with lots of details of this vehicle, but some small issues should be corrected as the overall quality deserves it : the lightning could be much better, the dim shadow around the vehicle looks like it has been made with MS Paint and as R. Bartz wrote, some anti aliasing corrections are needed. Well done ! Sting 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose poor antialiasing and small size. Lycaon 20:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Dull lighting, I am sorry. Barabas

 Info All negatives ale better than positives for me. I've allways wanted to know how to do it better. I know that 3d-model alone isn't all - but I've got a pretty dull comp, so the lightning is also dull ;) My GF agreed to help me with her hot-machine ;) Spike78 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

9 support, 10 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shea Smith.JPG - featured

[edit]

Shea Smith 

10 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dragonfly-Brown-070624.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Brown dragonfly (Anisoptera)

  •  Comment Thanks for the advice. As this is my very first nominated pic, I didn't expect it to pass muster. How does one go about identifying the species without wading through hundreds of images? - Loadmaster 22:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Well, the guidelines help you to get an idea, how a FP could look like. And becoming a FP SHOULD NOT depend on scientific identification of the subject. It helps categorizing a picture and maybe someone knows the species on this picture and gives you a hint. But an excellent picture stands for itself. --Taraxacum 08:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I was before a "victim" of that requirement but agree with Lycaon. FP is not (only) about aesthetics and technical perfection though the artsy side plays an important role IMO. Because of the yellow pterostigma I'm tempted to bet on a Sympetrum fonscolombei (a female, which are sandy coloured). But I'm not sure, the bulge in the abdomen is puzzling. Please check these too-- Alvesgaspar 09:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose- This is a wonderful composition (one of the best I saw, for this subject), a pity that the body and head of the darter are not sharp enough -- Alvesgaspar 09:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thanks for the positive critique. As I recall, it was a bit windy that day, so I was forced to use a faster shutter at the expense of a wider focal field in order to reduce motion blur. -- Loadmaster 14:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Submarine cable cross-section 3D plain.svg - not featured

[edit]

Undersea cable cross-section 

1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Schronisko PTTK przy Morskim Oku-protestuję.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Hostel in Polish Tatras

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: is leaning and has poor colours 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.

. --MichaelMaggs 19:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The surfers in santa cruz california.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Surfers

 Thanks for the comments 

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Scandinavian Airlines Kiruna.jpg - not featured

[edit]
Kiruna airplane contre jour
Original reduced excessive blue in snow and shadows 
7 support, 8 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - not featured

[edit]
3 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hawaii Island topographic map-fr.svg - featured

[edit]

Topographic map of Hawaii

  •  Info created and uploaded by Sémhur - nominated by Sting -- Sting 15:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --A very good topographic map of the island of Hawaii using SRTM data, with an excellent choice for the framing showing the structure of the submarine relief. Notice also the underwater shaded relief. Very nice imo. Sting 15:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment 1) the letter "o" of "Wahipi'o" it collides with a point. 2) an airport exists in the coast, near Kalaoa that lacks name. 3) "Côte du Kohala" a curved pattern could continue. 4) triangles exist where the highways never arrive to their destination, to see "Mauna Loa." 5) I would like to see the relief really transformed into SVG, and not, svg has more than enough bits map (not wanted pixelation in more impressions to the own size of the image). Please, you see the image next, surroundings of the river --libertad0 ॐ 16:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've uploaded a new version of the map in which I've modified the size of "Wahipi'o" and added a key for better understanding. The airports aren't named as it isn't the purpose of this topographic map. Comparing to other maps, it seems that the Kohala Coast only goes until Kawaihae. The triangles represent summits : roads seldom go to the top of mountains. The pixels you see (at a very large zoom level) come from the raster image of the shaded relief which is the only raster element of the file : the whole topography and bathymetry are made with paths (I've translated the note in the description page in English for clarification). Sting 18:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I respect, but I don't share their vision. The main positive factor of an image svg, is that it doesn't possess resolution, you affirm that it possesses zoom, it subtracts a lot the quality of the composition. I sit down it. Maybe be better, to trace the bits map. I have seen better works of you, I am for sure you can make something better. Greetings --libertad0 ॐ 11:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Excellent. Thank you to take into account my comments. Greetings (completely vectorized) --libertad0 ॐ 13:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Info --To be the echo of user:Alvesgaspar, a SVG image may be scaled to any size without loss of quality, but a map has a scale and so, a resolution. For the SRTM3 data used here, it's 93 m. Zooming in over 100% won't give you a better resolution and at very large size the paths may look quiet simplified. Consider the SVG format is only used in maps to ease the translations and modifications. Sting 14:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, a map in SVG should be scalable at any approach level. I think that you could convert to line the area pixelation. Once you carry out this modification, I will change my vote to favor. Thanks --libertad0 ॐ 15:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you know how to vectorize a raster image of a shaded relief, I'm ready to learn ;-) Sting 15:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finger painting with elbows version (completely vectorized) by CarolSpears
  • I think that this is magic that you knew how to do, but it was fun to do and now I know how to do this.
  • My relief parts seem a little dark compared to the raster version -- are they too dark?
  • I left the 'approved by wiki-blah blah (atlas I think)' on the image description, it should be removed if it doesn't apply
  • The upload dialog that I use (or that we all use lately -- who knows such things?) would not have allowed me to upload the original file....
Liars :) -- carol 21:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow !! I'm impressed ! How did you get this ? I think there's a loss in the underwater shading, less smooth than the original raster one, but the shading on the island is really amazing ... but with a file weight of 7.7MB, is it worth ? Sting 00:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to CarolSpears, I have updated this picture. This map is all-SVG now. It's a little darker than before, but clearer than the Carol's try. I have reduce the weight too. Sémhur 10:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Potrace (which comes with Inkscape and (I think) is older than GIMP), I scanned the grays, without the background, 16 paths each. Then using color information from GIMP (there might be an easier way) I converted the gray filled paths to transparencies of black. The underwater shading needed blurring (so that it looked less like a depth map) and my transparency was not enough -- but I was done with it by then.... The island shading was incredible right out of the trace and needed only the conversion to transparencies of black. My first attempt with potrace and inkscape is: , I compared it to finger-painting with my elbows.  :) -- carol 12:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks carol. I'm less convinced by the new full svg version : if at small size the rendering is smooth, at full size the steps in the shadow are clearly visible. This plus the fact the file weight doubled makes me think this solution as it is now isn't really worth. Sting 12:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the additional file weight is due to the way I managed the potraced paths -- I am very new to this svg stuff. I broke the paths apart and that was a step that was perhaps unnecessary and added to the file size. My version was more to answer what seemed to be a simple challenge (more than file purity). I still have the original tracings of the embedded images, I can upload them here or make them available from my web site if anyone is interested to see if the bitmaps can be removed more sensibly. For the depth map, the paths might have been more sensibly made with a smoothed GIMP selection to path and I didn't do that either. The SVG I have created are not too many that I would be able to confidently say that any of them are among the best. Rearranging xml and filling paths others made -- I am fairly good at this lately. (no big deal there) -- carol 16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WARNING!!! It needs update. The road south from volcano is shown. But it is impassable, completely buried deeply below lava fields since the eruption started in early 1980s. 71.135.48.155 04:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops ! It seems that the Demis road layer is down-to-date a lot. I will update the map, thanks for your note. Sémhur 07:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sémhur 18:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose, conditionally. You removed too much of road. Here is NP portion of the map: http://www.nps.gov/havo/planyourvisit/upload/map_park.pdf I'd be glad to change my vote after it is fixed. Barabas 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Thanks for the link and the help. Sémhur 17:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reorganized it. Sémhur 09:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9 support, 0 oppose > featured -- Alvesgaspar 13:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. I know, it is already late, but am sticking to my promise. Thanks for foxing the map around the active volcano. I was not watching Commons for a couple days. Best! And congrats! Barabas 21:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hong Kong Skyline - Dec 2007.jpg

[edit]

Hong Kong Skyline

* Support Absolutely great! I think the buildings are not leaning to the left, it's a matter of perspective. For me, an excellent panorama of Hong Kong @ Night. --Taraxacum 20:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I like the edit even more. --Taraxacum 10:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • it really is leaning to the left (author found out the same on english FPC). All the buildings are leaning to the left the same way which is why I consider this an error. Benh 20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those on the LHS are leaning, and those on the RHS are too, to a lesser extent. Those in the centre are straighter. --MichaelMaggs 06:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Support Beautiful, though the perspective corrections make it a little strange looking. --Calibas 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Support I'd say it was great day for this shot - haze over buildings looks great. Impressive! --Leafnode 07:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC) moving below :) --Leafnode 20:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Support For me the haze makes the wow. --Chmehl 09:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Moving support to the version below which I think is even better. --Chmehl 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --Böhringer 12:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 --norro 15:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

WIthdrawn >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 10:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Image:Hong_Kong_Skyline_Restitch_-_Dec_2007.jpg - featured

[edit]

Hong Kong Skyline 

23 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Pelagia noctiluca (Sardinia).jpg

Image:Golden Gate Bridge and sun dog 2.jpg

[edit]

Golden Gate Bridge with the Sun and Sundog Golden Gate Bridge with the Sun and Sundog

Original - not featured

[edit]
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 16:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Mbz1 16:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment IMO it is a rather interesting and special image with the sun over one tower of the Bridge and w:sundog over the other. If somebody could improve the quality of the image from original jpg format, please let me know and I'll upload it. Thank you.--Mbz1 17:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Reminds me of the old diffraction grating lab that was always done in physics classes. Does it have anything to do with it? Also, could you please explain a bit more about the phenomena, their rarity and the like in the nomination so that we can judge it more objectively? The reality is that most of those that review images for FPC know little about atmospheric phenomena and we would probably require some enlightenment in that area. Thanks, Freedom to share 18:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments and questions Freedom to share. w:Sundogs are not rare. I see them maybe 15-20 times per year. In order for sundogs to form there should be ice crystals shaped like this present. They are called horizontal plate crystals and they are present in high clouds. Sundogs are formed when light passes through crystal side faces inclined at 60° to each other. People, who live far North or far South might see sundogs much more often than I do in San Francisco. Sometimes sundogs are created by so called diamond dust, when the weather is cold. What makes my image special IMO is rather not the sundog itself, but sundog and the Bridge together. Besides I relly like how the Sun behind clouds looks. IMO it is interesting. --Mbz1 19:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to add that there were quite a few people taking pictures of Golden Gate Bridge yesterday. I wonder how many of them saw a sundog. I am afraid not so many simply because most of them did not know what to look for.--Mbz1 19:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination 

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 19:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative - not featured

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination 

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 19:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment - Please don't mess up the usual way of inserting alternatives to the original nomination. That makes the reviewing and closing processes harder to control -- Alvesgaspar 20:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish

  •  Info created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 23:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Mbz1 23:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Anon. user: This picture really "captures the moment" if you know what I'm talking about. If that bird was flying fast, my camera couldn't have done it. :)
  •  Comment If you are interested what happened to the fish, it was able to escape right after that shot. That's why, Lycaon, I am afraid I was not able to id the fish :-) --Mbz1 23:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I nominated the image last night, I hoped that in the morning I would get at least 4-5 oppose votes, and I got only one question! Doing great so far :-) , but jokes aside I know the image has many problems to be opposed for. I nominated it because IMO it is more or less rare action shot and I hoped some of the image's problems might have been mitigated by that fact. Here's is the original version :. Maybe somebody could do something to improve the image quality. Thank you.--Mbz1 13:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 in a favor of a much better edit 

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish edit.jpg. Edit by User:Lycaon - not featured

[edit]

Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish

Oh, it is easy to explain. First I divided the image with two imaginary horizontal and two vertical lines. Then I placed my subjects of interest (two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish) in one of the "interest points", where horizontal and vertical lines intersect and 4 interest points were created. Then I placed horizons in the upper horizontal line. My main idea here was not to center the subjects. While I was doing all these manipulations, one of my subjects (the fish) almost got eaten while two of my other subjects run out of the "interest points" and almost out of my view finder. I wanted to recompose the image once again, but the fish escaped and birds were gone. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbz1 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 7. Mai 2008 (UTC)
You definitively have to work on your animal tamer skills. --norro 11:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are absolutely right and I will try next time, only I doubt there would be a next time. IMO it is rather a rare shot and I hoped it might be featured under the criteria " A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. ", and I had not just one, but three difficult subjects. Thank you, Norro.--Mbz1 14:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
don't forget the last part of the sentence "A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." I think featured pictures should't simply be good pictures, they should be some of the best images on commons .. thus extraordinary. -- Gorgo 23:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a personnal (mis)unterstanding of the sentence.--B.navez 02:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO most of the FP images we have now including my own FP images cannot be called extraordinary. Informative - yes, valuable - yes, high quality - yes, extraordinary - no.(IMO)--Mbz1 04:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Lycaon was first to mention it, I hadn't read the discussions for the first version. --B.navez 16:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose A very dynamic picture and the subject is interesting, but the exposure time is not high enough for details, the second edit seems oversharpend and together with the cropped wing, it's not FP quality. --Taraxacum 14:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. " from Commons selection criteria. The nominated edit by User:Lycaon is really good. Honestly, when I saw it, I could not believe that I myself took this image :-)--Mbz1 04:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, the edit improves it a lot, but better is not excellent, yet. Nevertheless a good shot. --Taraxacum 06:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Both birds were unfortunately at wrong angle. --Lerdsuwa 18:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish I knew what would have been a better angle in the user opinion. You know, just to ask the birds next time to pose better for FP, but no I'm not really interested in learning the user opinion about the angle. Tha's OK. No worries.

 boring!--Mbz1 18:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Turdus migratorius with worms 1.jpg

[edit]

Turdus migratorius with worms

 I withdraw my nomination 

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Turdus migratorius with worms 3.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Turdus migratorius with worms

 I withdraw my nomination 

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mercury transit 2.jpg - not promoted

[edit]

The transit of Mercury

  •  Info created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Mbz1 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Most impressive image. --MichaelMaggs 05:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Amazing image, excellent work. Could you please give us some details on the lens used as well as the body, aperture and shutter speed? Thanks, --Freedom to share 06:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your question, Freedom to share. I used Canon XTI, which was mounted at 3.1 inches telescope. There are three ways of astrophotography: first is afocal, which means one takes image of the object focusing one's camera at the object as it is seen in an eyepiece of the scope;second is eyepiece projection, which means one takes off the camera lens and mounts the camera at the scope, which has an eyepiece installed;third is prime focus, which means one takes off camera lens and mounts a camera at the scope, that has no eyepiece installed. In that case the scope works simply as a zoom lens. For the first way of astrophotography any camera might be used; the latest two require the use of SLR. I've used prime focus. My scope's focal length is 900 mm, so it is like 900 mm zoom lens. The focus of course is manual. It might be interesting to know that it is very hard to focus. I was lucky because I had a very big sunspot to focus on. I used 1/500 exposure with F8.Of course for taking pictures of the sun one should use a filter. When one puts a filter at the scope, one cannot see anything, but the sun. If one could see something else, but the sun, it means that one's filter is demaged and one would probably go blind as soon as one looks at the Sun. That's why it might be tricky to find the sun. Imagine you're moving your scope around the blue sky, but the only thing you could see is black nothingnss and then suddenly you see the sun and it is exiting!--Mbz1 13:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very nice job. --Manco Capac 06:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, I don't see anything impressive. Maybe some experts who are related to that kind of subject think it's excellent work. For me, it's an egg from bottom with some black spots and even fullscale does not reveal anything compared to the thumb. I believe, this is Mercury transit, but a photo having nearly no composition, colour, dynamics and emotion is not suitable for FP. --Taraxacum 11:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Aqwis 14:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question/ Comment Why nominating this version and not number 1, or even the animated gif (on which an indication of order & time would be an important addition, by the way) ? Another idea would have been to create a composite picture, as in this picture, but in higher definition and quality, thanks to your great work. Vol de nuit 23:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your questions,Vol de nuit. I do not think I could repeat this picture with my background (the Sun) simply because I cannot make it 100% accurate. The same applies to gif. I created the animation just to illustrate how it looked, but I cannot claim that my animation is accurate. It probably is not. May I please ask you what "number 1" you reffer to? There are few other versions of the same image and I'm not sure what image you meant. I'd also like to mention that your questions are absolutely legitimate and IMO they could be legitimate reasons to oppose the nominated image. Animation might have been better. On the othe hand the only images of the Sun FP has is two images of solar eclipse. IMO it would have been nice to have an image of not eclipsed Sun as FP. Thank you.--Mbz1 00:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean you do not know the exact time of each picture ? Well, that's quite sad. I still need to think about my vote. For these reasons, and because as I told you previously there are two pictures which look quite similar to me here (1 & 2). In addition, why don't you categorize your picture in Category:Sun too ? By the way, I thought you were right about having no Sun picture as FP, so I just uploaded a few high-definition Sun pictures from SOHO in that category. Maybe one of them could become FP one of these days... Vol de nuit 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is what I mean. I do not know the exact time of each picture. I took very few pictures. The sun went behind the trees. I have not seen the end of the transit. I was lucky to see it at all. The weathermen promised 80%clouds cover that day. You're right there are few pictures in the category, that are identical to the one, which is nominated. They are the same with only minor edits of colors. I do not think SOHO has a free licence. I've uploaded few images from SOHO myself (the two with big prominences as you did) and they got deleted at the same day. I nominated one at Wikipedia FP. See what happened? I ended up adding my own images to w:solar prominence article. If you look at the history you would see edit by Fir0002 with the summary: "replaced copyrighted image". It was, when, he removed the SOHO images I added. You are right - I'm adding "Sun" category to my image.Thank you.--Mbz1 18:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You were right about Soho :( . I guess your picture won't need my vote to become FP. And I hope SOHO pictures will be released in PD soon... Vol de nuit 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure my picture will need your support. Just wait and see haw many more FP reviewers would complain that the sun looks as "egg from bottom with some black spots and does not show any emotions" ( I wish I knew what "bottom", or maybe I wish not) :-)In any case I'd like to thank you for your comments and suggestions. --Mbz1 20:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Thanks for the link. However there also appears to be some posterization, you know why ? However still I think this is a very valuable and good image so I'll support it. /Daniel78 21:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of this might be because the brightness of the sun is not even. This phenomena is known as w:limb darkening. Most of it however is due to the image not being perfectly taken and not being perfectly post-processed. The questions you're asking are very good ones and the problems you point out to might be legitimate reasons to oppose the image. Still IMO this image is very valuabale because it not only shows the Sun and sunspots, but also Mercury, which gives the readers ability to compare the size of the sun with the size of a small planet. It might be hard to comrehend that the mass of the Sun is 99.98% of the Solar System's mass. Everything else: Planets, Moons, Asteroids, Comets are only 0.02%. That's why IMO the image with all its imperfection could be concidered to get FP status. BTW the image was selected from few dozen images, which were submitted, and published at NASA site Earth Science Picture of the Day . Thank you.--Mbz1 00:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination 

Withdrawn >> not promoted -- Alvesgaspar 22:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fair Ellen.jpg

[edit]

Fair Ellen Fair Ellen Edited version.

Original (left)- not featured

[edit]

* Support A classical approach, technically perfect. I moved my support the latest nomination above. --Taraxacum 13:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

3 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose >> no featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative - not featured

[edit]
Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pahoeoe fountain original.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Pahoeoe lava fountain

Supporting edit2 instead /Daniel78 14:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pahoeoe fountain original-edit11.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Pahoeoe lava fountain

Done. Thank you.--Mbz1 01:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pahoeoe fountain edit2.jpg - featured

[edit]

Pahoeoe lava fountain 

9 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Station de métro Porte de Vincennes à Paris en restauration.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Ads from the sixties revealed by the workings in the parisian subway station "Porte de Vincennes" 

2 support, 3 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fly April 2008-12.jpg

[edit]

Short description Short description Short description

Original - not featured

[edit]
2 support, 1 neutral >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 13:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1 (centre) - not featured

[edit]
2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2 (right) - not featured

[edit]
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

  •  Info created , uploadedm & nominated by -- Richard Bartz 16:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info A 3x magnification of Sphegina montana which is a very rare and tiny (2-3mm) Syrphid fly on Marsh Marigold (Caltha palustris). This picture offers both - a detailed image of the Syrphid and a very detailed/magnified image of the Marsh Marigold stems. If you Google around you will find out that there are only 2 pictures of this Syrphid available in the whole internet, thats because its so rare. P.S. this animal lives in a swamp.
  •  Support -- Richard Bartz 16:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Very good indeed. As you know the exact species, why not create a category for it and add the picture to it? --MichaelMaggs 16:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried here but it didnt work that it is displayed in the syrphidae category--Richard Bartz 17:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a species cat for you. It's not linked via a full taxonomic tree as Wikispecies does not list this species, and I don't know enough to do it otherwise, but better than nothing. --MichaelMaggs 06:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rubik's cube.svg - featured

[edit]

Rubik's cube 

25 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rubik's cube v3.svg - not featured

[edit]

Rubik's cube 

1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 20:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Prunus cerasus LC0133.jpg - not featured

[edit]

sour cherry 

3 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lift arms with hammer against.jpg- not featured

[edit]

The last day of vandal.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of little value and of very poor photographic quality -- Alvesgaspar 09:14, 9 May 2008 (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. 
Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pavlovsk Railing of bridge Yellow palace Winter bw threshold.jpg - not featured

[edit]

The railing of bridge in park

 AKA MBG 09:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 10:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Neuenburg Kollegiatskirche Kirchenhof.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description 

2 support, 2 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 15:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:New Horizons Liftoff.jpg - not featured

[edit]

New Horizons Liftoff 

1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 15:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:New Horizons Liftoff (croped).jpg - not featured

[edit]

New Horizons Liftoff 

1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 15:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Toulon Faron3 P1440701-P1440708.jpg

[edit]

Toulon and its military harbour seen from Mount Faron

Note: There is an aircraft carrier (the Charles de Gaulle) in the picture. Find it. :-) 

1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 15:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysanthemum coronarium - not featured

[edit]

Chrysanthemum coronarium 

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Coat of arms of Mexico.svg - featured

[edit]

Coat of arms of Mexico 

5 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 18:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Garden of Eden ArchesNP MC.jpg - featured

[edit]

Short description 

9 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

HP Pavilion

  •  Info HP Pavilion in San Jose, California, home to the San Jose Sharks (hockey) - everything by JaGa -- JaGa 09:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- JaGa 09:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Can you please provide a more detailed image description about what this pavilion is about? I don't know what I am looking at. And do you have a less tight cropped version available? --norro 10:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The HP Pavilion is a sports venue in San Jose, best known as the home of the San Jose Sharks (pro hockey), but also hosts the SAP Open (men's tennis tournament) and San Jose SaberCats (arena football). It hosts about 160 events a year, seating just under 20,000 people (the amount of seating available depends on the event). I went with a tight crop because (1) the foreground is a parking lot, not very pretty and (2) the picture is pretty wide already, and I want it to fit in Wikipedia pages. --JaGa 17:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment That's exactly the type of information that should be put to the image description page. :) Thank you. --norro 19:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support  Neutral (for now) It is pretty good quality, but there are still a few (probably fixable) stitching errors noticeable. Lycaon 19:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC). There are a few minor ones left, but they are trivial (and only visible withe magnifying glass ;-)). It is quite difficult to match up everything with all the straight lines (hugin or no hugin). Lycaon 09:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 
6 support, 3 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lynx der lander.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Westland Lynx landing 

3 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Konica Minolta alvesgaspar.jpg

[edit]

Short description Short description

  •  Info Despite its limitation this camera has done a wonderful job and win a couple of FP. Maybe it deserves now some recognition... Composite picture made of seven photos, using focus brackting and a tripode. Natural light, taken on the kitchen table. Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar 13:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original (left) - not featured

[edit]
  •  Support -- Alvesgaspar 13:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, very unsharp. --Aqwis 13:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Question - Very unsharp? Are we talking about the same picture? This is a A3+ image which should be viewed from at least 50cm away -- Alvesgaspar 13:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see any reason why it should not be judged by the same sharpness criteria as any other image. It's not really huge either, at 5.5 megapixels. --Aqwis 13:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think sharpness in general is ok. But if you look at the top of the camera (for example at the "Konica Minolta" writing) there is a strange blur. Maybe with another image focussed slightly more to the back you get sharper edges? Another thing which can be easily corrected is the bright reflection seen on the background (left side, lower third of the image). --Chmehl 14:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Bad lighting (inconsistent color temperature of light sources), some spherical aberration due to wide aperture (or just dirt?), random reflections in front lens, really odd background. Neither documentary nor studio style. --Dontpanic 14:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Agree with Dontpanic --norro 16:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (right) - not featured

[edit]
2 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:76.Pollineta a Agullana.JPG - not featured

[edit]

Donkey as sun rises 

2 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dsm pano.jpg -not featured

[edit]

Elia Complex, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 

1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Thraciae-veteris-typvs.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description

  •  Oppose Nice and interesting document, but insufficient sharpness for FP (and even for QI...). What happened with the edges: damaged by fire? -- MJJR 21:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cox Ford Bridge, IN 1.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Cox Ford covered bridge 

1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddin Mosque 02.jpg - featured

[edit]

Mosque at dusk 

11 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kaiseradler Aquila heliaca amk.jpg

[edit]

Short description Short description

Original (left) - not featured

[edit]
I tried to improve it a little - also by reducing size as i am not a big fan of denoising. Better? --AngMoKio 17:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Its not a good idea when editing images during a nomination. I have 2 agree with Alves. Tone value priority is a nice thing but can cause heavy noise. EXIF infos would be great --Richard Bartz 17:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yeah guess you are right...so far I mostly added a new version to the nomination. Somehow I had the idea to make it different this time...god knows why :) Do you think that the current version is still too moisy? (EXIF: F/7.1, 1/400s, iso 800 [tripods are not allowed there], 200mm[x1,6] ) So far I haven't found a good way to denoise, that's why I don't really like it. Do you have a good way to denoise...maybe you want to give it a try? :) (The original version is still in the image history) Oh yes and I used tone value priority..but so far i don't understand in which situations it creates noise. --AngMoKio 20:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For denoising you can try this. I dont use it anymore but its free. Denoising works best on a raw/psd level at 16 bit. Do you took raw files ?--Richard Bartz 21:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will give it a try. Unfortunately i didn't take raw files. --AngMoKio 21:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a pity. When having RAW available it would be possible to bring back the drawing on the washed out white feathers --Richard Bartz 22:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit (right) - featured

[edit]
thanks :-) took me quite some nerves to get it done. --AngMoKio 20:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes..it was an IS lense. --AngMoKio 20:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Out of focus feathers. Barabas 21:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

10 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Galaxies Gone Wild!.jpg - featured

[edit]

Interacting Galaxy 

7 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Victoria Crater taken by Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.jpg - featured

[edit]

Victoria Crater 

5 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Forestry Forwarder Ösa 250 2.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description 

4 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 11:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Forestry Forwarder Ösa 250 2.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description

Thats forrest --Richard Bartz 17:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 11:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pelargonium graveolens - featured

[edit]

Rose Geranium

If it becomes a FP, this picture will be prefered to any other to show how a rose geranium is flowering and it would give a wrong opinion. Laitche had the choice as we can guess in some backgrounds of the series. Why did he arrange to show only one flower each time ? This a HQI but not an encyclopedic one. --B.navez 02:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the image of the cluster in other versions. :) -- Laitche 07:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cancel my opposition to this one for the effort but waouh what an extraordinary picture the cluster one !--B.navez 08:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC) --B.navez 08:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 11:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mandoe.JPG - not featured

[edit]

Abandoned shoe in Wadden Sea, Denmark 

2 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mallard 080508.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Mallard (Male) 

1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wasp May 2008-1.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description 

1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Podarcis sicula.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description

 The flood of stars disturbed this nom (and others) ;-(, I'll try again later... Lycaon 22:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata Flowers Closeup 2800px.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Swamp Milkweed 

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 6050 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured

[edit]

Interacting Galaxy

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. (please read guidelines 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.

Lycaon 12:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose- Unsharp Mww113 22:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 11:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bath-Abbey02.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Abbey of Bath at night

{FPX}  Oppose Very poor photographic quality (heavy artifacts and noise) -- Alvesgaspar 08:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)}}[reply] 

1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Libellula quadrimaculata - featured

[edit]

Vierflecklibelle 

5 support, 1 neutral, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Riviere Langevin Trou Noir P1440224-35.jpg - not featured

[edit]

The Trou noir waterfall on the Langevin River, Reunion Island

There is no EXIF since the picture is a stiching. ;-) David.Monniaux 23:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a stitch I see why the EXIF is not there. The stitching job is well done by the way. Could you then please state explicitly some basic information such as: Camera/lens used. Shutter speed, aperture, ISO, no of images used, stitching software ... -- Slaunger 05:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3 support, 4 oppose -- not featured Alvesgaspar 22:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Assomption de la Vierge.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Assomption de la Vierge, baroque sculture in the abbaye of Mondaye, Normandie, France 

3 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose -- not featured Alvesgaspar 22:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mallard 080508.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Mallard (Male) 

1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Spider and mites May 2008-1.jpg - featured

[edit]

Short description 

8 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy Arp 148 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured

[edit]

Interacting Galaxy

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. (please read guidelines 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.

Lycaon 12:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arch.usa.arp.750pix.jpg - not featured

[edit]

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

Please read guidelines before submitting or assessing nominations. Thank you. Lycaon 19:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did read them, maybe you missed my comment above. I think the quality of the composition compensates for the size. Thank you. Barabas
It is true that most of the pictures of the Delicate Arch have one side of the arch in the shadow but this is the cost of having a good (i.e. sunset) lighting and a nice composition with the La Sal Mountains in the background. See also the already featured picture . Chmehl 19:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the one I nominated because there are people next to it. That gives an idea about dimensions of the arch. And lighting is also good. Thanks for your comment. Barabas
The people are good, I like them. The best picture for me would be this one with people. Chmehl 20:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am missing people there, and that is exactly the reason I felt like nominating this picture despite some imperfections. Barabas 20:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Female artistic nude.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small -- Alvesgaspar 15:30, 14 May 2008 (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. 
Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tulips - OR.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: with a subject that is an unidentified plant. Freedom to share 21:32, 14 May 2008 (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.

Image:White Flower Closeup.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small and of insufficient depth of field Freedom to share 14:39, 14 May 2008 (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. 
Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 18:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Assomption de la Vierge.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Assomption de la Vierge, baroque sculture in the abbaye of Mondaye, Normandie, France 

3 support, 1 neutral, 3 oppose -- not featured Alvesgaspar 22:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Riviere Langevin Trou Noir P1440224-35.jpg - not featured

[edit]

The Trou noir waterfall on the Langevin River, Reunion Island

There is no EXIF since the picture is a stiching. ;-) David.Monniaux 23:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a stitch I see why the EXIF is not there. The stitching job is well done by the way. Could you then please state explicitly some basic information such as: Camera/lens used. Shutter speed, aperture, ISO, no of images used, stitching software ... -- Slaunger 05:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3 support, 4 oppose -- not featured Alvesgaspar 22:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JewliaEisenberg August2007.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Jewlia Eisenberg 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kaiseradler Aquila heliaca 2 amk.jpg - featured

[edit]

Aquila heliaca

You are mistaken. The image Image:Kaiseradler Aquila heliaca e amk.jpg was featured.--Mbz1 05:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To both of you. I think it is a different composition and atmosphere in this pic. I also had your thought for a moment but then I remembered how many bees, hoverflies and wasps of the exact same species we have as FP already. So I see no reason not to nominate this additional eagle-pic. And in the end what is wrong about having several FPs of one and the same subject? You never know what kind of pic someone searchs and needs. And with FP we want to give a source for good pictures...at least that's how I think about it.--AngMoKio 17:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm...to be consequent you should start nominating a lot of insect FPs for delisting now. You are aware of that, right? And I really don't understand your reasons...what is wrong about having 2 different pictures of the same bird on the same day? How do you know that someone is not searching for a pic where the front of the bird is visible?! What is in your opinion the purpose of FP?! And if I might add that: To oppose because of those reasons says that you don't judge the photo itself but follow your own rules that don't exist in the FP criteria. --AngMoKio 06:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, I do not know, if somebody is or is not searching for a pic where the front of the bird is visible. That's why I suggested adding the image to other_versions of the aleady featured picture. If I'm looking for an image of a specific bird or animal, I'd rather go to category and see all images availabale.You are also right about insect images. There are many almost the same. I'm not going to nominate them on delisting because I'm afraid I will not succeed. IMO the more images of the same subjects FP has the less value each image and FP in general have. IMO the biggest purpose of FP is to educate, to introduce an interesting, high quality image to a Wikipedia reader and let the reader an opportunity to learn more about the subject.May I please ask you a question too? Why, when Karelj has changed his/her vote to support the image, you did not tell him/her that the other one got featured?

Anyway, I believe this image would also get featured, so no worries. Thank you.--Mbz1 13:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MBZ i am not permanently present on commons. I can't always check if someone misunderstood sth. Thank you. --AngMoKio 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Great eyes. --Manco Capac 07:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose There is already one featured picture that is nearly identical in subject matter. As a matter of fact, I've often requested the delisting of duplicate images and am happy to support those delistings. As per Mbz1, this is a matter of the purpose of a FP, to feature the very best and to not allow duplicates. -- Ram-Man 11:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a duplicate. It is another picture. But it doesn't make sense to discuss as we have completly different opinions about FP. For me it is a source for the best pictures of commons. I don't see a reason why not all great pictures of bees, eagles, flowers or what ever should get featured. We are not only talking about the subject on the picture but also about different compositions. --AngMoKio 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 4 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Schloss Nymphenburg Munich.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description Short description Short description


Schloss Nymphenburg Alternative 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
There are wonderful statues in the foreground which i wanted 2 give enough space. Otherwise this park is part of the whole complex and the picture would get this typical pano stripe shape which i dont like, but feel free to do another edit. --Richard Bartz 23:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2 (right) - not featured

[edit]
result: Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 3 (alternative) - not featured

[edit]
result: Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Triumph Tulip Tulipa 'Prinses Irene' Single 2859px.jpg - featured

[edit]

Triumph Tulip

  • " You're the only person I know who would look at the darkish corner of the image instead of looking at the flower. " RM.
    Would it be the right thing to say that now you know the second person? :-)--Mbz1 14:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)    [reply]
Well you think it doesn't meet the FP criteria but why don't you just read the FP criteria then you know for sure? Encyclopedic value or the usage of a picture in an article is not relevant here. --AngMoKio 06:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GreatEgret Alligator.jpg - not featured

[edit]

A great egret perched near an alligator at Gatorland in Orlando, Florida. 

result: 3 support, 1 neutral, 6 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis Wings 1918px.JPG - not featured

[edit]

Short description 

result: 5 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Red-necked wallaby442.jpg - featured

[edit]

Short description 

result: 6 support, 3 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lily-flowered Tulip Tulipa 'West Point' Flowers 2000px.JPG - not featured

[edit]

Lily-flowered Tulip

  •  Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 02:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Lily-flowered Tulip (Tulipa 'West Point')
  •  Support -- Ram-Man 02:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Very beautiful image, but noisy. Sorry. I will support the image, if the noise could be reduced--Mbz1 03:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never cease to be shocked at votes. If this is noisy, then we will have to require pictures from full-frame digital SLRs only or require images to only use the upper 75% of the tonal range. Of course you can see noise when viewing a 30+" magnification from 18" away! This is the pinnacle of extreme pickiness. And an "Oppose" vote at that, not even a "Neutral". Even you admit that it's beautiful, but the impossible quality standard takes priority. And I will *not* denoise the image, that's just totally rediculous. -- Ram-Man 03:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but impossible quality standard takes priority." RM ;
    "This is the pinnacle of extreme pickiness. And an "Oppose" vote at that, not even a "Neutral"." RM.
    Well, I had some great teachers and you were one of the best. Thank you.--Mbz1 14:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)    [reply]
result: 3 support, 2 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Monarch Viceroy Mimicry Comparison.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description 

result: 4 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kanton Zürich Detail DE.png - not fetaured

[edit]

Canton Zurich, Switzerland

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Tschubby -- Tschubby 05:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Tschubby 04:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nice detail. --Beyond silence 15:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Very nice topographic map. The availability of a SVG file would have been more practical for translations, but the PNG without label is ok. Can you indicate the projection used for the map ? (I suppose it's UTM regarding the type of coordinates). I'm also very interested to know where you got the valuable information of the bathymetry. Sting 14:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Just some short remarks. I find the level of generalization a little excessive for this scale (about 1:135 000) i.e., much more detail could be shown. For example, showing the contour lines would be nice. Also, area symbols (instead of point symbols) should be used to represent (at least) the major cities, as their actual limits are visible in this scale. And, of course, the map projection should be identified. -- Alvesgaspar 18:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I am puzzled by the insistence that the drawing above (Image:Wikipe-tan full length.png) must be in SVG, but here it seems OK that this map is formatted in PNG. For translation and a number of other reasons, this map should be in SVG. My primary reason for a reluctant oppose, however, is that there is no "Wow" factor. It is most certainly carried out with a great deal of finesse and hard work, but there is no pizzazz, no insight. Finally, I believe that Alvesgaspar's comments, particularly concerning the major cities' actual limits to be a reason to oppose this as a Featured Picture. Madman2001 13:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Libellula quadrimaculata 3.JPG - not featured

[edit]

Libellula quadrimaculata and Exuvie Libellula quadrimaculata and Exuvie 

result: 4 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noise reduced version - featured

[edit]
10 support, 0 oppose >> featured

Image:Church of Šėta001.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Church of Šėta, the town in Lithuania 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 11:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bud syringa vulg.jpg - not featured

[edit]

result: 1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Galopprennen Guedingen.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Horse racing in Saarbrücken, South West Germany

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Flicka -- Flicka 20:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm nominating this picture although there are large parts of overexposure (unfortunately the jockeys always wear these snow white shining trousers.. why don't they prefer a nice light brown or something like that?) The reason I think it's a good picture is the race situation and the leading horses "face expression". -- Flicka 20:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Too hard light resulting in overexposure, underexposure and hard shadows on the subject, and front horse is cropped. --norro 20:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Given the circumstances i think this is a rather decent photo (running horses aren't always that easy to get the right light on) but i think that it's a real shame that you have cropped the tale of the horse :( --Hebster 05:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy ESO 593-8 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured

[edit]

Interacting Galaxy 

1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Interacting Galaxy 

1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy UGC 8335 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured

[edit]

Interacting Galaxy 

1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 6786 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured

[edit]

Interacting Galaxy 

1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 17 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured

[edit]

Interacting Galaxy 

1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy ESO 77-14 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured

[edit]

Interacting Galaxy 

1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy UGC 9618 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured

[edit]

Interacting Galaxy 

1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy Arp 256 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured

[edit]

Interacting Galaxy 

1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 6670 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured

[edit]

Interacting Galaxy 

1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image: LA_Skyline_Mountains.jpg

[edit]

Los Angeles skyline and San Gabriel mountains

Original - not featured

[edit]
  •  Info created by Navid Serrano - uploaded by Navid Serrano - nominated by Navid Serrano -- Navid Serrano
  •  Oppose It is a very attractive image when seen in thumbnail size. The lightning is very good and the camera location seems to have been pretty perfect. Line of sight was good, so good shooting conditions. However at preview and full resolution it strikes me as being very noisy and without much detail. I think you could have benefitted from taking several, zoomed images and stitch it all together afterwards. This will give you much more details. With care and skill a nocturnal LA panorama like this can be made. Unfortunately the camera EXIF is lost in the editing process. In such cases it is even more important to at least state the date the photo was taken in the date parameter and preferably state some core settings used when taking the photo (at what time of day, shutter speed, aperture, ISO setting). The image could benefit from geocoding - add value. Sorry. -- Slaunger 21:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose agree with slaunger, very noisy -- Gorgo 22:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Karelj 16:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is a rare and interesting perspective of Los Angeles. I am willing to give it thumbs up even though there is some noise. Barabas 21:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Far too noisy, and as the photographers states: reproducible (on a good day). Lycaon 06:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Noise and lack of sharpness. Mfield 21:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (right) - not featured

[edit]
  •  Info created by Navid Serrano - uploaded by Navid Serrano - nominated by Navid Serrano -- Navid Serrano
  •  Support --Nserrano 20:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info This is a retouched version of LA_Skyline_Mountains.jpg with better white balance and noise reduction to eliminate some graininess pointed out in the original version (I used Photoshop CS3).
  •  Info To answer some questions about this picture (and the original version), it was captured December 10, 2007 in the mid-morning. This is a very difficult shot to capture because the conditions need to be optimal-- mainly because of the well known smog in LA. A shot like this has to be captured the morning after a heavy night storm (preferably on a Monday) to minimize accumulation of smog. The rain naturally washes away some smog and there is less smog early in the morning and early in the week (for obvious commuting reasons). In order to capture the LA skyline with the San Gabriel mountains, the shot can only be captured from Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area (geocoding now added to both images), which is about 10 miles southwest of downtown. At that distance, the shot was captured with a 300mm telephoto lens (this particular shot was captured at 238mm). Exposure time was 1/200 at f/11, and 400 ISO.
    •  Comment Thank you for explaining these details. All these nice details should really go into the description field in the images. That is where they belong, as this is where people will look for them. -- Slaunger 20:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Please put the alternative nominations inside the section of the original one, to facilitate reviewing and closing -- Alvesgaspar 19:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is a rare and interesting perspective of Los Angeles. I am willing to give it thumbs up even though there is some noise. Barabas 21:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - I agree this is an excellent composition and an original perspective of LA. But the quality is terrible. -- Alvesgaspar 23:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I am more postive now that I better understand that quite some effort has actually been put into taking the image under the best possible conditions. Unfortunately, the end result is still quite dissapoiting to me concerning detail level and photographis quality. That other pano I referred to earlier is just a very clear demonstration of that much better results can be acheived (albeit the latter has a too low vertical pixel resolution to be FP worthy). Sorry. -- Slaunger 21:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Noise has not improved (if not, has even gotten worse). Lycaon 06:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Noise and lack of sharpness. Mfield 21:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 2 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/LA Skyline Mountains2.jpl

Venidium fastuosum - not featured

[edit]

Venidium fastuosum

 Thanks a lot. -- Laitche 18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venidium fastuosum (white), Alternative - not featured

[edit]

Venidium fastuosum

 Thanks. -- Laitche 18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trumpetcallsa.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description

  • Sorry, I'll have to disagree with you here. This image is not here to be featured because it is 'war propaganda', as you call it. It is here to be featured because it is a valuable primary source. While I respect your stance on the subject, I will have to disagree with you. In my opinion, refusing to support war propaganda would be as if you would refuse to support a shot of Hitler because you disagreed with him. I disagree very much with Hitler and think that he was an evil man who never deserved the status of German leader and who led his country into disarray, but would support an image of him for FP if it was a valuable primary source. While I also acknowledge that you oppose per MichaelMaggs, I disagree that your support should be based on whether it is war propaganda or not. Appreciate the image on its value as a historical source rather than its context. Thanks, Freedom to share 19:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops, forgotten I'd previously nominated. Please excuse the mistake. Durova 07:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The teeth of Megalodon and great white shark.jpg - not featured

[edit]

The teeth of Megalodon and great white shark

  • I hoped you would like my background :-) Freedom to share, haven't you noticed that at three of background images the teeth are still in the sharks jaws? :-) I'll try to reshot at a better background, but thank you for all the opposes. I see the picture really produced some interest ( not everybody could get 4 opposes in few hours :-). Thank you!--Mbz1 23:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  

result: Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 12:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Male Mallard Headshot.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Closeup head shot of a male mallard duck.

It was, unfortunately, shot at JPEG compression. 67.240.35.101 19:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But on a sunny day there is almost no reason whatsoever to use ISO1600. A fast shutter speed won't make a bad lens sharp, it'll only minimise camera shake. A bad lens is generally sharpest around f/8 and you could easily shoot at that at ISO 100. I see from the EXIF that you used f/5.6. That is going to contribute more to an image being unsharp than shooting at a slightly slower shutter speed. A rule of thumb is that you can usually shoot at around the focal length in 100th of a second shutter speed In other words, if you have a 300mm lens (assuming a full frame camera - multiply it by the crop factor of the camera if not), then you should be able to shoot at 1/300th of a second and get a sharp image. It all depends on how steady you can personally keep the camera though, and what you define as sharp. Use it as a guide though, and experiment. Diliff 22:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Squirrel edited version - featured

[edit]

Japanese Squirrel 

14 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:171 Magnolien.JPG - not featured

[edit]

Flowering tree of Magnolia in Bochum, Germany 

1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Herbert Stevens (Hybrid Tea)

[edit]

Mrs. Herbert Stevens

Original (left) - not featured

[edit]
result: 3 support, 1 neutral, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative1 (center) - not featured

[edit]
5 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 19:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative2 (right) - featured

[edit]
6 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 19:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RyuichiSakamotoJI4.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Ryuichi Sakamoto - Composer

  •  Info created by Joi - uploaded by Joi - nominated by Joi -- Joi 12:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Joi 12:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The image needs to be categorized, and could also benefit from some short information about the person or a link to the article about the person on one or several of the wikipedias. /Daniel78 00:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Ryuichi Sakamoto - composer en:Ryuichi Sakamoto ja:坂本龍一 --Joi 04:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Good image, but not enough for FP. --Karelj 19:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Technically OK, but doesn't show anything of the ordinary and is only used on 4 pages outside commons. -Hebster 17:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Info - Being used in an article is not a requirement for promotion -- Alvesgaspar 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment - Nope but it's an easy way to "meassure" relevance or value (those two words are the words used the guidelines though i personally thinkt that interestingness; adopted from Flickr; is more convenient). How much this should weigh in compared to the technical aspects, must be an individual issue though. --Hebster 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Comment Well if an image is used in a lot pf places it might mean it's valuable (but that's not a gurantee, it might be a crappy image just because no one has found the better one because that is uncategorized with a silly name or for other reasons), but the opposite is certainly not true. It can be an image that has just been uploaded and simply not being found by projects yet even though it might be extremely valuable and useful. Making an image a FP is actually a good way to get more usage of a good image. /Daniel78 19:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Comment I really wasn't planning to start an discussion about weither usage should weigh or how to interpret it, though i think it's an interesting topic but this isn't the right place for it. Voting for FP images will always be based on a lot of subjectivity, because we have different focal areas. I would personally never support photos of flowers, because i find them incredible boring (this is not to offend anyone!), but - on the other hand - i won't oppose them either, because good flower photos - especially macro - can requre some skill and technique. My main contribution to commons are photos from my work-place or related to my work-place, because this put me in some uniqe situations, where i have the ability to contribute with photos, many people don't get the chance to shoot. When i opposed to this photo, it was because i thought it was a stright out-of-the-box portrait, with no particularity what so ever and i used the usage-count to emphasis this. Kind regards Hebster 05:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Like it, but his right side of his hair doesn't contrast enough with the background (for me). --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Because of the charismatic appearance. --Niabot 08:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 19:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romalea guttata - featured

[edit]

Romalea guttata 

13 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 19:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Leucanthemum paludosum.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Leucanthemum paludosum Leucanthemum paludosum Leucanthemum paludosum

Original (left)

[edit]

Alternative (center)

[edit]

Edit1 (right)

[edit]
Withdrawn all >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 15:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Papilio bianor Raupe LC0134.jpg - featured

[edit]

Papilio bianor caterpillar 

7 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Limax maximus, mating 

5 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SanFrancisco from TwinPeaks dusk MC.jpg - featured

[edit]

Short description 

8 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Indigenous girl of Terena ethnic group, Brazil.jpg

Image:Adriatic Cicada 01.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Honza Beran 05:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

result: withdrawn => not featured --norro 08:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Leucanthemum paludosum.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Leucanthemum paludosum Leucanthemum paludosum Leucanthemum paludosum

Original (left)

[edit]

Alternative (center)

[edit]

Edit1 (right)

[edit]
Withdrawn all >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 15:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eurasian Coot Fulica astra Richard Bartz.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Eurasian coot of the crack family. Photograph by commons photographer and commons master cloner, Richard Bartz. 

Withdrawn as a courtesy to the photographer. --MichaelMaggs 20:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girgentana-Ziegen

[edit]

Girgentana-Ziegen Girgentana-Ziegen

Original (left) - not featured

[edit]
diese Ziegenart bewegt sich leider nicht im Goose-Step, sondern wie es scheint, chaotisch.
Das Besondere sind die nach innen gewundene Hörner und die sieht man hier auf einen Blick.
Diese Rasse war vom Aussterben bedroht
das Bild hat einen Artikel: Girgentana-Ziegen --Böhringer 07:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info If i could have the orig RAW file i would do a restauration Richard Bartz
Ich habe keine RAW Datei davon. Nur diese 1.Version (leider) Trotzdem Vielen Dank --Böhringer 18:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1 (right)

[edit]
danke Richard --Böhringer 18:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment Will support this, per Alvesgaspar's opinion. I just have to decide between versions. --Thermos 13:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've called them :-) --Böhringer 20:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Galopprennen Guedingen Edit.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Galopprennen auf der Rennbahn Saarbrücken-Güdingen 

2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cymbidium Clarisse Austin 'Best Pink' Flowers 2000px.JPG - featured

[edit]

Short description 

10 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ass.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description

Better say: If anyone dare to ask ;-) BTW: The pic is FP on de:wiki. --AngMoKio 08:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4 support, 1 neutral, 10 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hubble Interacting Galaxy NGC 6240 (2008-04-24).jpg - not featured

[edit]

Interacting Galaxy 

2 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Globe panorama03.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description 

2 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Iridescent Glory of Nearby Helix Nebula.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Helix Nebula

Image:NGC7293 (2004).jpg
  •  Oppose it is already featured. Lycaon 17:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They do not look identical to me. If anything the resolution is very different. -- Cat ちぃ？ 22:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment it is not good practice to remove other people's comments or opposition, even when you remove an FPX template!! Lycaon 19:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, the template said "remove this template if you object"... so I did. If thats a problem, I suggest someone modify the template to read differently. Otherwise, I didn't remove anything else, hell I even left your sig. --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The previously featured image has lower resolution. For astro images more resolution is very welcome. /Daniel78 21:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Although this version has much higher resolution, I find the already featured picture of this nebula much more spectacular. Linking the two pictures would be good. Chmehl 05:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They can both be featured... :/ -- Cat ちぃ？ 16:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • We don't typically feature more than one image of the exact same subject (where exact same = same basic composition/content). An image must contain something of substantially different value for it to also be featured. For example, this and this are both featured picture caliber images, but since they show the exact same butterfly pose on the same kind of flower, they are not sufficiently different for them to both be featured. Contrast this with this and this featured picture of the same subject but with a totally different presentation. QIs can have multiples, but not FPs. -- Ram-Man 03:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. I agree with that the current featured picture of the same basic subject just looks more spectacular. Resolution in this case is an insufficient reason. -- Ram-Man 03:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Simple CV Joint animated.gif - featured

[edit]

Simple Constant Velocity Joint

  •  Info Animation of a Simple Constant Velocity Joint, created and uploaded by Pwld, nominated by --norro 16:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Let's see how this animation pleases your eyes. --norro 16:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Goes round and round and round... Its hypnotic. Is it really a "picture" tho, being an animation. I know we had animated gifs that got featured status before. Maybe this process should be called "Featured media candidates". Just a thought. -- Cat ちぃ？ 16:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That would mean we could nominate sounds and video also, I think that needs a separate area. Simple animations like this is more close to an image. /Daniel78 21:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rope-03235.JPG - featured

[edit]

Coiled rope 

16 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Turtle Lunch.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Turtle lunch 

3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ColapteryxVirgo.jpg - featured

[edit]

A colapteryx virgo, commonly called damselfly taken at ru de la Bosse near to Bussy Saint-Martin, France 

12 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Champs-061101.jpg -- not featured

[edit]

Champs-Élysées 

0 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Domestic Cat Enjoys Her Rest.jpg -- not featured

[edit]

A domestic cat enjoying her rest 

1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMAGE:Libellula quadrimaculata 4.JPG - not featured

[edit]

♂ Four-spotted Chaser 

1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Scaphidium.quadrimaculatum.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description

the noise is due to my playing around with RAW settings (newbie in this regard), it's actually iso100. i don't put species pics into cats, i prefer putting them into gallery pages, and categorize these. --Sarefo 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wikipe-tan full length.png

[edit]

png svg

Original .png (left) - not featured

[edit]
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day). -- Alvesgaspar 19:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1 .svg (right) - not featured

[edit]
3 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flore de Bercy 9.JPG - not featured

[edit]

Viola ×wittrockiana 

2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nephila clavata May 2008.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Nephila clavata 

4 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ha1000 2007090501.jpg

[edit]

Red macaw on a wire 

1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:P5170352.JPG - not featured

[edit]

An open brain coral 

1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Avondrood.JPG- not featured

[edit]

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: small and not sharp 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.

Lycaon 09:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:London-Mounted-Boxman.jpg - not featured

[edit]

A guard from the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment (Life Guards) on duty, facing Whitehall 

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bar-headed Goose - St James's Park, London - Nov 2006.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description 

3 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bandeiras06052007.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Brazilian national flag handover. 

4 support, 6 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Winter in Brazil edit.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description 

1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gabala lake.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description 

1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 18:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A London cab zooms between two monuments on Whitehall, between Horse Guards and 10 Downing

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small, sorry. 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.

Lycaon 22:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Visita di Papa Benedetto XVI a Genova - 2008-05-18 - Primo piano di Benedetto XVI.jpg - not featured

[edit]

18 maggio 2008 - Visita di Papa Benedetto XVI a Genova - Primo piano di Benedetto XVI prima dell'inizio della Santa Messa in Piazza della Vittoria

  • Yeah, I heard about that. I vaguely remember Das Bild. (Sorry, didn't go to Germany for some time) Still don't see what you find demonic about him though. Is it the man or the shot? Freedom to share 19:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:A rainbow over Bridalveil Fall seen from Tunnel View in Yosemite NP.jpg

[edit]

A rainbow over Bridalveil Fall A rainbow over Bridalveil Fall

Original - not featured

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination 

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination 

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dempsterhighway.jpg

[edit]

Dempster Highway (Canada)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of very poor image quality: little detail and presence of artifacts -- Alvesgaspar 21:32, 23 May 2008 (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. 
Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rhododendron Cultivar White Dark 3008px-edit.jpg - featured

[edit]

White azalea 

5 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Males Mirounga angustirostris fighting edit.jpg

[edit]

Males Mirounga angustirostris fighting Males Mirounga angustirostris fighting

Original - not featured

[edit]
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 18:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aternative - not featured

[edit]

It's an impressive composition and all, but I do think it may be a tad too small and unfocused to feature... RevolverOcelot 05:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

1 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ball Cactus Parodia magnifica Top 2000px.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Ball Cactus 

1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Bluebeard 

1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dawn Redwood Metasequoia glyptostroboides Needles 3264px.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description 

1 support, 1 opppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vitruvian.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Vitruvian 

Result >> Nomination closed. Not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Haeckel Orchidae.jpg - not featured

[edit]

The 74th plate from Ernst Haeckel's Kunstformen der Natur of 1904, showing various types of orchids. 

4 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Petite fille.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Une petite fille scrute l'horizon

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small (1600x1200 is less than 2Mb, and there are no mitigating reasons for promotion at such a size). 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.

--MichaelMaggs 21:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Result >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aceras anthropophora (detail).jpg - featured

[edit]

Aceras anthropophora 

10 support, 0 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Praying mantis portrait.jpg

[edit]

Praying mantis portraitPraying mantis portrait

Original - not featured

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination 

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit 1 - not featured

[edit]

 I withdraw my nomination 

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)archiving[reply]

Image:Acanthurus triostegus and Labroides phthirophagus .jpg

[edit]

Acanthurus triostegus and Labroides phthirophagus at cleaning station

Original - not featured

[edit]
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1 - not featured

[edit]
  • I guess the user has a very big experience in taking underwater images and often sees fishes swimming toward a diver to say "hi" :-)--Mbz1 18:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (less support votes) -- Alvesgaspar 23:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2 - featured

[edit]
9 support, 2 oppose >> featured (more support votes)-- Alvesgaspar 22:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GirlAndSquirrel-1980.jpg

[edit]

Short description Short description

Original - not featured

[edit]
2 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - not featured

[edit]

That any more appealin'? RevolverOcelot 03:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

0 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 18:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Acryllium vulturinum Schönbrunn2008c.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description 

5 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Butterfly May 2008-3a.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description 

1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tomb of the Unknowns crack.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description

 I withdraw my nomination Shoot...... I'm gonna withdraw this.... Mrmariokartguy 02:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Withdrawn >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Adansonia digitata MS 6682.JPG

[edit]

Flower of Adansonia digitata Edit by smial

Original - featured

[edit]
7 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - not featured

[edit]
3 support, 0 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lava wildfire at hawaii.jpg - featured

[edit]

Lava flow generates wildfire

  •  InfoPāhoehoe Lava flow on the coastal plain of Kīlauea, The Big Island of Hawai generated wildfire. The new lava is moving across the old surface ,which is covered with a layer of moss about an inch thick. This moss is burning generating the smoke visible in the image. This kind of fire cannot be easily prevented or suppressed. The update that was written by USGS for the same day the image was taken - 09/04/07 says :"Lava flows advancing through vegetation are hazardous and can produce fire and methane explosions that propel chunks of lava and rock several feet into the air." The picture was taken from a helicopter.
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 14:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the intention of the image was to show both lava flow and the fire it created, and IMO it does show both. The subject is so uncommon and so hard to photograph through a glass of a helicopter window that IMO some mitigating circumstances might apply. Thank you.--Mbz1 12:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wollschweinferkel.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Piglets of Mangalitza pig. 

5 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chrysanthemum coronarium May 2008.jpg - featured

[edit]

Chrysanthemum coronarium

I meant  Oppose above. Barabas 18:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hubble Ultra Deep Field 

14 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makroshot of a Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia - not featured

[edit]

Makroshot of a Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia 

6 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arion rufus (Dourbes).jpg

[edit]

European red slug

Original - not featured

[edit]
3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

[edit]

Image:Hoverfly May 2008-9.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description 

3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 18:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Daucus carota May 2008-1.jpg

[edit]

Short description Short description

Original (left) - not featured

[edit]
1 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 18:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rotated (right) - not featured

[edit]
5 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 18:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chelonia mydas is going for the air edit.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Chelonia mydas is going for the air

(Quality). --Beyond silence 08:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 
3 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

300px|The Motherland Calls 

3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Swans in Saratov City Park.JPG- not featured

[edit]

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of too low image quality 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.

. --MichaelMaggs 21:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:A view of San Fransisco from Treasure Island.jpg - not featured

[edit]

SF

{{FPX|date stamped. – flamurai 03:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)}} datestamp was fixed ;). Lycaon 08:11, 28 May 2008 (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: low in contrast 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.

Lycaon 08:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image: My DS Lite's Main "Page".jpg - not featured

[edit]

300px|My DS Lite

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: overexposed, not sharp and has too much noise. 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. 
Nomination closed >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

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

--Aqwis 03:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Result after 48hrs >> not featured -- Lycaon 21:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Papillon Grenvenmacher.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Un papillon en gros plan dans une serre tropicale 

1 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Orchidée.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Une orchidée dans une serre tropicale 

1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cappadocia in Turkey.jpg

[edit]

Cappadocia Cappadocia

Original - not featured

[edit]
  •  InfoCappadocia, a region in central Turkey, is known for its Göreme National Park, which was added to the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1985.The first period of settlement within the region reaches to Roman period of Christian era. The area is also famous for its fairy chimneys rock formations, some of which reach 40 meters (130 feet) in height. Over millions of years, wind and rain eroded layers of consolidated volcanic ash, or tuff, to form the sweeping landscape. From the 4th to 13th century AD, occupants of the area dug tunnels into the exposed rock face to build residences, stores, and churches which are home to irreplaceable Byzantine art. More than 500,000 tourists visit the region each year.
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative - not featured

[edit]
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lisa3.jpg - not featured

[edit]
  •  Comment Please comment on the permission issue at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lisa3.jpg. --MichaelMaggs 20:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm not sure of what this picture is doing on Commons, a picture resource for illustrating articles i Wikipedia. This picture would better fit in a ordinary photo competition, and not here. As a nude picture it is untidy with a lot of distracting details. Speaking about the artistic aspect: There is a very good picture within this picture - if cropped to a portrait. But then - even still less relevant as an illustration for an article in Wikipedia.--Frode Inge Helland 20:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The answer: Wikimedia Commons isn't a "picture resource for illustrating articles in Wikipedia". --Aqwis 09:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawn 

Image deleted, nomination closed >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 17:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fly May 2008-6.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description

  •  Info A simple fly, in the style of our talented photographer... well, you know who. This is a female flesh-fly, probably a Sarcophaga sp. (the females of these family are not normally identifiable from a photograph). Notice the hairy arista (the bristle-like branches of the antennae), the long legs and the red eyes. Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar 19:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Alvesgaspar 19:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment maybe you could identify this one of mine that's been in the unidentified category for a year or so :) Mfield 20:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral It's wonderfully composed, but it seems to lack sharpness required for this type of shot. Maybe because it was shot at f/16? -- Ram-Man 02:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Support I strongly disagree that focus bracketing should be required. My only concern was that in my eyes it didn't look the proper sharpness at my 2MP viewing standard. Diffraction should be invisible at that magnification, but perhaps it was over-sharpened or just blurry to start with? In any case, I stared at it for a while and realized that it looks fine at normal viewing distances and magnifications. Borderline for me, but on the right side. -- Ram-Man 22:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment f/16 causes diffraction blur. Focus bracketing can be a solution --Richard Bartz 18:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Ordinary subject, nothing special, no wow. On a positive note, it is quite well done technically. Unfortunately, aesthetically and compositionally it is not that much above average. Crapload 05:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Triumph Tulip Tulipa 'Prinses Irene' 2000px.JPG - not featured

[edit]

Triumph Tulip 

2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata Insect Feeding 3008px.jpg - featured

[edit]

Short description

A lot of the bug-pictures has clear indications of bugs slowed down after a stay in the deep freezer. This is a very common technique for slowing down bugs while making such photos. If you have made such photos you most probably have done this yourself. If you don't know anything about this and feel insulted by a comment then I guess you should read a book about this kind of photography. Jeblad 08:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha i see you are a macro specialist. Freezer can be a technique but isn't common - carbon dioxide is more effective and is used by scientists - the most common technique for a photographer is to wake up early and being prepared when the dawn has broken. Insects are clammy when the night was cold. Another thing is the wind - the thermal comes fast when it goes warmer .. so the sharpest pictures can be made between 5-8 o'clock in the morning --Richard Bartz 10:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Statue of Liberty.svg - not featured

[edit]

Statue of Liberty illustration

  •  Support An excellent monochrome SVG image, very suitable for printing on almost any sort of background in the way that a photograph or grayscaled SVG would not be. Good use of shadow to highlight form while de-emphasizing features. Use of a yellow-black gradient on the torch is effective mimicry of the actual gold-leaf torch and having the torch as the one spot of color in the image is an obvious and effective parallel to the RL contrast between the golden torch and the greyed bronze statue. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 13:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure - I have an affiliation with the creator here, but I figure it doesn't matter if I'm standing against five "Oppose" votes anyways and not tipping the balance or anything. I think you guys are judging this as if it's a photograph, not an SVG illustration that's explicitly purposed to be clip-art rather than a reproduction of the original photo. Aspects that are being called out as flaws are obvious intentional details.
    Also, I think that Flamurai may be thinking of potrace. It's potrace that's the tool which only does monochrome, the description of this image says it was made with autotrace which actually requires a fair amount of effort and pre-flight raster work to turn out good monochrome traces. But in either case, you would not just dump the original photograph into a tracing tool and get out an image like this - anyone who thinks so does not do much tracing. But I definitely do. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 13:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)    [reply]
    • I meant autotrace generically, not the specific program. My point is that this looks like it came straight out of an automatic pipeline without any significant cleaning up to make it truly be an "illustration". There are a lot of areas in this image that could use cleanup, and even then I don't know if it would be high quality enough for FP status. It looks like it has a grunge aesthetic... intentionally xeroxed many times to create contrast and destroy detail. – flamurai 20:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is of course highly subjective, but I do not like that so much detail is lost in this image, the face looks terrible. The large black areas looks bad and make it harder to recognize the familar statue. I would prefer something closer to this. /Daniel78 20:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank-yous to Flamurai and Daniel78 for responding to me. I appreciate what you're saying; for example, Daniel78 is saying that he'd prefer to see a line drawing instead of an illustration like this which might be more suitable for creating a woodcut or some other printmaking technique. I'm just reacting to what I've seen repeatedly here in featured picture candidates, an extremely heavy and unconcealed bias towards a certain type of image that was made through a certain type of process (i.e. photography). I'm not saying that this particular image is some pinnacle of artwork or something - as VUF said he practically created it by accident - I'm just annoyed that the criteria being applied to it are so blatantly mismatched to the type of image it is. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another thing - you know how Justice, holding the scales, is frequently depicted with her face covered by a cloth? That has a symbolic meaning of both blindness and anonymity. The face of the Liberty here being obscured by shadow is probably not accidental. (Of course, it's easier for me to recognize that since I know the creator and his history personally. As some of you were probably able to guess, part of the reason I'm all uppity is because I encouraged VUF to nominate this and I now feel a bit embarassed due to the resoundingly negative response. Thank you to everyone who kindly included genial, softening compliments along with their oppose votes.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2 support, 7 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 07:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

  •  Info created by Haros - uploaded by Haros - nominated by Jeblad -- Jeblad 14:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Jeblad 14:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --A very good candidate. The picture is illustrational highly relevant, it is practically without technichal flaws, the textures are very good reproduced from the delicate net to the coarser poles, the motive is elegantly distributed in the picture area, the lines are playing elegantly against the subtle atmospheric bacground. The picture is highly descriptive and artistic at the same time. I'd like to see more of this kind.

--Frode Inge Helland 15:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)--84.202.109.20 15:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the fishermen's shelter to the left. It gives a good indication.--Frode Inge Helland 08:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably the best indication, but there is yet another clue in the 14 or so birds sitting on the structure. They are visible only when viewing the highest resolution though. Haros 15:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered, if this is some kind of shelter, meaning the subject is really huge. Anyway,  Support from me. --norro 13:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added location to it. The net is visible in Google Maps. It is the eastern net of the 3 nets. Haros 17:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

For the coming 40th anniversary 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Cathedral of St. Stephen in Litoměčice

  • I feel the tower is a little bit tilted anticlockwise. And the quality is not good enough for the FP(especially sharp). And the size is small as this kind of pic. And this pic has been taken against the light. + vinyl plastic hothouse. -- Laitche 13:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC) --Laitche 08:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 18 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 13:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ophrys incubacea (flower).jpg - not featured

[edit]

Ophrys incubacea

  •  Info Black Ophrys near Neoneli, Sardinia, Italy. Created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon 05:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Lycaon 05:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - well-done Lycaon. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I find it a valuable image of this species, but there are some techical aspects of the photo which are not on-par with the FP bar. Only a minor part of the flower is actually in focus, I find the lightning too harsh (taken at 1pm I see). I would suggest taking such a shot in the morning or evening. I also find the composition somewhat uninteresting. Sorry. -- Slaunger 06:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Those plants are that uncommon that you take a picture when you encounter it on your trekking. No way to take it into a studio (protected rare species) or to change much of the composition. It takes quit an effort just to find them. You can't choose many of the other variables... These are mitigating circumstances. Lycaon 06:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not suggesting to take it out of its natural environment, perhaps to return to the site at a time of day when the lightning is better and spend more time at the site to get the optimal composition. (of course I know you cannot do that now). I know from myself that FPC can be quite reluctant to mitigate such field conditions, but I think it is fair enough. On June 1 0:00 UTC, when Valued images goes on-line, you could nominate one of your images of the species there, as the subject fits very well with VIs purpose (sorry, could not resist doing a little promotion). -- Slaunger 07:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Question I noticed the geocoding points to a parking lot(?) in a village. Is that because you want to hide the exact location? If so, I fully agree with that approach as the exact position of a protected rare species should not be shown. -- Slaunger 04:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, as with all the pictures of protected/rare plants that I post, I give only approximate co-ordinates (here the description mentions: Approximate co-ordinates: plant located within 5 km from Neoneli, Sardinia, Italy). That's an area of more than 75 km² to search ;-). But for floristic purposes, the geo-location is still valuable. Lycaon 05:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I missed that on the description page. I agree with you on the geocoding approach and the precision you have given. I was wondering whether this approach should be mentioned somewhere as a recommendation for geocoding of protected/rare species? And sorry for hi-jacking your nom to discuss this...-- Slaunger 05:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong support and I wish Lycaon once in a while applied his words about uncommon subjects to some other images too  :-) --Mbz1 12:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Harsh lighting, blown highlights, etc. -- carol 03:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Karelj 21:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support---Mrmariokartguy 01:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Ack Slaunger and Carol. --Dori - Talk 04:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Map of the Great Wall of China.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Map of the Great Wall of China 

5 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bullet pierced kettle.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description 

1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 19:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Carcassonne Cite.jpg

[edit]

Fortified city of Carcassonne at dusk. Fortified city of Carcassonne at dusk.

Original - not featured

[edit]
  • Actually, HDRI would probably have given a similar result, without the noise. HDR is usefull to extend dynamic range and get details on dark and bright areas. I set metering on the brightest area here, so there is not (too much) blownout parts and I curve adjusted the dark parts to make them brighter. This way, I get details on both dark and bright areas, at the cost of some noise, which I believe isn't too annoying here. If you like the picture but not its noise, you may want to look at the much cleaner version below. Benh 11:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative - not featured

[edit]
  • I'm not sure it's a valid reason for opposing. You can oppose on basis on composition, technical fault... but not because it looks like another picture. And I'd say my picture is the same as this one. Before going to Carcassonne, I read the associated article on Wikipedia, and noticed this beautiful panorama. I decided I'd try to catch one too, but found only this sight (I could have taken the shot from the other side, but this side shows the bridge). Benh 11:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]
1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Praça D João I.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Praça D João I in Oporto 

1 support, 4 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Coronelli celestial globe.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Globe 

1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Danish butterfly.jpg - not featured

[edit]

A danish butterfly 

1 support, 2 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cvna1nim.gif - not featured

[edit]

Animation of a missed landing on a angled flight deck 

1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Leucanthemum paludosum May 2008.jpg

[edit]

Leucanthemum paludosum Leucanthemum paludosum Leucanthemum paludosum

Original(left) - not featured

[edit]
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative1(center) - not featured

[edit]
  • What do you mean? I just thought that if I nominate this pic in old nomination as an alternative then there would be too many alternatives. So I withdrew former versions. -- Laitche 15:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer this one(alternative). But I'm not sure which one is more properly image to the FP then I need votes. -- Laitche 16:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative2(right) - not featured

[edit]
1 support, 0 oppose >> not featured --Alvesgaspar 14:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lunar Crepuscular Rays 1.jpg

[edit]

Lunar Crepuscular Rays Lunar Crepuscular Rays

original - not featured

[edit]
  • Unrealistic you said? It probably is, except it is the way it was in reality. Here's the original image . BTW it was the very first time I've ever seen Lunar crepuscular rays (very, very uncommon subject, Lycaon). Thank you.--Mbz1 12:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should I say that it's more unrealistic than the Alternative below? --βαςεLXIV™ 03:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3 support, 1 oppose >> not featured --Alvesgaspar 14:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative - featured

[edit]
  • Those rays are that uncommon that you take a picture when you encounter it on your trekking. No way to bring the mountains and the trees any closer to show every leaf in great details because the rays last only few minutes and change their appearance constantly. There's no way to change much of the composition. It takes quite an effort just to find the rays in the middle of full Moon night. You can't choose many of the other variables... These are mitigating circumstances.--Mbz1 22:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6 support, 1 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 14:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Male and female Mirounga angustirostris.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Male and female Northern Elephant Seals 

4 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Florida Box Turtle Digon3.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Florida Box Turtle

The original is here Image:Florida Box Turtle Digon3 Unedited.JPG if you want to edit it. To me it looks a lot sharper and offsets the low DOF on the shell. It wasn't a large downsample and I don't think it needs cropping, but that is just my opinion. --Digon3 talk 14:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Kind of ordinary subject, not enough wow. I understand, technically it took quite a bit of effort, but... Crapload 05:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Giraffa camelopardalis angolensis (courting).jpg - featured

[edit]

Giraffa camelopardalis angolensis 

5 support, 2 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/May_2008&oldid=860883050"